Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33
Like Tree8Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 4 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By MeteorWayne

Thread: God vs Chaos, how order can come from chaotic systems without the need for intelligent design.

  1. #1 God vs Chaos, how order can come from chaotic systems without the need for intelligent design. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2
    Hi, today I would like to discuss an idea very close to my own heart. Now I'd like to start by saying, I was raised Christian, so the god concept has always been an interesting one. Having said that I have no active belief, God is as good as theory as any in regards to how the universe started. But I find god a very BIG idea, the concept that this all powerful being just made us out of nothing, and yet was never made himself (begotten not made) seems too complex to me, when the universe typically demonstrates that small turns into big. Dust and gases form stars and planets, tiny proteins form basic life, basic life forms complex life etc.

    So it is my purpose here today to discuss the idea of universe that has not been designed by anyone. That simply came to being at the roll of a dice.

    I spent a lot of time writing and performing tutorials to a programming community, so expressing my idea's is, I feel, best done in that format. To this end, I've created a youtube video with the same title as this post. I hope you will all take the time to watch it, and debate it. I'm eager to hear all your views on this, and start a good healthy discussion.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Can order come from chaos without outside intervention ? The answer seems to be yes - the example I usually give is sand dunes in the desert - the wind and the movement of tiny sand particles is an entirely chaotic system, yet over time the very structured dune will inevitable form. There is no outside intervention here, the highly ordered, macroscopic dune spontaneously emerges from the chaotic, microscopic wind-sand interaction. To me this is a natural process, and obviously there is no intelligence sitting out there in the desert molding and shaping dunes all day long...

    I think the argument that because our universe is so complex and ordered, there must of necessity be a creator/designer, is fundamentally flawed. In fact, one could argue that just because the universe is so complex and ordered, there can not be a designer. But that's just me - a philosophical personal opinion.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    which begs the question:
    Are there an infinite number of ways in which our universe could have been organized?
    a finite number of ways?
    or just one "ours"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Yonks and yonks ago I saw an absolutely fantastic demonstration (in a magazine) of random movements finishing up with an apparently 'designed' result.

    It was basically a sloping panel of pins in a regular format with a marble travelling from the top, randomly bouncing from one to another as gravity took it towards the bottom. A bit like a pinball machine without the fancy gizmos.

    It was probably New Scientist, but I've not found it there, I think it would be under something like 'butterfly effect'. And I've not seen anything similar on youtube. Anyone who sees anything like it and posts it will earn my undying gratitude.

    Looking at the earlier questions, this demonstration would say that the results of random processes might be described as having infinite possibilities. If they're not technically infinite, they're certainly only limited by boundary conditions rather than the possibilities within the system.

    And for a systematic, organised outcome from random processes. Absolutely, incontrovertibly possible->probable->highly-likely.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Anyone who sees anything like it and posts it will earn my undying gratitude.
    http://media3.bournemouth.ac.uk/spss...aussianpsd.jpg
    from:
    3c (interactive)

    what you had in mind?
    if memory serves, i first saw one of these associated with "probability"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    That is what I though of, as well, a quincunx or Galton Box: Bean machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    That is what I though of, as well, a quincunx or Galton Box: Bean machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ok, say we get rid of the funnel on top
    which gives us probability spread from order. = order to order
    if we start off from one place, then the probability curve centers under that one place.
    true?
    Then, if we get rid of the ordered starting place and introduce a random distribution of the starting point of the balls, are we getting closer to order from chaos?

    how does one go about building something that reacts truely randomly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    how does one go about building something that reacts truely randomly?
    You should ask God: he created women.

    (I'm not saying it good humour, but it is humour. Don't go all PC on me.)

    Now, back on topic, does no one have a comment on the video from the OP? Or, like me, did you feel 23 minutes was too much of ones life to invest without a little more indication of what was to come?

    Edit - I've watched 4m27s. You could have said the same thing in four paragraphs that could have been read in fifteen seconds. Your argument may be valid, but it its presentation is tedious.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ok John, I gotta complain
    I'm more comfortable if people do not use third person singular male pronoun for GOD
    jeez man god only has one more letter than "he" , be not so parsimonious with the keyboard

    as/re the video-proto-universe with "bits and peices" breaking off and randomly forming universes which randomly succeed or fail
    reminds me of the story of millions of monkeys banging away at millions of typewriters and coming up with shakespeare

    quien sabe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    What the hell are you talking about, sculptor? Lets try to stick to the topic, OK?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I'm more comfortable if people do not use third person singular male pronoun for GOD
    Would the plural pronoun be better? Or "She"? I don't understand the problem.

    The more I think about that, the sillier it gets. Would you object to a sentence where "God" is the grammatical subject because he cannot be subject to human will (or something).

    jeez man god only has one more letter than "he"
    I would have thought someone who was concerned about how God was addressed would not blaspheme and would show some respect by capitalizing "God".

    Hypocritical much?
    Last edited by Strange; June 17th, 2012 at 04:48 PM. Reason: even sillier
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ok
    am i the only fool foolish enough to have watched the video---?

    the gist of which is that we don't need string theory or "GOD" to explain order from chaos
    randomness would create order all on it's own
    ergo, the monkeys/typewriters

    and, i think i'd still prefer shakespeare or even annie proulx or even more to the point the collaberative effort of mel brooks and buck henry(get smart-kaos and control) to the millions of monkeys


    (and as/re god, God, GOD---------as we do not know the name of god--caps, no caps, it matters little to me)
    (and, psst the god/he thing was meant as a joke for john who voiced 'pc' concerns as/re women----so i tossed him one "outa left field"---which seems to have missed the target while beaning a couple of youse guys)

    so, is randomness a viable null hypothesis to god
    neither can be proven nor disproven?

    anyone buying the proto universe thing(from the video)?

    who needs god to order the universe when we have
    hydrogen, helium, oxygen,carbon,neon,iron,nitrogen,silicon,magnesium ,sulfur, etc,etc
    which can combine in a very limited(orderly) number of ways

    give god the day off,
    (wild guess)
    the elements have got the order thing covered
    Last edited by sculptor; June 17th, 2012 at 05:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    and, psst the god/he thing was meant as a joke
    Maybe if you learnt to write properly, it might be easier to understand you. (I did see one post where you were prompted to communicate normally. But, sadly, you immediately reverted to your usual pretentious style.)
    MeteorWayne likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    strange (imagine that word voiced in an echo chamber)

    the fact that i started the blurb with, "ok John", immediately after his
    You should ask God: he created women.
    (I'm not saying it good humour, but it is humour. Don't go all PC on me.)
    wasn't enough of a clue????
    how strange

    writing is about communication, and that is a collaberative effort
    if we do not understand each other, are we not both to blame?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    writing is about communication, and that is a collaberative effort
    It is. And it is about time you started pulling your weight and not insisting that others should make an extra effort to decode your Delphic utterances. Grow up.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Grow up.
    oops, too damned late for that, i've reached that point in my life where i am actually growing shorter.

    ok, dadio, are we done playing around?
    wanna discuss the proposals embodied within the topic at hand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    It started to go off the rails with the nonesensical post #3. I wonder who made that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    wayne
    post #3 was derived directly from the video

    (do you really wonder? or is that just a rhetorical tool you're trying to use here?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    Sculptor, I am going to ask again, please stop posting in the structure you do. It is very hard to read and adds nothing to the topics.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Sculptor, I am going to ask again, please stop posting in the structure you do. It is very hard to read and adds nothing to the topics.
    I really do not understand what the problem is

    does no one want to discuss the ideas posted in the video?

    are you guys real human beings? or faulty programs?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    May I ask why you determined three lines were needed for your post?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    the gist of which is that we don't need string theory or "GOD" to explain order from chaos
    randomness would create order all on it's own
    ergo, the monkeys/typewriters
    Well, I argue that pure chance is not enough. You need to constrain the possibilities in some way in order to get a meaningful outcome - sure, the monkeys might get a Shakespeare play once every eternity or so...the wind in the desert, however, forms dunes every single time, without fail, and in a finite and reasonable amount of time. It is repeatable, the monkeys probably aren't. The difference is that the monkeys work off pure chance, whereas the wind-sand system is subject to physical laws and thus follows certain trajectories, even if the system as a whole is chaotic. That still does not imply that there is a creator/designer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    949
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Sculptor, I am going to ask again, please stop posting in the structure you do. It is very hard to read and adds nothing to the topics.
    Agreed! There are also other "rebels" who do not see the need for paragraphs and, in some cases, probably regard this as proof of their anti-establishment credentials.
    Often, because of the "structure" they use, I can't be bothered reading their posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    the gist of which is that we don't need string theory or "GOD" to explain order from chaos
    randomness would create order all on it's own
    ergo, the monkeys/typewriters
    Well, I argue that pure chance is not enough. You need to constrain the possibilities in some way in order to get a meaningful outcome - sure, the monkeys might get a Shakespeare play once every eternity or so...the wind in the desert, however, forms dunes every single time, without fail, and in a finite and reasonable amount of time. It is repeatable, the monkeys probably aren't. The difference is that the monkeys work off pure chance, whereas the wind-sand system is subject to physical laws and thus follows certain trajectories, even if the system as a whole is chaotic. That still does not imply that there is a creator/designer.
    I agree Markus. It seems unlikely that random chance could create the ordered universe, or us for that matter. (if indeed one assumes that it came from chaos, which may or may not be accurate).
    The video that started this thread postulated that randomness = "bits and peaces broken off of the proto universe(chaos)" could create viable ordered universes.
    Whereas, i think, that if we have an ordered universe, then we need to look for the building blocks of the order-------ergo, my suggesting that perhaps the limited elements and their limited combinations was enough to create "order". But that is only one of the (perhaps myriad) potential ordering mechanisms.

    Fractals, patterns within patterns, and redundant patterns seems the norm here on earth. Mountain chains, long dunes, rolling waves in the oceans, the simularity of ice crystals formed on a window with leaves from green plants, etc. there seems to be a lot of redundancy in the patterns of nature.
    And, i suspect that if there is redundancy of pattern within seemingly dissimular materials, then there must be limiting factors that favor certain patterns, and we can readily call that order.

    So, order from chaos? Perhaps we need a better definition of chaos?

    To my mind, pattern recognition explains more than is normally recognized.(and maybe all that is needed)
    Long ago, I read that ancient polynesian mariners could recognize patterns within waves that were ripples caused by upcurrent islands, and using this pattern recognition were able to explore and people far flung islands in the broad pacific ocean.

    Claiming that it was GOD's job to create order from chaos, would be defining god, and anyone who has read my posts, knows that that is something which i am loath to do.
    I also think that those who would claim such a thing have what i would classify as a "lazy mind".

    Back to patterns(order)-- The elements i listed are the top ten in order of abundance in our galexy, and by extrapolation, likely in the whole universe.
    Without touching on string theory, I wonder if these elements are indeed the building blocks of that which we perceive as "order" and, then if that order(these building blocks) is the only possible one. Which is why I asked the questions in post number 3 in this thread. Even assuming "big bang" as an actuality that created all these elements, is this the only possible outcome?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    May I ask why you determined three lines were needed for your post?
    Try thinking of it this way

    3 seperate thoughts
    3 seperate paragraphs
    3 seperate lines

    Did you ever think that you might have been looking for something negative, and even if it wasn't there, you went ahead and found it anyway?
    Perspective matters. If you ain't seeing what you want to see, try changing your perspective?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Did you ever think that the number of complaints you've had about your posting style might have something to do with your posting style rather than about the people who are complaining? Could you try to look at this from the perspective of your readers who don't like it. It is detracting from what you are saying. I would truly appreciate it if you would make an effort to change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    every day, john, every day

    dilemma
    if each paragraph contains a seperate thought, and some of the thoughts are ancillary support to the main topic and therefore kept as short as possible so as not to distract from that main topic but necessary none the less, then some of what rightly should stand apart as a seperate thought are by the foregoing very short(one liners) so still i grant them a seperate space------i used to write papers with footnotes for the rest of what would have been in the short paragraphs, but for the sake of brevity and to keep the flow of the piece, i rarely do that anymore(the footnotes, were also complained about in their day(eg a 17 page paper with 22 pages of footnotes and references---got tedious)

    really it is simple
    one thought for one line seperated by a space

    please look at post #12
    and tell me how it could have been organized differently?
    same-same post #9
    (i ain't completely confused, but i am working on it)
    Last edited by sculptor; June 19th, 2012 at 08:29 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    every day, john, every day
    I think that what you meant to write was:

    Every day, John. Every day.
    sculptor likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Do you see the following as an improvement? More to the point, do other members see this as an improvement?

    I think about how my posts are perceived every day, John; every day.

    Here is my dilemma: each paragraph should arguably contain a seperate thought. Some of the thoughts are ancillary support to the main topic and therefore must be kept as short as possible, so as not to distract from it. Nonetheless, they seem necessary. So what rightly should stand apart as a seperate thought must be very short (one liners) and thus I grant them a seperate space.

    I used to write papers with footnotes for what would have been in the short paragraphs, but for the sake of brevity and to keep the flow of the piece, I rarely do that anymore. The footnotes, were also complained about in their day: e.g. a seventeen page paper with twenty two pages of footnotes and references got tedious.

    So, from my point of view it really is simple: one thought for one line seperated by a space.

    Please look at post #12 and tell me how it could have been organized differently? Same-same post #9.

    Of course part of the problem is your mistaken belief that a single thought demands a single paragraph. This is incorrect. At most it demands a single sentence and in some instance merely a single clause.

    Or how about this? I've introduced capitals where they are required: you almost never do. I have removed superfluous brackets. I have eliminated senseless line breaks where the thoughts are clearly continuous from line to line. And I have deleted the silly ---- gaps you introduce with no good reason. (Trust me, you really have no good reason.) Part of your problem sculptor, seems to me, that you have confused chaos with creativity and allowed your thinking to become, rather than free, haphazard and disorganised.

    OK. Am I the only fool foolish enough to have watched the video? The gist of it is that we don't need string theory or "GOD" to explain order from chaos, randomness would create order all on it's own, as in the case of the monkeys and typewriters. (I think I'd still prefer Shakespeare, or even Annie Proulx, or, even more to the point, the collaberative effort of Mel Brooks and Buck Henry (get smart-kaos and control) to the millions of monkeys.)


    As an aside, as/re god, God, GOD, as we do not know the name of god, then caps or no caps, it matters little to me. (And as an aside on the aside, the god/he thing was meant as a joke for John, who voiced 'pc' concerns as/re women. So I tossed him one "outa left field". It seems to have missed the target, while beaning a couple of youse guys)

    So, is randomness a viable null hypothesis to god? Neither can be proven nor disproven?

    Is anyone buying the proto universe thing from the video?

    Who needs god to order the universe when we have hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon, iron, nitrogen, silicon, magnesium, sulfur, etc, which can combine in a very limited (orderly) number of ways? Give god the day off. Here is a wild guess, the elements have got the order thing covered.

    Last edited by John Galt; June 18th, 2012 at 02:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    [/COLOR]
    OK. Am I the only fool foolish enough to have watched the video? The gist of it is that we don't need string theory or "GOD" to explain order from chaos, randomness would create order all on it's own, as in the case of the monkeys and typewriters. (I think I'd still prefer Shakespeare, or even Annie Proulx, or, even more to the point, the collaberative effort of Mel Brooks and Buck Henry (get smart-kaos and control) to the millions of monkeys.)


    As an aside, as/re god, God, GOD, as we do not know the name of god, then caps or no caps, it matters little to me. (And as an aside on the aside, the god/he thing was meant as a joke for John, who voiced 'pc' concerns as/re women. So I tossed him one "outa left field". It seems to have missed the target, while beaning a couple of youse guys)

    So, is randomness a viable null hypothesis to god? Neither can be proven nor disproven?

    Is anyone buying the proto universe thing from the video?

    Who needs god to order the universe when we have hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon, iron, nitrogen, silicon, magnesium, sulfur, etc, which can combine in a very limited (orderly) number of ways? Give god the day off. Here is a wild guess, the elements have got the order thing covered.
    Oh, is THAT what he meant? I had no idea...
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Sand, Beans, Monkeys,... How does randomness disprove God? Why didn't God cause this, as well? How can anyone disprove that which can not be proven? It is an essential part of man's psyche to have hope, and to give purpose. What would be the point? It would cause mass depression to have no hope for the future, regardless of what "may" be true. So, even if they do prove, somehow, that no god exists, it would probably disrupt this organized chaos. There can be many "theories" for lifes' origin, on this planet, that can not be misproven. A couple of favorites are "Panspermia" and "Ancient Aliens", whicch actually have some evidence.

    However, here's a book that may be of interest, you may have heard of called "A Universe from Nothing"- Lawrence Krauss Lawrence Krauss On 'A Universe From Nothing' : NPR .It may have as much credit as believing in God [not]?
    Last edited by Kalopin; June 22nd, 2012 at 08:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    [/COLOR]
    OK. Am I the only fool foolish enough to have watched the video? The gist of it is that we don't need string theory or "GOD" to explain order from chaos, randomness would create order all on it's own, as in the case of the monkeys and typewriters. (I think I'd still prefer Shakespeare, or even Annie Proulx, or, even more to the point, the collaberative effort of Mel Brooks and Buck Henry (get smart-kaos and control) to the millions of monkeys.)


    As an aside, as/re god, God, GOD, as we do not know the name of god, then caps or no caps, it matters little to me. (And as an aside on the aside, the god/he thing was meant as a joke for John, who voiced 'pc' concerns as/re women. So I tossed him one "outa left field". It seems to have missed the target, while beaning a couple of youse guys)

    So, is randomness a viable null hypothesis to god? Neither can be proven nor disproven?

    Is anyone buying the proto universe thing from the video?

    Who needs god to order the universe when we have hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon, iron, nitrogen, silicon, magnesium, sulfur, etc, which can combine in a very limited (orderly) number of ways? Give god the day off. Here is a wild guess, the elements have got the order thing covered.
    Oh, is THAT what he meant? I had no idea...
    LOL
    really, dad, you're a hoot
    oh, and thanks guys for the english lesson
    I came her for some free science knowledge, and had a lesson in communication thrown in---really excellent, thanx again
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    26
    I have a question to ask here if someone plays online poke on pokerstars can prove if the game is random or controlled by special designed softwars i can tell u if the universe is chaotic or it is designed by a higher being . those who ever tried online poker will surely understand what i mean!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Intelligent Design ????
    By tszy in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 517
    Last Post: October 21st, 2012, 06:07 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 10th, 2012, 05:32 AM
  3. Intelligent Design ????
    By tszy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2011, 11:36 PM
  4. Books on Chaos theory, complex systems, cybernetics
    By Clyde in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 20th, 2011, 12:14 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •