The odds of a Shakespearian sonnet

[Audie]

So, you thought of the Flood, and came up with three, not two, interpretations. This after accusing me of being too binary. This after saying, "The Bible can be made to say ANYTHING YOU WANT."

Your three-part example proves my point. That logic makes MANY things binary, not just the Bible.

Elsewhere, you asked me yesterday if the Bible is inerrant or not--a binary question.

So, you thought of the Flood, and came up with three, not two, interpretations. This after accusing me of being too binary. This after saying, "The Bible can be made to say ANYTHING YOU WANT."

Your three-part example proves my point. That logic makes MANY things binary, not just the Bible.

Elsewhere, you asked me yesterday if the Bible is inerrant or not--a binary question.

Non responsive

 

[BilliardsBall]

Blind faith is saying i believe without evidence

You need a god to tell you how to behave?

I have read 3 bibles cover to cover and fragments of several others, the contradictions, errors, genocide murder, theft, rape, slavery, subjugation and misogyny are easy to see if you don't selectively cherrypick.

How about you? Do you read the Bible or cherrypick from the bible?

And of course you have not answered my post, you have simply tried to move the goalposts, so I'll ask again...

Ok, please identify the relevant verses that explain why atheists object to christians interfering in their lives?

And why christians demand blind faith be given president over evidence and fact?

I don't know ANY born again Christians, not one, who insist on blind faith over evidence and fact. All the ones I know are interested, for example, in reading about evolution and cosmology, not just taking some contrary view solely because the Bible says so.

I've read the Bible more than 3 times and in multiple versions. I don't cherry pick, although naturally verses and passages I've memorized come to mind more often than others.

The verses re: atheist objections can be found in places like Romans 1, where it states at length that skeptics indulge in morally degenerate behavior and/or applaud others who are libertines, while finding the gospel offensive.

 

[Audie]

I don't know ANY born again Christians, not one, who insist on blind faith over evidence and fact. All the ones I know are interested, for example, in reading about evolution and cosmology, not just taking some contrary view solely because the Bible says so.

I've read the Bible more than 3 times and in multiple versions. I don't cherry pick, although naturally verses and passages I've memorized come to mind more often than others.

The verses re: atheist objections can be found in places like Romans 1, where it states at length that skeptics indulge in morally degenerate behavior and/or applaud others who are libertines, while finding the gospel offensive.

Guess you never met a creationist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, I'm here to help, in that if you can answer questions to me, you can answer them to yourself.

Let's start with the basics.

I define truth as correspondence with reality. And I define reality as nature, that is, the realm of the physical sciences, that is, the sum of things with objective existence.

How do you define 'truth'?

How do you define 'reality'?

Truth = something that is always true, with no falsity in it. For example, 2+3 = 5 can be traced to be true across numerous societies, past and present. 2+3=5 is true on an axiomatic basis, without this and similar formulae always being true, world commerce including currency exchange would cease to function.

Reality = whatever exists, including things with objective existence in the realm of the physical sciences, and also metaphysics. 2+3=5 exists as truth. Math and logic exist without mass, without energy. Logic cannot be weighed. Other metaphysic reality includes justice, love, redemption, assurance and security, self-worth, self-actualization, and God, who is metaphysical Spirit.

The difference between organic and inorganic matter is energy applied to mass. Living beings move and breath (overgeneralizations, I know) and do things with focused energy. God uses energy per general principles and laws (nature, weather, black holes) and like other living beings, focuses energy for unique powers.

 

[Audie]

Truth = something that is always true, with no falsity in it. For example, 2+3 = 5 can be traced to be true across numerous societies, past and present. 2+3=5 is true on an axiomatic basis, without this and similar formulae always being true, world commerce including currency exchange would cease to function.

Reality = whatever exists, including things with objective existence in the realm of the physical sciences, and also metaphysics. 2+3=5 exists as truth. Math and logic exist without mass, without energy. Logic cannot be weighed. Other metaphysic reality includes justice, love, redemption, assurance and security, self-worth, self-actualization, and God, who is metaphysical Spirit.

The difference between organic and inorganic matter is energy applied to mass. Living beings move and breath (overgeneralizations, I know) and do things with focused energy. God uses energy per general principles and laws (nature, weather, black holes) and like other living beings, focuses energy for unique powers.

The difference between organic and inorganic matter is energy applied to mas

I am guessing you never took a chemistry class

 

[rosends]

I am guessing you never took a chemistry class

I did...hated it. Nothing else to add, I just want notifications when this thread is updated and I'm too lazy to click "watch thread."

 

[ChristineM]

I don't know ANY born again Christians, not one, who insist on blind faith over evidence and fact. All the ones I know are interested, for example, in reading about evolution and cosmology, not just taking some contrary view solely because the Bible says so.

I've read the Bible more than 3 times and in multiple versions. I don't cherry pick, although naturally verses and passages I've memorized come to mind more often than others.

The verses re: atheist objections can be found in places like Romans 1, where it states at length that skeptics indulge in morally degenerate behavior and/or applaud others who are libertines, while finding the gospel offensive.

Interesting that you claim not to know any BACs but are overwhelmed with atheists to the extent you can wax lyrical about your hatred of them.

Its not only BACs who take the Bible non faith. Every bible believer does.

Yes, reading whatever unscientific creation.com anti science propaganda that disses evolution or cosmolgy then claiming you know all about the subjects that disprove genesis.

Romans1 does not mention atheists, skeptics or libertines, nor does it mention moral, morality or morals. So are you "interpreting"?

 

[Audie]

Interesting that you claim not to know any BACs but are overwhelmed with atheists to the extent you can wax lyrical about your hatred of them.

Its not only BACs who take the Bible non faith. Every bible believer does.

Yes, reading whatever unscientific creation.com anti science propaganda that disses evolution or cosmolgy then claiming you know all about the subjects that disprove genesis.

Romans1 does not mention atheists, skeptics or libertines, nor does it mention moral, morality or morals. So are you "interpreting"?

Our friends who hate atheists might do some pre-planning for their
eventual perfection thro' study of the meaning and implicaitons of bigotry.

 

[David T]

Atheists often say we shouldn't be impressed by evidence of design in the universe, because while we wouldn't expect a monkey to randomly type a Shakespearian sonnet, if you have billions of monkeys typing away for billions of years, we shouldn't be surprised if one of them gets it.

Rabbi Gerald Schroder, who teaches at Aish Hatorah in Jerusalem, takes the atheists' bull by the horns: what, indeed, are the odds of randomly typing a Shakespearian sonnet?

Rabbi Schroder picks "How Do I Love Thee?", the only sonnet he's familiar with. It has 489 letters. Ignoring capitalization & punctuation, there are 26^489 possible letter combinations, which is on the order of 10^690 (that's a 1 with 690 zeroes after it).

As for generating those combinations, he says, forget monkeys; they'll never get the job done. Picture the entire universe, with its 10^56 grams of mass, as composed entirely of nanocomputers, each weighing a billionth of a gram, each capable of producing a billion attempted sonnets per second. Over the 10^18 seconds since the Big Bang, these nanocomputers would have produced 10^92 attempted sonnets. That's a huge number - but it's a drop in the bucket compared to 10^690 possible letter combinations. We're off by a factor of 10^598. That's like hitting the lottery 57 times in a row.

That's to get the sonnet once, anywhere in the universe, in a universe composed entirely of nanocomputers, going nonstop since the Big Bang. And if those are the odds of getting the sonnet, just imagine the odds of getting Shakespeare.

The sun rises and sets independent.of crappy philosophy, and it does it's thing independent, Of both science and religion and the human cranium. We can dress crappy philosophy in religious drag, and it can then argue with itself dressed up in secular drag. Philosophy is unhinged and profound nonsense which all bad scientists will claim is true as they practice crappy philosophy.

 

[blü 2]

Truth = something that is always true,

Yes, 'truth' is the noun corresponding to the adjective 'true', but that's not a definition of 'truth' or of 'true'. For example, using my definition, I can check whether any particular statement is true or not by seeing whether it corresponds with objective reality or not. What test do you use to determine whether any statement is true or not?

Reality = whatever exists, including things with objective existence in the realm of the physical sciences, and also metaphysics.

We agree, then, that things with objective existence are real.

[/Math and logic exist without mass, without energy. Logic cannot be weighed. Other metaphysic reality includes justice, love, redemption.

Maths and logic exist as concepts in brains, that is, as states of the working brain hence are physical in form. Justice and love are abstractions indicating particular classes of conduct, and likewise exist as concepts / brain states. The brain states are real, the contents of the concept need not have any objective counterpart.

assurance and security, self-worth, self-actualization

These are also abstractions, being generalizations about emotional states.

, and God, who is metaphysical Spirit.

'God', 'spirit', 'supernatural being' &c are all concepts with no counterpart in objective reality. They don't even have definitions applicable to real things, such that we could tell whether real candidate X were a god, spirit, soul, angel, (&c) or not. There's no way of distinguishing them from the imaginary.

Can we agree that things without objective existence are necessarily imaginary?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The difference between organic and inorganic matter is energy applied to mas

I am guessing you never took a chemistry class

The glories of energy have to do with the energy of carbon.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Interesting that you claim not to know any BACs but are overwhelmed with atheists to the extent you can wax lyrical about your hatred of them.

Its not only BACs who take the Bible non faith. Every bible believer does.

Yes, reading whatever unscientific creation.com anti science propaganda that disses evolution or cosmolgy then claiming you know all about the subjects that disprove genesis.

Romans1 does not mention atheists, skeptics or libertines, nor does it mention moral, morality or morals. So are you "interpreting"?

I have spoken to (and listened) to hundreds, even thousands of atheists, in witnessing. I see a distinct difference between them and atheists on religious forums, sure.

What is your evidence that ALL Bible believers are using faith to trust that a book is true? Do you use faith to trust that documents about Lincoln are true, or did you meet Lincoln in the 1800s personally?

 

[ChristineM]

I have spoken to (and listened) to hundreds, even thousands of atheists, in witnessing. I see a distinct difference between them and atheists on religious forums, sure.

What is your evidence that ALL Bible believers are using faith to trust that a book is true? Do you use faith to trust that documents about Lincoln are true, or did you meet Lincoln in the 1800s personally?

Remember 9th commandment?

When some one can provide valid evidence of a god, then they take god on faith.

There is evidence Lincoln existed.

 

[Audie]

The glories of energy have to do with the energy of carbon.

Right, gibberish. You just make things up and pretend they are profound.

They are not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, 'truth' is the noun corresponding to the adjective 'true', but that's not a definition of 'truth' or of 'true'. For example, using my definition, I can check whether any particular statement is true or not by seeing whether it corresponds with objective reality or not. What test do you use to determine whether any statement is true or not?
We agree, then, that things with objective existence are real.
Maths and logic exist as concepts in brains, that is, as states of the working brain hence are physical in form. Justice and love are abstractions indicating particular classes of conduct, and likewise exist as concepts / brain states. The brain states are real, the contents of the concept need not have any objective counterpart.
These are also abstractions, being generalizations about emotional states.
'God', 'spirit', 'supernatural being' &c are all concepts with no counterpart in objective reality. They don't even have definitions applicable to real things, such that we could tell whether real candidate X were a god, spirit, soul, angel, (&c) or not. There's no way of distinguishing them from the imaginary.

Can we agree that things without objective existence are necessarily imaginary?

The test I use for truth is to see if there is any falsity in it. The test I use for all doctrines, even if I pre-suppose them to be false, is the hypothetical method (assume they're true, see where it leads).

We cannot yet agree that things without objective existence are necessarily imaginary, since multiple independent parties developed similar logic, justice, relationships, governments, jurisprudence, etc. across time and space. For example, missionaries from Europe who sought to bring God to the New World found the natives already had concepts like "a supreme spirit, who is over all other spirits."

 

[Audie]

The test I use for truth is to see if there is any falsity in it. The test I use for all doctrines, even if I pre-suppose them to be false, is the hypothetical method (assume they're true, see where it leads).

We cannot yet agree that things without objective existence are necessarily imaginary, since multiple independent parties developed similar logic, justice, relationships, governments, jurisprudence, etc. across time and space. For example, missionaries from Europe who sought to bring God to the New World found the natives already had concepts like "a supreme spirit, who is over all other spirits."

People with some sort of interest in truth probably are not so prone to gibberish as you seem to be.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Right, gibberish. You just make things up and pretend they are profound.

They are not.

Since you are highly intelligent, I thought you'd realize I was joking since you questioned whether I understood the difference between organic and inorganic things [carbon].

 

[BilliardsBall]

People with some sort of interest in truth probably are not so prone to gibberish as you seem to be.

Considering that you reply to me 4 to 6 times daily, even responding to comments not made to you nor asked by you, you seem fairly fascinated. Your actions belie your words.

If I'm prone to gibberish, put me on ignore, please.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Remember 9th commandment?

When some one can provide valid evidence of a god, then they take god on faith.

There is evidence Lincoln existed.

Wait a sec. There are documents that claim Lincoln existed. There are documents that claim Jesus exists, still. Do you take the Lincoln documents on faith or can you show me facts that prove he absolutely existed?

I think that what is happening is that most reasonable people believe in God, and due to your anti-supernatural bias, you believe all religious books are false. I extol the glorious Bible to you and tell you it is self-evident to me that Jesus is alive.

Can you prove that it is not self-evident to me that Jesus is alive?

 

[ChristineM]

Atheists often say we shouldn't be impressed by evidence of design in the universe, because while we wouldn't expect a monkey to randomly type a Shakespearian sonnet, if you have billions of monkeys typing away for billions of years, we shouldn't be surprised if one of them gets it.

Rabbi Gerald Schroder, who teaches at Aish Hatorah in Jerusalem, takes the atheists' bull by the horns: what, indeed, are the odds of randomly typing a Shakespearian sonnet?

Rabbi Schroder picks "How Do I Love Thee?", the only sonnet he's familiar with. It has 489 letters. Ignoring capitalization & punctuation, there are 26^489 possible letter combinations, which is on the order of 10^690 (that's a 1 with 690 zeroes after it).

As for generating those combinations, he says, forget monkeys; they'll never get the job done. Picture the entire universe, with its 10^56 grams of mass, as composed entirely of nanocomputers, each weighing a billionth of a gram, each capable of producing a billion attempted sonnets per second. Over the 10^18 seconds since the Big Bang, these nanocomputers would have produced 10^92 attempted sonnets. That's a huge number - but it's a drop in the bucket compared to 10^690 possible letter combinations. We're off by a factor of 10^598. That's like hitting the lottery 57 times in a row.

That's to get the sonnet once, anywhere in the universe, in a universe composed entirely of nanocomputers, going nonstop since the Big Bang. And if those are the odds of getting the sonnet, just imagine the odds of getting Shakespeare.

In the words of terry pratchett

A million-to-one chance succeeds nine times out of ten.