Evidence for God from Science

Mallz wrote:

slnfiowehfrO;FSDBNKBNWERILFBWEVKB ILWFRBUIL;

I hope you don't think that was random

sdfjhIGFo;jgfnsd;ojvnfio;gner;gerkg


Well I did it again and it didn't come out the same, so it is random.

Define random for me. Lets make sure we are working with the same term...

Well I did it again and it didn't come out the same, so it is random.

No, you did it differently.

Mallz wrote:Define random for me. Lets make sure we are working with the same term...

made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.

happening without method or conscious decision.

Where was your lack of method or conscious decision?

So I take it Daniel that you equate randomness with chaos?

Is there any such thing as perfect chaos? Think carefully.

Mallz wrote:

happening without method or conscious decision.

Where was your lack of method or conscious decision?

what keys I hit, I made no concious decision to hit any particular key in any particular order, I just mashed the keyboard. The only concious decision I made was to do it, but the outcome was completely random, hence why I could not recreate it.

Starhunter wrote:So I take it Daniel that you equate randomness with chaos?

Is there any such thing as perfect chaos? Think carefully.

err no Chaos means-complete disorder and confusion.

How can it be complete disorder if it is consistently disorderly?

Starhunter wrote:How can it be complete disorder if it is consistently disorderly?

There is no consistency in disorder, your sentence doesn't make any sense, you can't have consistently disordered, it is just disordered.

what keys I hit, I made no concious decision to hit any particular key in any particular order, I just mashed the keyboard.

This was your method, mashing the keyboard.

The only concious decision I made was to do it, but the outcome was completely random, hence why I could not recreate it.

The conscious decision was to use a keyboard which is an object and has a function which can only produce it's potentiality to try and demonstrate a point. Your outcomes are not random. You chose to approach your mashing differently from the first time which is why you obtained a different result.

disorder implies and can only be implied if there is order. And disorder can be part of order, but if disorder has any order, then it is not properly disorderly.

So long as there is order, there can never be disorder predominantly, which means that order overrules all the time.

However if there is total disorder and no order at all, then the system itself is all that exists and therefor cannot be disorderly, but just the perfect thing that is.

Mallz wrote:

what keys I hit, I made no concious decision to hit any particular key in any particular order, I just mashed the keyboard.

This was your method, mashing the keyboard.

The only concious decision I made was to do it, but the outcome was completely random, hence why I could not recreate it.

The conscious decision was to use a keyboard which is an object and has a function which can only produce it's potentiality to try and demonstrate a point. Your outcomes are not random. You chose to approach your mashing differently from the first time which is why you obtained a different result.

You just restated what I said.

My outcome was random, hence why I could not recreate it when I did it a second time. I did not choose to approach it differently, it just happened differently by randomness.

Now I don't think you're even reading what I say. Forget it.

Starhunter wrote:disorder implies and can only be implied if there is order. And disorder can be part of order, but if disorder has any order, then it is not properly disorderly.

How much wood can a wood chuck chuck, if a wood chuck could chuck wood.