Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists - page 17. (Read 25293 times)

Even though some people set themselves on a different path and decided to study the external world instead of looking into one's self, many of them came to the same conclusions:

"The Primacy Of Consciousness" (1:09:07) by Peter Russell (physicist)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

Science is just one of the many hide-n-seek games in Creation. When you put your "player" in the Universe you created, you want it to not remember how it got there, so that it would begin its journey of exploration, be it science, art or even religion, it's up in the air.


Then my ontological argument still stands. Which is the following:

1) Let's define "God" as "Creator of the Universe(s)", it doesn't imply existence of God at this point, just a label.

2) Let's define "You" as an empirical evidence of your existence, which also allows you to have "Imagination"(basically an axiom, you agreed this Universe has "You" in it, that's good enough).

3) Let's assume that in "Imagination" everything is possible, some people in the beginning of this thread claimed just that in response to some religious discussions, so it shouldn't be a stretch (let it be an axiom too).

4) Now, every Universe "You" create in your "Imagination", where "You" emerge as a product of that Universe's laws, always leads to "God" (as per definition 1) equals "You" (or you would never emerge in any such Universe, because you are already the one imagining it).

5) There is empirical evidence that "You" emerged in this physical real Universe. As all such Universes (where "You" emerged) led to "God" equals "You" in your "Imagination", and that already encompassed all possibilities (according to 3), it necessarily leads to having empirical evidence of "God"'s existence (according to 2). Therefore "God" exists in reality.


I used more generic term for singularity here (instead of a black hole, which indeed has mathematical model).
Singularity is where laws breakdown, it's that part when something comes out of nothing kinda thingy.

In that regard, even if you have a model for Big Bang as a collision of P-branes as per M-theory, the singularity would eventually hide in the explanation, where those branes came from.

So, again why have two singularities, where you can have only one. And if Occam's razor doesn't apply, then things get worse from the mere fact that those singularities are nested, meaning multiplying already infinitely small probabilities of any of them occurring independently.


Yes, there is evidence that brain receives consciousness as demonstrated by scientific research (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1514618)

If you damage your player's receiver to the point, that it can no longer coherently function, the player would die and you (as a consciousness) would be out of this particular game. But as a living paradox, you can never settle to rest, you always were and you always will be.

Regarding the term omnipotent, I have explained in this thread, that every omnipotent unconstrained consciousness (or God), would eventually end up testing the limits of its power, because everything else would be created in an instant. The only thing that would have any lasting "experience" is constantly creating conditions, where you begin facing limits of your power, because that's how powerful you are. You can think of God as a living paradox, and that's where every omnipotent unconstrained God would eventually end up. That's where we all ended up, here on Earth, playing all the same game, testing the limits of our powers.

I can try, but probably not.  The subject material is pretty dense and takes a lot into consideration.   The problem with "normal every-day words" is that they're often not as poignant, and you're looking for proof which requires exquisite poignancy (and my vocabulary isn't very large).  My statement that you quoted is pretty damn precise in that it's rather self-explanatory, but I'm guessing you want me to expound on the sameness-in-difference principle and the boundary proof.

The sameness-in-difference principle is easy to understand.   It's a well-established logical rule that states that any two relational entities 'x' and 'y' must occupy and share some relational medium.  For example, if I am real, and if you are real, then we share a relational medium of "realness" and are to that extent the same.  Even if you try to assert that two things are absolutely different from each other, than those two things still share a relationship of absolute difference, and they are bound by the syntax governing that relational medium.  Therefore, any differences that arise between any two entities must do so because they share a fundamental characteristic of identity with each other (because there is some common law or syntax governing both).

The proof for a boundary of a boundary = 0 extends this concept further, but it's harder to understand its implications, and so I'm not sure how clearly I can convey what I'm saying.  The boundary of a 3-dimensional cube, for example, is marked each of its 2-dimensional. square faces.  This boundary creates a distinction in information between the attributes contained within that boundary (e.g. the attributes that make a cube a cube) and those contained outside of that boundary (e.g. mathematical attributes that aren't cube-like but are complimentary in that they allow the cube to be distinguished as different from everything else).  So, the cube is a cube because it is not a not-cube (it needs something else outside of itself to be defined...like an axiom which is incomplete by itself alone).

When we look at the boundary of this boundary, which is measured by summing both the clockwise and counterclockwise values of the linear boundaries of each face (i.e. the 1-dimensional boundaries of the 2-dimensional faces of the 3-dimensional cube), the result of this sum is zero...each object has a self-cancelling type of symmetry.  Because the value of the boundary that separates the boundary of one entity from another is zero, the sameness-in-difference principle emerges into view.  In physics, this proof helps demonstrate that matter and space are intertwined, and there is a greater syntax governing both in tandem.

I have opened a thread to discuss Dank's history with me, Please discuss this matter here

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/danks-chance-to-clear-his-name-on-hold-325070

Pain is in your head.  Stop perceiving it as negative and it will not be painful.

A dying man at peace feels no pain.

God did help Rassah. I did not go to my parents so calling the police was not an option.  Should I have?  Of course but kids do not always know what to do. As for justice,the guy got his due reward many years later by dying in a "freak" accident.  God is much more patient than we are though.  He wills for all to repent. What is the most miraculous it that my heart that was filled with hate was filled with compassion and grief for this person.  He abused me because he was abused too.  It really is a tragic thing all around.  But I hated him until God changed my heart.  That is something only God can do!  We start to see things through His eyes and everything changes.

I know you are totally ticked at God and I know your reasons are valid but perhaps your anger would be better directed at the one who is really behind it all.  We do have an "enemy" that wants to kill and destroy.  God will take care of him for that in due time.  The problem is that we are impatient and if God does not do what we want now, and how we think it should be done we get upset. 

Actually, as I stated, it adds up to zero. A nice round number that resulted from all out observations of the universe's matter and antimatter.


Luckily for us, when it comes to science, you don't have to believe anything

So, if one of your children starts to get abused on a daily basis, and comes to you crying, you will hold a phone that can call the police in one hand, a gun that can stop the abuser in the other, refuse to use them or do anything about it, and simply tell your child that you are crying too? Not much love there if you refuse to even raise a hand to help.

Obviously you would not refuse to help, and your moral urges would get you to do SOMETHING. And the reason is because you (hopefully), as a human being in this day and age, is better than the god of your bible. That's like one of the basic underlying principles of atheism: we figured out that god is AWEFUL, and that we as humans are way nicer, better, and more moral that the crap he spews.

When the bible was written, we didn't really know anything about fire. We knew that it was hot, and that it hurt. We know a lot more now. Out of curiocity, do you think whatever it is that souls are made of can chemically combine with oxygen? Because if souls can't combine with oxygen, then they pretty much can't burn and are impervious to fire. Likewise, do you think souls can have an electric field, to let the nerve endings send the electric impulses to tell the brain that there is pain somewhere, and do souls have brains capable of causing chemical reactions that would allow them to respond to pain? Pain, and fire, and very physical and chemistry-based things. I don't think souls, if existed, would even be able to sense fire.

You are mostly correct.  But it is confusing.

"Hell" was originally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_%28location%29, which is the Norse (and in the old days English) version of Hades, a temporary place of the dead in this case ruled by the Norse goddess Hela.  It was an appropriate choice (in 1500-1600s) to translate "Hades" which is a similar place in the Greek.

But the meaning has shifted.  Today, when someone mentions "Hell", what they really mean is the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20):


But as to the "no reference" part, we also see this in the Old Testament in Isaiah 66:24:


And Jesus quotes this verse when talking about people that mess with children:



Gehenna was commonly understood at the time of the New Testament to be a reference to God's (eternal) punishment of the wicked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna#The_concept_of_Gehenna

But as seen above, Jesus clearly believes that, "the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched."


You have this backward.  The origin of the phrase comes from the place.

Nope. That happened centuries later, when some people specifically rejected the ideas of those sheep hearders, and decided to actually do physical experiments in the physical world. Many were even punished or burned for doing this by the sheephearder followers.


I doon't follow. No, a logical conclusion is not just whatever fantasy you wish to imagine.


Because a singularity is a physics defined term, that means matter and energy in such a compressed state, that the gravity there overcomes light and time itself, etc. etc. etc.? I'm pretty sure I was never a black hole. Nor was I ever a spontaneous quantum explosion of matter and antimatter. All those things involving the Big Bang actually have some actual physical science behind them, so please don't conflate terms. Occam's razor would make my consciousness much more basic and simpler than some mystical thing that many people try to push here, and likewise would make the idea of the universe spontaneously popping into existence the way we have witnessed particles pop into existence in particle coliders WAY more probable than some omnippootent consciousness popping into existence to create the universe.


We have pretty conclusive evidence that changing or damaging certain parts of the brain severely alters consciousness, that interfeering with brain chemistry alters consciousness, very good evidence on how brains are built and how they send signals, and practically no evidence that they receiive signals from elsewhere. Are you suggesting that brain damage due to physical trauma or disease actually interfeers with brain's "antenna" qualities, instead of actually damaging the consciousness that it works with? Your same Occam's raizor would say that the simplest explanation is that consciousness originates from the brain itself, as opposed to a vastly more complex idea that there is some great, unknown, untestable consciousness that our brain simply received (through what material or means, and why can't it be blocked)?

Your premise is wrong, so the rest of your argument is wrong as well.

When your god created the first couple, he KNEW at that point that Eve would eat the apple, sin would be invented, and he would have to start causing pain and murdering people.  HE KNEW THIS, for he is all powerful and can see the future, even through free will.

No one has been able to prove that your god doesn't get off on the pain he causes others.  He seems to do it a lot.

Not really. "I don't know" is a pretty simple answer, and is probably better than trying to make something up, and getting stuck with having to answer even more questions. But priests and religious types in general are pretty convinced that they know the answers - the "truth" - and can't help themselves.


Pretty fair, considering he knew that this would happened, and purposefully came to earth specifically in order to have it happen. God basically willingly committed suicide with that one. If I shoot myself in the head, how far is it of me to suffer through taking my own gun, putting the gun to my head myself, and pulling the trigger? Pretty stupid question when you put it that way.

Not my problem.

God hates you.

Dude!!! its not me you are having that discussion with, get your shit together, and wait for the right guy to respond.

Im not the bibel-guy, that's maz.

Im arguing solipsism, and lack of a reality. (All your evidence is bogus, its all a hallucination!! You can't argue with that.)

Its more logically sound, but in its essence its the same...
And computer scientists have been able to confirm gödel's proof with a proof checker algorithm, which is awesome and nice, and a great leap forward for proof theory and computational proof checkers.

What about the point that I have evidence, albeit weak and changing, when you have none (other than historical reference data)?

@4: You can not mathematically speak about the universe. You can make a statistic/mathematical "model" of the universe. But math itself does not in any way describe the universe, or is related to it in any way. The use of the word mathematics in this context, is a rape of the word.

@5: To be able to simulate the universe faster then the universe itself within itself, is a contradiction equivalence to the Russell's paradox. To simulate the universe and thereby know its future you would have to be in possession of something bigger than the universe. I don't think you have that.

Even if we look away from the semantics, scientists are still discussing the fate and the birth of the universe, and if such things even exists. Or even if they can talk consistently about it.