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

[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]

[Guest]

[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.

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

(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.
[/quote] I'm catholic. Some of the old testement stuff seems weird to me though. All of the killing in Gods name. I guess I don't think the bible has errors in it. But I don't know. Some of the old testement seems like it could have errors. I'm not saying that I believe it does though. So thanks for calling me out on my comment I made. I guess I'm confused about the old testement. That's why I started that old testement thread before which was really good and informative.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Guest

[stevil]

[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?
[/quote]
I was agreeing with your previous comment "To me positing a miraculous creation of life seems unnecessary"
I don't think that Theists need to posit a miraculous creation.

With regards to mysterious explanations, its a similar thing, scientists would investigate and discover while some theists may feel the need to posit a miraculous explaination, but I dont think it is necessary for theists to do this.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324348743' post='2354124']
I was agreeing with your previous comment "To me positing a miraculous creation of life seems unnecessary"
I don't think that Theists need to posit a miraculous creation.

With regards to mysterious explanations, its a similar thing, scientists would investigate and discover while some theists may feel the need to posit a miraculous explaination, but I dont think it is necessary for theists to do this.
[/quote]
That's what she said.

P.S. Agreement is fun. Btw, I'm in troll mode half the time, just to give you a head's up.

[Ice_nine]

I like mystery.

Mystery is fly. Let's swing back to the pre-enlightenment Romantic era plz

[penguin31]

For what it's worth, a thought: If we were 100% certain about every element of everything, they'd at least partially cease to be [i]mysteries, [/i]wouldn't they?

[Ice_nine]

I don't think certainty necessarily negates mystery. I could for example be certain of God's love, but not be able fathom it or even make sense of it. To behold the beatific vision you would be certain of God's existence yet there is still probably a ton o' mystery to be had

but certainty is not for this world. That's one of the joys of being human! or one of its miseries depending on your viewpoint.

A scientist can tell me why a sunset looks the way it does. The certain chemical reactions taking place, the wavelengths of light and the way my occipital lobe processes the information, but he/she cannot tell me why it is beautiful or why it inspires awe. I feel bad for people who have the need to parse it into little pieces and try to simple reduce things to a sum of all of its parts. Sometimes you just need to sit back and be moved by what's around you rather than being an agent of understanding.

wow I sound like I'm loaded. But it's just late. I should sleep

[cmotherofpirl]

i have never been 100% sure of anything, but it has always seemed illogical to assume we are simply products of randomness.

[MithLuin]

[b]Ice Nine[/b], I agree with what you are saying.

[color=#181818][font=georgia, serif][left]“He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.” ~ Gandalf to Saruman, [i]Lord of the Rings[/i][/left][/font][/color]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1324358002' post='2354244']
I like mystery.

Mystery is fly. Let's swing back to the pre-enlightenment Romantic era plz
[/quote]
Actually, the Romantic era (19th century) was[i] post[/i]-enlightenment (18th century).

Sorry, I'm a history nerd.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Socrates

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

110%!!