Sorry - overly brief shorthand. “Saw God” = “Attained a neurological state of synchronised activity in the temporal lobes interpreted by some (and me at the time) as a divine experience”. (And no drugs were involved, although later drug experiences were similar in some respects.) I might similarly say, as a skeptic, that as a child I saw a monster in the cupboard.
Well, then. If you wish, let us posit that you have recovered from your delusions while I have fallen prey to mine. After all, I used to be an atheist (and incidentally, may we say that “Atheist” = “Failure to perceive reality”?). Where is the scientific evidence that decides for us whether it is God Who made the temporal lobe or the temporal lobe that made God?
I do not recall suggesting that there was any. I said that my interpretation of that temporal lobe activity was one way as a teenager and another now. I would not call you “delusional” any more than I would tell the schizophrenic that they do not hear voices - clearly they do, I merely suggest a different source.
Say what you like, friend. These shapes on the screen cause me no pain since I know that they are not shaped to wound.
It’s an increasingly archaic term, and one most often used by older, less-computer-literate folks, but baud is a valid term to use. A baud is one symbol per second (one state or frame transition). The nice thing about using “baud” is that it’s a rate, rather then a quantity. So one could say “baud” rather than “bits per second” and save some keystrokes, I guess. But it makes ever so much sense to talk about bits per second (or in this case, gigabits per second).
-
My remarks do not derive from a “Josh McDowell book.”
-
Please find for me any reference by any author to the term “Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies” and I will buy you a new car.
-
Petty condescension such as you and your pals display here is anti-intellectual and anti-scientific.
-
Who do you think “these people” are? Please, start fighting ignorance, will you? Think.
-
Let me provide you with some statistical perspective.
A. There are ~10^80 fundamental particles in the universe.
B. Assuming that 10^50 grains of sand would fill a sphere the size of our solar system fifteen times over, what is the probability of selecting, at random, ONE specially marked grain of sand from that pile of 10^50 grains on the first and only try?
Would anyone like to hazard a guess of, say, one chance in 10^50?
No repeat tries. No infinite number of tries. ONE and one only.
- This is a working definition, and a very plausible one, of “impossible”, i.e. one chance in 10^50. You see, the earth is pretty large. It has lots of grains of sand on and around it. Jupiter is a whole lot bigger. But funny thing, the sun dwarfs both jupiter and earth. Here’s the good part. The orbit of pluto is way big.
Multiply that sphere by 15, fill it with sand, and have at it. Once.
Now the probability that the gravitational constant would be exactly what it is out of the nearly infinite number of values it could have been is profoundly less likely than one chance in 10^50.
-
The gravitational constant is merely one of the dozens of constants that are extremely precise.
-
Which brings us to smartass retorts.
Said the fellow who fell 25,000 feet from an airplane and survived to tell the tale:
“The probability that I would fall 25,000 feet from an airplane without a parachute and survive was exactly 1. After all, I’m here, aren’t I .”
All too many anti-intellectuals really have no concept of what probability means.
Probability is a measure of the chance that an event will occur.
One does not merely point about at everything that has happened and say that all probabilities are “1” because these things occurred. That is about as foolish as it gets.
“The universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely.” Martin Rees, astronomer
Since the statistical “wizards” think they know so much about probabilities being 1, then please, one of you, give me the winning numbers for the next Super Lotto
this Saturday in California.
After all, the probability that the winner is going to win is “1”, isn’t it…
What ARE those numbers.
[QUOTE=glee]
Welcome to the boards. 
**
this magnificent work we call the cosmos. **
Well…really cool maybe but magnificent?? Gosh :o
You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
In all seriousness, what you’re presenting here is just a dressed up version of the argument from incredulity. Your terminology may be new, but your ideas aren’t. And they’ve been analyzed, dissected, and found wanting.
Also, you may want to hold off on rambling about the nature of probability before you grasp the difference between an event in the past and an event in the future.
gosh, gosh, gosh, 10^-39 is a measure of the weakness of the gravitational force as compared with the STRONG NUCLEAR, NOT the “electromagnetic.”
“We’re here, we’re here, we’re here.” - Horton Hears A Who
“It’s taking a lot longer than we thought.” -
“I am no one to be trifled with.” - The Dread Pirate Roberts
Just think of all those poor people in all those other universes where the conditions were such that they simply couldn’t exist; just imagine them sitting there, moaning, “it’s such a terrible shame we can’t exist” and “Not only is it deeply unfair that we can’t exist, it’s evidence of lack of design in the universe”
No. Sometimes the prize is unclaimed.