Pascal's wager

^ and there is no such thing as scientific theory - everything absolutely proven?

 

Every living thing on Earth is more complex than watches or computers. It all started from simple stuff. That is EXACTLY the point. Nothing complex happens quickly and without long periods of slow change. Everything starts simple and gets more complex. NOTHING starts complex.

SIMPLE precedes COMPLEX.

 

^ there is been time enough on this Earth to observe some change.

Where is it?

 

If you want to call it belief, (I don't, but I will accept your word for now), I believe in those things which accurately predict future events.

Ok. Where where did the intelligence come from? [I predict you will dodge this question again] Saying that it has always existed will negate your argument that complex things NEED an intelligence to 'happen'.

Of course it does. Except of course when it doesn't. Quantum Mechanics predicted the mass of an as-yet-undiscovered particle to 9 decimal places. Roughly equivalent to finding something on Earth to within a km before you even know it exists.

 

The speculation isn't about which ratios would be good ones. It is about calculating IN ADVANCE which way to bet for any given situation.

I will offer that bet to you, and I will tell you the odds and you have to choose within 0.1 seconds of hearing the odds. Do you suppose you might try to figure out which way to bet beforehand?

 

What particle is that?

 

I don't even remember which one it was. I suspect you would find researching it most enjoyable.

 

The Burgess Shale deposits in the Canadian Rockies in BC contain a treasure trove of creatures from long ago - some very bizarre ones indeed. All of these organisms existed in the distant past and have long since vanished, just as we eventually will. Our species may be unique in destroying its habitat. We're well on our way to doing so.

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

 

Actually I have. Fundamental Particle Mass is something that Quantum Mechanics cannot determine to any decimal place. It's a measured quantity that goes into the theory, not a predicted quantity that comes out.

The thing that QM has predicted to as many decimal places as possible to measure are Magnetic Moments. What I suspect is that you are thinking about something like the Lamb Shift, which supports the idea behind your original comment. (But I was hoping that you had found something juicy.)


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED]Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

How are you doing with the singing lessons?

Tom

 

I don't have all the answers, but I prefer to believe a creator makes more sense, just as you believe the absence of one makes more sense to you.

So far, The Theory of Evolution has not been renamed the Law of Evolution ... hey, Einstein's Theory of Relativity might have holes or loopholes.

 

Who created the creator? Has it always existed, or did it just spring up out of...nothing?

I don't pretend to know all the answers, either - or even all the questions. But choosing The Creator over The Big Bang doesn't really answer anything.

The word 'theory' is used differently in a scientific context than it is in everyday English - it's something much deeper than 'just a hunch'.

 

Saw an article that might make sense of the 6+ years of God-bashing here > Atheist responds to Rabbi David Wolpe - Philadelphia atheism | Examiner.com

States that since many atheists are afraid to meet in public, they congregate on the internet - numerous atheist sites out of proportion to the population, even factoring in the ones in the closet. (World Religions Religion Statistics Geography Church Statistics estimates 80% of the World's population believe in God....even with adjustments, clearly a majority.)

Sites dedicated to humanism/atheism is one thing, but taking the offensive to go on religious sites is another thing. > Rabbi David Wolpe: Why Are Atheists So Angry?

I wonder about that along with the rabbi - why all the hostility and endless bickering? Seems like unhappy defensive people to me - why would I want to sign on to those beliefs? And the responses are definitely out of proportion to the general population.

 

Can you explain the 'more sense'?

You assert that complex things can not come about without an intelligence to create them. But you assert that that intelligence (a complex thing) came about without an intelligence to create it.

I don't even need to be in this conversation for it not to make any sense.

Please remember that this objection was yours entirely. You invented this disproof of your own god.

 

[editted to remove intemperate descending to the level of the quote]

 

^ hate to say it, but countless people other than the rabbi and myself ask that question as well....someone else would have infuriated you with the same observation.

 

For some reason this reminds me of an interview where a very patient man talked to Wendy Wright.

 

You're right. I might even have felt as bad as you do when people point out that although atheists argue amongst themselves, theists murder each other by the millions in the same circumstances. No, probably not.

 

Oh, now you're just being insulting. I have been patient and kind (most of the time), and very careful to speak to the debate rather than the debaters. With all due respect, I think you're taking things far too personally.

 

^ Even Richard Dawkins himself shut down his forums as a result of the nastiness of fellow athiests. Is he taking things personally? Richard Dawkins in bitter web censorship row with fellow atheists - Telegraph