[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[John Reimer]

Hello Manfred,

> Georg Wrede wrote:
> 
>> 10 ^ -(1.6M + 0.4M) = 10^-2M
>> 
> Now estimate the expectancy of a structure, that has no notion of
> itself and self-preservation but is so powerfull, that it can create a
> continuum with time and put itself into that continuum.
> 
> -manfred
> 

No notion of itself?  

Why must God exist in the continuum he created or be subject to it?  These 
are strange conjectures.  I don't think the Bible makes any such claims about 
God, unless you are referring to the period of time that Christ was on earth. 
:)  Believing in a God may seem too "easy", but it is logical given the conclusion 
that structure and design, and the laws that rule them, were created in place 
to govern the creation.  That's not a very chancy existance.  I also ask 
you how you think God is computable since most here like to say that concept 
of God is not testable; do you think he is any more calculable?

So may I ask you do the same calculations for any theory that purports that 
this universe appeared out of nothing ala "big bang" by random chance.  I 
don't think there is a way for that to be done.  Or have we already been 
over this already? :)  But I suppose this is the tendency of the materialist 
to enlist numbers to conjecture these things before he even knows that his 
ability to conjecture (in his universe) is even reliable.

It's rather interesting that there is a strong tendency here to rely on statistics 
and other such calculations of chance as reliable measurement for these things. 
 It once again presumes much about the accuracy of your reason.  Don't you 
think you would be lucky that "2+2=4" occurs consistantly in a random chance 
universe.  

Then again, say I give you that your statistics are reliable in your universe: 
it then also presumes all factors are understood for those chances to exist 
-- which I'd say is rather presumptuous given the fact that scientists don't 
even know how much more there is to know about this universe.

Have such statistics been testable?  Why are they counted reliable?  Why 
in a worldview that depends on chance are such calculations even found to 
be reliable?  In the materialistic worldview of millions of random electro-chemical 
reactions, it appears you've merely chosen a non-personal, invisible "god" 
of your own making to keep things running and to make sure those chance events 
repeatedly hit on the right combination.

-JJR