Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2017, 07:18:02 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists  (Read 24426 times)
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 06:40:26 PM
 #221

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.

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!
nice! a christian who actually says he knows about evolution. Can you please tell me what you think is wrong with it?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
1508267882
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508267882

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508267882
Reply with quote  #2

1508267882
Report to moderator
1508267882
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508267882

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508267882
Reply with quote  #2

1508267882
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
deadweasel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
November 04, 2013, 06:44:31 PM
 #222

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.

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?)

maz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 06:47:45 PM
 #223

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.

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!
nice! a christian who actually says he knows about evolution. Can you please tell me what you think is wrong with it?

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.
deadweasel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
November 04, 2013, 06:50:41 PM
 #224

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.

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!
nice! a christian who actually says he knows about evolution. Can you please tell me what you think is wrong with it?

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. 

BitChick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 07:16:12 PM
 #225


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. 


1BitcHiCK1iRa6YVY6qDqC6M594RBYLNPo
deadweasel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
November 04, 2013, 07:51:04 PM
 #226

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.

maz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 07:58:46 PM
 #227

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.

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.'.
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:04:39 PM
 #228

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.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
deadweasel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:09:45 PM
 #229

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.

-----------------------------------


kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:13:01 PM
 #230

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.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
deadweasel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:15:24 PM
 #231

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.

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.

darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:20:47 PM
 #232

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)?
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:25:27 PM
 #233

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.

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.

You should follow up your claims with WHY I cannot.  It's helpful to the conversation.
@4: You can not mathematically speak about the universe. You can make a statistic/mathematical "model" of the universe. But math itself does not in any way describe the universe, or is related to it in any way. The use of the word mathematics in this context, is a rape of the word.

@5: To be able to simulate the universe faster then the universe itself within itself, is a contradiction equivalence to the Russell's paradox. To simulate the universe and thereby know its future you would have to be in possession of something bigger than the universe. I don't think you have that.

Even if we look away from the semantics, scientists are still discussing the fate and the birth of the universe, and if such things even exists. Or even if they can talk consistently about it.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
deadweasel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:27:21 PM
 #234

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.

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.

You should follow up your claims with WHY I cannot.  It's helpful to the conversation.
@4: You can not mathematically speak about the universe. You can make a statistic/mathematical "model" of the universe. But math itself does not in any way describe the universe, or is related to it in any way. The use of the word mathematics in this context, is a rape of the word.

@5: To be able to simulate the universe faster then the universe itself within itself, is a contradiction equivalence to the Russell's paradox. To simulate the universe and thereby know its future you would have to be in possession of something bigger than the universe. I don't think you have that.

Even if we look away from the semantics, scientists are still discussing the fate and the birth of the universe, and if such things even exists. Or even if they can talk consistently about it.



What about the point that I have evidence, albeit weak and changing, when you have none (other than historical reference data)?

kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:29:14 PM
 #235

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)?
Its more logically sound, but in its essence its the same...
And computer scientists have been able to confirm gödel's proof with a proof checker algorithm, which is awesome and nice, and a great leap forward for proof theory and computational proof checkers.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:32:18 PM
 #236

What about the point that I have evidence, albeit weak and changing, when you have none (other than historical reference data)?
Dude!!! its not me you are having that discussion with, get your shit together, and wait for the right guy to respond.

Im not the bibel-guy, that's maz.

Im arguing solipsism, and lack of a reality. (All your evidence is bogus, its all a hallucination!! You can't argue with that.)

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
deadweasel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:47:55 PM
 #237

What about the point that I have evidence, albeit weak and changing, when you have none (other than historical reference data)?
Dude!!! its not me you are having that discussion with, get your shit together, and wait for the right guy to respond.

Im not the bibel-guy, that's maz.

Im arguing solipsism, and lack of a reality. (All your evidence is bogus, its all a hallucination!! You can't argue with that.)

God hates you.

kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:49:03 PM
 #238

What about the point that I have evidence, albeit weak and changing, when you have none (other than historical reference data)?
Dude!!! its not me you are having that discussion with, get your shit together, and wait for the right guy to respond.

Im not the bibel-guy, that's maz.

Im arguing solipsism, and lack of a reality. (All your evidence is bogus, its all a hallucination!! You can't argue with that.)

God hates you.
Not my problem.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
deadweasel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:53:46 PM
 #239

What about the point that I have evidence, albeit weak and changing, when you have none (other than historical reference data)?
Dude!!! its not me you are having that discussion with, get your shit together, and wait for the right guy to respond.

Im not the bibel-guy, that's maz.

Im arguing solipsism, and lack of a reality. (All your evidence is bogus, its all a hallucination!! You can't argue with that.)

God hates you.
Not my problem.

Smiley

kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2013, 08:57:31 PM
 #240

Smiley
Smiley

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!