Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 494. (Read 845804 times)

You don't cease to amuse me

I prefer having faith in something I have proofs* of than in some little invisible guy with a beard rotating around the Earth. 
Even if I must suffer until the end of times.


* Proofs backed by scientific rigour. Not some crazy nonsense like "oh lord the universe is huge, it must have a creator!"
Truth has nothing to do with feelings. It's based on hard facts. And not knowing isn't equal to "it's god lol".

I'm open to the possibility that we are simulants.

But notions of god, bible, religious texts do not interest me in the slightest.

Such nonsense is just an insignificant subset of true reality (whatever that might be).

Notions of god have always been put forth by dumb lazy monkeys trying to get other monkeys to do their work for them. And the irony of the situation is that the enslaved monkeys are only too keen to propogate the nonsense, I can only assume driven by fear and ignorance.

we were not discussing the implications of what would happen if there would be a god or gods, we were discussing the existence of one.

so apparently you do agree there is a god, even if you refuse to call it god.

Ah ah
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


Seriously, wtf
Aminoacids (more than a dozen atoms in each!) have been detected in deep space.
Three possibilities:

• God plays a joke on us, there is no aminoacids in space
• A god made them
• One by one the atoms reacted together and eventually made those complex molecules

You chose 2, I chose 3. I guess we will never agree.

I'm missing what point? Whose point? Your point? 

One could call the simulation programmer/s gods, why not. Doesn't get you anywhere though and I shouldn't think it would gain any favors from the programmer/s any more than an ant in a colony within a tanks on a childs desk.

To assume gender (he) in the programmer/s is assumption on your part.

The programmer/s would probably not be answering "prayers" but they may take notice or wind back to a system backup if we destroyed our biosphere because we fucked up (nukes, nanotech, bioweapons etc). Our time is the system tick of the simulation, if the simulation were paused, fast forwarded, stopped, rewind, etc then the simulants would be unaware.

A simulated universe would probably be fairly simple code (describing fundamental quantum laws) running on a very fast system, think "computronium".

everything "emerges" from it following the evolutionary process. It's not like our bodies are designed in a 3D modelling tool, instead it's more likely that we are complex "self aware" cellular automata. The evolution process itself would still be "real".

Another point that upholds this theory is the fact that Self correcting code structures (ALA Claude Shannon information theory) have been found at the heart of quantum mechanical laws, It seems these codes underpin the very fabric of our reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4

The usual garbage full of fallacies and misinformation...

Ah ah
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


Seriously, wtf
Aminoacids (more than a dozen atoms in each!) have been detected in deep space.
Three possibilities:

• God plays a joke on us, there is no aminoacids in space
• A god made them
• One by one the atoms reacted together and finally it made those molecules

You chose 2, I chose 3. I guess we will never agree.

Then don't ever claim you base your beliefs on science.

You are religious, and you believe in abiogenesis, and possibly the Greek god Gaia.

The Ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea.

Nice theory, but you're missing the point.

These simulations must have had makers, makers more advanced than us.

So no matter if the universe is an advanced hologram or other piece of machinery, or an actual universe. Someone or something must have created it. Something that existed before the simulation or the real thing ran. Most likely something outside of our dimensions.

It's very likely that heaven is somewhere outside our 4D world, say heaven is 5D or even higher.

Is it so weird to call the creator of this reality (or simulation) our god? For whoever wrote the 'program' wrote the rules, would that not make him able to bend the rules at will? Performng miracles in our eyes? He can even change the rules permanently.

The universe is like an advanced computer program, we are part of it, god is the programmer, as well as the PC manifcturer. The angels are system admins and the devil and his demons are crackers.

Are you dense or trolling?

1) I have the belief there's no god.
2) Science doesn't prove nor disprove its existence. It doesn't suggest it either.

Those two things are completely unrelated.



I insist though
You claim I said science disproves god, where did I do that?

You seem to believe there is no god, while claiming you only believe in things that have been proven by science.

Ergo, you make an unspoken claim that science proves the absence of god.

Show me the proof or the logic behind your claim.

If you fail to do this, than you must agree that there is, or at least might be a god.

You can not say with certainty that there is no god, where is your proof?

You say science points to there being no god

You miss the whole point of science: when we don't know how something happens, we say so. That's the point of proofs.
When we didn't know what composed atoms, we didn't say this was god's place, we just said that we didn't know. And eventually, we found out.

Same goes for the apparition of life. We don't know, no need to think our granpa is floating around and made that.

PS: "evidence points to B)"
LMFAO

Oh, please enlighten me.

When did abiogenesis become a proven fact? When did scientist observe spontaneous creation of lif from non-life?

The fact that this hs never happened is proof enough.

Either

A) life can be created from non-life (it's an universal law like speed of light and gravity), and we can observe it all around us all the time.

B) life can not be created from non-life, but life only comes from life. (I.e. Living organisms giving birth to living organisms). The origin of life was a one time miracle and for that reason can not be observed.

The  absence of observable evidence points to B).

Show me a single event where life was spontaneously created from non-life.

You claim science disproves god, and that logic dictates there is no god.

But please, show me scientific evidence that even gives so much as a hint that god does not exist. Show me a logical hypothesis or even philosophical thought that shows a logical answer to the absence of god that would be more logical than there being a god.

Don't you realize how ridicous you sound, claiming science supports you, while you don't give a single piece of evidence to back you up?

Something inanimate will never come to life.

Something inanimate will never come to life.

You don't cease to amuse me

I prefer having faith in something I have proofs* of than in some little invisible guy with a beard rotating around the Earth.  
Even if I must suffer until the end of times.


* Proofs backed by scientific rigour. Not some crazy nonsense like "oh lord the universe is huge, it must have a creator!"
Truth has nothing to do with feelings. It's based on hard facts. And not knowing isn't equal to "it's god lol".

The simulation hypothesis certainy does imply that it is more like that we exist within a simulation than not.

Basically it goes like this:

[1]
Do you think (extrapolating current technology) that we will ever be able to create realistic VR, say we could learn to jack into our nervous system, or maybe even transfer our conscious mind (scan it) into a machine? The point being do think it is possible to simulate a universe such that the observer/user would never know, the sensory input banwidth needed is not that great even by todays standards.

If you think yes, then proceed to [2], else leave.

[2]
Do you think that if some civilization somewhere ever does reach true VR technology then they will for some reason kill themselves shortly afterward. In other words do you think there is some universal barrier that will dissalow simulation universes from being created/ran. If you think that civilizations will develop them and run them then goto [3], else leave.

[3]
Do you think we "humans of planet 3 of sol" are the most advanced in the universe (technology wise), if not then goto [4], else leave.

[4]
If just 1 simulation was running in the "real" universe then the chance of us living in a simulated one is 0.5 (50/50).

[5]
How many simulations are running out there, take a guess, call it N, the chances of us living in a real universe is 1/N. for all we know simulated universes of the complexity we perceive may be quite common.

Of course the creators of our simulation might themselves be simulants, perhaps in a higher than 3 dimension universe, asking the same questions, it may be simulations all the way down.

Now that God has virtually been proven to exist, you are reading part of the next step - some of what God has revealed to us about Himself and what He wants us to do.