Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists - page 15. (Read 25293 times)

Yes, I do remember that conversation in one of the Atlas threads from about a year ago or so. It is an important point to understand before we can move any further.

So, there are two options here, either we have per-existent idea of "you" before your birth or we have a singularity. I cannot see any way around it, no matter how certain belief system is called.

If the substance of "you" is a particular configuration of atoms waiting to arrange themselves in a certain way, then that's already a pre-existent idea of "you". Can we agree on that?

PS: when I say "you", readers should think about themselves and replace it with "I" for this argument to work properly.


I see how it might be tricky to make the first step backwards, so maybe another angle is to make an explicit step forward first and then demonstrate how going back from there is at least possible.

In this regard, making step forward would be building a very realistic computer simulation, which would block person's current memory and perception of physical reality for the duration of the game session. Something like decent VR helmet with good response time for blocking physical reality and injection of some substance to temporarily block current memory would do the job. All this is real physical stuff from off-the-shelf components, so no imaginary fantasies here.

Then ask that person the same questions while in the game session and see how ridiculous the answers would sound. Something like: "how did you get here?" - "oh, I don't know, maybe I am just an arrangement of some bits in this place, or some quantum flop of energy...". It is very easy to see, that simulation itself didn't create that person (the actual physical player), but only altered the perception of reality for a while. By the time the player thought he was dead in the game, he woke up in his cozy chair with a great deal of surprise on his face.

This is place is no different.

No, it is a good word.  It just means we aren't creating from nothing, we are creating from something.

To the above statement, there are infinite alternate dimensions, it matters not if our universe is a finite bubble.  I have astral projected and seen another universe taking place in the same location as ours, the mountains were red and the creatures grey.  Everything exists everywhere.

Yes. If the universe is infinite. But our universe is not. There was a beginning, and if it keep expanding, there will be an end, where all energy runs out (though we now have methods of creating logic gates - computers - that can work and process without energy, and thus if we actually survive until the heat death of the universe, we may be able to continue living as these self-contained machines... but I digress). There is a theory (or is it a hypothesis?) that there are an infinite number of other universes, and thus an infinite number of other possibilities. So yeah, that's true. But there is no evidence that we are able to percieve any of those other universes, or that we are in any way affect them. If they exist, it's more that we "flow" through them, taking different routes with every decision we make, while remaining in the universe we chose to stayon the path of.


If it's not really creating anything, then it's not a good word. We would be conscious decision makers at most. Which is kind of a "no duh."

It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means.  If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere.

We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity.  But it's a good word.  We are conscious creators.

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.

Note that if you search for Oort cloud on wikipedia, or anywhere else, you will find the word "hypothesis," not "theory." Meaning it's just a guess based on how we know things word, but so far without evidence to back that up. When there is evidence (such as in the gravity theory, microbe theory, and evolution theory), then we eventually convert the idea from a hypothesys (colloquial "theory") to theory (colloquial "how things actually are")


There are also hundreds of articles that debunk much of the stuff on that site. Only hundreds instead of thousands, because much of the claims there are too silly to spend time on.
For example, in the section "What about dinosaur footprints? - In the footsteps of giants" has the following quote right at the beginning


It's cute how it tries to relate to common people who may not live anywhere near wild animals, by refering them to the tracks they may see in snow. It's silly (and rather stupid) because the tracks you may see in snow are of small mamals and rodens, who are typically forraging for food under that snow. Predators, large pack animals, and even migrating forraging rodents still travel in straight lines, but the common people don't see those, because they don't live near large predators, prarries full of pack animals, or in the forests near the homes those small rodents treck to and from.

Btw, I used to read that site all the time for amusement. It's like the Jerry Springer of science  



Let's see...

A Common Flood Story - Floods happened everywhere in the world, causing great destruction, and still happen everywhere. Why would it be surprising that everyone wrote about them?

The Code of Hammurabi - Hammurabi, or the fact that most of the places in the bible actually existed, isn't being questioned. The thing being questioned is whether the myths and tales of the people who used to live during that time are true. Much of Harry Potter happens in London, a real place, and much of Greek The Oddysey takes place in known Greek locations, also all real places. That alone does not make boy wizzards, or Greek gods, true (does it?)

The Nuzi Tablets - There is ton of eidence that the biblical story was basically ripped off from other stories. Heck, the whole sacrafice and resurection thing was lifted practically verbatum from much more ancient Egyptian folklore. Why should we be surprised that some practices that were written about in yet another book weren't lifted and included into the bible as well?

The Existence of Hittites - London <> Harry Potter

And, actually, it pretty much continues like that. I think what you Christians are misunderstanding is that proof of history only prooves that our recorded history is true. It doesn't actually prove that the miracles, mysticism, or gods that were talked about during those times are true. There are far more historical artifacts and landmarks that are mentioned in the Greek mythology, yet you don't believe in Zeus. Why?

No, I am saying people who abuse children should be sent to that jail as soon as the person with power do send them to jail finds out about it. Instead of simply standing idly by, watching it happen, telling the child they still love them, and hoping that the abuser will land in jail many years later for some other reason.

If you are simply saying that everything in the universe is god, then I am just as much in awe of god as I am of the universe. I.e. I give it zero reverence and respect, and it's at most a curiocity to study and explore.
Though then I would ask, why did you use the world "god" to mean universe? Why not "thing" or "fraglblagrl?" Was there some prior connotatioon associated with the word "god" that you were hoping to attach to your otherwise unimpressive and meaningless redefinition of words?

Thanks! I learned some new terms, and now have more lables to apply to myself  

All scientific evidence counts.  Fairy tales that pass as science these days (Oort cloud, as an example—which doesn't have a shred of scientific method behind it) don't count.

Here is an example of scientific "evidence" that I don't count for Lucy, the "missing link":

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/lucy/lucy-shes-no-lady

Pick the "Lucy—She's No Lady, Clip" at the bottom.  It's 9 minutes and very technical, so try to power through it and get to the part about Nova.  Although I can understand if you are not scientific enough to understand the creationist.  


For scientific evidence that disproves evolution, this is a good site.  There are literally thousands of articles:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

Pick any topic on the left and you'll get dozens or even hundreds of articles.


http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

This is a VERY short list, by the way.  The Top 13 out of hundreds.