Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=steveo395;269247]
And I don't feel like hearing your crap that this is a christian website. It is made up of scientific facts.[/QUOTE]

It's not science, it's people's opinions. Mostly, they ask philosophical questions that support belief in god. I'm pretty sure some of the quotes they are using were taken out of context and used for the sole purpose of supporting creationism.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;269317]Just a note about the odds of life...

It's easy to present extreme odds of life as evidence of a creator. However, you must also apply the same logic in reverse.

Our sun sustains life on Earth. There are billions upon billions of stars in our galaxy -- each possibly capable of sustaining life in their own capacity. There are billions upon billions of galaxies in the universe. So, that is billions upon billions times billions upon billions of possible environments able to sustain life. What's a billion squared? I don't know, but it's a number so large we can't really comprehend it.

So, let's assume that the odds of life are around 100 billion to one (pretty liberal, I know). That would mean that for every 100 billion environments able to sustain life, there would be one of them which actually does sustain life -- and there are FAR more stars in the universe than 100 billion.

The point is: there are SO many stars in the universe, each possibly capable of sustaining life, that even if the odds of life are incredible, the colossal number of stars in the universe offset those odds significantly.[/quote]

Very well said. The odds of an amino acid combining to form the early stages of life are indeed so astronomically tiny that you'd think it was impossible for it to happen.

But then you remember that our Earth has been around for billions of years (according to paleontological records), and you think well that sure does give the amino acids an awful lot of time to come around and finally beat the odds.

It's just like Powerball or Megamillions. The odds of winning are itsy bitsy. But if you played every week for billions of years, wouldn't yet expect to win at [I]some[/I] point?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;269317]Just a note about the odds of life...

It's easy to present extreme odds of life as evidence of a creator. However, you must also apply the same logic in reverse.

Our sun sustains life on Earth. There are billions upon billions of stars in our galaxy -- each possibly capable of sustaining life in their own capacity. There are billions upon billions of galaxies in the universe. So, that is billions upon billions times billions upon billions of possible environments able to sustain life. What's a billion squared? I don't know, but it's a number so large we can't really comprehend it.

So, let's assume that the odds of life are around 100 billion to one (pretty liberal, I know). That would mean that for every 100 billion environments able to sustain life, there would be one of them which actually does sustain life -- and there are FAR more stars in the universe than 100 billion.

The point is: there are SO many stars in the universe, each possibly capable of sustaining life, that even if the odds of life are incredible, the colossal number of stars in the universe offset those odds significantly.[/quote]

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

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;269308]OK so here's what I did:

I started with 5 on 2nd 12, 5 on 3rd 12, 5 on red, and 5 on odd. From there, I watched what won and lost. If I won on something, I didn't bet it the next time and I doubled my money on the ones that I didn't win on. I kept doing this based on the patterns, and walked away when I got up. I also put a dollar straddling the 0 and 00 on occasion.

After 8 rolls, I got up by $50 and walked away.

Then I came back, and after 11 rolls I got up by $50 and walked away.

Then I came back, and after 14 rolls, I lost $120. It came up 00 on my very first roll, and I didn't have a $1 on it (because it was my first roll). Then 0 came up three rolls later, and again, since the green squares hadn't hit in a while, I didn't have $1 on it. So after losing $120, I figured the table was cold, so I got up and walked away.

I came back, and with my final 8 rolls, I lost $5.

Overall, I lost $25.[/QUOTE]

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 [i]can[/i] work?
Again, I am pleased you gave it a shot, it shows your willingness to check out new things.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

I just wanted to say that in this debate I believe that God and evolution do exsist or almost go hand in hand. It would be wrong to believe that God is all knowing, forgiving, and loving and the mastermind to life as we know it but He is incapable of designing a plan such as evolution...

Also, I just wanted to say that everyone says that they need scientific proof that either their is a God or that evolution did happen. Well, wasn't in science that tought us back in grade school, and I am sure everyone had to memorize it and write it down, that Pluto is a planet. Right, science tought us that. Only now we are being told that science is/was wrong...

Just food for thought...
(As I throw fuel on the flame...)

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;269195]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269406]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 [I]can[/I] work?
Again, I am pleased you gave it a shot, it shows your willingness to check out new things.[/quote]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;269387]Non-interesting fact: Carl Sagan didn't actually use the phrase "billions and billions" - he just said "billions".[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269411]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. [/quote]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269411]So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter.[/quote]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

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

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=TAFKAS;269416]Interesting fact: TAFKAS, Lady Brave, and Carl Sagan all share a birthday[/quote]
Very interesting indeed. Scorpios are super smart and might I add - sexy. Ok, maybe not Carl... but you know what I mean.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;269424]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269446]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Have you guys ever heard of Rene Descartes?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;269415]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.[/QUOTE]

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:
[quote]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.[/quote]
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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;269459]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Hog1;269452]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.[/QUOTE]


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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269467]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.[/quote]

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

[quote=jsarno;269467]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.[/quote]

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.

[quote=jsarno;269467]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%.[/quote]

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.

[quote=jsarno;269467]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.[/quote]

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.


[quote=jsarno;269467]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.[/quote]

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.

[quote=jsarno;269467]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Poor Saden. Came here looking for God. Instead he's found Pythagoras and Euclid battling to the death at the Bellagio.

"Are you there God? It's me Saden"

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268880]OK, using your logic, then what did start everything? Knowing that life always has a beginning, it makes sense that something "non human" started it all. So I can understand you wanting to poke holes in the theory that God started it all, but what would add value to this conversation is your theory in what actually did start it all.[/quote]Nothing "started it all". There has always been a reality, always been "something" in it. Meaning that the universe has existed, in some form or another whether it is recognizable to us or not. On our level we see cause and effect and that seems like it applies to everything, but that is incorrect. On the quantum level the whole concept of causality breaks down.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Damn I had avoided this thread but I missed out on the lessons for roulette and now I feel empty.

A system for roulette huh? Wonder how all those casinos are doing now that someone cracked the code to roulette. I bet they are seriously struggling to make any money.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;269476]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.[/QUOTE]

Say...are you related to the famous Jay Sarno? The one who created Ceasar's Palace and other hotels on the strip?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

That just goes to show you, religion is..............(can't you see it coming).............a crap shoot

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Lady Brave;269445]Scorpios are super smart and might I add - sexy.[/QUOTE]Word.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=TAFKAS;269481]Poor Saden. Came here looking for God. Instead he's found Pythagoras and Euclid battling to the death at the Bellagio.

"Are you there God? It's me Saden"[/quote]

THAT'S humor!
#1313

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=FRPLG;269577]Damn I had avoided this thread but I missed out on the lessons for roulette and now I feel empty.

A system for roulette huh? Wonder how all those casinos are doing now that someone cracked the code to roulette. I bet they are seriously struggling to make any money.[/quote]

Exactly. If these systems actually worked, you'd never see a roulette table in Vegas ever again. They'd close them all down.

Vegas would love you, jsarno. You're a classic case.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;269603]Exactly. If these systems actually worked, you'd never see a roulette table in Vegas ever again. They'd close them all down.

Vegas would love you, jsarno. You're a classic case.[/quote]

Q. Those real tall buildings in Vegas are built by?
A. people with systems

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;269480] Sounds a lot better than managing Chili's.[/quote]
Why do you insult my profession? This is not a place to insult with personal attacks and not the first time you made a comment of such.

[quote]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.[/QUOTE]

Funny...no stats....therefore you can't disect it and "prove it wrong". It obviously works. It's as good as gold, and you know it.
What seems to illude you is two things. 1- There are things beyond your control and comprehension. 2- You are dumbfounded that your literal stats don't apply to my system. Cause I know deep down, you didn't try the roulette at all, you made up a scenario in your head, and you posted it. If you followed my system "to the letter" you would have doubled your money instead of giving up when you were $125 down. (I find it extremely hard to believe that green hit 3 times in a span of likely 5 or 6 rolls. The odds of that are slim to none.) 3 people pmed me and told me they won with my system. You are the only one arguing it. Why? No clue at this point, but hey, whatever makes you happy.
There is a fundamental difference between me and you at this point. I look for the truth / positive in a post and expand upon it. You look for any "weakness" or negative and expand upon it. You obviously enjoy the rebuttle process.

I will leave you with this:
[quote]Vegas would love you, jsarno. You're a classic case.[/quote]

Yup, you're right, that's why I win money and you don't, and that's why my simplest form of betting ALWAYS works (again, no stats can prove that doesn't work). But hey, you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink.
We obviously aren't going to go anywhere with this. You are not willing to think outside the box and beleive there are things beyond your own eyes. I do. There is nothing that can be said to this point to make this a constructive argument, so my posts will cease about this issue.
Again, I look forward to future debates with you, I'm sure we will meet again.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;269581]Say...are you related to the famous Jay Sarno? The one who created Ceasar's Palace and other hotels on the strip?[/QUOTE]

Not that I know of.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Rexi;269567]Nothing "started it all". There has always been a reality, always been "something" in it. Meaning that the universe has existed, in some form or another whether it is recognizable to us or not. On our level we see cause and effect and that seems like it applies to everything, but that is incorrect. On the quantum level the whole concept of causality breaks down.[/QUOTE]

There was a comment I made many posts ago that pointed out that people seem to be self destructive.
Why would you choose a path (not believing) that has absolutely no chance (that's 0%) of having a positive affect after death? But by normal stats, it's 50/50 that there is a God, so if you believe, you have at least a 50% shot of being right. And if you're wrong, it's no big deal, you're worm food anyway. SO please inform me why any logical person would risk his own life a chance? If someone said to you, "you have to choose a door, and if you choose the door on the left, you will receive certain death, but the death could be painful or painless (painful would be symbolized by hell, and painless would be worm food), or you can choose the door on the right and you will receive an afterlife full of happiness or completely painless death."
Which door would you choose?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;269808]Why do you insult my profession? This is not a place to insult with personal attacks and not the first time you made a comment of such.[/quote]

This was not a personal attack. This was merely to say that winning millions per day at the high roller tables would seem to be a lot better than managing a Chili's. It would be a lot better than my job as well. It would be better than anyone's job.

And after my constantly asking you why you don't go to Vegas and play the high roller tables, you still have not answered me why you don't do it. It's simple logic: as quoted by you: "my simplest form of betting ALWAYS works." Therefore you can't lose in Vegas. Therefore there is no downside. So why don't you go there, start winning on the small tables, move over to the high roller tables when you have enough money, and become a millionaire? I mean there's no reason you can't start betting $100 a roll after being there for a couple days. And after a few more days, $1000 a roll. If you can answer why you are ignoring this foolproof opportunity to make millions of dollars, then you will have me convinced.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;269810]Why would you choose a path (not believing) that has absolutely no chance (that's 0%) of having a positive affect after death?[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I don't like about religion. Some people choose their beliefs based on risk. Ugh.

The ONLY reason I EVER considered a God was because of my own guilt. I couldn't care less about my life after death -- that is NOT why I care about God.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Straight up, Ghetto. Choosing to be a christian just to have an assurance that you'll enjoy a good afterlife is a hypocritical perspective. You should live your life as a christian would because that in itself is the right thing to do not because of some reward system.

A question I ask myself from time to time is "If I knew that there was no afterlife, would I continue being a decent person who tries to be selfless, generous and helpful?" I'm pleased to know that I would. The "good" is within me and is my choice to act on.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;269880]Straight up, Ghetto. [B]Choosing to be a christian just to have an assurance that you'll enjoy a good afterlife is a hypocritical perspective. [/B]You should live your life as a christian would because that in itself is the right thing to do not because of some reward system.

A question I ask myself from time to time is "If I knew that there was no afterlife, would I continue being a decent person who tries to be selfless, generous and helpful?" I'm pleased to know that I would. The "good" is within me and is my choice to act on.[/QUOTE]

But that's how the believers have to sell it. If there was no "reward" in the afterlife, what could they possibly do to convince people to believe?

It's the very oldest trick in the book - selling fear. And what has been Mankind's biggest fear since we've had the capability to think?

That's right -- 'what happens when we die?'

Some very clever-minded, entreprenurial person came up with the grandest reward for following some simple rules (along with some money, of course :D) -- and oh, by the way ... if you don't, you'll burn in hell!

I think it was Voltaire who said, "The first priest was the first rogue, who encountered the first fool."

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;269880]The "good" is within me and is my choice to act on.[/QUOTE]

Yes. To me, God doesn't exist because he inspired some people to write things, or because of any prophets, or because of any religion. All of those things just seem to distract from the REAL: God. The greatest evidence of God is our inner conscience. I believe that "good" inside you IS God. That "good" inside you, is inside me also -- and it's the same. It's not like there's a God for every person. IMO, we all share the same God, and he lives in all of us.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;269815]This was not a personal attack. This was merely to say that winning millions per day at the high roller tables would seem to be a lot better than managing a Chili's. It would be a lot better than my job as well. It would be better than anyone's job.

And after my constantly asking you why you don't go to Vegas and play the high roller tables, you still have not answered me why you don't do it. It's simple logic: as quoted by you: "my simplest form of betting ALWAYS works." Therefore you can't lose in Vegas. Therefore there is no downside. So why don't you go there, start winning on the small tables, move over to the high roller tables when you have enough money, and become a millionaire? I mean there's no reason you can't start betting $100 a roll after being there for a couple days. And after a few more days, $1000 a roll. If you can answer why you are ignoring this foolproof opportunity to make millions of dollars, then you will have me convinced.[/QUOTE]

You would have to play at a high roller table. There is a limit on a lot of tables. So unless you're a high roller, you can't just wager an infinite amount of money every time. That's why you have to start with $5.

ps- I already explained why I wouldn't go to Vegas, you're just not recalling. Scroll back, it's there.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;269880]Straight up, Ghetto. Choosing to be a christian just to have an assurance that you'll enjoy a good afterlife is a hypocritical perspective. You should live your life as a christian would because that in itself is the right thing to do not because of some reward system.

A question I ask myself from time to time is "If I knew that there was no afterlife, would I continue being a decent person who tries to be selfless, generous and helpful?" I'm pleased to know that I would. The "good" is within me and is my choice to act on.[/QUOTE]

No one is saying the only reason you should be a christian is to have an afterlife.
I merely asked the question why you would choose a path that can't possibly help you, only harm you. Seems a little "dee, de, deeee" to me. :lol:

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;269920]But that's how the believers have to sell it. If there was no "reward" in the afterlife, what could they possibly do to convince people to believe?
[/QUOTE]

What, peace and civility as well as love for Man is not good enough? You feel Christians need to "sell it".
Trust me when I say, there is nothing to sell. You either believe or you don't. You will always make excuses not to believe, and not a single one to believe. That's your choice. Enjoy.