Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[kentrolla]

Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.

Science can't prove shit.  Never has, never will.

I know enough to know that I know nothing at all.

[kentrolla]

Man was created equal.





And so were women

[pedrog]

Ahh, but not all scientists have disproven God and this article shows that doesn't it?  Could scientist be wrong?  

It seems completely illogical to think that the universe is random to me.  How could something so complex as our universe happen by chance?  

Not even one scientist have disprove god, because there's nothing to disprove!

Yes, scientists are wrong all the time, because that's part of the process, no dogmas in science.

And the fallacy you have there, personal incredulity or argument from ignorance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[the joint]

Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.

Science can't prove shit.  Never has, never will.

You do realize that a very small percentage of people understand this.

Yes.

Although, I find that quite a few people do 'say' they understand this, but then they treat the implications of this as irrelevant to their conclusions.  Perhaps worse, some 'do' consider these implications in their conclusions, but they regard them as so insignificant because they're that doesn't directly play upon the senses (i.e. sensory experience is a priori assumed as 'more' valid).

[dank]

Their proof is that there is a limit to what can be conceived, and that limit is god? Well, it's not the Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim god. I don't really see how it's god at all, actually. Just a supreme limit that nothing can be conceived beyond...

By the way, scientists have disproven god a long time ago. Einstein said that god doesn't play dice with the universe, meaning that nothing is random and everything is planned and predetermined, and then quantum physics came out and proved that things in the universe are random and not planned out at all (maybe even killing a cat in the process, but we don't know), meaning god wasn't around to guide anything, or is just playing with dice, and thus was unimportant. Anyone can play with dice to make the universe completely random, or the universe can just be completely random on its own.

Ahh, but not all scientists have disproven God and this article shows that doesn't it?  Could scientist be wrong?  

It seems completely illogical to think that the universe is random to me.  How could something so complex as our universe happen by chance?

This is the fundamental flaw with the idea of God. You cannot explain complexity by invoking prior complexity.  Ask yourself if you think God is as least as complex as the universe. If you consider this to be true then you have moved the problem of where did complexity come from - and in fact, made the problem far harder because you now have monolithic complexity to explain. Complexity arising from self-organizing processes acting upon smaller units is seen throughout nature and has been performed experimentally.  The real question is "How did the super-compressed ball of energy originate?

It always has been and always will.  It was never created, it just has always existed.

Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.

Science can't prove shit.  Never has, never will.

I know enough to know that I know nothing at all.

You know nothing and everything, deep down.

[kentrolla]

We created God and he made us do it.

[the joint]

Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.

Science can't prove shit.  Never has, never will.

I know enough to know that I know nothing at all.

I'm sorry, but I think that's a stupid thing to say.

Of course you know things in some context or another, and you even know things absolutely in some context or another.

You know you exist in the context of your experience.  If you don't, you're insane.  It's directly evident -- so evident, in fact, that you know this before you could even generate the electrical signal to generate the thought in your head that you know you exist.

Direct experience. i.e. a direct subject/object relationship begets absolute information (and thus, absolute knowledge) about that relational system.  It's there.  All you need to do is stop being insane and acknowledge it.

I'm honestly saying this respectfully, because I've said your exact words in the past...until I realized they were insane.

[kentrolla]

Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.

Science can't prove shit.  Never has, never will.

I know enough to know that I know nothing at all.

I'm sorry, but I think that's a stupid thing to say.

Of course you know things in some context or another, and you even know things absolutely in some context or another.

You know you exist in the context of your experience.  If you don't, you're insane.  It's directly evident -- so evident, in fact, that you know this before you could even generate the electrical signal to generate the thought in your head that you know you exist.

Direct experience. i.e. a direct subject/object relationship begets absolute information (and thus, absolute knowledge) about that relational system.  It's there.  All you need to do is stop being insane and acknowledge it.

I'm honestly saying this respectfully, because I've said your exact words in the past...until I realized they were insane.

I don't know I exist and I don't even know if I'm sane.

[the joint]

We created God and he made us do it.

God : Universe :: Man : Thoughts

[kentrolla]

I find sanity insane

[wachtwoord]

This is the fundamental flaw with the idea of God. You cannot explain complexity by invoking prior complexity.  Ask yourself if you think God is as least as complex as the universe. If you consider this to be true then you have moved the problem of where did complexity come from - and in fact, made the problem far harder because you now have monolithic complexity to explain. Complexity arising from self-organizing processes acting upon smaller units is seen throughout nature and has been performed experimentally.  The real question is "How did the super-compressed ball of energy originate?

Richard Dawkings to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

[kentrolla]

the concept that is

[kentrolla]

people think i'm insane because I hear voices and see things that they can't see and vice versa.  Maybe I'm just one of the few sane people left.

[dank]

And you don't believe in god?!

[kentrolla]

I'm 100% sure god exists. Maybe just in my head, but i've been decoding the way he communicates and I've had some really good insight from it.  For example, I guessed someones phone number through calling random numbers and decoding the conversations and shapes and colors I see and translated it to numbers. I kept getting closer and closer and eventually I cracked the code.  Sounds like bullshit, but so does any form of communication with God or the dead or whatever it is.

[the joint]

Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.

Science can't prove shit.  Never has, never will.

I know enough to know that I know nothing at all.

I'm sorry, but I think that's a stupid thing to say.

Of course you know things in some context or another, and you even know things absolutely in some context or another.

You know you exist in the context of your experience.  If you don't, you're insane.  It's directly evident -- so evident, in fact, that you know this before you could even generate the electrical signal to generate the thought in your head that you know you exist.

Direct experience. i.e. a direct subject/object relationship begets absolute information (and thus, absolute knowledge) about that relational system.  It's there.  All you need to do is stop being insane and acknowledge it.

I'm honestly saying this respectfully, because I've said your exact words in the past...until I realized they were insane.

I don't know I exist and I don't even know if I'm sane.

Dude.  Just look at the sentence you formulated.  It's a pile of contradictory horseshit.

"I know enough" to know that "I know nothing at all."  Your conclusion?  Enough = nothing.  Is there some validity to this?  Yes.  But you don't start from that perspective to explain things. That's called condition-level logic.  You need to start with a higher logical vantage point and look down upon condition-level logic to see it clearly and explain it.

Consider the following:  We are 3-dimensional beings.  What do we know of the 2nd dimension?  Well, it's pretty easy to learn about it.  Our world is made up of literally an infinite number of 2-dimensional surfaces.  Length and width...wow...hard stuff.

But what about the 4th dimension?  This is a little bit trickier.  We can't see a 4-dimensional object, so how can we learn about one?  Well, we could draw a tesseract on a piece of paper!  This gives us some information about 4-dimensional objects.  How?  Because what we did is that we, as 3-dimensional beings, took conceptual, mathematical knowledge of 4-dimensional objects and quite literally thrust them into the 2nd dimension into a logical realm infinitely beneath our own.

In this way, it is possible to talk about the Universe in an absolutely true way using a set of hologrammatically similar languages.

[kentrolla]

Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.

Science can't prove shit.  Never has, never will.

I know enough to know that I know nothing at all.

I'm sorry, but I think that's a stupid thing to say.

Of course you know things in some context or another, and you even know things absolutely in some context or another.

You know you exist in the context of your experience.  If you don't, you're insane.  It's directly evident -- so evident, in fact, that you know this before you could even generate the electrical signal to generate the thought in your head that you know you exist.

Direct experience. i.e. a direct subject/object relationship begets absolute information (and thus, absolute knowledge) about that relational system.  It's there.  All you need to do is stop being insane and acknowledge it.

I'm honestly saying this respectfully, because I've said your exact words in the past...until I realized they were insane.

I don't know I exist and I don't even know if I'm sane.

Dude.  Just look at the sentence you formulated.  It's a pile of contradictory horseshit.

"I know enough" to know that "I know nothing at all."  Your conclusion?  Enough = nothing.  Is there some validity to this?  Yes.  But you don't start from that perspective to explain things. That's called condition-level logic.  You need to start with a higher logical vantage point and look down upon condition-level logic to see it clearly and explain it.

Consider the following:  We are 3-dimensional beings.  What do we know of the 2nd dimension?  Well, it's pretty easy to learn about it.  Our world is made up of literally an infinite number of 2-dimensional surfaces.  Length and width...wow...hard stuff.

But what about the 4th dimension?  This is a little bit trickier.  We can't see a 4-dimensional object, so how can we learn about one?  Well, we could draw a tesseract on a piece of paper!  This gives us some information about 4-dimensional objects.  How?  Because what we did is that we, as 3-dimensional beings, took conceptual, mathematical knowledge of 4-dimensional objects and quite literally thrust them into the 2nd dimension into a logical realm infinitely beneath our own.

In this way, it is possible to talk about the Universe in an absolutely true way using a set of hologrammatically similar languages.

nothing = enough

[Vod]

But what about the 4th dimension?  This is a little bit trickier.  We can't see a 4-dimensional object, so how can we learn about one?  Well, we could draw a tesseract on a piece of paper!  This gives us some information about 4-dimensional objects.  How?  Because what we did is that we, as 3-dimensional beings, took conceptual, mathematical knowledge of 4-dimensional objects and quite literally thrust them into the 2nd dimension into a logical realm infinitely beneath our own.

The 4th dimension is time.

To pinpoint a spot in space time you need 4 parameters.  Longitude, Latitude, Altitude and time.  

You can see a 4th dimensional object simply by looking at it.  You can record it by taking a picture, but no two pictures will be the same.

[kentrolla]

anyways. its not my quote. its Einstein who said that.  The concept is hard to explain and I don't understand it.

[the joint]

people think i'm insane because I hear voices and see things that they can't see and vice versa.  Maybe I'm just one of the few sane people left.

In many Amazonian tribal cultures (and likely others as well), those who see things and hear voices are recognized at youth for their unique abilities and are taught how to accept, manage, and learn from those experiences.  These people often become village leaders or "shamans" that provide spiritual and even botanical/medicinal knowledge for the tribe.