Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists - page 2. (Read 25213 times)

Science and religion are words the antipodes. How in General could such a thought. OP how much he drank or smoked to make nakuu topic. Religion is fake which has no scientific justification. Only stupid people sincerely believe in God, and all the others only pretend to believe.

But if you ad the separate scientific principle/law to this, then God is definitely proven... even without entropy thrown into the mix.

I can't find any sound logic at all.

The theorem mentioned is kind of rusty already. It has already been used, reused, paraphrased, and everything again and again and again.

Finally, the subject "Computer Scientists Prove God Exists" is somehow misplaced. The theorem forwarded proves it so.

I can imagine a flying teapot which is hiding behind Uranus so nobody can see it

That does NOT mean it exists

But, you can't prove it doesn't exist, can you?

So maybe anything I imagine exists... or maybe I'm not solipsistic?

Either way, it doesn't prove shit about god

This article only proves that people are super gullible and will believe anything which reinforces their preconceived ideas without critically thinking about it... what else is new?

My understanding of reality is that I exist. I am proof of my existence. I can conceive greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest. Existing, I understand through imagining reality. Its divine.

According to the article, they proved it using the theory that says everything you imagine means it's existing?
The title is correct but the content is not really the Answer that i'm expecting on proving that God Exists, nice try comscis

To be honest, I had difficulty writing my previous post because I do think a more detailed definition of "structural limits" is required.  Given that I've expressed my belief that all things necessarily share a fundamental characteristic of identity -- and that observable differences must arise out of similarity -- I could have just gone ahead and jumped down the rabbit hole as far as I possibly could and asserted that something moving at the farthest reaches of observable space must be the direct result of mental processes since the two must share a common identity and to that extent are the same (i.e. if mental processes occurring 'here' share a fundamental identity with physical phenomena occurring 'there', then changes in mental process 'here' must directly effect changes in physical phenomena 'there').  However, I wanted to leave the "differences" still in tact, for practical reasons.  Someone like Rassah would claim that just asserting that everything is fundamentally the same and thus everything directly effects everything doesn't lend itself to much practical utility, and generally I would agree.  I was trying to stay consistent within a particular context.

But, with specific regards to your post, and staying within the context I've chosen, I'm not sure everyone would agree that saying the "brain" produces a magnetic field affecting physical phenomena beyond the body is the same as saying "mental processes" produce a magnetic field affecting physical phenomena.

The brain produces a magnetic field. It thus does moves "stuff" beyond the body's structural limits.
Unless you consider this magnetic field as a part of the structural being. In which case a more detailed definition of "structural limits" would be useful.

Referring to the bolded section. it's already known that thought can directly move objects (your body is an object).  It's also already known that thought can indirectly move objects outside of the body (e.g. thought -->  arm moves -- > key turns --> car starts).

So, your question is better rephrased as, "What makes you think a human has the ability to directly move objects beyond the body's structural limits?"  And, I think it's plausible because of what we already know of certain effects that thought processes have on physical phenomena.  It's not a sound conclusion by any means, but I think it's also unsound to conclude it's implausible.

You might settle for training cat to walk across the board without knocking over any pieces?

It was a tounge in cheek question.  We know a cat doesn't have the brain ability to play chess no matter what you teach it.  What makes you think a human has the ability to move objects just by thought, no matter how much you train?

Anyone who can prove they can do so will earn an easy million dollars.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Is this a serious question?  If so, it's not quite analogous as you're interjecting a 2nd subject into the mix, and this interjection requires certain assumtions about the metal capacity of the cat.

It's obviously established that mental processes affect our physical bodies which can then indirectly affect physical phenomena outside of bodies (e.g. I think about moving my hand, and so I do, thus turning the key to start my car which then enables me to drive where I please).  But is it possible to turn the key directly through mental processes rather than indirectly by first moving my body?  I'd say it's plausible.

So you are saying if I train my cat for hours a day, I can teach him to play chess? 

I once knew a guy who practiced various types of meditation.  He was very serious about it to the point of doing several hours per day for years on end.  He also claims he systematically taught himself to lucid dream.  He claims that one time he somehow woke up from his dream wearing a shirt that he created in his lucid dream.  While I can't in any way verify this claim and would tend to believe it's false, nothing else about this guy gave me any indication that he was crazy or a whacko, and in fact he was a good musical composer and highly skilled in martial arts (he practiced fracture training to build up his bone density and toughness).

Edit:  While I'm not asserting that the guy's claim is true, I think it's worth considering that you have probably never known anyone who has committed literally thousands or tens of thousands of hours to mental training.  If you stick a bodybuilder next to a regular guy, everybody and anybody will automatically recognize the bodybuilder as a superior physical specimen capable of feats of strength and endurance (e.g. dead-lifting a car) that the regular guy would consider impossible.  Isolating this information, it's plausible to assume that someone who commits to training their mind with a duration and intensity similar to a bodybuilder may be capable of performing feats of the mind that the average person would think is impossible (e.g. directly extending the effects of mental processes upon physical phenomena beyond your own body).

I have hallucinated me riding on a motorcycle, thank you very much.

Maybe money's not as important as bringing people peace.

So explain to me why you can't hallucinate money to pay off your debts, or hallucinate yourself a new car or motorcycle? Or does this mean that nothing in the universe is real?

I'll be honest, I don't think drugs are a good thing necessarily.  They are simply a tool, they are neutral.  Some way more negative than others.  They can be used positively and negatively, but the key thing happening when they're consumed is a change in consciousness, perception.  Whether that shift is a positive thing, only you can decide.

One thing to recognize about psychedelics above all else, they do give you a direct connection to the spirit, they do raise the frequency of your being and connect you to a state of universal reception of all channels of god, in other words, imagine your radio could pick up every single station on earth at the same time, and you could understand it.

I do not mean to shift the topic to drugs, though I think psychedelics specifically are very much related to god's existence as they bring you into a state of unity, they are how I found god after all.

Everything is a hallucination, either nothing is real or everything is real.

Totally agree, anything that puts the subject into an irrational state of mind can be use for the purposes of mind control. 

Most societies use drugs in some way.

And actually, most fundamentalist religions strongly discourage the use of drugs, since their own practices often rely on nobody in the religion having any alternative way to get high.  So, like Pentecostalists, their only buzz is going into something like an epileptic seizure while rolling around on the ground spastically and "speaking tongues." 

If they had a better way of getting a buzz, they probably wouldn't be into spazzing out and flipping around on the floor screaming gibberish.

The same could be said of the 9/11 terrorists, all in an Islamic offshoot that forbade them from just getting drunk or high.  So their buzz was knocking down the Twin Towers.