Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists - page 10. (Read 25213 times)

I'd rather do it on my own so people are a little bidazzled that a kid organized a million person concert by the time he's 27.

But as far as predicting patterns, I'm more so talking about the existence of humanity.  This is a finite planet and we are straight on the path to destruction with our current state of society.  The only way to avoid this is a rapid, exponential acceleration of consciousness amongst mankind, leading to the singularity, when we step into the next dimension.  And we can this happening today within individuals.  If we consciously kill our ego, we no longer have to live in a world with negativity and death.

If you look at society, in the 40-50's we had a lot of negativity on earth, leading to world wars.  In the 60's, nature corrected itself by the counter culture revolution aka hippies.  They had become aware of the negative entities on earth and sought something different in society, love and unity.  Psychedelics played a big role in their conscious evolution.  Then comes in the 80's, the drug coming in to play being cocaine, which we know can increase one's ego immensely.  Now with the current false flag attacks on our own country and with indefinite unjustified wars, nature is correcting itself yet again.  The youth, and others, are realizing the true state of the world, with the use of the internet, we are becoming a more unified global consciousness.  This will be the second bubble of love in modern society and this time we will not lose as people everyday are becoming more aware of the situation.

Then the day comes when more positive energy is present in a single location than negative, triggering singularity and wiping out the remainder of negativity.

If that's the case, why not just see what the next winning lottery number is, and not only fix your financial situation, but pay for as many concerts as you want?

If that is the case, then the only conclusion is that both of us could be right. Right up until one of us isn't.

I think my model is much simpler. Basically, we assume that reality is objective, and we, as an objective species existing in that reality, subjectively percieve that reality through our senses. If you start with the assumption that reality is objective, i.e. it exists and is as it is whether we percieve it or not, and place the fault of subjectivity only on our own limited subjective senses and reasoning ability, all the logic falls into place just fine.


That doesn't actually say anything. All you did was present a set of mathematical symbols, and claim that these symbols represent what you say they do. I don't even know if you mean a * b or something else, or if you mean 1 * a * 1 * b or 1-of-a * 1-of-b. Like, is 1 a number that is multiplied by other variables, or is 1 a function, like f in f(x)? If you're going to throw terms like these around, please take the time to explain them, since otherwise they don't have any meeting to anyone but yourself.


Actually, it's not "I don't know," but rather "It is not x" and possibly "It is Y with a probability of %." For instance, I know Dank, if he ever does, will NOT have his festival in the Marianas Trench, in the vacuum of space, on the moon or the sun, and likely not on top of Mt Everest, the top of the mpountain range in Chile, in the middle of the Sahara, inside of a car or a small shed, or in my house. Or at any number of other things that can not accomodate the requirements of having a concert (such as viable temperatures and sound carying atmosphere). I think that is considerably more precise than simply "I don't know," especially since it lets us to narrow the choices to an overall where we DO know. Like, if I didn't know whether Dank would have his concert in Venue A or in Venue B accross the street from Venue A, I can say with certainty that Dank will have his concert in a specific city that contains both venues. Likewise, I know that Dank will have his concert on Earth, if he actually does have a concert. And hey, that's how science works


If he is supposedly omnipresent, but yet can not be percieved, then...

As weird as this sounds, a lot of scientists and philosophers would say that this idea has merit. The idea of consciousness being outside of our bodies may be correct. In this model we living things tune into consciousness rather than create it.

Time is an illusion we have due to cyclic changes in our world.  We only live in the present.

You can see beyond the horizon, psychedelics would help you see this.  If life is nothing more than a mathematical pattern unfolding itself, you can see or feel the pattern and figure out answers of the future.  Just like the Mayans, Hindus, Christians, Mormons etc. predicted the end (transition) of the world, they were quite accurate.

I see that you have your point of view which is a materialistic one so we could continue arguing like this for
an eternity and you would still defend your point of view like I mine.

1) I explained to you why you can't be right regarding your assumption of an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality.  There's an entire logical principle dating back to the ancient Greeks (and likely before them) that states exactly this...it's the principle that states differences arise from sameness and similarities.  Your methodology to forming conclusions about reality incorporates a false assumption about reality itself.  Reality includes both subjectivity and objectivity, and so a comprehensive model of reality must explain how each defines the other. 

Everything shares a fundamental identity with everything else.  In mathematics, this fundamental identity is a distributive property represented by the number '1'.  Consider a statement, "ab = xy".  This is really 1(a)1(b) = 1(x)1(y).  The property of identity is a mathematical law that distributes to everything.  Everything is united by this principle of identity...of cohesion.

2a) You can reason about what's behind the horizon in a probabilistic way, but that's another way of saying "I don't know."  Instead, I can say "I know that it's impossible to know what's beyond the horizon" and be correct.  You never know where Dank is having his million man music festival.  It's always just over the horizon, isn't it?

2b) Non-sequitur.  The reason is because "beyond the horizon" (not-visible) and "horizon" (visible) are localized distributions in spacetime.  Your conclusion would only be valid if you're talking about polytheistic gods.  A monotheistic god is omnipresent.

Same follow-up to you as to BitChick then: Why can't laws of physics simply have always existed and always will? The concept of time exists within the laws of physics; it's not a law of physics itself. In other words, time is different here on earth from places elsewhere, and was different far in the past (slower) than it is now, because time is a function of the laws of physics that could have just as easilly always existed and always will, too.

Fun fact: Time is even different in the GPS satelites that orbit the earth, than it is here on earth, due to those satelites traveling much faster, and this different must be compensated for with your GPS device.

I can say the same about you, and we would still be exactly where we started, with both of us thinking we are right. So...


This can actually go both ways:

A. You *can* reason what is beyond the horizon based on what you know is in front of it, and what you know about the world/system it exists in (if we are on sea, the only answers to that question are "water" or "beach" and not "mountain" or "waterfall" or "a land of meat"). I do this all the time in my profession, where I don't know what our financial situation will be at the end of the fiscal year, but I can reason what it will most likely be based on data I have right now. This is also how we reason what is in other solar systems, or what other planets are composed of. We don't actually percieve what they are made of, we just make reasoned conclusions based on what we see here in our solar system.

B. You can't percieve what is beyond the horizoon and it's impossible to reason what is beyond it, and thus since you can't percieve god, it is impossible to reason about god's existence.

No one, God always existed and always will. The concept of time only exists on earth.

Exactly, the great eternal consciousness.

1). You're just plain wrong in your assumption that an objective world exists independent of subjectivity.

2). Things change completely because whereas once it was impossible to perceive beyond the horizon (and thus impossible to reason about what's beyond it) you moved beyond the horizon to check it out.  If you're not beyond the horizon, then it is absolutely impossible to reason about what is beyond it.  The phrase "it's impossible" holds when you can't perceive past the horizon, but it does not hold if you are perceiving beyond the horizon.  

And laws of physics can't be "was, and is and is to come ... eternal ... [and] living in finite bodies in a world that has a beginning and an end" because...?

A metric is just a way for us to subjectively quantify an objective world. Some people might say a distance is one inch, some people might say that it is 3 centimeters, but egardless of their subjective measurements, that length still exists. So I see measurements as simply a way for us to describe reality, not for us to define or create reality from our minds. We say what we see, we don't create what we say.


If it changes things completely, then the person who said "it's impossible to know" is abviously more wrong that the person who says "I don't know yet." The phrase "it's impossible" also implies that we shouldn't even try, which is a MAJOR issue with conservative religion, where they claim "God did it" or "Only god knows," and don't bother investigating it themselves. So, obviously, I am extremely hostile to that idea.

No one created God.  He was, and is and is to come.  He is eternal.  Living in finite bodies in a world that has a beginning and an end we see things in the physical but cannot grasp the idea of eternity fully.  Everything around us is going through a process of life and then death so this is really beyond us at this point.

BTW, don't ever try to think about where God came from!  I have tried to do that a few times and it just makes me dizzy.    

1) A metric is an abstract measurement.  Metrics are used to describe reality.  There can be no metric (and thus no measurement or description of reality) without a mind to evoke the metric itself. 

2) A person who says "it's impossible to know that which is over the horizon and cannot be perceived" is more correct than the person who says "I don't know what's over the horizon."  But if you decide to check it out, that changes things completely and the question becomes relevant to a current description of reality.

Actually God is universal energy that we can feel >>That's the reason they say God is everywhere. It's the universal energy.
We are made from star dust, so that energy resides in us >>The reason they say God resides inside us

The great eternal always has and always will.

So if god created physical laws, then who created god?


Same question. If god always existed, why couldn't physical laws always exist, too?