The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by kostya Do you believe a `bot` has free will?

It's a bot; a computer program. It has about as much "free will" as a video game AI or the Linux kernel.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter for now (at the implied request of another member).

Originally Posted by cascade9 A couple of hundred hours on the moon in the lunar lander and about 4800 minutes on the surface in eva suits. We havent even had a proper look on Mars, let alone other bodies in the solar system that could (or could have) harboured life. Even searching the solar system is a bit of a joke, considering the mind-boggling number of other solar systems exist. Stasticially I would think that its far more likely that life does exist elsewhere, but unless we 'luck out', until we've got off world/out system and had a proper search we will have no idea if life exists outside of earths atmosphere.

There's a funny paradox in all that.
All this counting systems that "could have" life is generally based on the assumption that evolution theory models are correct (for it is these very models that allow to estimate a planet's fitness for life).
Yet the thing is, the PROBABILITY of life being ever able to appear somewhere in this Universe following these very models is SO small, that you truly must not even trust your eyes and senses when they tell you that it exists here on earth. Let alone searching for it elsewhere.
Needless to say that the probability calculation method in general is very well proved to work fine, as probability is concerned.

Which means, a faithful follower of the evolution theory must at once give up searching for life on other planets for the very same reason for which you don't hope to win a JackPot 10 times in a row and therefore won't invent considerable sums of money into such a doubtful enterprise.

In that regard, oddly enough, a believer in the Bible has more reasons to look for life outside Earth. At least, the book says that angels were created long before earth existed, so they're one form of life that exists outside our planet Earth.

Originally Posted by TigerLinux There are 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 sands on the river bank of Amazon River, can you prove me wrong? Go and count it!

I thought I heard that there aren't even 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 atoms in the Universe.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Such as?

first example that comes to mind is the Bible's claim that the Earth was created in the beginning, while every bit of geological and astronomical evidence suggests that our sun was already here when the earth began to form.

Then there's the Biblical timeline of 5000-something years between now and the beginning of time, while all evidence points to a much, much older origin.

And there's the Biblical passage that was the basis of Galileo's trial, which claims that the sun revolves around the sun (this one is now considered metaphor by most Christians, but the fact remains that its in the Bible).

I could probably keep going, but I need to leave for work.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul [/End of Trolling]. Period.

Does it mean:"End of conversation!"?

It was funny, anyway.

Originally Posted by TigerLinux There are 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 sands on the river bank of Amazon River, can you prove me wrong? Go and count it!

actually this could be fairly easily calculated. Just need to find the length of the Amazon and the percentage of that length that has a sandy bank, and then the average width and depth of the sandbanks. Then measure the grains of sand in a small area, say 0.1 cubic centimeters. Then you can use that as a reference point to either prove or disprove your claim of x number of grains of sand along the entire Amazon.

Originally Posted by kostya Well since a `bot` can `have` things only in a figurative way, it being a lifeless object,

Bot is a computer program, but can you really call computer program an object? A program is an information, and does not really "exist" as something material.

Originally Posted by kostya Well I don't pretend to know everything, of course... but so far I've never heard of it being found otherwise.

If you never heard otherwise, it doesn't mean intelligence can't exist without life (unless you can prove it).

Originally Posted by kostya A computer -- it has as much "intelligence" to it as it has "life". But who gave both? So the computer's intelligence comes FROM life.

This doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by kostya Do you think God doesn't have enough men faithful to him that he would need any such thing?

According to some religions it is not man's job to judge god's decisions.

Originally Posted by kostya Besides, the bot named 'sycamorex' questions the very existence of God. So what is it? Another rebellious creation?

Why not?

Originally Posted by kostya And yet God obviously appreciates folks to be faithful.

Proof?

Originally Posted by kostya Do you believe a `bot` has free will?

If a free will can be implemented as an algorithm, then a bot can have a free will.
Or you could try to define "Free will". If a bot will take a random decision, does that qualify as free will?

Originally Posted by TigerLinux There are 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 sands on the river bank of Amazon River, can you prove me wrong? Go and count it!

Nobody needs to do something as stupid as counting it.
Mass of grain of sand: 3.5*10^-10 kg.
Total weight of 10^199 grains of sand: 3.5*10^189 kg.
Estimated mass of the solar system: 1.9911 * 10^30 kg.
(1.9911 * 10^30) < (3.5*10^189), which means that 10^199 grains of sand would weigh more than entire solar system. Which means your theory is incorrect.

Originally Posted by MTK358 I thought I heard that there aren't even 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 atoms in the Universe.

Looks like you're right.

Originally Posted by Cultist first example that comes to mind is the Bible's claim that the Earth was created in the beginning, while every bit of geological and astronomical evidence suggests that our sun was already here when the earth began to form.

...right, the Bible itself says elsewhere (book of Job) that there were other creations long before Earth was made. Therefore the "beginning" means the beginning of the earth's history.

Then there's the Biblical timeline of 5000-something years between now and the beginning of time, while all evidence points to a much, much older origin.

What you're talking about is only the time of history of humankind, which is well supported by the given genealogy from Adam down to Jesus. And from Jesus we have no problem calculating down to our days. Seeing that Biblical history and genealogy is being proved true with every new archaeological discovery, that's something to count with.

The mentioning of Nineveh was present only in the Bible -- until the discovery was made by archaeologists. Until then the critics had "all evidence" that it was but fiction.

And there's the Biblical passage that was the basis of Galileo's trial, which claims that the sun revolves around the sun (this one is now considered metaphor by most Christians, but the fact remains that its in the Bible).

How serious are people when speaking of "sunRISE/sunSET"? I don't know what their meaning is but I hear it spoken all the time, even by the scientists.

Interestingly, though, the Bible is the only book among its contemporaries to state that God "hanged the earth upon nothing". It was stated there more than 4000 years ago.
And modern science came to the same conclusion just some... 200-300 years ago, right?

Originally Posted by kostya There's a funny paradox in all that. All this counting systems that "could have" life is generally based on the assumption that evolution theory models are correct (for it is these very models that allow to estimate a planet's fitness for life). Yet the thing is, the PROBABILITY of life being ever able to appear somewhere in this Universe following these very models is SO small, that you truly must not even trust your eyes and senses when they tell you that it exists here on earth. Let alone searching for it elsewhere. Needless to say that the probability calculation method in general is very well proved to work fine, as probability is concerned. Which means, a faithful follower of the evolution theory must at once give up searching for life on other planets for the very same reason for which you don't hope to win a JackPot 10 times in a row and therefore won't invent considerable sums of money into such a doubtful enterprise. In that regard, oddly enough, a believer in the Bible has more reasons to look for life outside Earth. At least, the book says that angels were created long before earth existed, so they're one form of life that exists outside our planet Earth.

Evolution is about what happens after life or other replicators exist. Abiogenesis is the theory that life arose from inorganic matter. After replicators exist, the probabilities of developing into more complex forms are drastically improved. Explanation here.

Originally Posted by SigTerm If a free will can be implemented as an algorithm, then a bot can have a free will. Or you could try to define "Free will". If a bot will take a random decision, does that qualify as free will?

For a bot, perhaps, it might .
But in connection with that particular bot we were kidding about, there were such skills demonstrated as require a human brain to perform.
And I feel safe enough to say that anyone who should ever succeed in creating such algorithm as would be able to perform as intelligently as the bot in question, could then be said to have created real AI.

And answering your other comment, judging God's decisions is not the same as trying to understand them by applying reasonings. The former brings no good just as we're in no good position to judge about it, yet the latter is essential for one who wants to obey these decisions.

Originally Posted by kostya What you're talking about is only the time of history of humankind, which is well supported by the given genealogy from Adam down to Jesus. And from Jesus we have no problem calculating down to our days. Seeing that Biblical history and genealogy is being proved true with every new archaeological discovery, that's something to count with.

Wrong. DNA evidence shows there could not have been a bottleneck of two people, certainly not 5000 years ago.

(By the way, which of the two different Adam and Eve creation stories in the Bible is true?)

Also, biblical history is not being proved true with every new archaeological discovery. For example, odds are the exodus story never happened.

Interestingly, though, the Bible is the only book among its contemporaries to state that God "hanged the earth upon nothing". It was stated there more than 4000 years ago. And modern science came to the same conclusion just some... 200-300 years ago, right?

If I combed through ancient texts from any religion or period, I could find writings that superficially seemed to presage modern scientific findings. (Though I hardly think "hanged the earth upon nothing" can even charitably be taken to mean anything like the scientific conception of the universe.) It's meaningless, you're just ad hoc searching for patterns. I mean, the Greeks conceived of an indivisible unit called the atom, should we conclude that 1) they had a understanding of modern physics or that 2) the greek gods are real?

Originally Posted by kostya There's a funny paradox in all that. All this counting systems that "could have" life is generally based on the assumption that evolution theory models are correct (for it is these very models that allow to estimate a planet's fitness for life). Yet the thing is, the PROBABILITY of life being ever able to appear somewhere in this Universe following these very models is SO small, that you truly must not even trust your eyes and senses when they tell you that it exists here on earth. Let alone searching for it elsewhere. Needless to say that the probability calculation method in general is very well proved to work fine, as probability is concerned.

With the amount of experience we have of life, we are in no position to guess at other possibilities. Even in the earths crust we have life in conditions that would have been considered impossible not that long ago.

Originally Posted by kostya ...right, the Bible itself says elsewhere (book of Job) that there were other creations long before Earth was made. Therefore the "beginning" means the beginning of the earth's history. What you're talking about is only the time of history of humankind, which is well supported by the given genealogy from Adam down to Jesus. And from Jesus we have no problem calculating down to our days. Seeing that Biblical history and genealogy is being proved true with every new archaeological discovery, that's something to count with.

Ahhh, yes, biblical double-think.

Not that long ago, we had bluegospel insisting that there are no condradictions in the bible. Now we've got someone else, using a contradiction to say 'that bit is wrong, this bit is right'.

If you think that 'biblical history and genealogy is being proved true with every new archaeological discovery' then you dont know how the system works. There are a lot of crazy christians spending a lot of money in the middle east to 'prove' the bible. Anything they find that agrees with the bible, they spew it from any media outlet that cares. Anything they find that disagrees with the bible, they bury. Literally.

IMO if you are a christian, or a folower of any of the 'religions of the book' you really dont want the whole truth coming out from tha archaeologists. Unless of course you want to associate your monotheisms wth Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten.

Originally Posted by reed9 Also, biblical history is not being proved true with every new archaeological discovery. For example, odds are the exodus story never happened.

I'd agree that "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened". But actually do think there was a group of people with connections to canaan who left egypt, and that some of the exodus story is true. Its just been embelished and distorted, then made more grandiose.

Originally Posted by kostya The mentioning of Nineveh was present only in the Bible -- until the discovery was made by archaeologists. Until then the critics had "all evidence" that it was but fiction.

Does that mean that because Schliemann found Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns that we should be following the gods in the Aeneid and the Iliad?

Originally Posted by kostya How serious are people when speaking of "sunRISE/sunSET"? I don't know what their meaning is but I hear it spoken all the time, even by the scientists.

Local time.

Originally Posted by kostya Interestingly, though, the Bible is the only book among its contemporaries to state that God "hanged the earth upon nothing". It was stated there more than 4000 years ago. And modern science came to the same conclusion just some... 200-300 years ago, right?

A sperical earth dates back to at least the 6C B.C.E. in greek philosophy, possibly from Pythagoras (though personally I believe that it goes back well before that).Eratosthenes had a fair go at calculating the size of the earth in 240 B.C.E.

Even in erupoe, there are tons of references to a round/spherical earth well before 200-300 years ago. Even if there wasnt, Magellans circumnavigation was in 1519-1522, and that pretty much proved the round earth. Only the church held onto geocentricism for much time after that.

AFAIK there is references to a round earth 'suspended upon nothing' in Indian mythology/sciene dating well back into B.C.E..

I'd really need to dig to find a reference, but I was going to do that anyway.....I was intending to to answer SL00b with a something similar. A note to SL00b,yeah, I'm slow, btu finding references to Indian mythology that isnt from some site that could be considered dodgy (eg www.crystalhealing.com LOL) isnt exactly easy.

Originally Posted by TigerLinux Read the bible and think carefully with a humble heart.

You're using the wrong organ. Thinking happens up higher.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Sorry its a old topic.... See even i didnt write anything you reach to this level of punishing me. Think the temper you will have when really such book get published and the content is really very nasty/objectionable, everyone around your neighbour, your friends start asking you question and being in different country you can not do anything against me. And suddenly I am standing infront of you. Surely you will hit me hard I wont get up. Here we are talking about the person who wrote book on international level and wrote all wrong about the person muslims love more then their family. Its human nature, anybody can loose his temper and will do something he shouldn't do. I never said what ever fatwa was issued was right, same time i am also not with that person who wrote such book which cause violence in public and refused to revert. People will also have fear if they dont condemn hard for such acts, it will become practice in future and hard to control.

Stop trolling, because there are miles of difference between a legal argument and murder.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul A matter which hasn't been proved, nor has been disproved, can IMO be safely termed as a belief. I don't even understand why do people feel the need to prove their religion as the correct one, to others. Perhaps some holy books ask their followers to preach their religion? or it is an ego issue for some people?

Probably both, but definitely the first one. The Bible (particularly the NT) and Koran are full of encouragements to evangelize.