Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists - page 8. (Read 25217 times)

That's the one thing I don't get, the fear of god.  Why not love god and feel his infinitely powerful love back?

I was thinking that and Buddhism before.  But I have since found understanding of some of the Mormon philosophy that intertwines with my understanding of Christianity and spiritual beliefs.

I think all religions got it down for the most part, though I believe some have been purposefully manipulated to gain control over the people.  The basis of all religions is true and it's those underlying philosophies that make a religion what it is.

The religion that most fits your beliefs is Hinduism.

We are created in God's image for sure.  But I would be cautious about saying I am a part of god.  That I would think would be prideful.  God always was and is but I am just a humble created being.  The Fear of God is the beginning of true wisdom.  To think we can become one with Him does not seem fearful but prideful that we can somehow attain the same state as He is.

I don't think we are gods separate from him, I think we are gods of him.  Like there's one god, one soul, which is everything, the light, and infinite sons of gods, or spirits, which in turn are still a piece of god.  If that makes sense.

If unicorns don't exist, how did you think of it?

So Dank,  you agree with me on so many things which I find interesting.  The one thing we disagree on, which is a huge issue I believe, is that you have a belief that we can somehow become God?  The first commandment says that we are to have no other God but Him.  Wouldn't claiming that we are "god" or could somehow become "god" be breaking the very first commandment? 

according to dank we are from god and therefore we are all a part of god

We will never be able to disprove that dank is god....

We will never be able to prove unicorns....

We will never be able to prove god....

Ain't dat the truth.

Do your believe that for every set A there exists a set, called the power set of A, P(A), that contains every subset of the set A? (The axiom of power sets)?

Yeah, that's one way of illustrating the point. 

1)  How much do you need?  What kind of proof/evidence supports 1 + 1 = 2 aside from self-contained mathematical examples?  The fact that 1+1 = 2 is pretty obvious isn't it?  Well, it's equally obvious (elementary school level kind of obvious) that mental and physical reality are fundamentally inseparable.  It's obvious because we already have established logical properties that directly state that it's impossible to assert an absolute separation between any two things without committing a logical fallacy, just like we have established mathematical rules of operation.

Basically, failing to acknowledge that mental and physical reality are fundamentally related is like disagreeing that 1 + 1 = 2 under any possible interpretation.  As soon as you assert an absolute difference between two things you immediately commit a logical fallacy.  

2)  The point is I don't know why you would select an empirical model of learning out of all the available methods to attempt to explain reality at such a high level of generality.  The scientific method is ill-equipped for the task.  If you're trying to formulate conclusions about something beyond the scope of the empirical model, then why not just pick a better model?  You're just self-handicapping by using the empirical model.  In this regard, you're like a bible banger for empiricism, and no matter how much I try to tell you that there's a whole world of knowledge that is totally (by definition) inaccessible through empiricism, for some reason you have a really hard time processing that.

Lucky would be the Earth forming by chance.  Extremely lucky would be the Sun being in the perfect distance from earth to cause the right temperature for life.  Impossible would be for man and woman to be formed by random chance of all of the molecules coming together in such a way to make life from nothing.

I know I am way off the topic here, but this came to my mind.

In the Bible, Paul the Apostle hated Christians and was so sure he was right about what he believed that he even killed them.  God, out of His mercy, caused him to be blinded for a short time and asked him "Why do you persecute me."  Paul did not realize that he was doing the wrong thing.  He was quite sure he was doing the right thing.  God was merciful to Paul in revealing Himself to him because his heart was in the place of trying to be zealous for good, but he was just misguided.  

All of that said, be careful in your search for proof.  God has a way of showing us proof in ways that might not be terribly comfortable if we fight Him too much.  (Like Paul, Johah, etc . . ) But God does "discipline those He loves" so even if it is uncomfortable at times I still appreciate the times He has "knocked me off my horse" so to speak and shown me the error of my ways.  It is not that I enjoy it, but I know that it out of love for me that He does that.

Rassah, I know that you will respond that you would want nothing to do with a God that would do these sorts of things. As a mom to two girls I have come to have a different understanding.  It is a strange thing but as a parent of kids I understand God more than I used to.  I realize that I make my kids really upset with me sometimes when I correct them or tell them that they cannot have something or do something, but I make these decisions because I want what is best for my kids out of love for them.  Also, if I just let them do whatever they want would that be love?

But if you want or need proof, I will pray that you will have it.  I have been and will keep doing so until you get all the proof you need.  I know it annoys you but I think someday you might change your mind about that.  I hope so anyways.

If you are talking about Cantor's diagonalization, where the number p differs by a decimal digit from every real number n, and thus has no real number partner, the my answer is that p can not exist, or is an imaginary number. The reason is that since there is an infinite number of real number n's, you will never come to a conclusion on what p must be. In other words, it will take an infinite amount of n numbers for p to be created, or put another way, it will take an infinite amount of time, calculations, attempts, or whatever, in order to create p. So you will always get closer to creating p without actually creating it.

I'm still looking for such proof.


Nope. but I wouldn't throw out random subjective coonclusions about what ground I'm walking on, either. I would only use conclusions I can observe and come to, and get closer to the correct answer by process of elimination (I should be able to tell it's not dirt, sand, or a furry fox butt). I wouldn't subjectively make up some story that sounds great, and claim that it's just as valid a conclusion as everything else (as the "God did it" folks do)

don't you see? dank is enlightened.

I was probably pretty stoned.  But this gibberish has vast meaning.

What is light?  What is sound?  Nothing but energy, waves of frequencies.  Everything is energy and your mind interprets these energies to create the illusion of time and space, when all we really are is a single point of consciousness.  Life is an elaborate dream.