What is the Threshold of Intolerable Miraculousness?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Eugene Shubert, May 19, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    In the authoritative view of Terry Pratchett, the God of Death plays (and wins) all games.

    This is revealed in the ahistorical document "Reaper Man" (like a historical document, , only different),
    in which Death mentions an unusual game in which the challenger acquired all four Railroads and three hotels on Broadway before losing. It was called "exclusive possession", he thought - something like that.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    Haha very funny. Not that it matters much but in fact what happened was that when I googled you and found this: http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/dupery.htm
    it started to come home to me that we were in serious wacko territory and that there probably was no point in continuing. I mean, I'm sure 7th Day Adventists need to hone the mendacious pulpit rhetoric they use on their congregations of mouth-breathing yokels*, and all that, but I didn't really see why I should help you.

    I've returned to the fray on this thread simply because the concept of a "threshold of intolerable miraculousness" is a silly idea that needs to be shot down for the sake of any other readers.

    * © Bells, 2017

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 22, 2017
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    The facts you choose to pay attention to, vs. the facts you choose to ignore is a choice based on their respective survival value.

    "Truth" about fact works the same way, and I have described how this mechanism works, even in mathematics.

    Each and every second of every moment you live, your vision and other senses provide you with torrent of data containing untold millions of "facts", and fully 99% of them must be ignored in order for you or anyone else to behave and function in the manner they are expected to. Ignorance is actually essential to cognition, not an artifact of it.

    No "woo" intended, or provided.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Do you also judge Jesus Christ to be a wacko for allowing himself to be crucified?
     
  8. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I agree that a "threshold of intolerable miraculousness" is silly but I'm only mentioning it because you have already confessed to believing in a ridiculously intolerable threshold. Surely you remember your laughable confession that it's impossible for an oak tree to evolve into a human but given enough time an oak tree can evolve into something SIMILAR to a human? http://www.sciforums.com/threads/do...s-four-postulates.159338/page-11#post-3454857

    So why don't you feel obligated to identify the law that prevents something SIMILAR to a human from evolving into a creature with exactly your DNA as it exists at this very moment?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    If there is a law that prevents something SIMILAR to a human from evolving into a creature with exactly the DNA of an exchemist, then obviously significant evolutionary change is impossible.
     
  10. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    Jeeze, give it a rest. This is not science it is simply trolling. Reported.
     
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Once an organism has refined photosynthesis, I think it would be unlikely for it to "evolve" in a direction to ever give it up. And I think it's probably the same kind of roadblock you would run into trying to get animals to give up eating plants and other animals and develop a photosynthetic process of their own. This is another brilliant flash of insight from Eugene I would never have considered. I don't even know if there is yet a scientific principle relating to this, but there probably should be.

    We'll make a scientist of you yet, Eugene. I still very much like the way you think, in case I haven't written that lately.
     
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Posting for myself I would never judge a non existent mythical person as wacko or anything else

    People who believe mythical gods exist however is another story

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  13. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    If there is a law that prevents something SIMILAR to a human from evolving into a creature with exactly the DNA of an exchemist, then let's call it:
    The Threshold of Intolerable Miraculousness Principle.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    You have exceeded the threshold of intolerable trolling.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    Your conclusion is, of course, incorrect.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I consider any limitation that thwarts a DNA-based organism to freely evolve in any other DNA-based organism, however fantastically improbable the transmogrification, as a personal affront to my religious presuppositions.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    You can be affronted by anything you like. You certainly seem to be affronted by science.
     
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Don't be so harsh on those whose belief system is not based on every scrap of established science, falsifiable or otherwise.

    Gregor Mendel started genetics, was himself a friar. Many folks schooled in science since he did that cannot claim such an accomplishment. This is not the only example, just the one that is easiest for me to remember.

    Belief in a deity or deities can actually be a motivation to do good science, as long as you are careful not to allow too much bias or preconceptions from religious scripture to influence experimental designs or conclusions.
     
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Your OP was good, but if comments of exchemist, bivillion, and others is something you consider an affront, might I suggest you place them on your "ignore" list, if only for a while?

    It worked for me and I never changed any status back other than for paddoboy. Never once regretted it, either.

    The problem some people have here with religion is that it does have presuppositions. Science doesn't, or at least, it isn't supposed to.

    You already know my views on the subject. I'm willing to support the hypothesis of a deity, and my own adopted religion teaches tolerance of all other religions, including a lack thereof, as our most important article of faith.
     
  20. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    No pervaricating please. Either there's a Threshold of Intolerable Improbability or there isn't. Take your pick. You can't have both.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    You mean prevaricating.

    And I've told you, twice now, in simple English, that there is no such concept in physics or in science generally. You have made it up and it is silly, as you have actually admitted yourself:-

    Post 65 - Eugene Shubert "I agree that a "threshold of intolerable miraculousness" is silly "
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    Probably the most egregious non-sequitur on the thread so far.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    This is not even English. I have no idea what it means.

    But it's about time somebody affronted your religious "presuppositions". 7th Day Adventism is ridiculous. The in-fighting demonstrated in the link I provided earlier shows what happens: they all start falling out with one another, given half a chance. Reminds me of the Silastic Armourfiends in the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

    And more evidence for its absurdity is the convoluted argument and sheer refusal to learn that we have seen demonstrated on this thread. This wilful ignorance is quite clearly the direct result of the belief system in question. For example, an explanation of how science deals with questions like this was offered in post 60, but our poster has carefully ignored that. Can't deal with the ideas.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page