A Different Kind of Blog

news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

What would you do?

Posted by kayms99 on February 20, 2009

monty-hallSuppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, “Do you want to pick door #2?” Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?

Advertisements

65 Responses to “What would you do?”

  1. Lawman2 said

    i don’t know, i’ve had some nice cars before, but i’ve never had a goat…

    Like

  2. Lawman2 said

    does this goat give milk?

    Like

  3. SewDucky said

    Actually, statistically, you’re better off staying with your door.

    And if it’s a goat, you then don’t have to mow the lawn.

    Like

  4. Lawman2 said

    i pay a kid down the road to mow the lawn,he will be so disappointed when i tell him “kid,don’t know who to tell you this,but you’ve just been replaced.”

    Like

  5. Lawman2 said

    how…lol

    Like

  6. tothewire said

    If you know there is either another goat or a car what would you have to lose? You might get another goat, or you might get a car!

    Like

  7. kay~ms said

    Lawman… aren’t you going to answer? Come on everybody…

    Like

  8. Lawman2 said

    you like monty hall kay?

    Like

  9. Lawman2 said

    initially, there’s one chance in three (probability 1/3) that the contestant chose the right door, and two chances in three (probability 2/3) that they didn’t.whatever the contestant chose, the host can open a door with a goat behind it, so the fact that the host did this does not affect those probabilities.so the contestant can stick with the original choice (door 1),and they’ll still have a probability of 1/3 of winning the car.or they can change and say that the car is behind one of doors 2 and 3.what the host’s action has told them, that the contestant did not know before, is which of the remaining doors might have the car behind it.it can’t be behind door 3 now, because that has a goat. So the 2/3 probability of getting the car, that originally applied to doors 2 and 3 taken together, now applies just to door 2,and the contestant should switch.

    Like

  10. Lawman2 said

    hey nobody answered my question “DOES THE GOAT GIVE MILK?”

    Like

  11. tothewire said

    Too funny! I was thinking: if you switch, you will have two chances in three of winning the car (that is, a probability of 2/3 of winning), but if you stick with your original choice, you’ll only have one chance in three of winning (that is, a probability of 1/3). In other words, if you switch, you still might not win, but you’ve improved your chances.

    Like

  12. Lawman2 said

    @ tothewire:
    suppose that instead of three doors there are 100 doors, with 99 goats but still only one car.you pick a door. your chances of winning the car are very small, just 1 in 100.the host generously opens 98 of the doors you didn’t pick,every one wit a goat behind it.this leaves two doors still closed,your original choice and one other. NOW should you switch?

    Like

  13. kay~ms said

    Yes, you guys are right… Lawman, you didn’t research that before you answered did you??

    Like

  14. Lawman2 said

    of course

    Like

  15. tothewire said

    He has a Master of Science in Mathematics.

    He pretends to be more of a caveman than he really is.

    I know he tries to write on an 8th grade level (or less) he says it is to appeal to the masses.

    Like

  16. Lawman2 said

    honey you’re messin’ with my mo jo AGAIN! don’t do me like that baby!

    Like

  17. tothewire said

    I don’t even know how many degrees he holds for sure! I can say with certainty that does give him an edge!

    Like

  18. Lawman2 said

    DOES THE GOAT GIVE MILK? you know that might make a difference in the calculations! lol

    Like

  19. kay~ms said

    Ok.. so now can you answer my space question??…. where or how does space end? and while we are at it… where did the first particle / matter come from… you said it came from energy that always is and was, under the ‘right’ conditions… could you elaborate?? And if no one ever asked how or why, we would never progress right?

    You said that “I’ve lost so much ground”… could you elaborte?… I don’t believe you… I think I’ve reasoned pretty darn well that God does exist or at the very least, there is a reasonable possibility that He does exist, YOU JUST DON’T WANT TO ADMIT IT!!… I’m not giving up yet ;o).. I’ll be back later to see if you have answered…

    Like

  20. Lawman2 said

    does one crown and another make 2? does the goat come with milk? what if one crown is broken? what if one crown is a different color? how many elephants does it take to equal 2?what time is it anyhow?can you speak anything in to existence?what if both crowns are broken?

    Like

  21. Lawman2 said

    DOES THE GOAT GIVE MILK?

    Like

  22. Lawman2 said

    actually,kay math is on my side not yours when it comes to the probability of god

    Like

  23. Lawman2 said

    instead of my elaborating why don’t you invest in a few books?i can suggest some if you are really interested…

    Like

  24. Let’s not start this up again. 8th grade? He wishes…..:)

    Like

  25. kay~ms said

    Lawman said: can you speak anything in to existence?

    I’ll respond to that with this question… can you get something from NOTHING??

    And it’s much more probable and logical that all of existence, which fits PERFECTLY into place, was NOT by chance… logic and probability are on God’s side. You say it’s ‘ludacris’ or whatever that there are people who still believe in God and the Bible in this day and age, well… you can’t come up with an alternative theory that makes sense… can you?… NO!

    Convince me that I should be interested in reading any of your books…. you could if you could just answer my question… I’ll put it this way now…. how can you get something from nothing???

    And WHY would anyone not want to discuss this subject?? There is no greater mystery or question out there… for an Atheist anyway…

    Like

  26. Lawman2 said

    sadly i have to agree with betty.my grammar sucks! the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language only confuse the ol’ caveman!

    Like

  27. kay~ms said

    Wow… look how easy it is to shut up the Atheists…

    Like

  28. Lawman2 said

    yep, you sure told us! you go girl! hands down! hands up! would you like me to roll over so you can smell my balls? hehehe
    wow! you could write a post “how to shut an atheist up”

    “Creationists make it sound like a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” – Isaac Asamov

    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
    — Stephen Roberts

    Philosophy”Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.”
    — unknown

    “The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers.”
    — Denis Diderot

    Intelligence”As people become more intelligent they care less for preaches and more for teachers” – Robert G. Ingersoll

    “The world holds two classes of men – intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.”
    — Abu Ala Al-Ma’arri

    “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.”
    — Chapman Cohen

    Faith”Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.” – Mark Twain

    “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” – Benjamin Franklin

    You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.
    –[from Usenet]

    you have a lot of atheist to shut up so you better start on that post of yours…

    Like

  29. kay~ms said

    uh oh…caveman’s gettin mad…

    And I HAVE shut them up! With the question that you (and they) CAN’T answer!! Those quotes nicely display the arrogance and IGNORANCE of the ‘intellectual’ Atheists… And you want to include yourself in this group?

    “Creationists make it sound like a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” – Isaac Asamov
    Our existance is like something that someone dreamt up… IT’S NOT LOGICAL FOR US TO BE HERE!! Ignoranct Ass (Isaac ASS-amov)

    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
    – Stephen Roberts

    I understand why I dismiss all the other possible gods…they are false gods…it does not explain why you dismiss Him. I contend that you are arrogant, ignorant and full of pride.

    Philosophy”Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.”
    – unknown

    WRONG! It is ok for Christians to question…

    “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.”
    – Chapman Cohen

    Another ignorant ass… still waiting for that science…

    The world holds two classes of men – intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.”
    – Abu Ala Al-Ma’arri

    ok Abu…put that ‘intellegence’ into action and tell me how existance came to be… idiot..

    These men are / were unable to accept that they are not in control… it’s that simple…

    And very sad…

    Like

  30. kay~ms said

    “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” – Benjamin Franklin

    REASON?? What reason??? It’s not reasonable for us to be here!! this is ignorance!!

    Like

  31. mmmm. Some rather queasy crusader style triumphalism: not very attractive, Kay.Let’s try a different tack. One specific thing at a time. Do you agree that the universe is expanding? If not,why not?

    Like

  32. kay~ms said

    How can men who are supposed to be so intellegent be so closed minded?? It just proves that they are not as intellegent as they think they are… the ultimate irony…

    Like

  33. So is that a yes or a no?

    Like

  34. kay~ms said

    Without having done any research… at this point, yes, it does make sense that the universe is expanding…

    Like

  35. So do you agree that it must have expanded from something smaller and that if you follow this expansion backwards you arrive at a point where it was unbelievably small?

    Like

  36. kay~ms said

    yes, you’re talking about the singularity theory right?

    Like

  37. kay~ms said

    Well?… are you stumped already?

    Like

  38. Sorry: I have a mortal life with mortal tasks: I have to take my daughter to her friend’s house so that they can go and buy smiggle together, and she insisted on having a birthday party for her giant bear Umbo first. Ok? I will converse at my own space if you don’t mind, you big evangelical termagant, you.
    This is where we are up to: there was indeed a big bang.

    Like

  39. Lawman2 said

    lol betty!

    Like

  40. kay~ms said

    You guys are so funny… ok…so what components were used to make the ‘big bang’?… it makes me laugh just to say it (type it).

    Like

  41. kay~ms said

    really, again.. if you can’t defend your view then maybe it’s time to reconsider your view… I’m just sayin…

    Like

  42. Lawman2 said

    why is it kay the only time you comment is when you want to wage war?

    Like

  43. Lawman2 said

    nothing good to say on other post, just to wage war. you make christianity leave not only a bad taste in my mouth but a bitter one at that!

    Like

  44. Lawman2 said

    don’t misunderstand i like the entertainment value. but really don’t you ever just want to post a comment about other things?

    Like

  45. Lawman2 said

    it’s like you fixate on one post at a time and only want to argue!

    if you really want to know the answers to your questions why not research them? why should you expect us to keep explaining things you really don’t care to read?

    Like

  46. Lawman2 said

    by the way does the goat give milk or not? lol

    Like

  47. Lawman2 said

    you know what you call a goat that doesn’t give milk? an utter failure!

    Like

  48. Lawman2 said

    Adam was returning home late one night in Eden after drinking with the dodo and the unicorn.

    Eve got angry and yelled at him, “ARE YOU SEEING ANOTHER WOMAN?”

    Adam responded, “Don’t be silly, darling. You’re the only woman on Earth,” kissed her goodnight, and went to sleep.

    Later that night, Adam woke up feeling a tickle in his chest and saw it was Eve.

    “What the heck are you doing?” he asked.

    She replied, “I’m counting your ribs!”

    Like

  49. Lawman2 said

    betty i enjoyed your new post http://bettyslocombe.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/the-news-just-keeps-getting-better/

    i liked the last part of one of the comments left by a reader:
    Evidently, the bishop believes there’s enough proof that 2,000 years ago a man rose from the dead, but not enough proof that 60 years ago the Nazis were pretty bad.”
    -Stephen Colbert

    Like

  50. kay~ms said

    It’s not me that’s “waging war” …. I’m just stating my view… it’s the people who don’t agree with me who turn it into a war… which is fine… I am glad to be a warrior for Christ.

    One thing I’ve definitely learned here is that there are some who cannot handle it when others have a different view than them. Pro Choicers especially.

    It would just be nice if sometimes you and others could just admit it when someone else has a point…

    And of course, ultimately, to have an open mind towards God.

    Like

  51. kay~ms said

    you said: it’s like you fixate on one post at a time and only want to argue!

    It’s true… I just don’t always seem to be in the mood for small talk… I like to debate important issues.

    if you really want to know the answers to your questions why not research them? why should you expect us to keep explaining things you really don’t care to read?

    I have read what you’ve been posting.. but it’s not answering my question… I’m just asking how you arrive at the view that you do… because you keep telling me that mine is wrong… I’m just trying to debate the subject… and in the process I get ALL KINDS of accusations thrown at me… doesn’t anyone understand the concept of debating??

    Like

  52. kay~ms said

    I DON’T CARE IF THE GOAT GIVES MILK!! Unless it gives chocolate milk… I love chocolate milk!

    There, how’s that… now ANSWER MY QUESTION!!

    Like

  53. Well I’ve said that God may exist or not, so that’s as open a mind as you can have on that topic I would have thought.

    Anyway to continue: what happened before the big bang? Can you get something from nothing? There’s no way round it, Kay, this is complicated stuff, and it’s pretty difficult to get your head around. We aren’t trying to bamboozle you: it involves concepts that one has to think about a lot to come to terms with. There isn’t any other path to understanding this topic.
    Anyway as Paul Davies says:
    “Few schoolchildren have failed to frustrate their parents with questions of this sort. It often starts with puzzlement over whether space “goes on forever,” or where humans came from, or how the planet Earth formed. In the end, the line of questioning always seems to get back to the ultimate origin of things: the big bang. “But what caused that?”
    This simple, schoolchild query has exercised the intellects of generations of philosophers, scientists, and theologians. Many have avoided it as an impenetrable mystery. Others have tried to define it away. Most have got themselves into an awful tangle just thinking about it.
    The problem, at rock bottom, is this: If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress. Some people simply proclaim that God created the universe, but children always want to know who created God, and that line of questioning gets uncomfortably difficult.

    So we are faced with the problem of what happened beforehand to trigger the big bang. Journalists love to taunt scientists with this question when they complain about the money being spent on science. Actually, the answer (in my opinion) was spotted a long time ago, by one Augustine of Hippo, a Christian saint who lived in the fifth century. In those days before science, cosmology was a branch of theology, and the taunt came not from journalists, but from pagans: “What was God doing before he made the universe?” they asked. “Busy creating Hell for the likes of you!” was the standard reply.

    But Augustine was more subtle. The world, he claimed, was made “not in time, but simultaneously with time.” In other words, the origin of the universe-what we now call the big bang-was not simply the sudden appearance of matter in an eternally preexisting void, but the coming into being of time itself. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no “before,” no endless ocean of time for a god, or a physical process, to wear itself out in infinite preparation.
    If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless. Unfortunately, many children, and adults, too, regard this answer as disingenuous. There must be more to it than that, they object.

    Indeed there is. After all, why should time suddenly “switch on”? What explanation can be given for such a singular event? Until recently, it seemed that any explanation of the initial “singularity” that marked the origin of time would have to lie beyond the scope of science. However, it all depends on what is meant by “explanation.” As I remarked, all children have a good idea of the notion of cause and effect, and usually an explanation of an event entails finding something that caused it. It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics.

    Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don’t experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

    A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event “just happened” at that moment, that’s all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.

    The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that “just happens” need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
    It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.”

    (Paul Davies: who is a theoretical physicist and professor of natural philosophy at the University of Adelaide. He has published over one hundred research papers in the fields of cosmology, gravitation, and quantum field theory, with particular emphasis on black holes and the origin of the universe)

    I am not ‘raising the bar’.The bar is high in and of itself.

    Like

  54. SewDucky said

    This is why when I get asked about God and the creation of the universe, I reply “42.” Then when I get asked “Uh, what?” I say “Cosmic spiders created it” and walk away.

    Whether I believe it or not is moot, why argue about it? Believe in the big bang theory, and it makes you happy, no harm no foul. Same thing with God. Same thing with my cosmic spiders too.

    The kidlet once asked me how the Universe was made. I replied with a box of crayons, a pin and a sheet of construction paper. Then I showed him a You Tube video of the Star Trek opening and how they did it. (Unfortunately, the kidlet doesn’t have a sense of humor, and while I did answer the question before with a “real” answer, he didn’t find me funny.)

    And I can, indeed, defend my position on cosmic spiders. It’s an old myth about the weavers creating life, the universe and your fate. While the Sisters weren’t spiders, in my head when I heard this when I was something like 5, I correlated them to spiders and hence when they came from. And you can’t prove to me there isn’t cosmic spiders out there.

    As to debate, I understand the concept perfectly. To debate, both parties must be open minded enough to grasp both the pro and con side. In this case, big bang and God. My belief is irrelevant to debating it. Which side do you want me to take? The universe isn’t made up of nothing, it’s made up of a lot of somethings. Then you have God. But wait…there’s a third thing here: What if God created all the little somethings to make a big bang and they both are right? Or that god took a pin, a piece of cardboard and stellar crayons and did it, and then threw a fit and this is really a Heavenly Trashcan. (Although I personally like my spiders. It’s just more fun. Or 42, because it’s always the answer to life, the universe and everything.)

    Beliefs become weird. You can prove some of anything, but not all of it because you have one thing inserted that science doesn’t account for: faith.

    Like

  55. So long and thanks for all the fish.

    Like

  56. kay~ms said

    Well, for starters… you’ve gone from calling our Creator “it” to God (with a capital g) and claiming that you have an open mind towards Him… I am glad for that.

    2. you’ve implied that I don’t understand the complexity of our existance… but that has been exactly my point… our existance is TOO complicated for our limited minds to comprehend. Our minds are finite… existance is infinite… NOT logical to us…

    That’s why it is so comical to see man try and come up with these ridiculous theories… including Davies’… which I will now debunk as best I can without the schooling and matched intellect and ironically which I will do!

    Once AGAIN… an Atheist has presented a theory to answer this “child like” question of how the first matter came to be… and once AGAIN, simply put, the ‘answer’ uses existing matter in creating the ‘first’ matter…

    Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.”

    Uh.. not by his/this theory…

    Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don’t experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

    things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason.

    This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.

    These statements imply that we ‘know’ all there is to know… really? In this primitive day and age?

    And isn’t that the fundamental argument of the difference between God and Science? That science insists that everything can be explained? Yet they have come full circle and claimed that some things don’t have any scientific reason behind them… how convenient.. and hypocritical…

    But specifically… Davies’loophole’ theory isn’t legitimate…

    But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.”

    HELLO… the ‘loophole’, the mysterious appearances and disappearances of particles ” for no particular reason” … are happening inside an already existing state!!

    The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that “just happens” need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

    Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

    NATURE!! The already existing state!!! Where is the “loophole” ???

    Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

    Yes, in an ALREADY EXISTING STATE!

    The statement that some things happen for no reason whatsoever is just another ‘wet dream’ to allow men to ignore the Truth… it’s wishfull thinking, it’s what they want to see. It’s stubborn, desparate and ignorant reaching…

    Davies’ theory has loopholes…

    again If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.”

    This is describing, once again, the process of existance.. not the birth of existance…

    Once again, this does not expain how the first matter came to be…

    And I also want to point out the arrogant need of the self proclaimed intellectuals to equate this ultimate question with a child’s curiosity… while at the same time spending their careers trying to ‘solve’ this question… this egotistical arrogance doesn’t go unnoticed.

    Like

  57. Well I am offering you a courtesy there, because the concept is the same whether it is called ‘it’ or ‘God’ or ‘Allah’ or’Jahweh’ or ‘Shiva’ or whatever.

    “And isn’t that the fundamental argument of the difference between God and Science? That science insists that everything can be explained? Yet they have come full circle and claimed that some things don’t have any scientific reason behind them… how convenient.. and hypocritical…”

    What they have done is conduct experiments which have revealed new things to them which has caused them to alter their ideas accordingly: that’s hardly hypocrisy, is it?
    What he’s saying, I think, is that since we can see that things happen for no reason on a quantum level now, the universe may have originated in such a way with the first quantum event, from nothing.
    As he says” we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.” That’s the birth of existence isn’t it?

    Anyway God is supposed to be outside of existence, so presumably he could have caused this ‘event’ if you like. How powerful is that, to make something out of nothing? I don’t see why the belief in God can’t subsume any discoveries or theories science makes and adapt accordingly. The Jesuits do it!

    One further question: Where did God come from? If he just popped into existence why couldn’t the universe?

    Science is the result of child like curiosity, childishly saying: ‘Are you sure the sun goes round the earth? Supposing it’s the other way round? ‘ and so on. Perhaps it’s the fact that the people who asked questions like that tended to get burnt at the stake that has made science a little wary of religion.
    It’s almost impossible to imagine a less egotistical arrogant person than Paul Davies, in fact,and nor is he a ‘self proclaimed intellectual’.I could call you a ‘self proclaimed Christian’ but that wouldn’t be very useful would it?

    He is trying to work out what might have happened: so are you. The idea of God is just as inexplicable/unbelievable as the idea of quantum universes, unless you sweep aside all the questions and say ‘We can’t know the mind of God’ or ‘He just did it’ So what I would say is that it is impossible to choose between the two concepts on a rational basis.

    There are two kinds of people ( I think I said this before)
    1: Those can’t believe in god because it is not in their nature, so have to explain the world in terms of the world: often failing.
    2: Those who can’t NOT believe in god because it is not in their nature, so have to explain the world in terms of God: hardly ever failing.

    Don’t forget that originally everything about the world was explained in terms of god until it became clear that certain things happened as part of nature, and god retreated a bit: then a bit further; and so on. So it’s natural that this process has led us to this point at the very beginning of everything, and that type(1) people say ‘Well everything else turned out to be the result of natural events. Why shouldn’t this?’ They aren’t being arrogant or having a wet dream ( you seem very fond of that expression) but following the logic of the world, while the type(2) people are behind the walls of the Alamo melting down their saucepans to make buckshot…

    Like

  58. SewDucky said

    There are two kinds of people ( I think I said this before)
    1: Those can’t believe in god because it is not in their nature, so have to explain the world in terms of the world: often failing.
    2: Those who can’t NOT believe in god because it is not in their nature, so have to explain the world in terms of God: hardly ever failing.

    What about people like me that believe in a God, and believe he’s distant and not too involved (which is where free choice comes in) but also thinks things can be explained by science? While it’s sometimes a contraction to discuss it, it works fine in my own head.

    And while the above post I did was probably tossed off as being stupid or not serious, it really was only kind of tongue in cheek. I do believe the Big Bang happened, and I do believe lesser Gods made it possible. (I believe in polytheism, and while I make fun of the cosmic spiders, I wasn’t being wholly silly with it: I do believe there are Weavers in another dimension, and it is a really simplified version of that belief. Made growing up Catholic hard.) So while I believe in the creation theory, I also believe in the scientific one too.

    Like

  59. Hey ducky, if you grow up Catholic you’ve already done the hard yards: you believe what you want! Paradoxes are the best truths…..

    Like

  60. Lawman2 said

    personally, i like the spiders…

    Like

  61. kay~ms said

    Well.. I’ll take it ( the courtesy ) it’s much better than hearing someone refer to our Creator as “it”.

    “What they have done is conduct experiments which have revealed new things to them which has caused them to alter their ideas accordingly: that’s hardly hypocrisy, is it?”

    Yes, it is, if these people continue to claim there is no possibility of God’s existance.

    “What he’s saying, I think, is that since we can see that things happen for no reason on a quantum level now, the universe may have originated in such a way with the first quantum event, from nothing.”

    He’s making a huge unjustified leap…from things happening on a quantum level (in existance) to things happening from nothing (non existance). He’s reaching.. a lot… as are all scientists who try to come up with an explanation to this mystery.

    “As he says” we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.” That’s the birth of existence isn’t it?

    No, because he didn’t successfully reason that something could come from nothing.

    “I don’t see why the belief in God can’t subsume any discoveries or theories science makes and adapt accordingly.”

    I already addressed that by saying that I didn’t understand why the idea of evolution always seems to be an opposing theory to the existance of God.

    “One further question: Where did God come from? If he just popped into existence why couldn’t the universe?”

    Good point…from a scientific perspective… but that just supports / favors the idea of God … I’ll refer back to the beach theory.

    Christians don’t believe that God “popped” into existance.. the Bible states that God always existed.

    “Science is the result of child like curiosity, childishly saying: ‘Are you sure the sun goes round the earth? Supposing it’s the other way round? ‘ and so on. Perhaps it’s the fact that the people who asked questions like that tended to get burnt at the stake that has made science a little wary of religion.
    It’s almost impossible to imagine a less egotistical arrogant person than Paul Davies, in fact,and nor is he a ’self proclaimed intellectual’.I could call you a ’self proclaimed Christian’ but that wouldn’t be very useful would it?”

    Well, I just looked him up and see that he leans towards minimalistic Deism. so I take back what I said… you are right, I am too quick to critisize. At least he isn’t completely closed minded. I still believe that there is a lack of humility for those who cannot acknowledge God and show reverence for Him.

    “He is trying to work out what might have happened: so are you. The idea of God is just as inexplicable/unbelievable as the idea of quantum universes, unless you sweep aside all the questions and say ‘We can’t know the mind of God’ or ‘He just did it’ So what I would say is that it is impossible to choose between the two concepts on a rational basis.”

    Christians aren’t concerned so much with how God did it… I can say for myself that I believe that it is beyond human comprehension… a Christian’s concern is our purpose, why we are here, not how we came to be here. That might also describe the two different kinds of people.

    “Don’t forget that originally everything about the world was explained in terms of god until it became clear that certain things happened as part of nature, and god retreated a bit: then a bit further; and so on. So it’s natural that this process has led us to this point at the very beginning of everything, and that type(1) people say ‘Well everything else turned out to be the result of natural events. Why shouldn’t this?’”

    You are contradicting a point you made earlier… again, why is it that if it can be explained scientifically then that disproves God. This just supports my belief that people who choose to lean towards science, with God retreating further and further, are looking for a reason to ‘prove’ that God doesn’t exist…. there is no justifiable reason to dismiss God just because the science is discovered. Like I said before.. it’s like they believe that science would be too complicated for a Supreme Being.

    “They aren’t being arrogant or having a wet dream ( you seem very fond of that expression) but following the logic of the world,”

    Sorry about that… I couldn’t come up with a better description… their dream come true doesn’t quite do it… there is ego involved here…

    “following the logic of the world,”

    The logic of the world says we shouldn’t / couldn’t be here… again, they are choosing to be ignorant because it spares their egos.

    This IS arrogance… some people don’t want to believe that God exists because it would mean that they would have to humble themselves.. they would have to accept that they are not in control… very hard for some people to do. Especially true of the “intellegent” elite.

    Like

  62. Let’s call it a draw for now.

    Like

  63. I think that was a relatively useful and Socratic exchange. Well done us!

    Like

  64. Lawman2 said

    i enjoyed the hell out of it! well done!

    Like

  65. […] normally avoid all such imbroglios but these were quite fun: I waved the godless anarchist’s flag and charged like a Highlander at […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: