Update on trevor72694

[Marc1152]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

The chances of that happening were one in a billion!

Does that mean that there was some special purpose behind the event? After all, the chances were beyond miniscule. It could hardly have been random chance.

Maybe there are other ways to approach the problem, but this is what goes through my head when people make claims like this. The scary thing is that some people will seriously question their belief in God once arguments like this one fall apart.

What if there are 50,000 events all with odds of a trillion to one that need to occur in a very particular sequence? And the result has great purpose ( Life for example).

The odds are so astronomical that this can happen by mere random chance that a reasonable conclusion is that there is a divine hand involved.

[Nephi]

This is a persuasive argument against random development, or for intelligent design. However, it does not prove existence of God.

In other words it shows that the argument for random development is inductively weak, correct?

[Rufus]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

The chances of that happening were one in a billion!

Does that mean that there was some special purpose behind the event? After all, the chances were beyond miniscule. It could hardly have been random chance.

Maybe there are other ways to approach the problem, but this is what goes through my head when people make claims like this. The scary thing is that some people will seriously question their belief in God once arguments like this one fall apart.

What if there are 50,000 events all with odds of a trillion to one that need to occur in a very particular sequence? And the result has great purpose ( Life for example).

The odds are so astronomical that this can happen by mere random chance that a reasonable conclusion is that there is a divine hand involved.

Then it's the same as what I said before, with bigger numbers. Except that you're now interjecting purposes, which doesn't necessarily change anything.

[Marc1152]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

The chances of that happening were one in a billion!

Does that mean that there was some special purpose behind the event? After all, the chances were beyond miniscule. It could hardly have been random chance.

Maybe there are other ways to approach the problem, but this is what goes through my head when people make claims like this. The scary thing is that some people will seriously question their belief in God once arguments like this one fall apart.

What if there are 50,000 events all with odds of a trillion to one that need to occur in a very particular sequence? And the result has great purpose ( Life for example).

The odds are so astronomical that this can happen by mere random chance that a reasonable conclusion is that there is a divine hand involved.

Then it's the same as what I said before, with bigger numbers. Except that you're now interjecting purposes, which doesn't necessarily change anything.

Well.... Really big numbers is what makes the case. Something that can occur with a 50/50 chance can easily happen randomly. A long series of events that must take place in a narrow sequence that all have a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 chance of occurring, is a horse of a different color.

[Rufus]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

The chances of that happening were one in a billion!

Does that mean that there was some special purpose behind the event? After all, the chances were beyond miniscule. It could hardly have been random chance.

Maybe there are other ways to approach the problem, but this is what goes through my head when people make claims like this. The scary thing is that some people will seriously question their belief in God once arguments like this one fall apart.

What if there are 50,000 events all with odds of a trillion to one that need to occur in a very particular sequence? And the result has great purpose ( Life for example).

The odds are so astronomical that this can happen by mere random chance that a reasonable conclusion is that there is a divine hand involved.

Then it's the same as what I said before, with bigger numbers. Except that you're now interjecting purposes, which doesn't necessarily change anything.

Well.... Really big numbers is what makes the case. Something that can occur with a 50/50 chance can easily happen randomly. A long series of events that must take place in a narrow sequence that all have a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 chance of occurring, is a horse of a different color.

Then you don't understand the argument. The numbers don't matter.

You need to refine your argument. Jetavan may or may not have been on to something, but he seems to have disappeared.

btw, if wizards were real, would that increase the chances of God existing?

[biro]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

The chances of that happening were one in a billion!

Does that mean that there was some special purpose behind the event? After all, the chances were beyond miniscule. It could hardly have been random chance.

Maybe there are other ways to approach the problem, but this is what goes through my head when people make claims like this. The scary thing is that some people will seriously question their belief in God once arguments like this one fall apart.

What if there are 50,000 events all with odds of a trillion to one that need to occur in a very particular sequence? And the result has great purpose ( Life for example).

The odds are so astronomical that this can happen by mere random chance that a reasonable conclusion is that there is a divine hand involved.

Then it's the same as what I said before, with bigger numbers. Except that you're now interjecting purposes, which doesn't necessarily change anything.

Well.... Really big numbers is what makes the case. Something that can occur with a 50/50 chance can easily happen randomly. A long series of events that must take place in a narrow sequence that all have a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 chance of occurring, is a horse of a different color.

Then you don't understand the argument. The numbers don't matter.

You need to refine your argument. Jetavan may or may not have been on to something, but he seems to have disappeared.

btw, if wizards were real, would that increase the chances of God existing?

I don't know, but it would be neat.

[Rufus]

I don't know, but it would be neat.

+1

[Maria]

Hi, brothers and sisters in Christ.

Since you all are so keen on discussing the subject matter in this thread, I'll just say that my relationship with God is changing.  I am believing differently than I used to.  My level of zeal went up really high, down really low, and now it seems to be balancing out.

I'm not obligated to update you all on my spiritual journey.  That is between God, my priest and I.  You can consider the original post in this thread to be no longer accurate. 

Christ's love to you all,

Trevor

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glorify to Him forever!

Christ is born!
Glorify Him.

[Jetavan]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

Which possibility happened?

That's not part of the argument presented. But we can go there.

Tell me which possibility happened.

I asked first.

OK, I'll pick, then. The most amazing possibility.

Are you saying, then, that at each moment in time, out of billions of possibilities, the most amazing possibility happens?

[Rufus]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

Which possibility happened?

That's not part of the argument presented. But we can go there.

Tell me which possibility happened.

I asked first.

OK, I'll pick, then. The most amazing possibility.

Are you saying, then, that at each moment in time, out of billions of possibilities, the most amazing possibility happens?

Yes. I picked the most amazing possibility.

Let's cut to the chase.

Would you say that life is the most amazing possibility?

[Jetavan]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

Which possibility happened?

That's not part of the argument presented. But we can go there.

Tell me which possibility happened.

I asked first.

OK, I'll pick, then. The most amazing possibility.

Are you saying, then, that at each moment in time, out of billions of possibilities, the most amazing possibility happens?

Yes. I picked the most amazing possibility.

Let's cut to the chase.

Would you say that life is the most amazing possibility?

If the dinosaurs had survived in all of their glory up to today, then I would consider that possibility more amazing than the current state of affairs.

[Rufus]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

Which possibility happened?

That's not part of the argument presented. But we can go there.

Tell me which possibility happened.

I asked first.

OK, I'll pick, then. The most amazing possibility.

Are you saying, then, that at each moment in time, out of billions of possibilities, the most amazing possibility happens?

Yes. I picked the most amazing possibility.

Let's cut to the chase.

Would you say that life is the most amazing possibility?

If the dinosaurs had survived in all of their glory up to today, then I would consider that possibility more amazing than the current state of affairs.

OK. As I said before: wizards.

So what are you working towards?

[SavedByChrist94]

Mind is not Material

1, If mind was the brain or any material there would be no free will, as if your decisions, actions, plans, and all cognitive functions depended on mindless matter than you'd have no free will at all so it's,

1, No Director(Mind)

2, Material Director, which is basically 1, No Director, as flucuations of material(plural too, thousands of cells) has no director

3, Immaterial director where you can freely choose to do as you please, since we do have free will and can do as we please, Option 3 is the only choice.

2, Color is not material, even blind can see(black is something)

3, See the text on this screen, Physically, what is it? Just energy on the screen, there isn't anything physical about Information/Data

4, Thoughts are not material

5, Scientific Fact, Every cell in your body dies and regenerates(like skin), that by every 7 years, you are a brand new material being, however you are the same exact person, how can that be if you are material?

It would be an impossibility, you are the same person yet are completely materially new, so Factually there is a property to you(The mind) that isn't material.

when you talk to someone, are you talking to flesh or a person? Talking to God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) is like talking to anyone else.

Also here is something mind blowing,

1, Factually you are not your hands or nerves in them(we could chop off your hand you won't feel the hand or the nerves in them again, you'd still exist)

2, if mind is brain(that is material), then it would be impossible to feel my hand.

If pain is caused by brain signals hitting the hand then I won't feel it as I am not my hand.

If pain is caused by hand signals going to the brain I would feel the pain in my brain.

Now, hit your hand, where did you feel it? in your hand correct?

There you go, you are an Immaterial being, as if you were your brain or any material, you would be incapable of feeling your hand. you feel your hand, yet you aren't your hand and no properties of your hand are you, there is therefore an immaterial part of you(basically, just you) that causes you to feel your hand.

Have no fear, Theology and The Bible is here, you'll never lose your faith.

[biro]

I know this is Free for All, but what did that have to do with anything?

[Rufus]

Oh good. I was getting bored with the discussion, but now people have something new to talk about.

[Jetavan]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

Which possibility happened?

That's not part of the argument presented. But we can go there.

Tell me which possibility happened.

I asked first.

OK, I'll pick, then. The most amazing possibility.

Are you saying, then, that at each moment in time, out of billions of possibilities, the most amazing possibility happens?

Yes. I picked the most amazing possibility.

Let's cut to the chase.

Would you say that life is the most amazing possibility?

If the dinosaurs had survived in all of their glory up to today, then I would consider that possibility more amazing than the current state of affairs.

OK. As I said before: wizards.

So what are you working towards?

Are you saying that this is the best of all possible worlds?

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

This thread feels like it's been terribly derailed.

[biro]

This thread feels like it's been terribly derailed.

It has.

[Quinault]

Well, from my standpoint it was off the tracks from the start

You don't need to tell anyone that you identify as a homosexual. It doesn't really seem to matter IMO since you aren't actually in a relationship. You are a homosexual in theory, not practice. You could have your first sexual encounter with a man and HATE it. So you identifying as homosexual doesn't mean diddly squat to me. Feeling tingly at the thought, doesn't mean enjoyment in the act

And as far as your faith goes; you don't need to tell strangers online about that either. If I posted online every time my faith was high or low, my post count would be 5x what it is now

[Cavaradossi]

Well, from my standpoint it was off the tracks from the start

You don't need to tell anyone that you identify as a homosexual. It doesn't really seem to matter IMO since you aren't actually in a relationship. You are a homosexual in theory, not practice. You could have your first sexual encounter with a man and HATE it. So you identifying as homosexual doesn't mean diddly squat to me. Feeling tingly at the thought, doesn't mean enjoyment in the act

It's a pretty good indicator...

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

Well, from my standpoint it was off the tracks from the start

You don't need to tell anyone that you identify as a homosexual. It doesn't really seem to matter IMO since you aren't actually in a relationship. You are a homosexual in theory, not practice. You could have your first sexual encounter with a man and HATE it. So you identifying as homosexual doesn't mean diddly squat to me. Feeling tingly at the thought, doesn't mean enjoyment in the act

And as far as your faith goes; you don't need to tell strangers online about that either. If I posted online every time my faith was high or low, my post count would be 5x what it is now

Quinault, you're awesome.   I never thought of it that way.

[Quinault]

Well, from my standpoint it was off the tracks from the start

You don't need to tell anyone that you identify as a homosexual. It doesn't really seem to matter IMO since you aren't actually in a relationship. You are a homosexual in theory, not practice. You could have your first sexual encounter with a man and HATE it. So you identifying as homosexual doesn't mean diddly squat to me. Feeling tingly at the thought, doesn't mean enjoyment in the act

It's a pretty good indicator...

I don't think so, at least not for teens in the modern age. When you factor in the desire for a positive relationship with a parent of the same sex, things get muddled further. Yes, I believe there are people that are indeed homosexual. But I also think there are people that crave a healthy relationship with a person of the same sex, and mistake it for sexual attraction. Not that I think everyone should "try it" to know. But I have known plenty of people that mistook those desires for a relationship for sexual attraction like bi-sexuality, or homosexuality. After actually having a homosexual/heterosexual relationship for awhile, they figured out it wasn't what they really wanted.

The cook where I used to work was very, very gay. He had a fling with a female teacher. They had this relationship briefly, but ultimately he didn't really want to have a relationship with a woman outside of friendship.

Conversely, I have met plenty of people that "tried out" being gay for awhile, only to discover that they didn't really enjoy a homosexual relationship as much as a heterosexual relationship.

There is a certain amount of involuntary arousal with so much sexual content around you 24/7. Even if your thoughts remain pure, I think there is some sort of pavlovian response on some level. I would be surprised if any teen can make it out of their formative years without wondering at some point if they are homosexual with homosexual content being so prevalent. Not that I think homosexual content makes one homosexual. But it would cause one to wonder more about it than if you never saw any homosexual content at all.

[dzheremi]

I've never been gay, but I have been in heterosexual relationships where I thought I wanted to be with the lady, but found out after entering the relationship that I didn't really feel that way outside of thinking I wanted that. I think this sort of thing is more common than most people want to admit. I remember when my father got engaged to the woman who would eventually become his third ex-wife, I asked her point blank why they were getting married (since they didn't seem to actually love each other very much, as far as I could tell) and her response was, I kid you not, "Well, we've been together for a while now and haven't killed each other yet, so it seems like the thing to do."

Granted it's not a perfect analogy, but I think the same "X, therefore Y" thinking is at work in both situations. "I am attracted to men and I am a man, therefore I am a homosexual". I'm not so sure one actually follows the other, though certainly every man who is actually/actively gay would also describe themselves as attracted to men.

[JamesRottnek]

I am curious to hear what exactly the two of you think a gay person is (in more depth than "human").

[Quinault]

A homosexual person is a person attracted to a person of the same sex, who also receives enjoyment from said relationship emotionally, and sexually. If you just like the idea in theory, I don't think you really know.

In theory a food can sound AWESOME. It can look wonderful, it can even smell perfect. But you can take a bite of that food and be unsatisfied, or even repulsed. So while you thought you really wanted said food item, you really only wanted the idea of that item- not the actual food itself.

If you are celibate, you are celibate. It doesn't matter which sex you are attracted to. If you lust after anyone (same sex, or opposite sex) it is a sin. So ultimately I don't see any difference between a heterosexual lust, and a homosexual lust.

[dzheremi]

I am curious to hear what exactly the two of you think a gay person is (in more depth than "human").

Quinault's post summarizes what is also my view.

[Quinault]

I think girls/women are often the most confused. Girls will do those stupid videos for "girls gone wild" or go to a bar/party where they perform lesbian acts. But ultimately they did that to get the heterosexual men to have a response, and their enjoyment was in that response moreso than the act itself. In general heterosexual women don't find gay men having sex as attractive as heterosexual men find women having sex. So you won't see a "Dudes gone wild" franchise directed at heterosexual women anytime soon.

[JamesRottnek]

A homosexual person is a person attracted to a person of the same sex, who also receives enjoyment from said relationship emotionally, and sexually. If you just like the idea in theory, I don't think you really know.

In theory a food can sound AWESOME. It can look wonderful, it can even smell perfect. But you can take a bite of that food and be unsatisfied, or even repulsed. So while you thought you really wanted said food item, you really only wanted the idea of that item- not the actual food itself.

If you are celibate, you are celibate. It doesn't matter which sex you are attracted to. If you lust after anyone (same sex, or opposite sex) it is a sin. So ultimately I don't see any difference between a heterosexual lust, and a homosexual lust.

So would you also say that a heterosexual person is a person attracted to a person of the opposite sex, who also receives enjoyment from said relationship emotionally, and sexually?

If so, are you willing to say that there are a significant number of asexual persons?

And also, I would point out that a failure to receive enjoyment, either emotional or sexual, from a single relationship with a person of the same or opposite sex does not necessarily preclude that enjoyment with a different person of that sex.  I have known many people who had extremely un-enjoyable relationships with, say, a woman (in the case of a man) who then went on to have a very enjoyable relationship with a different women, and I've also known gay men who had a series of very un-enjoyable relationships with other men, and then begun a very enjoyable relationship with a man.

EDIT: And in case I come across as angry, or dismissive, of your post(s), I do not mean to do so.  I think this is a(n at least potentially) genuinely interesting discussion.

[dzheremi]

I have known people who have gone from straight to asexual to gay, and people who have done the opposite. I have known people who have gone from being lesbians to being heterosexual "men" via drugs and surgeries. Sexual identity is complicated, I suppose. There are asexual people, but I don't really know what that has to do with homosexuality other than that they're both forms of sexual self-identification and self-expression.

[Quinault]

In the end I think if a person is homosexual, they will only really enjoy sex with someone of the same sex, and if one is heterosexual, they will only really enjoy sex with someone of the opposite sex. For a homosexual, "bad sex" with someone of the same sex will be better than any sex with someone of the opposite sex. The same would be true of heterosexuals; "bad sex" with someone of the opposite sex would be better than any sex with someone of the same sex.

And I agree with dzheremi on asexuality. But I have to caveat that I do think an asexual person can have a fulfilling relationship. Their fulfillment is more dependent upon an individual person/relationship than anything else. So for them temptation isn't about the gender of the person, but the person themselves.

[Rufus]

OK, logic isn't my thing, but let's just take a look at this. We'll create a model scenario that simplifies the problem for us.

You have a universe in which there are one billion different possibilities. Only one of them can happen. Lo and behold! one of them happens.

Which possibility happened?

That's not part of the argument presented. But we can go there.

Tell me which possibility happened.

I asked first.

OK, I'll pick, then. The most amazing possibility.

Are you saying, then, that at each moment in time, out of billions of possibilities, the most amazing possibility happens?

Yes. I picked the most amazing possibility.

Let's cut to the chase.

Would you say that life is the most amazing possibility?

If the dinosaurs had survived in all of their glory up to today, then I would consider that possibility more amazing than the current state of affairs.

OK. As I said before: wizards.

So what are you working towards?

Are you saying that this is the best of all possible worlds?

No, I am preempting that argument. This world may be superlative in some way, but how would anyone know that?

[ialmisry]

A homosexual person is a person attracted to a person of the same sex, who also receives enjoyment from said relationship emotionally, and sexually. If you just like the idea in theory, I don't think you really know.

In theory a food can sound AWESOME. It can look wonderful, it can even smell perfect. But you can take a bite of that food and be unsatisfied, or even repulsed. So while you thought you really wanted said food item, you really only wanted the idea of that item- not the actual food itself.

If you are celibate, you are celibate. It doesn't matter which sex you are attracted to. If you lust after anyone (same sex, or opposite sex) it is a sin. So ultimately I don't see any difference between a heterosexual lust, and a homosexual lust.

So would you also say that a heterosexual person is a person attracted to a person of the opposite sex, who also receives enjoyment from said relationship emotionally, and sexually?

If so, are you willing to say that there are a significant number of asexual persons?

And also, I would point out that a failure to receive enjoyment, either emotional or sexual, from a single relationship with a person of the same or opposite sex does not necessarily preclude that enjoyment with a different person of that sex.  I have known many people who had extremely un-enjoyable relationships with, say, a woman (in the case of a man) who then went on to have a very enjoyable relationship with a different women, and I've also known gay men who had a series of very un-enjoyable relationships with other men, and then begun a very enjoyable relationship with a man.

EDIT: And in case I come across as angry, or dismissive, of your post(s), I do not mean to do so.  I think this is a(n at least potentially) genuinely interesting discussion.

Asexuals are about 1% of the general population, i.e. just a little less than the number of homosexuals in the general population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual

I became aware of them when they had a drive at colleges for a support group, selling T-shirts saying "Asexuality: It's not just for amoebas any more."  They do want human relationships, but not sex, which causes a lot of relationship problems (although they are the perfect human beings for St. Jerome and his ilk).

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Update on trevor72694