God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

Dr. Hector Zenil (the atheist that Tour is talking with in that second video) is discussing the probability of randomly generating the digits of pi vs the probability of randomly generating an algorithm (e.g. source code) that generates pi and how that probability of the latter is much higher than the random digits - this is very interesting...
 
Dr. Hector Zenil (the atheist that Tour is talking with in that second video) is discussing the probability of randomly generating the digits of pi vs the probability of randomly generating an algorithm (e.g. source code) that generates pi and how that probability of the latter is much higher than the random digits - this is very interesting...
Of course.

Do you know about Madhava of Sangramagama?

He found the series solution for Pi about 100 years before the Western world.
 
You "believe" that God exists. You have no evidence to support your belief,
You talk pure nonsense. There is abundant evidence of many kinds. You choose to ignore all of it. That is unscientific and anti-intellectual, no matter how much you bat your gums.

My understanding of the physical world does the same for me. I am a pure agnostic. That means that while I know that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, I also realize that there is no evidence that a god DOES NOT exist.

ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.
Eighty-five percent of Nobel Laureates in the 20th century were Christians and Jews NOT atheists. They know science like you pretend to .





So named to attract atheists and agnostics like you, where all your nonsense is refuted and destroyed by analysis, science, history, archaeology, and common sense.

__________________________________________
 
Of course.

Do you know about Madhava of Sangramagama?

He found the series solution for Pi about 100 years before the Western world.
No, actually not heard of him, very interesting, thanks.

It would be interesting to use a functional language rather than an imperative language as the target for the randomly generated algorithm, although perhaps generating mathematical expressions in their pure form is even better.
 
No, actually not heard of him, very interesting, thanks.

It would be interesting to use a functional language rather than an imperative language as the target for the randomly generated algorithm, although perhaps generating mathematical expressions in their pure form is even better.
Are you familiar with Terraform?
 
Eighty-five percent of Nobel Laureates in the 20th century were Christians and Jews NOT atheists. They know science like you pretend to .






__________________________________________
You have no IDEA of any rules.

7. Were 85% of the Nobel Laureates in the 20th Century Christians and Jews, rather than atheists,


...The overwhelming Majority of Nobel Laureates in science are of Judeo-Christian faith.
They believe in God. "
Which God"? Nature's God, as He is called in our Declaration of
Independence. Leftists, atheists and agnostics think they're smarter than Nobel Laureates
in sciences? What hubris. What unbelievable arrogance and pride. And the Bible says
pride goeth before a fall.

Judeo-Christians aren't "holier" than atheists and agnostics. We don't hold ourselves to be
supremely intelligent, as they do. God forgives us our sins. Good acts don't get anyone into heaven.

The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell would be great reading for
Leftists/atheists/agnostics. So would watching A Matter of Gravity by Professor John Len
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

1710377154580.png


`
 
You talk pure nonsense. There is abundant evidence of many kinds. You choose to ignore all of it. That is unscientific and anti-intellectual, no matter how much you bat your gums.


Eighty-five percent of Nobel Laureates in the 20th century were Christians and Jews NOT atheists. They know science like you pretend to .





So named to attract atheists and agnostics like you, where all your nonsense is refuted and destroyed by analysis, science, history, archaeology, and common sense.

__________________________________________
If there is evidence, present it.

Appeals to authority, which you resorted to with your 85% factors are logic fails, thus are discounted out of hand.
 
So you believe it can be understood, see? it's ever present, there is no way to pursues science without holding some kind of unproven assumption, a belief, no escaping it.

There's the belief that nature is causal.

Only if you believe that every experiment under the same conditions will always yield the same results. That's why people say that science relies on inductive reasoning, it declares a belief that if I some experiment I will get some result, but until one does that experiment one doesn't know they will get that result they only believe they will.
No. I KNOW it can be understood. All I need to do is figure out the mechanism to do so.

No faith involved.
 
No. I KNOW it can be understood. All I need to do is figure out the mechanism to do so.

No faith involved.
Then you are either naive or disingenuous sir.

Suppose you did figure out the mechanism for something - call that a hypothesis, an explanation or even theory if you want.

What characteristics does an explanation have? Well it will always, unavoidably, have to state one or more assumptions, perhaps laws like conservation of mass or something like that.

Well in physics (every physicist knows this) laws are understood to be assumptions, things we have confidence in because of past successes in explaining things but not proven as always unquestionably true.

People for example assumed Newton's inverse law was true, they might have said they "Know" its true, or perhaps they "knew" that light is unaffected by gravitation and so on.

But we know from history that such assumptions, things people "knew" to be true like that were in fact not true.

So why do you believe that things you "Know" to be true are any truer than those things?
 
Last edited:
Then you are either naive or disingenuous sir.

Suppose you did figure out the mechanism for something - call that a hypothesis, an explanation or even theory if you want.

What characteristics does an explanation have? Well it will always, unavoidably, have to state one or more assumptions, perhaps laws like conservation of mass or something like that.

Well in physics (every physicist knows this) laws are understood to be assumptions, things we have confidence in because of past successes in explaining things but not proven as always unquestionably true.

People for example assumed Newton's inverse law was true, they might have said they "Know" its true, or perhaps they "knew" that light is unaffected by gravitation and so on.

But we know from history that such assumptions, things people "knew" to be true like that were in fact not true.

So why do you believe that things you "Know" to be true are any truer than those things?
If I see something happen I don't need to "believe" it. I WITNESSED it. Thus my question for understanding is rooted in the material world.

Cause and effect rule the day. Physical Laws are not assumptions. But, as a scientist I understand that if improved instruments come along, that allow us to understand a physical law at an even deeper level, then those laws can change, if however slightly.

Newtonian physics is still able to describe 98% of the physical world. For the remaining 1.5% we have Einsteinian physics, and an improvement on that is the Feynman Constant, and most certainly there will be some new genius come along who will open a new door to something even greater.

All grounded in the material world.

No belief system needed. Just hard work.
 
That's nice. Yet another Appeal to Authority.

How about presenting some evidence.
You have already rejected ALL EVIDENCE. It is useless to present any more.
Evil rejects truth. I am tired of reading your nonsense. Join the scores of others on my IGNORE LIST.
ciao brutto
______________________
 
You have already rejected ALL EVIDENCE. It is useless to present any more.
Evil rejects truth. I am tired of reading your nonsense. Join the scores of others on my IGNORE LIST.
ciao brutto
______________________
You have presented none.

Instead you give me Appeals to Authority and screaming.

I am respecting your viewpoint. I'm not demanding you adopt my views.

I AM asking you to back up your assertion that evidence for God's existence is everywhere.

So produce some.
 
I hope you don't write scientific papers that rely on that kind of reasoning.

I calls em like I sees em.

I happen to know a little about math. I'm blessed that way. Unlike some here.

Because of an education and a brain and a good nose, I can spot a charlatan a mile away.

You are inquisitive, Chem Engineer is not. He's a pompous arrogant charlatan.

Think about it. The mere idea that any puny human being could claim to know how God operates is ludicrous.

Elementary combinatorics tells us that if you're building an alphabet with 26 letters, you ADD the probabilities of singlets, doublets, triplets, and so on. You don't multiply, you add. Any college kid with a half a chemistry degree should know that. After all, it's fundamental for everything from particle-in-a-box to Boltzmann's entropy.

If you're selecting three letters in alphabetical order from an alphabet of 26, the formula is 26! / (26-3)! You can Google for it, there are hundreds upon thousands of web sites about math. You can even do it manually by writing out every alphabetic sequence, you'll come up with the same answer. You can even do it a different way and you'll still come up with the same answer.

You DON'T multiply 1/26;to the 26th power, that's the wrong answer.

Calculating probability requires you take ALL possible paths into account. Just like Feynman integrals, same principle.

Nature does NOT build long proteins one amino acid at a time. It builds short segments, then it puts the segments together. That's why you see a lot of repeating sections. The helical sections of proteins usually contain lots of repeating segments, because that's how shapes are built. It's rare to find a proline or a tryptophan, and when you do it means something special

Email Tour then loudmouth, and share the correspondence with us, he can be easily reached:

Yes, I'm a loudmouth on this point and will continue to be so, because it's important to shout down the charlatans. Because the stupid bastards are loud, they're dumb and they're loud and that's a bad combination. We need to be responsible to the children and give them good information, otherwise they'll just laugh at us. You don't teach a child bad math, that's a Bozo no-no. If a kid asks you to explain something and you don't know the answer, you say "I don't know" and point him to the library. Like they say, better to be thought an ignorant fool rather than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Scruffy doesn't like fools. He growls at them. And if they growl back he bares his fangs. And if that doesn't work he likes to sink his teeth into a big dog's legs because they're usually top heavy. He likes the sound they make when they fall over
 
No. I KNOW it can be understood. All I need to do is figure out the mechanism to do so.

No faith involved.
lol

:)

When you flip the light switch you have faith that the light will turn on. :p

Because it "usually does".
 
lol

:)

When you flip the light switch you have faith that the light will turn on. :p

Because it "usually does".
No, I have knowledge that absent a problem, it will.
 
No, I have knowledge that absent a problem, it will.
So you have faith in the electric company?

What will happen if the power goes out for 3 days?

Won't that shake your faith in the availability of the light?

How will you handle it? Will you scratch your head or will you get mad?
 
So you have faith in the electric company?

What will happen if the power goes out for 3 days?

Won't that shake your faith in the availability of the light?

How will you handle it? Will you scratch your head or will you get mad?
No, there is no faith involved. If, for whatever reason the grid fails, my generator will kick on, and the light will turn on.

Simple.

No faith in anyone, or anything. A simple knowledge that electrons flow from point A to point B, absent a problem.

If a problem occurs, the origin of point A changes.

That's all.
 
Back
Top Bottom