What are the odds?

vibe666 wrote: »

is that website actually supposed to be serious?

Of course. You will find many rebuttals from wolfsbane and JC will use this site to refute so called "real science."

Personally I think it is a bit like using http://www.theonion.com/content/index for your news rather than the bbc, except less funny and a lot more scary. At least people realise that the onion is a piss take.

MrP

vibe666

jeebus, no wonder there's so much confusion if a site like that is being used as a factual reference. :rolleyes:

vibe666 wrote: »

if your god exists and is all powerful then he has the power to stop children (ALL children) from being sexually abused. he sees it happening, he has the power to stop it and he does nothing. that is no different than you standing in a room watching and doing nothing whilst someone abuses your child (aren't we all gods children after all?).

there is NEVER EVER EVER any excuse (divine or otherwise) for anyone to ever subject an innocent child (abnd they are all innocent) to such things and anyone who thinks any different should be strung up and flogged.

and don't even think about starting off on that adams sin bullcrap again, it just doesn't cut it.

God will intervene .... but not just now. When God intervenes, He will not be selective though and bring in punishment against all types of evil behaviour, from the child abuse to the (hidden) angry thoughts we have in our hearts. Where will stand then?
Meanwhile He gives us all a change to repent and to come to Him for fullfillment, meaning and joy.

vibe666 wrote: »

oh, and incest is never okay, morally or genetically, even if you are trying to repopulate the world, it just wouldn't work.

you should spend a bit of time out in the deep south of the US and see what happens when cousins marry (repeatedly).

"Incest" is no longer OK because our genes have degenerated (so much for evolution!) The history has plenty of examples where brother/sister or cousins mariages were healthy.

santing wrote: »

God will intervene .... but not just now.

I am sure that is very comforting for those being abused.

MrP

santing wrote: »

God will intervene .... but not just now.

Well they are being sexually assaulted now santing. What you call intervention is simply punishing those who do evil things after they have done them. That isn't intervention.

You talk about punishment and repentance as if these are the important bits (Wolfsbane does the same thing). You are focusing on the criminal, the person who does the evil and what happens to him/her, rather than on the person you should be focusing on which is the victim.

The point you seem to be missing is the issue of why God just doesn't stop the sexual assault now, before it happens.

Allowing it to happen and then punishing those who did it is hollow act. It is cold comfort to the victim. It doesn't turn back time, it doesn't ease the suffering that was avoidable in the first place.

Mark Hamill

santing wrote: »

You may have a point there, but you forget that the upper rim was curved outwards, and the measurement most likely was taken from under the rim.

So let me get this straight, you're saying that after reporting the height, rim-to-rim diameter and the thickness of the bowl, the author then decided to choose some arbitrary point along the veryical curve of the bowl and give the circumference at this level, but without even indicating at what height he took the circumference?
The line from the bible describes the circumference as how long a line would need to be to measure around it. Why would it be measured at some arbitrary point that doesn't actually give the maximum circumference? The author might as well be giving the circumference at a level of one cubit from the bottom of the bowl as from under the rim, it makes no sense to give a false circumference like that.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well they are being sexually assaulted now santing. What you call intervention is simply punishing those who do evil things after they have done them. That isn't intervention.
...
The point you seem to be missing is the issue of why God just doesn't stop the sexual assault now, before it happens.

Allowing it to happen and then punishing those who did it is hollow act. It is cold comfort to the victim. It doesn't turn back time, it doesn't ease the suffering that was avoidable in the first place.

Wicknight,
The first problem is that we are looking at one specific (set of) sin(s). This sin is a serious crime, calling up strong emotions - based on our (still existent) Christian worldview. There are many more (similar) sins that God sees, such as abortion, rape, extortion, murder, spouse abuse, apatism ...
And on a personal level, did that piece of cake you just ate cost as much as a life saving injection / operation etc. of a little child somewhere around the world? Are we all not responsible in some way for the unequal distribution of health and wealth and therefore guilty.
That is why God will not selectively root out one type of sin - because even if we look at one type of sin, all mankind is guilty in some form and deserving the death penalty. It is not the time for direct intervention from God. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. That is the way God intervened - by showing His love.
Why does God allow us to sin and perform these heinous acts? Why not stop us from doing (some) sins?
It is the choice of mankind to be bad, to be sinners. We boasted about being bad when we were teens, and we boast about what we get away with now we are adults. We boast about being sinners... If God would remove our capability of being bad, He would also remove a core feature of mankind: choice. If we cannot be bad anymore, we also cannot be good anymore... we would loose the concept of Love, we would no longer be humans.

God's answer was to become human, and by becoming human offer us a way out of the mess we made ourselves. Untill God intervenes, it is our task to show God's love, God's righteousness in broken situation ... and when we are confronted with a abused child, we should love it, comfort it, cry for it and be angry with the criminals who did it. God does the same.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you're saying that after reporting the height, rim-to-rim diameter and the thickness of the bowl, the author then decided to choose some arbitrary point along the veryical curve of the bowl and give the circumference at this level, but without even indicating at what height he took the circumference?
The line from the bible describes the circumference as how long a line would need to be to measure around it. Why would it be measured at some arbitrary point that doesn't actually give the maximum circumference? The author might as well be giving the circumference at a level of one cubit from the bottom of the bowl as from under the rim, it makes no sense to give a false circumference like that.

If we presume that the bowl was shaped like a rim cylinder, then I think it makes perfect sense to measure the diameter at the main body level rather than the rim level. At main body level, the width would have been 9.55.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Allowing it to happen and then punishing those who did it is hollow act. It is cold comfort to the victim. It doesn't turn back time, it doesn't ease the suffering that was avoidable in the first place.

And this is why the notion of free will is so important to Christianity.

No doubt if you were to hear a story from a woman who stated that it was God who helped her through the suffering you would dismiss it as you have PDN's (or any Christian's) testimony.

Mark Hamill

santing wrote: »

If we presume that the bowl was shaped like a rim cylinder, then I think it makes perfect sense to measure the diameter at the main body level rather than the rim level. At main body level, the width would have been 9.55.

Why would you presume it was shaped like rim cylinder, when the passage clearly states cup? They are two quite different shapes.

Mark Hamill

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And this is why the notion of free will is so important to Christianity.

What, its important so that people can actual commit the crimes they intend to commit? Surely God in His infinite power and wisdom etc can come up with a way that stops people from actually commiting the crime. In the real world if someone is found to be planning a murder, you don't wait until they have commited it to report them to the gardai do you?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No doubt if you were to hear a story from a woman who stated that it was God who helped her through the suffering you would dismiss it as you have PDN's (or any Christian's) testimony.

I know I would. You can get all the comfort you want out of being wrong, but you are still wrong.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why would you presume it was shaped like rim cylinder, when the passage clearly states cup? They are two quite different shapes.

The shapes are distinct, one is a "scientific" shape definition (rim cylinder) the other is not so clearly defined. As a cup it should have a rim, where your cup doesnn't have that. It cup has also some form of rounding, of which we don't know anything.

Some other possibilities:

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

"Incest" is no longer OK because our genes have degenerated (so much for evolution!)

Prove it. Better still, define "degenerated" in genetic terms please. Are they longer genes? Shorter? Inferior in some absolute sense?

santing wrote: »

The history has plenty of examples where brother/sister or cousins mariages were healthy.

The modern day has plenty of such examples too. Nothing has changed, except our acceptance.

santing wrote: »

Wicknight,
The first problem is that we are looking at one specific (set of) sin(s). This sin is a serious crime, calling up strong emotions - based on our (still existent) Christian worldview.

Surely sin is sin? No?

santing wrote: »

There are many more (similar) sins that God sees, such as abortion, rape, extortion, murder, spouse abuse, apatism ...

Good point. He is all powerful, why does he not stop those as well? This is a point that has come up many times before. He knew we would sin but he made us that way anyway. Why? Why give people the free will to do what they want at the expense of the victims when he could have easily have not created the ability to do wrong in the first place. We would have been none the wiser. We would not consider our free will to be impacted as the notion of being bad would simply not exist. How could we miss something we do not have any notion of?

santing wrote: »

And on a personal level, did that piece of cake you just ate cost as much as a life saving injection / operation etc. of a little child somewhere around the world? Are we all not responsible in some way for the unequal distribution of health and wealth and therefore guilty.

OK, so taking joy from something instead of giving all you money to charity is the same as child rape now? Seriously. But if you want to go down that road, then why could an all powerful, all knowing being not prevent such inequalities from happening in the first place? How hard would it be for an all knowing all powerful being to blow a few clouds over a country that has not seen rain for a decade? How about sending a couple of bears to deal with a despot that steals all that money that people that donate (by not eating cake) for injections and puts it in his own swiss bank account? I mean a bear attack is good enough for some kids calling some bloke baldy. Surely a guy responsible for 100s of thousands of deaths is due some bear attack action? No?

santing wrote: »

That is why God will not selectively root out one type of sin –

So then why selectively root out one? Why have sin in the first place? One sin is mentioned in the debate because it is kind of hard to list them all so for brevity one was chosen. I am sure child rape was chosen for a reason. It is a crime that most people find most heinous and therefore is a good example in this case.

santing wrote: »

because even if we look at one type of sin, all mankind is guilty in some form and deserving the death penalty.

Deserving of the death penalty according to who? According to the all powerful being who created us knowing in advance that he was creating a flawed creature that was doomed to sin but continuing anyway and then finding us deserving of death for the sins we have made due to the nature he gave us, knowing full well that we would sin, yet doing nothing about it? According to him? Forgive me if I do not put much stock in his opinion of me.

santing wrote: »

It is not the time for direct intervention from God.

How very convenient.

santing wrote: »

God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. That is the way God intervened - by showing His love.

If he had have done the job right in the first place no one would have needed to get nailed to anything.

santing wrote: »

Why does God allow us to sin and perform these heinous acts? Why not stop us from doing (some) sins?
It is the choice of mankind to be bad, to be sinners.

No it is not. Other christians on this board have made it abundantly clear that we have no choice but to sin. It is how we are built. We have a sinful nature which could have been nipped in the bud but was not.

santing wrote: »

We boasted about being bad when we were teens, and we boast about what we get away with now we are adults. We boast about being sinners...

The sinful nature gifted to us by our creator.

santing wrote: »

If God would remove our capability of being bad, He would also remove a core feature of mankind: choice. If we cannot be bad anymore, we also cannot be good anymore... we would loose the concept of Love, we would no longer be humans.

Why? If we did not have the capacity for sin why would we be less human? Why would we loose the concept of love? I love my GF, my kids and lots of other people. I can’t see how not being able to sin would change that.

santing wrote: »

God's answer was to become human, and by becoming human offer us a way out of the mess we made ourselves.

He made us. He knows all things at all times. He exists outside of time and know all that has happened and all that will happen. This kind of presumes that he knew how we would turn out and the suffering we would inflict on each other. But even then, right at the beginning, he choose to do nothing.

santing wrote: »

Untill God intervenes, it is our task to show God's love, God's righteousness in broken situation ... and when we are confronted with a abused child, we should love it, comfort it, cry for it and be angry with the criminals who did it. God does the same.

Cop out. Give me a good reason why a child should be raped.

Sig says it all really.

MrP

wolfsbane

vibe666 said:

you know wolfsbane, I was going to go into a long drawn out reply, but then I followed your links to creationontheweb and i'm just laughing too hard to even bother with it.

is that website actually supposed to be serious?

no really. I just read quite a bit of it and it's one of the most ridiculous piles of garbage I've read in a very long time (and believe me, I've read through some crap in my time). it is ridiculous to the point of total absurdity. i'm sorry for mocking you, but you can't possibly have expected to be taken seriously by posting links to such ridiculous garbage could you?

seriously it makes Dan Brown's EARLY work seem believable by comparison. I really do truly feel sorry for you if you are that gullible. really I do.

After reading that, I don't think there's anything I can say on this thread and feel like I can change anything. you've singlehandedly totally and utterly blown the whole idea of christianity and creationism out of the water by posting a couple of links to another website.

I wholeheartedly encourage everyone reading this thread to visit that site and read a couple of pages.

here's a link to the noah's ark thread that wolfsbane posted previously, give it a good read: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3104

even L Ron Hubbard couldn't have done better than that.

no really, it's one of those joke websites like the onion or something isn't it?

Mocking sure beats having to give a scientific rebuttal to uncomfortable scientific facts. :pac:

Your huffing and puffing won't deter the truly inquisitive mind from examining the argument dispassionately. I know it hurts to admit that your prejudices about the structure of the ark have been exposed - but the scientific response should be to accept that it was possible to build such a structure - a simple, labour-intensive construction taking up to 120 years. You were just applying modern economics, and possibly unnecessary performance characteristics, to an ancient project.

edit:, actually there is one thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Paedophilia? Where's that?
as I said before, all over the world all the time.

if your god exists and is all powerful then he has the power to stop children (ALL children) from being sexually abused. he sees it happening, he has the power to stop it and he does nothing. that is no different than you standing in a room watching and doing nothing whilst someone abuses your child (aren't we all gods children after all?).

there is NEVER EVER EVER any excuse (divine or otherwise) for anyone to ever subject an innocent child (abnd they are all innocent) to such things and anyone who thinks any different should be strung up and flogged.

and don't even think about starting off on that adams sin bullcrap again, it just doesn't cut it.

Oh, I see what you meant. I had thought you were saying God ordered or condoned paedophilia. You just meant He did not prevent it.

As I argued before, God is under no obligation to prevent sinners harming each other. And we are all sinners - children included. That He often does so, is by His mercy, not our dues. As you say, paedophiles should be severely punished, even though they claim to be born that way. The only difference between us is the timing - you want it all instantaneously, God does it in His time.

oh, and incest is never okay, morally or genetically, even if you are trying to repopulate the world, it just wouldn't work.

you should spend a bit of time out in the deep south of the US and see what happens when cousins marry (repeatedly).

The deteriotation of the gene pool is what gives rise to inherited genetic defects - a good indication that entropy rules out goo-to-you evolution.

Back closer to the time when man had less genetic defects - remember, none in Eden - mating with a sibling, never mind a cousin, would not have had such ill effects.

As to morals, I wonder where you get the right to condemn incest, given your beliefs about religion. I at least can point to a code and say it condemns or not any specific action. And the Bible only makes brother/sister relationships immoral long after the Flood.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No it doesn't, for it no more makes God guilty than a general would be guilty of helping the enemy by letting them attack a position, the assualt on which will lead them to ultimate defeat.
No idea how that analogy is supposed to fit. A General helping the enemy butch his men would be very guilty, even if afterwards the general tried the enemy for war crimes

You obviously know nothing about warfare. Soldiers are often exposed to high-loss actions for success in the bigger picture. Individual battles are not always isolated incidents, but integral parts of a planned offensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Birthday Problem has nothing to do with the recurrent high improbables occurring to the same person in response to his prayers. Or maybe you will explain how it does?
You are right, what it has to do with is people not having a clue about probability. You say "recurrent high improbabilities". The point is that you really don't have a clue what the probabilities actually are, and something like the birthday problem demonstrates that human naturally assume that the probability for something is a lot more unlikely that it actually is, we naturally over exaggerate unlikeness of events or coincidences.

So you can say that very unlikely things happen to people who pray, but really that doesn't mean anything since you don't actually know. And time after time when mathematicians actually look at these things (such as the birthday problem) they find that things that humans consider unlikely turn out to be not that unlikely at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, its not - praying is not the common factor, but praying for that 'coincidence'.

Yes but if you spend your entire life praying the odds are very likely that at some point, or even multiple points, in your life you will be praying for something that suddenly happens.

This goes back to what I said above, people don't tend to really understand probability that well. For example it is far more likely that you will dream about something that happens the next day at some point in your life than that you won't. Yet when that happens people go "Amazing, what are the odds that I would have a dream about a plane crash and then I would be on a plane that crashed!!"

If you are constantly praying for things it is very likely that at multiple points in your life you will be praying for something that happens. The human brain discards the vast amount of times you were praying for something that didn't happen as insignificant and only remembers the time where you were praying for something that actually happened.

So one can expect to win the lottery jackpot several times in one's life - the improbability is not that unlikely at all. You really do need to start taking the reality pills, Wickie.

Your plane-crash example helps demonstrate this:
"Amazing, what are the odds that I would have a dream about a plane crash and then I would be on a plane that crashed!!" "Amazing, what are the odds that I would have a dream about a plane crash (Easy Jet Flight 101 to Miami out of Belfast, Boeing 727), and then I would be on that plane when it crashed!!"

I know, I know - not that unlikely at all. :pac:

Bduffman

Just copped this thread now.

So let me get this atraight, you & your neighbour happen to be friends - right? And as friends you possible have the same interests - yes? So how is both of you going to the same conference evan a huge coincidence? In that context, meeting in a gas station 3 hours from the same conference doesn't sound that amazing. Am I missing something?

PDN wrote: »

Oh, and by the way, God sorted out those work problems just fine.

Thats cool - I have to do all my work myself.

santing wrote: »

If we cannot be bad anymore, we also cannot be good anymore... we would loose the concept of Love, we would no longer be humans.

Utter nonsense. I am so tired of that silly argument. It doesn't hold to 1 minute of investigation

Removing the ability of humans to suffer or inflict pain on others would not remove our free will or ability to have choice, any more than God not allowing us to fly or walk through walls removed our free will.

We have always had free will within the bounds that God decided for us. We have free will to choice between the options he decided for us. He could have decided that we don't have the option to rape children. He didn't. He decided in his infinitive wisdom to leave that one in but take breathing under water out and surviving fires out.

Not only did God create humans with the ability to suffer quite a large number of horrendous things such as rape, but after Adam disobeyed he cursed us to sin as well.

According to Christian belief only Adam, Eve and Jesus had the ability to live a life without sinning. They had that choice. We don't. The rest of us are condemned to sin no matter what. Cursed by God, as punishment for Adam's disobedience.

So God has curtailed our choice even more than he originally did, he curtailed our choice not to sin. Christians say that is ok because while we have to sin we can choose to repent and be saved. But again that doesn't help us now, in the moment, with children being raped.

santing wrote: »

and when we are confronted with a abused child, we should love it, comfort it, cry for it and be angry with the criminals who did it. God does the same.

I very very much doubt God does the same since he had the power to stop it happening (without destroying our free will or ability to love) and he didn't.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You obviously know nothing about warfare. Soldiers are often exposed to high-loss actions for success in the bigger picture. Individual battles are not always isolated incidents, but integral parts of a planned offensive.

That would be because generals aren't gods and have finite powers and have to suffer loses to gain a victory. I'm not following how you possibly think that maps to a god?

I am always amazed how quickly you guys rush to the conclusion that God had to do it such and such a way, for the bigger picture. The idea that a god had to do anything a certain way is nonsensical.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So one can expect to win the lottery jackpot several times in one's life - the improbability is not that unlikely at all. You really do need to start taking the reality pills, Wickie.

Oh I'm sorry Wolfsbane, I forgot the example of the hundreds of thousands of Christians out there who have won the lottery several times in their lives because they prayed for it. Clearly such a large number of people demonstrate that praying for the Lottery works. How silly of me :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

"Amazing, what are the odds that I would have a dream about a plane crash (Easy Jet Flight 101 to Miami out of Belfast, Boeing 727), and then I would be on that plane when it crashed!!"

Quite high. Everyone dreams their plane will crash, including those who actually end up on planes that crash.

I wonder did you pray for your plane to crash, otherwise how could such an unlikely even actually happen? :pac:

Bduffman wrote: »

Thats cool - I have to do all my work myself.

rolf .. thanks I spat my coke over my keyboard after reading that.

I have an image of God at PDN's keyboard while he sips an Earl Grey with his feet up

:pac:

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Just copped this thread now.

So let me get this atraight, you & your neighbour happen to be friends - right? And as friends you possible have the same interests - yes? So how is both of you going to the same conference evan a huge coincidence? In that context, meeting in a gas station 3 hours from the same conference doesn't sound that amazing. Am I missing something?

Evidently you are missing something.

It was no coincidence that my friend and I were attending the same conference. What was amazing was that, as I made a 3 hour journey from Houston & he made a 3 day journey from Florida, that we stopped at the same time, at the same pump, at the same gas station.

I have another neighbour who works in the same town as I do. We travel each day on the same route, and there are only about 10 petrol stations en route (compared to the hundreds between Houston & San Antonio). We have never ended up fuelling at the same pump at the same time.

PDN wrote: »

Evidently you are missing something.

It was no coincidence that my friend and I were attending the same conference. What was amazing was that, as I made a 3 hour journey from Houston & he made a 3 day journey from Florida, that we stopped at the same time, at the same pump, at the same gas station.

Its really not that amazing PDN.

Think of it this way, you both decided to stop for gas approx 40 miles from destination, which was the same destination. That doesn't just seem likely, it seems sensible.

You both decided to go to the conference early. I don't know what Christian conferences are like, but if they are anything like IT conferences that doesn't just seem likely it seems a requirement.

You both arrived at the gas station at the same time. A bit unlikely, but not that unlikely given that you both probably are quite good judge of time and were already planning to reach the conference early.

You noticed that gas station and it triggered you to think about getting gas. Probably had the same effect on him. Thats called advertising, and often we are not aware of it.

Don't get me wrong, the odds of this happen are on the unlikely side. But given that humans only notice the coincidences, that odds that something like this would happen to you at a some point in your life is actually quite high.

I've had much stranger coincidences happen to me and I certainly don't pray.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Its really not that amazing PDN.

Think of it this way, you both decided to stop for gas approx 40 miles from destination, which was the same destination. That doesn't just seem likely, it seems sensible.

You both decided to go to the conference early. I don't know what Christian conferences are like, but if they are anything like IT conferences that doesn't just seem likely it seems a requirement.

You both arrived at the gas station at the same time. A bit unlikely, but not that unlikely given that you both probably are quite good judge of time and were already planning to reach the conference early.

You noticed that gas station and it triggered you to think about getting gas. Probably had the same effect on him. Thats called advertising, and often we are not aware of it.

Don't get me wrong, the odds of this happen are on the unlikely side. But given that humans only notice the coincidences, that odds that something like this would happen to you at a some point in your life is actually quite high.

I've had much stranger coincidences happen to me and I certainly don't pray.

I think you'd further your case if you acknowledge that it was a pretty amazing coincidence. And then you can say that you think that it was just a coincidence.

At the end of the day, he goes to the other side of the world, stops at a station he'd never do normally. His wife says 'what are you doing stopping here', he says 'it just feels right'. He then happened to be at the same pump at the same time as his neighbour, who was lost. Now even as a coincidence, thats pretty amazing.

just because you want to factor God out of it, doesn't mean you can't acknowledge that its one hell of a conincidence.

JimiTime wrote: »

I think you'd further your case if you acknowledge that it was a pretty amazing coincidence.

Certainly, but that doesn't really have a whole lot of meaning in support of PDNs claim of divine intervention.

The classic example is that the odds of winning the Lotto are millions to one, yet most weeks someone does.

It is an astounding coincidence that the particular person wins, far more I would say than PDN's particular story. But that doesn't mean something supernatural is happening, though I have know people who think they won the Lotto due to some religious or supernatural ritual such as praying for it.

What happened to PDN was a weird coincidence, but it is certainly not unlikely enough that one would start looking around for a supernatural cause.

JimiTime wrote: »

At the end of the day, he goes to the other side of the world, stops at a station he'd never do normally. His wife says 'what are you doing stopping here', he says 'it just feels right'. He then happened to be at the same pump at the same time as his neighbour, who was lost. Now even as a coincidence, thats pretty amazing.

Well yes, but even if it was just that it wouldn't be so crazy as to need supernatural cause to explain it. The same thing happened to me in Florida, went into a shop near Orlando and ran into someone I work with. And I certainly wasn't praying for that to happen (don't even like the guy). If PDN brought his story up at a party I would imagine nearly everyone there would have a similar story about how they met someone they knew at an unlikely place.

You are focusing on the odds of this particular example happening, rather than the more relevant question, what are the odds that PDN will meet someone he knows in some weird place at some point in his life. This is the difference between asking what are the odds I will win the Lotto and what are the odds someone will win the Lotto.

And even that is before you factor in the elements you left out, such as them going to the same conference, and both driving.

Don't get me wrong, I find things like this fascinating. The statistics and patterns of human behavior and things like 6 degrees of separation or the odds of meeting people far way, or chaos theory, patterns in complex systems, are fascinating. And in fact I would say the "God did it" explanation almost takes away from the really cool stuff that is actually happening with an event like this.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly, but that doesn't really have a whole lot of meaning in support of PDNs claim of divine intervention.

The classic example is that the odds of winning the Lotto are millions to one, yet most weeks someone does.

It is an astounding coincidence that the particular person wins, far more I would say than PDN's particular story. But that doesn't mean something supernatural is happening, though I have know people who think they won the Lotto due to some religious or supernatural ritual such as praying for it.

What happened to PDN was a weird coincidence, but it is certainly not unlikely enough that one would start looking around for a supernatural cause.

Well yes, but even if it was just that it wouldn't be so crazy as to need supernatural cause to explain it. The same thing happened to me in Florida, went into a shop near Orlando and ran into someone I work with. And I certainly wasn't praying for that to happen (don't even like the guy). If PDN brought his story up at a party I would imagine nearly everyone there would have a similar story about how they met someone they knew at an unlikely place.

You are focusing on the odds of this particular example happening, rather than the more relevant question, what are the odds that PDN will meet someone he knows in some weird place at some point in his life. This is the difference between asking what are the odds I will win the Lotto and what are the odds someone will win the Lotto.

And even that is before you factor in the elements you left out, such as them going to the same conference, and both driving.

Don't get me wrong, I find things like this fascinating. The statistics and patterns of human behavior and things like 6 degrees of separation or the odds of meeting people far way, or chaos theory, patterns in complex systems, are fascinating. And in fact I would say the "God did it" explanation almost takes away from the really cool stuff that is actually happening with an event like this.

i'm not trying to side with PDN here. You just said it wasn't that amazing. In fairness, it was a pretty amazing coincidence. However, its not going to convince anyone of divine intevention. i'm just saying, even as a coincidence, it was pretty big. Like you said, amazing coincidences happen, but there's no point in arguing from the point that it wasn't even that at least. i mean, if you acted against your normal inclination, and stopped at a garage because it felt right then met a neighbour at the pump who happened to be lost and in need of your help, i think you'd be thinking that was some coincidence. You must at least give the story that much IMO.

JimiTime wrote: »

i'm not trying to side with PDN here. You just said it wasn't that amazing. In fairness, it was a pretty amazing coincidence. However, its not going to convince anyone of divine intevention. i'm just saying, even as a coincidence, it was pretty big. Like you said, amazing coincidences happen, but there's no point in arguing from the point that it wasn't even that at least. i mean, if you acted against your normal inclination, and stopped at a garage because it felt right then met a neighbour at the pump who happened to be lost and in need of your help, i think you'd be thinking that was some coincidence. You must at least give the story that much IMO.

But PDN is not trying to sell it as an amazing coincidence is he? It is god direct intervention, not a coincidence..... or am I reading it wrong?

MrP

vibe666

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mocking sure beats having to give a scientific rebuttal to uncomfortable scientific facts. :pac:

Your huffing and puffing won't deter the truly inquisitive mind from examining the argument dispassionately. I know it hurts to admit that your prejudices about the structure of the ark have been exposed - but the scientific response should be to accept that it was possible to build such a structure - a simple, labour-intensive construction taking up to 120 years. You were just applying modern economics, and possibly unnecessary performance characteristics, to an ancient project.

i don't need science to rebuttal any facts because you haven't given me any facts to start with, or science for that matter.

you have given me a fairytale that you desperately want to be true to give some sort of meaning to your life, when it's more than obvious to anyone with even a modicum of common sense that it's nothing more than a made up story that got out of hand via the old chinese whispers effect and over a few thousand years far too many people have taken far too seriously.

let me get this straight for once and for all. you are stating as fact that a 600 year old man spent 120 years building a boat using building techniques totally unknown until the 20th century to house many thousands of animals and their food for a year (or however long it was) to wipe the slate clean and start again and he took all that time to do it when the bible says he created the world in less than a week the first time round?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Oh, I see what you meant. I had thought you were saying God ordered or condoned paedophilia. You just meant He did not prevent it.

As I argued before, God is under no obligation to prevent sinners harming each other. And we are all sinners - children included. That He often does so, is by His mercy, not our dues. As you say, paedophiles should be severely punished, even though they claim to be born that way. The only difference between us is the timing - you want it all instantaneously, God does it in His time.

i don't want anything instantaneously and gods time is irrelevent, he's supposed to exist outside of time which is exactly my point. there is a genetic defect in some humans to cause them to interfere with kids and god must have known about that from day 1. that kind of thing is the lowest of the low and can serve no purpose other than to harm innocent children and I do not and will not ever believe that a newborn baby has any sin in them so has nothing to be punished for at all, ever but they get abused too.

if your god existed at all the evil seed in the minds of these people would never have been planted in the first place. it serves no purpose but to cause the suffering of innocents. you god has the capability to do anything hepleases, so by allowing these things to happen he is in effect condoning it.

even if he didn't do that all he would need to do is make every pedo in the world turn a different direction away from kids when they are going to do whatever it is they are compelled to do. if he wanted to he could remove that particular thing from their mind forever and make it so that it never existed in the first place. it's not even about free will or the right to choose. an innocent new born baby has no choice but to accept what's happening, it's powerless to stop it and it has done nothing to deserve it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The deteriotation of the gene pool is what gives rise to inherited genetic defects - a good indication that entropy rules out goo-to-you evolution.

Back closer to the time when man had less genetic defects - remember, none in Eden - mating with a sibling, never mind a cousin, would not have had such ill effects.

sorry, but where do you get all this ancient genetic information from?

did noah complete the human genome project as well several thousand years before the rest of us?

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to morals, I wonder where you get the right to condemn incest, given your beliefs about religion. I at least can point to a code and say it condemns or not any specific action. And the Bible only makes brother/sister relationships immoral long after the Flood.

i get the right from being a civilised human being with no interest in people doinking their sisters becuase it is quite plainly bad and wrong by even the most basic of human standards, much like messing with kids is.

actually pretty much the same way i get most of my views of what's going on in the world, either by finding out for myself from other members of society and what's deemed acceptable or by making decisions myself based on common sense and decency.

you should try it some time, you might just find that accepting child abuse as part of 'gods big plan' a lot harder to swallow.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your huffing and puffing won't deter the truly inquisitive mind from examining the argument dispassionately. I know it hurts to admit that your prejudices about the structure of the ark have been exposed - but the scientific response should be to accept that it was possible to build such a structure - a simple, labour-intensive construction taking up to 120 years. You were just applying modern economics, and possibly unnecessary performance characteristics, to an ancient project.

You've already stated elsewhere that you accept scientific information on the basis of authority rather than your own reason. The authority you accept is invariably one which agrees with your preconceptions. You are certainly not being sceptical or "dispassionate" at all about the subject matter here. An aircraft-carrier sized boat made of wood using stone age tools surviving a rapid and doubtlessly turbulent global flood for a year whilst harbouring a tens of thousands of wild animals... Whether one considers that scenario "possible" or not, it is "dispassionately" worthy of doubt and scepticism merely because we have never seen the likes of it.

So what your website have done is take someone's analysis and pick it apart. That's fair. They've done a doodle of what they think the ark should look like. That's helpful if a little childish. And that's it. That's their proof. The other people's computer analysis is wrong, some speculation about what it should be and here's a picture what I did. Where's their numbers? Where's their computer simulations based upon the parameters they've given? There is nothing sceptical, rigorous or dispassionate in this at all. Just arrogant assumption on their part and blind acceptance on yours.

Wicknight wrote: »

Utter nonsense. I am so tired of that silly argument. It doesn't hold to 1 minute of investigation

Removing the ability of humans to suffer or inflict pain on others would not remove our free will or ability to have choice, any more than God not allowing us to fly or walk through walls removed our free will.

We have always had free will within the bounds that God decided for us. We have free will to choice between the options he decided for us. He could have decided that we don't have the option to rape children. He didn't. He decided in his infinitive wisdom to leave that one in but take breathing under water out and surviving fires out.

Not only did God create humans with the ability to suffer quite a large number of horrendous things such as rape, but after Adam disobeyed he cursed us to sin as well.

According to Christian belief only Adam, Eve and Jesus had the ability to live a life without sinning. They had that choice. We don't. The rest of us are condemned to sin no matter what. Cursed by God, as punishment for Adam's disobedience.

So God has curtailed our choice even more than he originally did, he curtailed our choice not to sin. Christians say that is ok because while we have to sin we can choose to repent and be saved. But again that doesn't help us now, in the moment, with children being raped.

First I think you have misinterpreted the story of Genesis 3. We are not cursed by God to be sinners. Adam choose to become a sinner, and we are his descendants. God didn't do it, Adam did. Quite the opposite, God provides a way out of our misery.

We can argue what God can do to restrict our capabilities. One of the characteristics of mankind is that we are creative. This is part of us being "image bearers" of God. The problem with being creative and sinners is that we will use anything for sinful purposes. So we can breathe under water, walk through walls, and survive a fire.

The question of "Why" in these cases is ancient. In the Bible we have a long account of Job when he hurles his Why? to God and basically tells God that He made a mistake. See for instance Job 9 -10. It is God's choice to let us sinners live and provide us a way in which we can be pleasing for Him.

The sufferings we are confronted with in this life are nothing compared to an eternal separation of God...

Wicknight wrote: »

I very very much doubt God does the same since he had the power to stop it happening (without destroying our free will or ability to love) and he didn't.

I think you should have a closer look at the character of God. For instance to Jona He defend not destroying Nineveh (which would create great havoc in Israel 100 years later!) with:

Jon 4:10-11 ESV And the LORD said, "You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. (11) And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?"

God had compassion, especially because the number of small children!