What Percent Out Of A 100 Are You Convinced That The God Of The Bible

[4588686]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1324273709' post='2353556']
The program didn't suit my motherboard, so am enrolled in two other programs,just waiting for a free bed, i will see if there program computes. I will not give up giving up.
[/quote]

That's good to hear.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

the chatechism iz coo yo i used to use the index sometimes and than decided to read it cover to cover but faded at about 1 tenth of the way through, but some are designed for a diet of milk and honey,the chatechism iz like protein powder i guess and i'm just not old enough for such chemical equations of love, yet lol

[4588686]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1324274055' post='2353560']
the chatechism iz coo yo i used to use the index sometimes and than decided to read it cover to cover but faded at about 1 tenth of the way through, but some are designed for a diet of milk and honey,the chatechism iz like protein powder i guess and i'm just not old enough for such chemical equations of love, yet lol
[/quote]

Go to rehab

[Jesus_lol]

Sometimes when playing guitar after drinking, etc i have the microphone on, and when i check it out the next day expecting to hear Hendrix, but instead i get an incoherent jumble of distorted tones and half baked ideas, and then I hope no one was listening.



go to rehab, Tab. And dont look back.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Rehabilitation for teh win.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oVz9qTtRBU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oVz9qTtRBU[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

More rehab:

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Lwj_ybVno"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Lwj_ybVno[/url]

[dominicansoul]

100,000,000,000,000,000,000, [img]http://typophile.com/files/infinityJH.gif[/img]to the infinite degree %

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324264709' post='2353480']
I'm going to do the Fr. Z thing rather than have a boat load of quote blocks. [color=#0000ff][b]My comments in blue.[/b][/color]



There is no estimation on planets, because we've only just figured out how to 'see' them and thus have just begun looking for them over the past few years. [color=#0000FF][b]Not true. We have data for making plenty of good estimates about planets in the galaxy.[/b][/color] So, yes, we have found some, but do not yet have a way to determine how 'likely' they are to be around particular stars. [color=#0000FF][b]We make estimates commensurate with current data, which is actually sufficient to get the big picture.[/b][/color] The data is just too limited. [color=#0000FF][b]Too limited for what?[/b][/color] But as we explore the existence of planets around more and more stars, we will be able to start making some crude estimates. [color=#0000FF][b]Estimates already exist in the peer-reviewed literature.[/b][/color] As an example of what limited evidence does...we've taken the structure of our solar system as the 'standard' (because what else is there to go by??), thus assuming that rocky planets are closer to stars and gas giants are further away. The first planet we found around another star? Larger than Jupiter and closer to its star than Mercury (which is why we were able to 'see' its gravitational effect on its star.) [color=#0000FF][b]A lot has happened in the [i]twenty years[/i] since that discovery was made.[/b][/color]

Number of stars is very difficult to estimate. [color=#0000FF][b]Depends on how precise you want to be.[/b][/color] There are thought to be around 100 billion stars in our galaxy (the Milky Way). [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#0000FF][b]Best estimates say 300 ± 100 billion stars.[/b][/color][/font] But...there are also estimated to be about 100 billion GALAXIES out there, and we of course have no idea how many stars are in each of them. Certainly quite a lot! [color=#0000FF][b]Assuming the known lower bound on the current size of the universe (diameter = 78 billion ly). A plausible upper bound (given inflation) on the current size of the universe would increase this diameter by 10^50. Whether or not the physical universe is in fact infinite is an open question.[/b][/color]

[color=#0000ff][b]It has been predicted that there are perhaps billions of terrestrial planets in the habitable zone of an F, G, or K type star within our own mediocre galaxy (34% ± 14% of all FGK stars host one or more terrestrial planets in the habitable zone; in the near future we will have higher resolution estimates which predict planetary distribution based on ESI - that is, Earth-Similarity Index). Just sticking with that (in other words, leaving aside the many hypothetical ways in which conditions suitable for life could be possible), the number of potentially Earth-like planets just in our local cluster is staggering. Using the lower bound on the volume of the universe (which may be fifty or more orders of magnitude too small), and making some other highly conservative assumptions, we can modestly expect quadrillions of Earth-like planets in the universe (and this is a very, very conservative estimate). I find it to be truly audacious when people suggest that our little spec of dust is the only place in all the universe with something interesting going on. I can easily cough up doc dumps if you're interested.[/b][/color]

There is one universe. I am aware of multiverse theories, but they're pretty much cheating to try to make sense of quantum stuff (which isn't really supposed to make sense). But, by definition, 'all that is' is part of the universe. You can't go 'outside' the universe! [color=#0000ff][b]Disagree. Possibly willing to spew and doc dump if interested.[/b][/color]
[/quote]


[b]LD[/b], peace. I am sorry if I sounded a little 'we don't really know' about astronomy, but it's really actually quite a big universe and the unknowns certainly outweigh the knowns. At no point did I suggest that "[b]our little spec of dust is the only place in all the universe with something interesting going on,"[/b] nor was I saying that we were the only planet with life or even remotely arguing anything like that. But when the first planet within the habitable zone of a star was confirmed [i]this month[/i], I think it's fair for me to say that we're still exploring and that the answers are quite likely to change in the next 20 years. Stevil asked an honest question, and I tried to get him some quick ballpark answers.

The fact that the answers are such huge numbers (even if you find them way too small) should make it obvious that I was not trying to downplay the size or variety of the universe. I [i]was[/i] trying to downplay certainty, but that's something I do naturally when translating science for non-scientific audiences. Thank you for the corrections, and I'll try to keep them in mind next time.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1324079249' post='2352431']
Also Mark made a great point where Jesus corrected what some of the o.t said and showed it was wrong...
[/quote]
Jesus never said the Old Testament was wrong. Jesus Christ simply set higher standards for the Christian, who lives with God's grace.

While our understanding of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) may be wrong, Sacred Scripture itself is inerrant.
[quote]But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.... For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.[/quote](Pope Leo XIII,[i] Providentissimus Deus[/i], n. 20).

[quote]The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that 'the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.' In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical 'not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.' When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as 'obiter dicta' and -- as they contended -- in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.[/quote] (Pope Pius XII, [i]Divino Afflante Spiritu[/i], n. 1)


Sorry, but if you think Sacred Scripture is wrong or in error, you're not Catholic.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

hmmm planets , did you all here supposedly there is a new furthest planet in our solar system that has been named eris or erin or eras or something along those lines,and the new graph of the solar system i saw makes it look like the tiniest planet in our solar system which leads me to believe god has revealed this to us and saying " DON'T FORGET THE LITTLE PEOPLE,THEY BELONG TOO!" mind you don't get me started on leprachorn sized hutts found in ireland covered by peat mounds,haha not leprachorn sillies. 'LITTLE PEOPLE!"

GOd BLEss You ALL
jesuS Iz loRd

[stevil]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324271123' post='2353540']
To me positing a miraculous creation of life seems unnecessary. (By 'miraculous creation' I mean supernatural intervention that cannot be accounted for in terms of knowable laws of nature.) "The universe unfolds as it should." As Spock said. I see biology (and its hypothetical analogs) as being written into the atemporal foundations of the cosmos, in a certain sense. Reality is no less amesome and mysterious as a result. Just throwing this out there.
[/quote]
Even as an Atheist, I don't think theists need to resort to highlighting unnatural intervention/miracles to keep their own worldview alive.
I presume the thought is that god wants people to have faith and not knowledge. If god presented knowledge then faith would go out the window. With this philosophy you cannot point to unknowns and inject god as the only possible cause. If you want to be a theist then simply believe. Don't look for mysterious explainations as when science uncovers the answers you will be forced to look for more and more obscure gaps in human knowledge.

Edited December 19, 2011 by stevil

[BigJon16]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1324269890' post='2353522']
Yes



Yes


Want to make a bet? I bet you a million dollars that even if you start praying now you will never get an answer.
[/quote]

I'm not going to bet on God.


"You shall not put the Lord your God to the test."

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1324320372' post='2353783']
Jesus never said the Old Testament was wrong. Jesus Christ simply set higher standards for the Christian, who lives with God's grace.

[b]While our understanding of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) may be wrong,[/b] Sacred Scripture itself is inerrant.
(Pope Leo XIII,[i] Providentissimus Deus[/i], n. 20).

(Pope Pius XII, [i]Divino Afflante Spiritu[/i], n. 1)
[/quote]
Thank you, that's what we've been saying! Jesus said "I came not to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfil." Could that be interpreted that the old scripts are being misinterpreted so I came to put things back on track.


[quote]Sorry, but if you think Sacred Scripture is wrong or in error, you're not Catholic.[/quote]
If that is true how do we cope with contradictions? If we accept one we reject the other. Do you think it is possible that God puts forward two idea's to see which we shall choose.
It has been said that hte Bible cannot be read like a fysics book or a filosofical book. It is neither, it is far more complex. It holds the truth while hiding the truth from those who don't want to see it.

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1324319842' post='2353777']
[b]LD[/b], peace. I am sorry if I sounded a little 'we don't really know' about astronomy, but it's really actually quite a big universe and the unknowns certainly outweigh the knowns.
[/quote]
tsk tsk L_D is the master of the universe and you stood on his toes. Shame!!! LOL

Seriously this was about the favourite Atheist idea that there are so many universes and stars within universes that hte physics and probability of this blue planet is likely per chance. I was demonstrating with my shooting at the moon is, that it does not matter how many times you blow up the rubbish dump a 747 jumbo jet will not come out of it.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1324269890' post='2353522']


Want to make a bet? I bet you a million dollars that even if you start praying now you will never get an answer.
[/quote]
That would be a rash bet! Believe it or not he does sometimes answer. But then it is essential to believe he might answer. Obviously you don't believe so therefore you are correct, does that make sense?

[God the Father]

Not to worry guys, I'm here.


but seriously, not too sure.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1324319842' post='2353777']
[b]LD[/b], peace. I am sorry if I sounded a little 'we don't really know' about astronomy, but it's really actually quite a big universe and the unknowns certainly outweigh the knowns. At no point did I suggest that "[b]our little spec of dust is the only place in all the universe with something interesting going on,"[/b] nor was I saying that we were the only planet with life or even remotely arguing anything like that. [/quote]
I was largely just ranting and the part about our little spec of dust wasn't really at you. My bad.

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1324319842' post='2353777']But when the first planet within the habitable zone of a star was confirmed [i]this month[/i], I think it's fair for me to say that we're still exploring and that the answers are quite likely to change in the next 20 years. [/quote]
I think that's a bit misleading. Kepler-22b is the first confirmed planet in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star. There have been plenty of confirmed habitable zone planets before. Some important points related to Kepler:

1. The Kepler mission is specifically designed to determine the frequency of Earth-like planets. We don't have to wait another twenty years for meaningful data. It's here.
2. The confirmation process is slow but of the 1,236 Kepler candidates only 5-10% are expected to be false positives.
3. About 50 of the current candidates are in the habitable zone of their star.
4. This data is the tip of the iceberg because at least three orbital periods are required to establish a planet candidate. Thus, the 50 or so habitable zone planets to date orbit stars smaller and dimmer than our sun. This is what makes 22b significant; it is the first confirmed around a Sun-like star.
5. The Kepler field of view includes about 100,000 stars (out of about 200 billion).
6. The chances of a planet transiting (not considering orbital period) are less than 1/200.
7. There are other, more nuanced biases in Kepler that are understood and taken into account when interpreting the data.

In case #4 regarding the orbital period is not clear, we would need at least three years of observation to detect the Earth, assuming that it actually transited (1/215 possibility). This is why the current set of exoplanets tend to have such short orbital periods. In other words, yes, Kepler-22b is the first "confirmed" planet in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star, but we can predict (within a certain margin of error of course) what the frequency will be. Kepler-22b does not reflect the extent of our knowledge on the subject by a long-shot. Thus, that paper I alluded to which determined that there are 34% +- 14% terrestrial planets in the habitable zone of FGK type stars in our galaxy. The caveats are that how the habitable zone is calculated impacts this estimate pretty significantly, and terrestrial planet does not mean Earth-like. A completely separate paper predicted that something like 1.5-3.0% of Sun-like stars (I don't recall exactly how this was defined, maybe G-types, but maybe FGK, I could double-check) have specifically Earth-like planets in the habitable zone. Okay, maybe instead of ranting I should just produce papers.. But my only point is that estimates are being made and published in peer-reviewed journals. Suggesting that Kepler-22b is all we can seriously say about habitable zone planets is very, very wrong.

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1324319842' post='2353777']The fact that the answers are such huge numbers (even if you find them way too small) should make it obvious that I was not trying to downplay the size or variety of the universe. I [i]was[/i] trying to downplay certainty, but that's something I do naturally when translating science for non-scientific audiences. [/quote]
Personal preference I guess. To me it is more exciting to emphasize discovery and what we can estimate and predict. Certainty is a dubious concept to begin with, imo. So, for example, we can say with high confidence that there are at least 50 billion planets in the galaxy. It may turn out that there are several times that number, but it is highly unlikely that there are significantly less. Similarly, and with varying degrees of confidence, we can already talk about frequency of terrestrial planets around Sun-like stars. The error bars will definitely shrink as time goes on but this does not make us clueless for now; far from it. In my childhood we didn't know about exoplanets and I can remember being balked at for suggesting the possibility. I think the discoveries that are unfolding as we speak are super epic.

So, I mean no offense, I think we're emphasizing different things for whatever reason.

[BigJon16]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324323834' post='2353817']
Even as an Atheist, I don't think theists need to resort to highlighting unnatural intervention/miracles to keep their own worldview alive.
I presume the thought is that god wants people to have faith and not knowledge. If god presented knowledge then faith would go out the window. With this philosophy you cannot point to unknowns and inject god as the only possible cause. If you want to be a theist then simply believe. Don't look for mysterious explainations as when science uncovers the answers you will be forced to look for more and more obscure gaps in human knowledge.
[/quote]

From Peter Kreeft's book, [i]​ Because God is Real,[/i]

[quote]
... A Chinese parable puts it this way: Fact, Faith, and Feeling are three people walking along a wall. As long as Faith keeps his eyes on Fact, all three keep walking. But when Faith takes his eyes off off Fact and turns around to worry about how Feeling is doing, both Faith and Feeling fall off the wall, while Fact marches on. Our faith is not based on feelings [b][i][u]but on facts.[/u][/i][/b]
[/quote]

You must understand that our faith is not "just a superstition". It is based of knowledge, or else it wouldn't exist at all.


Unless you understand this, all of our discussion are in vain, because you will not be able to understand what the heck we are talking about.




[End rant/]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324323834' post='2353817']
Even as an Atheist, I don't think theists need to resort to highlighting unnatural intervention/miracles to keep their own worldview alive.
I presume the thought is that god wants people to have faith and not knowledge. If god presented knowledge then faith would go out the window. With this philosophy you cannot point to unknowns and inject god as the only possible cause. If you want to be a theist then simply believe. Don't look for mysterious explainations as when science uncovers the answers you will be forced to look for more and more obscure gaps in human knowledge.
[/quote]
How does this have something to do with me exactly? And what is looking for mysterious explanations?

Crows, ghosts, the midnight coasts
The wonders of the world, mysteries the most
Just open your mind, and it ain't no way
To ignore the miracles of everyday

That's real.

It's all around you, you don't even know it...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324338053' post='2353956']
How does this have something to do with me exactly? And what is looking for mysterious explanations?

Crows, ghosts, the midnight coasts
The wonders of the world, mysteries the most
Just open your mind, and it ain't no way
To ignore the miracles of everyday

That's real.

It's all around you, you don't even know it...
[/quote][img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iMTBbxQm1RU/TbXg5hj1L8I/AAAAAAAAAMw/6hfLnaa4N8s/s1600/Magnet.gif[/img]