Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists - page 16. (Read 25307 times)

And you are saying that jail (hell) should not exist, no matter how bad the abuser hurt your children.

God always was and always will exist.  The universe exists for a very simple reason, so we can perceive self (the universe) from a foreign perspective, so we can learn and explore, live with ego.

Yes, pink unicorns are real, everything exists everywhere.  That spontaneous quantum event are all just labels to describe god.  In fact, every word is, all we're doing is describing concepts of the universe, god.

One might flip that over and suggest that mathematical laws are derived from observing physical reality.  Newton and the apple, and all that.

Just saying "the set of all sets, includes itself" is not all that meaningful.  Nor is "fundamental inseparability" without stuff to which such a theory might apply.

The notion of what is subservient to which is not all that meaningful.  Math serves to describe the physical world, so to then suggest that the physical world "obeys" in "subservience" to mathematics is going to raise some questions that may be difficult to answer with anything other than "well, we just haven't discovered all the mathematics yet".  All that says is that we haven't yet made observations of the physical world to the level where we have the language to describe it.
LHC, E8, and all the rest are on a path to developing that language, but are "subservient" to the engineering effort to make the observations.  They serve each other.

Yes, but based on previous discussions, Rassah is an epiphenomenalist and a monist. So even his "essence of being" is an intrinsic property of the particles that were merely rearranged in some fascinating chemical ways to form his body. So in that sense, there was no singularity around the time of his birth. At best, his brain is a complex machine, arranged especially so that it can leverage a lot of potential abilities that were already built into the particles making up our world.

So if you intuitively disagree with the above, you'd probably need another angle.

All they did was reiterate an argument first made over a thousand years ago, that was refuted just as easily back then.

The fundamental fallacy is in the very opening assumption, that simply because the human mind can conceive of the idea of something greater which than there is nothing, the human mind is actually containing or even understanding what that idea means.  After all, for any idea someone shows me of God, I can say "okay, take that and make it ten times more powerful!" 

Here are some actual criticisms of it from back when it was relevant to anything.

My personal preferred response to the argument, though, is merely that it is damn silly, since its opening assumption is a very thinly-veiled example of "okay, let's start my proof of what I'm claiming to prove exists by assuming what I'm claiming to prove exists actually exists."

You don't have to "give up" physical reality, but it does require that you recognize that physical reality obeys, and is subservient to, mathematical laws.  The idea is to build model that is internally consistent at a greater level of generality than all other models including the scientific model (which doesn't even permit formulating a model of reality based upon the very mathematical principles it depends upon).

There are all kinds of crazy things happening on the quantum level.  Concepts that make sense to us on the macro level often have no meaning on the quantum level.  Even Feynman said no-one understands quantum physics.   So when it comes to the actual building blocks of reality, they don't make sense to us, they don't appeal to our common sense, they don't appeal to our instincts.

So saying the universe was created, however intuitive that may seem to us, may have no applicability at the quantum level.  

Our brains were evolved to understand how to avoid lions on the African plains.  If we can't see something, there was no reason for our brain to evolve to understand it.  Thus the things that we do understand is often because they are similar in some way to our everyday experiences.  eg. planets are just giant floating rocks.  Understanding that time is relative is a bit harder to visualise.  Quantum stuff, almost impossible.  We just know the equations work.

It could be that the universe has a perfectly rational reason for it's existence which is very difficult for us to process.  The "God created it" or "some being created it" thing?  Too simple, too human an idea and no explanation for how the God was created.  Which is why it was around before science.

It's ok. I'm on an tablet myself, and typing quickly is sometimes troublesome.
The video contains (apart from the main train of thought) many quotes from great scientists of the past, where they expressed their fundamental understanding of reality.


Yes, you can call it anything you want, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's just a label or shortcut for "Creator of the Universe(s)", so that I don't have to repeat that whole phrase in the rest of the argument.

But it is important to substitute the definition back when we conclude the argument. Which is:
Creator of the Universe(s) exists in reality.

If you refuse the idea of creator at all, then you will face contradiction the minute you create something in your imagination, like that "spontaneous quantum event" you mentioned. And by the way we didn't witness it, we reconstructed it in our imagination, based on some experimental data from the satelites, but there is no certainty, that this particular reconstruction is unique.


The one is the emergence of physical universe, the other is the emergence of you. You have agreed, that there was no pre-existing idea of you 1 year before your birth in this universe, so your emergence in it is a singularity.

The inconsistency in your reasoning, is that you require (for no obvious reasons) first singularity (the universe) to occur first in order for second singularity (you) to follow. Singularity already means, that you cannot coherently explain how it occurs, therefore requiring something else as a prerequisite seems unfounded.

There is another good argument to think of "you" as a primary (and maybe only) singularity. There are two possibilities - one is that physical universe exists and you perceive it, and the other is that physical universe is just an elaborate product of your imagination. Out of these two possibilities physical universe exists only in one case, while you exist in both. Another way of saying this, is that you cannot know about anything else (including physical universe) with higher degree of certainty, than you know about your own existence.
The moment, you say "I know something", validates your own existence immediately and unconditionally.


The evidence is about two lectures from Google Talks, where scientists presented experimental data that matched scientific criteria for "statistically significant" result. Which in normal language simply means, that data cannot be explained by chance.

If you want to ask why isn't this research mainstream, you should ask yourself who funds mainstream science and what is the agenda there, like with mainstream media and mainstream monetary system.

As to the perpetual motion machines, I have always wondered if simple hydrogen atom is a good model for that. Will the electron ever run out of juice, if the atom left alone indefinitely? What about permanent magnets, where spins of those "perpetual" electrons are aligned and therefore can be used to pull things?

Actually, they didn't even do that. All they did was "formalize" it in a way that could be read by a computer and then let a Macbook "prove" it.

It was desire/attachment, I must have been having a stroke or something while writing that.  Losing attachment to the head fixes that pain issue.

None of them. they only proofed that there exists a superior being. They did not even make the proof, that was Gödel who did that, they only checked it for correctness.

FYI, sorry, buy I don't have the time, or the bandwidth to watch videos (I'm typically on my Android tablet)


What if I change #1 to "Let's define a pink unicorn as the creator of the universe." Can I follow the rest of your steps, and prove that pink unicorns exist? Can I use any fantasy creature or concept I want? And what if I refuse to define God as Creator of the Universe, and insist that the universe was created from a spontaneous quantum event, the type of which we have already witnessed? Doesn't that screw up the whole ontological argument?


Laws don't break down there, they just change. I think the reason the Big Bang was called a singularity was because it was. At that high gravity, everything might as well be a single point. But OK. Just as long as we are using the same language, or can at least understand the terms...


I don't know enough string theory to know what that means, but I'm somewhat certain that's not the model for Big Bang that is being used. The one I subscribe to is the one proposed by Stephen Hawking back in late 80's/early 90's, which was confirmed by the Hadron Collider.


Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."


Admittedly, I didn't really read the evidence (as I know it would be as much bunk as evidence of perpetual motion machines, made up by people who don't actually know how brains work), but the levitating man video was amusing. It's the oldest magic trick ever. Note the curtain behind him

Sorry, I tried, but I still don't quite get it. It sounds like you are trying to apply abstract math to specific physics to show that what is actually completely physically separate in things like chemistry, physics, and quantum particles, is actually not separate because of an abstract mathematical concept. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up physical reality for abstract mathematics yet.

Forget about me being "ticked" at god. I'm not. I don't believe in him, and thus am just as ticked at god as you are ticked at Lady the Sasquatch. ("Who?" "Exactly.")

So, are you saying that if one of your kids was abused, the loving thing to do would be to tell them you still love them, and allow them to continue to be abused, hoping the abuser will just say sorry eventually, and only punishing the abuser years later if he doesn't?

Perception?  Really?  I never read that before. 

Also, "desire/perception" doesn't mean interchangeable, right, but rather both of them cause suffering?

Makes sense. Its in my head.
Cut off my head and the pain stops pretty quickly.  

The Buddhists have it as: Life is suffering and Suffering comes from desire/perception.

So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what?

So you are saying the bible is true because you have scientific evidence backing it up?

So on one hand, some scientific evidence counts, but on the other hand scientific evidence doesn't count.

What archaeological and scientific evidence backs up the bible's claims btw?