Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 61 of 216 (138780)
09-01-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by riVeRraT
09-01-2004 9:19 AM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
quote:
Please try to convince all the insurance company's of this nation that same thought, and maybe our insurance will go down.
I'm pretty sure accurists don't utilise murphys law. They DO utilise a good deal of probability theory though I would think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by riVeRraT, posted 09-01-2004 9:19 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 62 of 216 (138781)
09-01-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
09-01-2004 10:26 AM


quote:
OK, Riverrat.
Go to the nearest highway overpass, and dive off head first.
The odds are very good, although not 100%, that you will hit the pavement, crush your skull, and die.
If "the results will change, no matter what the odds," then you must therefore believe that your odds of floating down to the ground unharmed are just the same as hitting the ground and dying.
What kind of silliness is that?
The one time he floats to the ground and lands unharmed, he's guarenteed to get run over by a bus straight after (murphy's law may be real afterall )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 10:26 AM nator has not replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 216 (138807)
09-01-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by riVeRraT
09-01-2004 9:11 AM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
A tenth of 93 millions is 0.93 millions?
Look, if you can't even divide by 10, I'm not going to bother about arguing with you about numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by riVeRraT, posted 09-01-2004 9:11 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 216 (138857)
09-01-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by riVeRraT
09-01-2004 9:11 AM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
1 au is indeed 93 million miles.
0.10 AU =930,000 miles.
93,000,000
 9,300,000
The Moon is 250,000 miles away, x40 =10 million.
Big difference between 930,000 and 10 million.
True. But 0.1AU = 9,300,000 not 930,000 miles.
It's still just a stones throw away.
The other part is that it passed almost directly overhead. So even though it missed us vertically, it hit us horizontally, relativly speaking.
WHAT?
That has no meaning whatsoever.
You didn't answer my question, just what are the odds? I will accept any number you tell me for purpose of this discussion.
You don't have to just accept someone's idea of the probabilities, there is actually a risk assesment scale. Google Torino Impact Hazard Scale.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by riVeRraT, posted 09-01-2004 9:11 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by riVeRraT, posted 09-01-2004 9:22 PM jar has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 65 of 216 (138935)
09-01-2004 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
09-01-2004 10:26 AM


That is a completely irrelevant comparison, for which you are now famous for. It means nothing and is the rantings of a lunatic.
Your kind of reasoning is beyond baloney. I guess to you that Halle Berry and Oprah Winphrey are both likely to produce the same results because they are both girls. But my guess is you would rather not see your husband go on a date with Halle Berry.
What is it you are trying to say? Because I can eat clams, does it mean I will never get a bad one?
You cannot predict the odds of certain things, and comparing what I'm saying to jumping off a bridge, is like comparing a spec to the universe.
Be real, say something relevant. Your trying to make science look good by comparing the odds of jumping off a bridge with the odds of something catacylismic happening to the earth, what kind of fool would do that? Either way you are putting your faith in something that isn't 100% correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 10:26 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 9:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 66 of 216 (138939)
09-01-2004 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by happy_atheist
09-01-2004 11:33 AM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
If you live your life counting on the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow, then you have faith in it.
Unless you are saying you don't have faith in anything? If so could you please explain how that is possible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by happy_atheist, posted 09-01-2004 11:33 AM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by happy_atheist, posted 09-02-2004 11:24 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 67 of 216 (138940)
09-01-2004 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by happy_atheist
09-01-2004 7:36 AM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
So your telling me a mass that wieghs 194,090,000,000,000,000 metric tons (1/4 the mass of the moon) traveling at 27miles per second couldn't effect our rotation if hit in the right spot?
I would even bet that it might eventually cause a collision between us and the moon, due to a disruptance in our orbits.
And yes I fully understand about all the effects of gravitational pull against our earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by happy_atheist, posted 09-01-2004 7:36 AM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 09-01-2004 10:48 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 77 by happy_atheist, posted 09-02-2004 11:25 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 68 of 216 (138950)
09-01-2004 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
09-01-2004 3:23 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
True. But 0.1AU = 9,300,000 not 930,000 miles.
I'm having a bad day. Thats what I get for trying to do math and read when I'm tired. I apologize
But it's still close. The other thing I was saying that when view from earth it passed almost directly in front of the North star which means it was directly over the earths poles. So it may have missed us one way, but it was in line with us another way.
I don't know about you, but to me its sort of an eye opener, and makes me feel that we are just a little more vulnerable than one would think. This doesn't change the way I look at life though, just makes more of a realist I guess.
I took some great pictures of that comet. The tail was strecthed clear across the sky at one point. We could actually see movement of the nucleus in my 8" meade reflector.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 09-01-2004 3:23 PM jar has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 69 of 216 (138955)
09-01-2004 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Melchior
08-31-2004 7:22 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
I do not think that we should be scared by this in any way. We do know that large objects can hit the earth, but it's not like this happens often.
Right, so we have faith that it won't happen.
And yes I stand corrected about the distance of the comet. My mistake. I think I was getting confused with another object that came much closer. Its been awhile since I've been doing astronomy. so I forgot the numbers.
Either way any of these torino scales or professional astronomers or NASA will tell you straight out that there could very well be something that they cannot account for, so we have faith that it won't happen, because the evidence shows us that it doesn't happen that often.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Melchior, posted 08-31-2004 7:22 PM Melchior has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 09-01-2004 9:41 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 70 of 216 (138959)
09-01-2004 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by riVeRraT
09-01-2004 9:34 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
One last time. It is not faith. It is confidence. There is a big difference.
Confidence is based on observed, testable evidence.
Faith is a belief without testable evidence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by riVeRraT, posted 09-01-2004 9:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by riVeRraT, posted 09-02-2004 9:00 AM jar has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 216 (138964)
09-01-2004 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by riVeRraT
09-01-2004 8:54 PM


quote:
That is a completely irrelevant comparison, for which you are now famous for. It means nothing and is the rantings of a lunatic.
Your kind of reasoning is beyond baloney.
How interesting it is to watch someone who must resort to peresonal attack instead of systematically explaining their position.
quote:
I guess to you that Halle Berry and Oprah Winphrey are both likely to produce the same results because they are both girls.
According to you, that is true.
You said:
So I can't see justifying believeing in something because it is more likely to produce a certain result more than another thing. Because if it has odds that the results will change,then it will change, no matter the odds. Thats my personal observation.
YOU said that NO MATTER THE ODDS, IT WILL CHANGE.
YOU said that.
Don't blame me if you don't make sense to yourself.
quote:
What is it you are trying to say? Because I can eat clams, does it mean I will never get a bad one?
No.
According to what YOU said:
So I can't see justifying believeing in something because it is more likely to produce a certain result more than another thing. Because if it has odds that the results will change, then it will change, no matter the odds. Thats my personal observation.
To use YOUR logic:
So I can't see justifying believeing that eating clams that have been stored for a week in 80 degree temperature because it is more likely to produce a certain result (food poisoning) more than another thing. Because if eating poorly stored clams has odds that the results will change (there is a chance you might not get sick), then (the most likely thing will not happen), no matter the odds. Thats my personal observation.
quote:
You cannot predict the odds of certain things, and comparing what I'm saying to jumping off a bridge, is like comparing a spec to the universe.
But I CAN predict with very high accuracy that your skull would be very likely to hit the pavement and be crushed, killing you, if you were to dive headfirst off of a highway overpass.
YOU are the one claiming that:
I can't see justifying believeing in something because it is more likely to produce a certain result more than another thing.
All we have to do is plug my scenario into your statement to see how absurd it is:
If you don't believe that jumping headfirst off of a highway overpass is more likely to produce the result of your death through the crushing of your skull than you floating, unharmed, to the ground, then you are holding a foolish, outrageous belief.
If you think I have misinterpreted your reasoning, please explain how.
quote:
Be real, say something relevant. Your trying to make science look good by comparing the odds of jumping off a bridge with the odds of something catacylismic happening to the earth,
Nope, I'm not comparing any such thing.
I am taking your statement to it's logical conclusion.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-01-2004 08:55 PM
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-01-2004 09:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by riVeRraT, posted 09-01-2004 8:54 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by riVeRraT, posted 09-02-2004 8:51 AM nator has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 72 of 216 (138982)
09-01-2004 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by riVeRraT
09-01-2004 9:05 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
So your telling me a mass that wieghs 194,090,000,000,000,000 metric tons (1/4 the mass of the moon) traveling at 27miles per second couldn't effect our rotation if hit in the right spot?
So just how big would that object really be?
You see, this is just like the nonsense about the gamma ray bursts. Let's really stop and look at this example because the numbers really seem big.
I'm going to try to walk you through this so you can understand why we differentiate between faith and confidence.
The Earth has a mass of about 5,974,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons.
If we take your object, 194,090,000,000,000,000, how big is it in relation to the Earth?
Well, we can simplify it by dividing both sides by 1,000,000,000,000 and that gives us 194,090 / 5,974,200,000,000 0r .00000003 something.
That is .000003% or 3 millionth of one percent of the mass of the Earth.
And that is the difference. People show you the big numbers and they sound really impressive so you accept them on faith. But others actually do the numbers and so have confidence in what the result would be.
To go back to the gamma burst issue you raised earlier, if you imagine the known universe to be the size of the earth, the sphere of desolation you propose (and there is no evidence that there even would be such a sphere of desolation) would be about the size of a basketball.
Confidence vs. faith.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 09-01-2004 9:05 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by riVeRraT, posted 09-02-2004 12:11 AM jar has not replied
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 09-02-2004 12:16 PM jar has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 73 of 216 (139034)
09-02-2004 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
09-01-2004 10:48 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
EK=(v2)MV2
Also, you didn't even know how damaging a gamma ray burst was, or what's causing them,so how were you going to address my concerns over it?
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-01-2004 11:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 09-01-2004 10:48 PM jar has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 74 of 216 (139097)
09-02-2004 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
09-01-2004 9:52 PM


But I CAN predict with very high accuracy that your skull would be very likely to hit the pavement and be crushed, killing you, if you were to dive headfirst off of a highway overpass.
Which means.....Ta DA! Nothing.
You just don't get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 9:52 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 09-02-2004 9:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 75 of 216 (139098)
09-02-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
09-01-2004 9:41 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
Faith is a belief without testable evidence.
Thats a bunch of BS too. So your saying we belive in God totally on evidence that cannot be tested?
Or evidence that cannot be tested by the current scientific method?
Science in designed to not include the supernatural, but some scientist keep trying to find it, so at least some think its there, and can be tested.
It to me is amazing what people will reason away. Sometimes it's right there in front of your face, yet you still deny it.
Confidence is based on observed, testable evidence.
Evolution is not completely testable, yet you believe in it.
Look everyone, I'm not saying its good or bad to put faith believing that your skull will get crushed should you jump off a bridge or whatever. What I'm saying is that it all requires an element of faith.
Why won't you admit it? Why get so defensive?
I believe in many scientific theories, but I realize that there is faith involved.
Then also the majority of the public who are scientifically illiterate and don't actually go out and test all these scientific theories themselves, are believing not only in science by faith, but the scientists who tell them that these things are true. Tell me thats not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 09-01-2004 9:41 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by happy_atheist, posted 09-02-2004 11:34 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024