Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists - page 18. (Read 25293 times)
Old news. How does this argument differ in any significant way from St. Anselm's ontological argument, first made in the Eleventh Century (and arguably sooner than that)?
4) Use astrophysics to mathematically determine the general state of the universe in it's infancy.
5) Use the same to determine the state of the universe in the future.
no, you can not.5) Use the same to determine the state of the universe in the future.
to a very close degree, yes, they can. Can I, specifically? Not without revisiting calculus -- and only then could I determine the position of the moon. But, I could get training and education to do so, if I pleased.
Please follow up your claims with WHY I cannot. It's helpful to the conversation.
4) Use astrophysics to mathematically determine the general state of the universe in it's infancy.
5) Use the same to determine the state of the universe in the future.
no, you can not. 5) Use the same to determine the state of the universe in the future.
Quote
Your probably one of those folk who have never even held a bible. If not, then please describe how the bible substantiates it's self through prophecy and how archaeological and scientific evidence has backed these up. They exist and there are many. Then maybe you could tell us why you don't agree with them, in relation to this statement 'Frankly those pieces are far more easily experienced as truth than anything out of the bible.'.
*you're... ftfy.
I have a Jesuit education. I've read the bible cover to cover several times.
Do some events in the bible match up to historical events (those proven with archeology, a scientific undertaking)?
Yes.
Do they prove anything at all?
Nothing other than something happened and it was also reported in the bible. The only thing you could actually experience is to go see an archeology site and verify the artifacts are indeed of the correct people at the correct time (Say the separating of the seas, was it the Red Sea or the Reed Sea? -- nobody knows, translations and oral traditions are FAILURES historically AND with the bible).
There is nothing supernatural or religious that can be experienced or proved with the words in the bible. So I can't experience of verify anything that you claim.
Alternatively, I can:
1) Verify evolutionary theory using fruit flies
2) Verify the failures of oral tradition using history
3) Compare and contrast the multiple Abrahamic Religions and their predecessors. When this is done once will notice the similarities and the co-opted pieces of the previous religions (in order to gain a following from the previous tradition).
4) Use astrophysics to mathematically determine the general state of the universe in it's infancy.
5) Use the same to determine the state of the universe in the future.
-----------------------------
Now Can I:
1) Verify god made humans out of mud in his image? No
2) Verify that he did this whole damn thing in 7 days? (not that a day can exists before the sun and earth exist) No.
3) Verify ANYTHING AT ALL other than historically there was a man named jesus who was crucified and people wrote lots of crazy stuff about?
NO.
-----------------------------------
Your probably one of those folk who have never even held a bible. If not, then please describe how the bible substantiates it's self through prophecy and how archaeological and scientific evidence has backed these up. They exist and there are many. Then maybe you could tell us why you don't agree with them, in relation to this statement 'Frankly those pieces are far more easily experienced as truth than anything out of the bible.'.
...on the other hand it does also say that the earth is only 8000 years old.the difference between scientists and religious fanatics, is that scientists know they are wrong and change their opinion and reconsiders their position when they encounter new and contradictory evidence. Religious fanatics don't, they insist that they are right even when there is evidence telling them otherwise.
Anyone with scientific vigor regards all the theories as theories. I'm not arguing about how some teacher taught your kids, that is not of consequence. Arguing about HOW something is taught is also an ad hominem attack -- attacking a person espousing a theory.
Well, you are talking to me, not someone else. I am not calling it facts, I am calling it a theory.
Those who study it closely are trying to fit reality to theories -- myriad theories (hence the notation: THEORY).
The myriad theories require real scientists to hold off judgment -- all they have are some provable pieces of an unknown bigger picture. Frankly those pieces are far more easily experienced as truth than anything out of the bible.
Look, you can get fruit flies and grow generation after generation watching their genes mix and match and change and mutate. You can take it to it's logical conclusion or not. Frankly, there is no 'proving' anything beyond mathematical theorems, of which this is not. There is only evidence and HOW MUCH evidence.
Theories have SOME evidence. You have NONE.
Well, you are talking to me, not someone else. I am not calling it facts, I am calling it a theory.
Those who study it closely are trying to fit reality to theories -- myriad theories (hence the notation: THEORY).
The myriad theories require real scientists to hold off judgment -- all they have are some provable pieces of an unknown bigger picture. Frankly those pieces are far more easily experienced as truth than anything out of the bible.
Look, you can get fruit flies and grow generation after generation watching their genes mix and match and change and mutate. You can take it to it's logical conclusion or not. Frankly, there is no 'proving' anything beyond mathematical theorems, of which this is not. There is only evidence and HOW MUCH evidence.
Theories have SOME evidence. You have NONE.
There is absolutely no need for this "nothing from nothing" crap. Scientists at least know they don't know for sure. There are many theories that account for 'nothing from nothing'.
The problem here is that when you stop learning and start believing fairy tales, well, you STOP LEARNING ENTIRELY.
Really? You say scientists at least know they don't know for sure? Evolution used to be taught as a theory. Lately it is taught as fact with the "theory" part conveniently dismissed.
Comments like: Millions of years ago... And Billions of years ago...
These comments should say, if following true scientific method, "It is theorized that millions of years ago" but that is not how it is any more.
The more these statements are repeated over and over the more people just accept this things blindly and STOP LEARNING ENTIRELY.
Consider examining the evidence which exists against the made-up stories in the bible. Your mind will be blown.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Trust me I've investigated evolution heavily, it did not satisfy me at all. In fact if anything I came to the conclusion that evolutionists are more blindly zealot than a lot of religious people. and that's saying something!
I posted my feelings on it on another thread on bitcointalk. I think the foundation for me is far too much in the realms of guess work to even be considered a theory. I mention the point of 'nothing comes from nothing' and I struggle to believe otherwise. I believe it might have been Rassah who described a system he believes for the universe to have come from nothing, but it didn't add up to me. I mean if I showed you a coffee table and you said hey that's a nice table, where did you get that from? and I said, well it just appeared....You would say, don't be silly, someone must have made that...and if I said nope, just came from nothing...you would never believe me.
Our universe is unfathomably more complex than a coffee table, yet evolutionists believe that it came from nothing. If you go back far enough and ask where each component came from, you eventually come to the point that nothing can instantly appear from nothing.
In my mind, 2+2 has always equaled 4. It didn't used to equal 3 and evolve into 4. Our universe is perfectly balanced and to think that it blundered it's way into this balance is too far fetched for me to believe. It's all about plausibility. The universe screams intelligent design, not a constant array of mistakes eventually culminating in the mona lisa.
There is absolutely no need for this "nothing from nothing" crap. Scientists at least know they don't know for sure. There are many theories that account for 'nothing from nothing'.
The problem here is that when you stop learning and start believing fairy tales, well, you STOP LEARNING ENTIRELY.
Consider examining the evidence which exists against the made-up stories in the bible. Your mind will be blown.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Trust me I've investigated evolution heavily, it did not satisfy me at all. In fact if anything I came to the conclusion that evolutionists are more blindly zealot than a lot of religious people. and that's saying something!
Ok. So you investigated evolutionary theory and you came back with a conclusion about the people who believe it?
This is called ad hominem attack -- or attacking the person rather than the issue. Would you remark on your investigation of Evolution (as separate from those who believe it?)
Consider examining the evidence which exists against the made-up stories in the bible. Your mind will be blown.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Trust me I've investigated evolution heavily, it did not satisfy me at all. In fact if anything I came to the conclusion that evolutionists are more blindly zealot than a lot of religious people. and that's saying something!
Consider examining the evidence which exists against the made-up stories in the bible. Your mind will be blown.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Trust me I've investigated evolution heavily, it did not satisfy me at all. In fact if anything I came to the conclusion that evolutionists are more blindly zealot than a lot of religious people. and that's saying something!
Consider examining the evidence which exists against the made-up stories in the bible. Your mind will be blown.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Psychology has proven that people like this will stick to the story in their head because it is more coherent to them than is the evidence based approach which requires scientific rigor. Since they don't have any kind of rigor at all, they cannot even begin down the road of examining the evidence based approach. This will hard-line them deeper into their 'coherent' (in their mind) worldview, no matter how obviously unfounded by a questioning mind.
So this could be a LOOOOONG conversation.
Yours is an age-old question that many a theologian has debated. I think until we personally grasp and understand at a deep level how much God truly loves us, in spite of the suffering we endure and realize that even God endured great suffering for us on the cross, we will not be content with the way this life is and the fact that the course of history has allowed for the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and so on. I already said that a common thread, if you read the Bible in it's entirety, is how greatly God is grieved when he has to resort to disasters such as these. God does not "get off" on our suffering. He suffers as we suffer. One of my earliest recollections as a child was when I was crying due to the fact I was being abused on a daily basis. I asked God "Why?" He said, "I am crying too." That is all I needed to hear as a little four year old girl. It seems simple yet is was so profound to me and I have never doubted that He understands. I have doubted some things that have not made since to me since then though. We can question Him, but faith comes with understanding that He loves us and has plan in it all and will work everything for good of those called according to his purpose.
So, your answer is that your god gets off on pain and suffering, his own or others. You say he suffers as we do, so he purposely causes himself suffering.
As a four year old with an active imagination, you asked yourself why were you suffering, then you thought of a solution that was "all you needed to hear". I've made myself feel better as well, and it didn't have anything to do with a fairy tale.
So bitchick, you still haven't answered my question if your god gets off on people's suffering.
By your own words he knows how we feel about everything and everything we will do in our lifes. He knows if we will sin or not, even through our free will.
So why did he create hundreds of millions of people he knew he would have to drown later in life?
By your own words he knows how we feel about everything and everything we will do in our lifes. He knows if we will sin or not, even through our free will.
So why did he create hundreds of millions of people he knew he would have to drown later in life?
Yours is an age-old question that many a theologian has debated. I think until we personally grasp and understand at a deep level how much God truly loves us, in spite of the suffering we endure and realize that even God endured great suffering for us on the cross, we will not be content with the way this life is and the fact that the course of history has allowed for the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and so on. I already said that a common thread, if you read the Bible in it's entirety, is how greatly God is grieved when he has to resort to disasters such as these. God does not "get off" on our suffering. He suffers as we suffer. One of my earliest recollections as a child was when I was crying due to the fact I was being abused on a daily basis. I asked God "Why?" He said, "I am crying too." That is all I needed to hear as a little four year old girl. It seems simple yet is was so profound to me and I have never doubted that He understands. I have doubted some things that have not made since to me since then though. We can question Him, but faith comes with understanding that He loves us and has plan in it all and will work everything for good of those called according to his purpose.
One of my favorite Christian writers and Theologians is CS Lewis. Many of his works are laced with answers to difficult questions such as these. Here is one quote:
Quote
The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake. "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." We were made not primarily that we may love God (though we were made for that too) but that God may love us, that we may become objects in which the divine love may rest "well pleased".”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
So bitchick, you still haven't answered my question if your god gets off on people's suffering.
By your own words he knows how we feel about everything and everything we will do in our lifes. He knows if we will sin or not, even through our free will.
So why did he create hundreds of millions of people he knew he would have to drown later in life?
By your own words he knows how we feel about everything and everything we will do in our lifes. He knows if we will sin or not, even through our free will.
So why did he create hundreds of millions of people he knew he would have to drown later in life?
Quote
God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding
This the flawed premise.
Our "understanding" of infinity is based on metaphor, not experience.
Godel's error is romanticizing mathematics.
Quote
The question of whether there is a "transcendent" mathematics independent of human thought is a meaningless question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From#Human_cognition_and_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From#Human_cognition_and_mathematics
Hell is not a made up.
[references to very old and entertaining fantasy book]
... [references to very old and entertaining fantasy book]
And this I agree with you in part. "Hell" is overused for sure. The English translators thought they were doing us a service by translating Sheol, Hades into Hell and it causes problems. I have gone on tirades about the problem this causes on some of my other posts on different threads. So I totally get that.
That said, eternal damnation is something to be concerned about regardless and it is not a fabrication.
That said, eternal damnation is something to be concerned about regardless and it is not a fabrication.
Wait... did you just say, "You're right, hell is a totally made up place, and it was bad of those people to mess up the translation and make up such a place, but we should still worry about going to hell?" How does that even...
Hell is not a made up. The English translators were not perfect and thought that simplifying "Hades" "Sheol" and putting in "The Grave" or "Hell" would make it easier for the readers to understand. This just leads to more problems though with misunderstandings though.
There is still a "lake of fire" that all that are not found written in the book of life will be cast into along with the demons. Basically Hades is thrown into there: See "Revelation20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire." This is the second death, the lake of fire. This is what most people think of when they think "Hell." It has become an over simplification though. "Hell" is really the second step. I believe that there is a waiting place where the dead go first. There Jesus preaches to the spirits in a timeless place so that all have the chance to accept or reject Him. Perhaps those that reject Him here do not get a second chance there? That I am not sure of. The story of Lazarus and the Rich man in the Bible illustrates this concept and describes what Hades is like pretty well.
Quote
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
I'm not sure, that having sheep herders as a prerequisite to creation is a scientific way to approach things, especially in the realm of mathematics. This thread is about finding God in logic and I just demonstrated that no matter how you spin it, it is always there. 
But the idea that the universe is just composed of our imagination, and that if we can imagine it, it is real, is not based on any science or logic. The sheep herders were not a prerequisite to creation, they were a prerequisite to making up the mythology fairy tale about a being we call god. And I think what I just demonstrated is that yes, if you spin fantasies to fit your own beliefs and imaginations, you can make your own fantasies and imaginations be whatever the hell you want them to be. That's not a very big discovery. It also has no bearing on science or the real world.
Weren't those sheep herders also prerequisite to the fairy tale you call "science"?
So, if having a logical conclusion is a mere fantasy of my imagination, then it must be as real as what you call science or "real" world. There is no difference.
Yes I agree that this universe has me in it. I was born from my parents.
It doesn't explain how you got here at all. Your parents became yours only after the fact. A year before your birth there was no such concept as "your parents", because all people were equally relevant to you at that point.
There was no "me" a year before I was born, and thus no "me" for anyone to be relevant to. I wasn't even half a DNA in my dad's sperm at that time. Hell, I wasn't even part of any cell that was in my dad's body at the time, since most of our body's cells get replaced every 3 to 6 months. At most I was some dirt, ready to feed some plant, that was eventually going to feed some cow or chicken. Obviously not sentient, and especially not me.
So now you have two singularities, one where physical universe emerged out of Big Bang and the other where you as a consciousness emerged out of that physical universe, where there was no prior concept of you. What makes you choose the model with two singularities instead of just one, where you exist unconditionally and the rest is a product (sometimes very elaborate) of your imagination. Shouldn't Occam's razor apply here?
Quote
The only logical conclusion is that you existed at least as a concept, as an idea, before your physical birth.
Doesn't it take for some conscious brain to form an idea? Who was having me as an idea in their head that far back? I know it wasn't my parents. And even if it was, were they arare of the piece of dirt that was to become a plant that was to become food that was to become my dad that was become sperm that would eventually make me? I highly doubt it.
There is no conclusive evidence, that brain creates consciousness, but there is some evidence (tabooed by "science" by the way), that brain receives consciousness. And if brain does really only receive consciousness that exists unconditionally, then it is consistent with the model, where you imagine the Universe and then you put yourself there as a player.
Imagining might involve building very complex mathematical model with physical laws, so it is not just fantasy.
Hey I just imagined that I am God! That should be proof enough for you all to bow down and worship me, right?
This guy needs to use air-quotes around the word scientist when he calls himself a computer "scientist".
This guy needs to use air-quotes around the word scientist when he calls himself a computer "scientist".
God is not a measure of how much others worship you, but a measure of how much you can create. If you can create anything at all, then the next logical step would be to ask - can I create more?
Then you get to the point, when you're wondering if you can create the condition, where you would begin facing the limits to your creative powers and that leads to a paradox. Or maybe it's the paradox, that led you to begin creating in the first place, because paradox simply is, there was nothing before it, there is nothing after it, but it cannot just settle to rest either, that's what existence really is and that's where we live in
Jump to: