Civil Discussion About Religion

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So based on your observations that everything IN our world has a beginning and an end, you BELIEVE that something had to have given a beginning to our world.

That's my point, that's your belief. Doesn't make it so.

And science does not tell us everything has a beginning. I'm not sure where you're getting that? Perhaps you could explain that one to me? One of the laws of thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created out of thin air or destroyed. You can separate it into tiny atoms, but you can't get rid of it. Likewise, you can't create it.

Well, part of my thoughts actually goes against the matter theory. Like, how can a star become a supernova, then explode, vaporizing most particals, and creating a black hole? Where does that matter go? Some matter can be destroyed into a gas form, which goes against the matter theory as well. Of course this hasn't been completely proven by science since humans have yet to get samples of an exploding stars.
There is a plant in Chicago that takes atoms and destroys them, converting the explosion process into energy. The matter itself is gone, but it does live on in the form of energy. So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter. I think at some point science will change it's mind on this theory. I could be wrong...but at the very least I see them adding stipulations to this theory.

About my beliefs...well, right back at you. Just because it is your belief, doesn't make it so. I am just saying look at what sceince and history has shown us. Everything has a start. You're using the thermodynamics theory as basis to say not everything has a beginning. But your eyes tell you other wise. I am 32 years old (on Monday), before that, I was a mere nothing..something my father created over time. I had a beginning. You had a beginning. Everyone on this planet had a beginning. That is the theory of life. So these theories can not co-exist if they are both taken extremely literally.
I think at this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because as we break this down to exact point, I say it HAD to be made, you say it's possible that it was already here. That's pretty much a stalemate. So I'll be lingering around looking at other subject to speak of, but seems this particular subject is dead.
Look forward to future discussions...I'm sure our paths will meet again.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, I appreciate you looking into it. I had a feeling something like that would happen (the greens hitting). In my full version explanation, there is a way to avoid that, but it's very complex. Part of the system tells you to not bet if certain patterns appear (or lack in appearance), but it is not possible to do so on that website like it is in real life. After giving the basics a try, do you at least see how the system can work?
Again, I am pleased you gave it a shot, it shows your willingness to check out new things.

No, it cannot work over time. If you have won money doing this in the past, you are simply lucky. There is no such thing as a roulette system. The wheel does not have patterns. Each outcome is completely random. If a red came up last roll, the chances of a red coming up this roll are no different than last roll.

You gave me a system, I followed it to the letter, and I lost money. If it's really a good system, it would work every time, there would be no luck involved. It would simply work.

For giving your system a shot, I'd like for you to consider my point of view for a moment. You've been so intent on seeing me try your system, that I don't think you've given full consideration to my points.

The odds of roulette are relatively simple. You're a numbers guy, so you'll be able to follow me here:

Let's look at putting money on the outside bets: odd, even, red, or black. There are 18 spots on the wheel for each one of those that would represent a win. There are 38 total spots on the wheel. So the chances of winning on any one of those bets is 18/38 = 47.36%. Conversely, there is a 52.64% chance you will lose.

Now, if you do win, you get paid 1 to 1. If you bet $1 and win, you win $1. The math works like this: 47.36% chance of winning times $1, plus 52.64% chance of losing times -$1.

(47.36% x $1) + (52.64% x -$1)
($0.4736) + (-$0.5264)
= - $0.052

On average, for every $1 you put on an outside bet, you will lose 5 cents. 47% of the time you win a dollar. 53% of the time you lose a dollar. Overall, on average, that's a loss of 5 cents per dollar you bet.

Look at playing any of the 12s, say first 12. Your chance of winning is 12/38 = 31.58%. Your payoff is 2 to 1. So put a dollar down, you win $2 when you win:

(31.58% x $2) + (68.42% x -$1)
($0.6317) + (-$0.6842)
= - $0.052

Same thing, playing first, second, or third 12, you lose 5 cents per dollar you bet.

Now look at betting individual numbers, including whether you bet 0 or 00. Pick any number, put a dollar on it. Your payoff is 35 to 1. Your chances of winning are 1/38 = 2.63%.

(2.63% x $35) + (97.37% x $-1)
($0.9210) + (- $0.9737)
= - $0.052

No matter where you bet on the board, on average, you will lose 5 cents per dollar you bet.

You've had masters courses, and you can't get a masters without taking statistics courses. So these probabilities should not escape you. The flaw in your system lies in the assumption that the wheel has patterns. It does not. You've fallen hook line and sinker for The Gambler's Fallacy.

If you really thought it was foolproof, you'd quit your job managing that Chilis, and you'd be in Vegas raking in millions upon millions. It doesn't work. Your previous winnings have been due to one thing only: LUCK.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Non-interesting fact: Carl Sagan didn't actually use the phrase "billions and billions" - he just said "billions".

Interesting fact: TAFKAS, Lady Brave, and Carl Sagan all share a birthday

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, part of my thoughts actually goes against the matter theory. Like, how can a star become a supernova, then explode, vaporizing most particals, and creating a black hole? Where does that matter go? Some matter can be destroyed into a gas form, which goes against the matter theory as well. Of course this hasn't been completely proven by science since humans have yet to get samples of an exploding stars.
There is a plant in Chicago that takes atoms and destroys them, converting the explosion process into energy. The matter itself is gone, but it does live on in the form of energy. So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter. I think at some point science will change it's mind on this theory. I could be wrong...but at the very least I see them adding stipulations to this theory.

All of this is 100% incorrect.

In a black hole, the structure of the star collapses, and all the matter gets sucked into a tiny space. All the atoms that were there before are still there, they're just compressed into a much smaller place.

With all that matter compressed into such a small place, the gravitational field becomes so strong that light (made up of charged particles) cannot even escape the black hole. So when you look at a black hole, it appears there is nothing there, but there is matter at the core. You just can't see it because the image of the matter cannot escape it's own gravitational field. If you don't believe me, hit up Wikipedia for black holes.

On "destroying matter into gas form", you obviously haven't had much chemistry background. When you have water, it is in liquid form. When you boil it, it turns to gaseous form, or water vapor. Boiling water does not cause the H2O molecules to disappear. All of the H2O molecules are still present in the air. That's how the humidity gets higher in the summer. Warmer air holds more water vapor. The matter does not get destroyed when it goes into gas form - it's still present - just in a different form.

When that plant in Chicago uses it's linear accelerator (aka atom smasher) to break atoms apart, it does not destroy the atom in the sense that the atom is now suddenly gone. It breaks the atom apart into it's particles, separating the protons and neutrons held in the nucleus from the electrons orbiting the nucleus. The separation of those particles causes a mass chain reaction as those particles attempt to latch onto other atoms nearby, causing an imbalance in their chemical charges, and releasing more particles, which then in turn latch onto other atoms nearby, and so on. The reaction happens nearly instantaneously, and if not controlled, causes a nuclear explosion. The process can be controlled by using uranium to collect the homeless charged particles displaced by the smashing of the first atom. When the uranium is done being used, it contains tons and tons of charged particles, which emit harmful radiation. This process was invented by Einstein and company in the Manhattan Project, and gave rise to the first atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The same process is now used in every nuclear power plant across the country, in a controlled environment, and is used to generate electricity. All this is to say, the atom may be broken apart, but the pieces of the atom are never eliminated, simply displaced.

Matter cannot be destroyed. It can change states (liquid, solid, gas), it can be broken down into simpler substances (digestion), and it can be broken into pieces (nuclear reactions). But the matter never vanishes.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter.

This statement flies in the face of the law of Thermodynamics, which has been PROVEN to be correct. Hence they call it the LAW of Thermodynamics, and not the THEORY of Thermodynamics.

Too many people need to brush up on scientific terms:

Law: Has been proven and has never been broken.
Theory: Has not been proven, but evidence supports it.
Belief: No evidence exists, you just think it's true anyway.

[Hog1]

I would doubt you can find anything that is indisputable. Those things that are considered "laws" in the scientific community are acceptable and popularized within the same group. That, however does not mean there is no other school of thought............on every issue

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Interesting fact: TAFKAS, Lady Brave, and Carl Sagan all share a birthday

Very interesting indeed. Scorpios are super smart and might I add - sexy. Ok, maybe not Carl... but you know what I mean.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This statement flies in the face of the law of Thermodynamics, which has been PROVEN to be correct. Hence they call it the LAW of Thermodynamics, and not the THEORY of Thermodynamics.

Too many people need to brush up on scientific terms:

Law: Has been proven and has never been broken.
Theory: Has not been proven, but evidence supports it.
Belief: No evidence exists, you just think it's true anyway.

While I understand the commonly used terms, they are placed by humans to help understand a process. We, as humans, are flawed and make mistakes. Just because we call it a "law" doesn't make it so. I have used the same argument on this over and over by saying everyone said the world was flat...it was a "law" until someone had the guts to keep going. Then it was broken. I'm sure you heard the expression, all laws are made to be broken. I am not debating Thermodynamics, I just beleive that in our time this "law" will change. Then what will it be when it is changed? Simply a theory.

[Hog1]

Exactly J, you stole my thunder! Just as you say, the entire scientific community, Nay, the world accepted the "fact" that the world was flat. We now look upon that as archaic, ridiculous Jackassery (all rights reserved, Mk72 inc).
The same will be true in the future of many of the "facts" known today.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I understand the commonly used terms, they are placed by humans to help understand a process. We, as humans, are flawed and make mistakes. Just because we call it a "law" doesn't make it so. I have used the same argument on this over and over by saying everyone said the world was flat...it was a "law" until someone had the guts to keep going. Then it was broken. I'm sure you heard the expression, all laws are made to be broken. I am not debating Thermodynamics, I just beleive that in our time this "law" will change. Then what will it be when it is changed? Simply a theory.

OK you're right, if we ever prove that matter can be destroyed, then the law of thermodynamics will no longer be considered a law.

But that doesn't change the fact that every single one of those examples of destroying matter that you provided (black hole, vaporizing, atom smashing) do not destroy matter. They only change it's state. I just think that before you go trying to use science to explain your beliefs, you should understand science a lot better first.

For a guy who has been harassing me to consider other viewpoints, you seem to have deeply rooted beliefs without giving any consideration to gaining knowledge of correct science. To me, that's not giving proper consideration to the opposing viewpoint.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Have you guys ever heard of Rene Descartes?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No, it cannot work over time. If you have won money doing this in the past, you are simply lucky. There is no such thing as a roulette system. The wheel does not have patterns. Each outcome is completely random. If a red came up last roll, the chances of a red coming up this roll are no different than last roll.

You gave me a system, I followed it to the letter, and I lost money. If it's really a good system, it would work every time, there would be no luck involved. It would simply work.

For giving your system a shot, I'd like for you to consider my point of view for a moment. You've been so intent on seeing me try your system, that I don't think you've given full consideration to my points.

The odds of roulette are relatively simple. You're a numbers guy, so you'll be able to follow me here:

Let's look at putting money on the outside bets: odd, even, red, or black. There are 18 spots on the wheel for each one of those that would represent a win. There are 38 total spots on the wheel. So the chances of winning on any one of those bets is 18/38 = 47.36%. Conversely, there is a 52.64% chance you will lose.

Now, if you do win, you get paid 1 to 1. If you bet $1 and win, you win $1. The math works like this: 47.36% chance of winning times $1, plus 52.64% chance of losing times -$1.

(47.36% x $1) + (52.64% x -$1)
($0.4736) + (-$0.5264)
= - $0.052

On average, for every $1 you put on an outside bet, you will lose 5 cents. 47% of the time you win a dollar. 53% of the time you lose a dollar. Overall, on average, that's a loss of 5 cents per dollar you bet.

Look at playing any of the 12s, say first 12. Your chance of winning is 12/38 = 31.58%. Your payoff is 2 to 1. So put a dollar down, you win $2 when you win:

(31.58% x $2) + (68.42% x -$1)
($0.6317) + (-$0.6842)
= - $0.052

Same thing, playing first, second, or third 12, you lose 5 cents per dollar you bet.

Now look at betting individual numbers, including whether you bet 0 or 00. Pick any number, put a dollar on it. Your payoff is 35 to 1. Your chances of winning are 1/38 = 2.63%.

(2.63% x $35) + (97.37% x $-1)
($0.9210) + (- $0.9737)
= - $0.052

No matter where you bet on the board, on average, you will lose 5 cents per dollar you bet.

You've had masters courses, and you can't get a masters without taking statistics courses. So these probabilities should not escape you. The flaw in your system lies in the assumption that the wheel has patterns. It does not. You've fallen hook line and sinker for The Gambler's Fallacy.

If you really thought it was foolproof, you'd quit your job managing that Chilis, and you'd be in Vegas raking in millions upon millions. It doesn't work. Your previous winnings have been due to one thing only: LUCK.

Just out of curiousity, why do you think I have not looked at the numbers? I wrote a book on how to beat roulette...everywhere you look in the book there are stats. There are stats for stats. I understand you have not read it cover to cover, but trust me, I know the numbers.

I never said it was foolproof. In fact I said you will lose battles but win the war. I know my system works because I put it to real world use with thousands upon thousands of rolls. I asked you to check out the "basics" of my system. I'm sure you even realize that the word "basic" means the bare essentials, not the full blown "complex" system. I have won rubes money with this system. Again, I know it works. I doubt you can call about 20 people "lucky". When I actually finish up the book, and get it published, I will gladly send you a copy.
I think you are thinking that in order for this to work, it has to win every single time you play...and that's not the case. Only 1 part of my system is 100%. (I'll explain that at the end of this post) I just made it to where the odds are now in my favor. I know you don't believe that, and that's cool. There are many things in this world that people won't believe for a variety of reasons, and it's your right.

I am curious about 1 thing you mentioned:

Look at playing any of the 12s, say first 12. Your chance of winning is 12/38 = 31.58%. Your payoff is 2 to 1. So put a dollar down, you win $2 when you win:

(31.58% x $2) + (68.42% x -$1)
($0.6317) + (-$0.6842)
= - $0.052

Same thing, playing first, second, or third 12, you lose 5 cents per dollar you bet.

Did you play the 2nd 12 and 3rd 12 at the same time, or at different times? Because I NEVER said to play them seperately...the odds of winning when you play both at the same time are approximately 63.2%.

I have a fundamental belief that the world will right itself. So while you say if the wheel hits red 3 times in a row, the odds of it hitting red again is 50/50 (less than when you count the greens), I say the odds of it hitting black goes up. It's like what I said to you about flipping a coin. If it hits tails 10 times in a row, eventually it will hit heads at a higher rate than tails. Why? Because there is something in this world that will even it out. I can't explain it, and I can't prove it yet...but I feel it's there. There is no need to try to rip that thought apart, I understand it can't be proven and it is a unique belief. Some day I will prove it, somehow. Until then, your stats are correct.
I have never seen red or black hit more than 8 times in a row. So if I am to bet against red (after it hit 3 times in a row) my odds go up that I will win since the odds of red hitting more than 8 times in row is astronomical.
So let's break this down to the simplest of forms.
Bet $5 on red after black hit 3 times. Keep doubling it whenever you lose. Eventually it will hit red...we can all agree on that right? So what happens when it does? You win money...more than you lost (by $5 to be exact). How can that simple task be wrong? My system takes that basic thought and expands upon it. Granted it gets very complex, but you can't argue with that simple task. It works...it will ALWAYS work. That is undenyable. If all you were to do is bet like I just said, you WILL walk away with money. But it is time consuming. If I only did that in Vegas and I won (on average) every 10 minutes, I would win $30 an hour. If I did that for 8 hours, that's $240. Do that 5 times a week, and that's $1200. Do that for 52 weeks, and that's $62400 a year. So can it be done...absolutely. Do you get health benefits, a 401k, dental benefits, vision plan, vacation time etc...heck no.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

OK you're right, if we ever prove that matter can be destroyed, then the law of thermodynamics will no longer be considered a law.

But that doesn't change the fact that every single one of those examples of destroying matter that you provided (black hole, vaporizing, atom smashing) do not destroy matter. They only change it's state. I just think that before you go trying to use science to explain your beliefs, you should understand science a lot better first.

For a guy who has been harassing me to consider other viewpoints, you seem to have deeply rooted beliefs without giving any consideration to gaining knowledge of correct science. To me, that's not giving proper consideration to the opposing viewpoint.

I don't understand your point here...I have listened to everything you have said, even said in many cases you are correct, and I understand I am in the minority. I used to be a literalist, just like you. I just know there are other things in this world that we can't see or touch or prove.

I think you missed my point of my previous post. When you break down the atom, what happens to that "outer shell"? Yes, the inner ingrediants spill out, and now we have more smaller matter...so what happens when you split say an electron? (we don't know yet) Maybe I am not clear when I say I understand your point of what happens to matter. I am just a beleiver that we will find a way to destroy it. I firmly believe that in a black hole type scenario, the matter is destroyed. Science can't tell us definitively it that is true or not. We have managed to get extremely far off the subject. I will say this, I do not have deeply routed beliefs, just beliefs. My mind gets changed often, sometimes with proof, sometimes without. I stay open minded to explore all sorts of possibilities. Because what we know for "sure" today, will be changed tomorrow. We have yet to scrape the surface of knowledge and truth of our world. Unfortunately, we are not all knowledgable people, I try to think "outside the box", and if you look at my previous posts, my posts all have similar themes to get others to think outside the box. You can say that you exist today, therefore you are fact...right? What if this is all a dream? Or we are part of a video game played by aliens? Not that I believe these scenarios, just that is an example of thinking outside the box.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Exactly J, you stole my thunder! Just as you say, the entire scientific community, Nay, the world accepted the "fact" that the world was flat. We now look upon that as archaic, ridiculous Jackassery (all rights reserved, Mk72 inc).
The same will be true in the future of many of the "facts" known today.

Sorry man, didn't mean to steal your thunder, but I'm glad to see someone is getting my point. Sometimes I don't explain things right and I wonder how someone took me the wrong way...but I am doing an OK job of explaining myself...of course I could always do better.

I'm getting to the point that nothing in the world is fact, it is all theory. I think we as humans are due for an "epiphany"...something will happen that will change our core beliefs again. It's been a while since the last one.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Just out of curiousity, why do you think I have not looked at the numbers? I wrote a book on how to beat roulette...everywhere you look in the book there are stats. There are stats for stats. I understand you have not read it cover to cover, but trust me, I know the numbers.

You may be able to multiply and divide, but you don't understand the #1 premise in statistics: randomness.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I never said it was foolproof. In fact I said you will lose battles but win the war. I know my system works because I put it to real world use with thousands upon thousands of rolls. I asked you to check out the "basics" of my system. I'm sure you even realize that the word "basic" means the bare essentials, not the full blown "complex" system. I have won rubes money with this system. Again, I know it works. I doubt you can call about 20 people "lucky". When I actually finish up the book, and get it published, I will gladly send you a copy.
I think you are thinking that in order for this to work, it has to win every single time you play...and that's not the case. Only 1 part of my system is 100%. (I'll explain that at the end of this post) I just made it to where the odds are now in my favor. I know you don't believe that, and that's cool. There are many things in this world that people won't believe for a variety of reasons, and it's your right.

Look man, you're backtracking. You told me I would make money using your system. I did exactly what you said to do. I'll try it for another 40 rolls tonight, but I don't think it's going to change anything.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I am curious about 1 thing you mentioned:

Did you play the 2nd 12 and 3rd 12 at the same time, or at different times? Because I NEVER said to play them seperately...the odds of winning when you play both at the same time are approximately 63.2%.

I did EXACTLY what you told me to do. I always bet the 2nd and 3rd 12 at the same time. The odds of winning in this situation would be 24/38, or 63.2% just as you said. If bet $1 on 2nd 12 and $1 on 3rd 12, there are four possible outcomes:

The ball hits 1st 12, and I lose both of my dollars.
The ball hits 2nd 12, I get paid $2, but I lose the dollar I bet on 3rd 12.
The ball hits 3rd 12, I get paid $2, but I lose the dollar I bet on 2nd 12.
The ball hits a green square, and I lose both my dollars.

So the math is:
(31.57% x [$2 - $1]) + (31.57% x [$2 - $1]) + (31.57% x -$2) + (5.26% x -$2)
= - $0.1052

You lose 10 cents per two dollars you bet. That's the same as losing 5 cents for every dollar you bet. No matter what, the odds don't change.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I have a fundamental belief that the world will right itself. So while you say if the wheel hits red 3 times in a row, the odds of it hitting red again is 50/50 (less than when you count the greens), I say the odds of it hitting black goes up. It's like what I said to you about flipping a coin. If it hits tails 10 times in a row, eventually it will hit heads at a higher rate than tails. Why? Because there is something in this world that will even it out. I can't explain it, and I can't prove it yet...but I feel it's there. There is no need to try to rip that thought apart, I understand it can't be proven and it is a unique belief. Some day I will prove it, somehow. Until then, your stats are correct.

This evening out you speak of is a phenomenon in statisctics which seems to have escaped you. You should have covered this in your schooling. It's the basic law of averages. It says that the odds of any individual coin flip don't change. Each flip is always 50%. If you start off with 10 heads, the chances of heads on the next flip is 50%. The evening out occurs over millions and millions of flips. Somewhere in the subsequent flips, you're just as likely to get 10 tails in a row, just as you got the 10 heads in the beginning. This does not mean that the individual chances of a coin flip have changed from 50%. It means that if you flip the coin enough, the results will asymptotically approach 50%, no matter how many heads you started with.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I have never seen red or black hit more than 8 times in a row. So if I am to bet against red (after it hit 3 times in a row) my odds go up that I will win since the odds of red hitting more than 8 times in row is astronomical.

The odds of any 8 rolls coming up either red or black, all in a row, are 0.25%. That's why you've never seen it. But if you stick around a roulette table long enough, you will see it eventually. When it gets to 7 reds in a row, it has a 50/50 shot of making it to 8. You're not betting on the odds of what happens over the last 7 rolls AND the next one. You're simply betting on the NEXT one.

Originally Posted by jsarno

But it is time consuming. If I only did that in Vegas and I won (on average) every 10 minutes, I would win $30 an hour. If I did that for 8 hours, that's $240. Do that 5 times a week, and that's $1200. Do that for 52 weeks, and that's $62400 a year. So can it be done...absolutely. Do you get health benefits, a 401k, dental benefits, vision plan, vacation time etc...heck no.

You would make a whole lot more than that per hour, per day, per week, per year, if you upped your bet. On the first day, start out betting the table minimum. If your more complex system is as foolproof as you say, you will be up a lot of money by the end of the day. So the next day, double the size of all your bets. So by the end of that day, you'll be up even more. Each day, keep doubling your bets and racking up winnings. Before you know it, if your complex system ALWAYS wins, your pockets will be so deep be able to play the high roller tables all day. You'd be betting $10,000 a spin eventually, winning over $1 million a day. Sounds a lot better than managing Chili's.

If it ALWAYS won, you'd be doing it instead of wasting time writing a book and selling a bogus idea. Either you are trying to sell a book that will cheat people out of money, or flat out don't understand probability. I find that sad for a person with a masters.