The God Theory

Also if you flip a coin once, the chances of it landing on heads is?
[/quote]
The fact that you’re still trying to defend this concept betrays the fact that you must have been lying in your other thread when you said you were aware that that’s not how it works.

Do you think that in any case where there are two options, each one has a 50% chance of being true? Is that what you think or not?

Neither*

There is a 0-99% chance for everything. For the same reason there is no chance for anything.

But to add outside forces; If you created a flawless machine to flip a coin the same way each time, and the same exact environment (Strength of flip, distance, and surface.) each flip. The same thing will happen every time. Can you imagine a 99.99% chance of a coin landing on heads every time? I’ve seen it.

The reason there is chance is because of human error and the chance for human error is equivalent to 50%. Either something will or happen, or something else will.
So please forgive me if I’m not using textbook settings because I no longer believe in the textbook experiments. I know that things can be forced and that all humans are faulty.

B

If you’ve actually seen chance, then…well, then you’re not speaking English. Chance isn’t visible, so I doubt you’ve seen it.

Now, if what you actually mean is that you’ve flipped, or seen someone, flip a coin 10,000 times in a row and 9999 of those times, it landed on heads, I have three things to say:

  1. the coin was most definitely fixed
  2. you just provided an example of why there being two options doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a 50/50 chance, so good job debunking yourself
  3. why did you watch someone flip a coin 10,000 times in a row?
  1. The coin was fixed into an environment of exact same intentions. I said that. (You are trying to say cheating?)
  2. I proved “your” example, mostly to show you how fixed on a textbook you are.
  3. I didn’t say I watched every flip, or watched “Someone” flip a coin to began with. Again another sign of your deduction skills. But I have seen it? (What is it? The outcome, not particularly the experiment.)

You need to be shown something impossible to began to accept it. The best way to see it is to show yourself.

Also Flannel, You must understand that nothing has happened yet. “Nothing”. The chance for something to happen is 50%. Why? Because nothing and something are going to happen either way. There is no 0%.

i’m sure that sounded very wise to you when you typed it. it doesn’t mean anything to anybody else though.

nm. oops.

I’m sure you feel the same. Again, good fight.

(I really hate to get off tropic though, and I’m not sure if anyone in this time is ready to accept somethings, due to the cage on their minds.)

How does one observe this?

First I would like to point out how inaccurate it is to use numeric values in any discussion of God because they are finit units by definition. The real problem though is that you assume there are no answers to you questions merging on yet another finite oint that could never contain any concept of God but monotheism.

Lack of evidence but the insecurity for the need to believe.

How can there be intellligent discussion if you presume to know not only my mind but my emotions. Respecting that someone else is capable of seeing things from a perspective other than your own limitations is a prerequisite for debate.

I would also like to point how inaccurate they’re numeric value’s are also, but I think I have.
There is always an answer to my questions, and there are always questions to my answers.

You’re only as intelligent as the man next to you, and the same applies to his emotions but not his mind.

It currently is…

Tork I just want to say that you must be a very gifted individual to have had the insight of yours represented by that equation. I agree wholeheartedly with the concept you express but it only came to me in a book I recently read. In that book the author describes how we either by nature or by being taught always try and digress our reasoning to a central point as you describe. In algebra we always try and reduce and equation to balance it in its smallest form at the equal sign. The author shows that in more complex calculus we try and digress as close as we can to the Bernoulli limitation of zero. The big question he asks is why is zero limited? He goes on to state that zero is limited because it is the inner limit to our reasoning that keeps us from seeing beyond a dimensional universe. He states that zero is limited from us because even though it occupies a place in the number line it does not really exist. It is the center of all dimensional thinking where in becomes out but that is only our limitation. He calls zero the residence of chaos energy because it is the source of reaoning and therefor contains all that exists and yet is so far beyond our awareness that for us it does not exist.

What is the name of the book/author?

This is perfect… Very good, Thanks.

Torx the name of the book is "My Heart is on the Left Side’.

Within yourself?

No but as someone who once possessed religion, I did finally notice that the feel good factors out weighed the logic of the thing in the long run. I do tend to agree that people use religion as a crutch, so as to spare them from the toils of their life. Some chose drugs some chose legal ones, some chose religion (which can no doubt be a very socially rewarding experience to some), some chose running, or vigorous exercise to cheer themselves up. I’m not aversed to any of them per se, but religion as has often been opined is not better than the alternatives.

“Alcohol is a very necessary article… It makes life bearable to millions of people who could not endure their existence if they were quite sober. It enables Parliament to do things at eleven at night that no sane person would do at eleven in the morning.”

George Bernard Shaw.

The same could be said of any crutch though, and even though he was a teetotaller he had a point.

If I may interject, feeling good about religion or religious insights is not a bad thing or disqualify them from anlaysis. However neither does it prove anything to be real or true. Our senses are our most reflexive kind of reasoning, at least if you are in touch with them. Feel good is subconscious reasoning. It is reflexive and fast and therefor easily susceptible to illusion. However feelings can sometimes be more reliable than our conscious minds because our conscious minds have learned all sorts of prejudices that may be completely untrue. Fellings are just another source of data to consider, and neglecting them can be very unhealthy. In regards to your comments on alcohol I would just like to say that you almost directly quote the book of Sirach in the bible. It states that God created alcohol to give man relief from his daily burden. Funny how that book of the bible didn’t get included in any post reformation protestant bibles.