Bitcoin Forum
October 24, 2017, 06:29:56 AM *
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 24469 times)
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806



View Profile
December 13, 2013, 04:44:21 PM
 #541

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).

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

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.

1508826596
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826596

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826596
Reply with quote  #2

1508826596
Report to moderator
1508826596
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826596

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826596
Reply with quote  #2

1508826596
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508826596
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826596

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826596
Reply with quote  #2

1508826596
Report to moderator
1508826596
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826596

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826596
Reply with quote  #2

1508826596
Report to moderator
1508826596
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826596

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826596
Reply with quote  #2

1508826596
Report to moderator
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2170


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2013, 06:55:11 PM
 #542

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).

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

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.

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

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to prayers.
If you want your prayers answered, you must donate to 1CDyx8AUTiYXS1ThcBU3vy4SJWQq6pdFMH
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2013, 09:32:21 PM
 #543

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).

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

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

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806



View Profile
December 13, 2013, 11:16:11 PM
 #544

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).

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

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.

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

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.

Kouye
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


Cuddling, censored, unicorn-shaped troll.


View Profile
December 14, 2013, 12:00:17 AM
 #545

"What makes you think a human has the ability to directly move objects beyond the body's structural limits?"
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.

[OVER] RIDDLES 2nd edition --- this was claimed. Look out for 3rd edition!
I won't ever ask for a loan nor offer any escrow service. If I do, please consider my account as hacked.
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806



View Profile
December 14, 2013, 12:29:44 AM
 #546

"What makes you think a human has the ability to directly move objects beyond the body's structural limits?"
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.


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.

rjbtc2017
Full Member
***
Online Online

Activity: 154



View Profile
June 23, 2017, 01:34:21 AM
 #547

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 Smiley

dippididodaday
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 404


It's personal


View Profile
June 23, 2017, 07:36:04 AM
 #548


From one of the articles:
Quote
Gödel’s theorem is based on modal logic, a type of formal logic that, narrowly defined, involves the use of the expressions “necessarily” and “possibly,” according to Stanford University.

The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

Paleo and Benzmüller say that they have proven that the theorem is correct, at least on a mathematical level.



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.

Moloch
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


Moloch.net


View Profile WWW
June 23, 2017, 07:41:27 AM
 #549

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?

TomUyamot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154



View Profile
June 23, 2017, 08:32:42 AM
 #550

Quote
The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is contradictory and stupid logic, what they're essentially saying is that if you believe it is real then it must exist and that's the kind of arguments that religious people have been using for years, whether or not they are correct is down to the evidence provided as we've known yet again for years, I also noticed that these articles don't bother going into any of the actual maths or scientific evidence for this theory which basically means they're putting up a ridiculous headline so they'll get people reading.

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

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.


BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1456


View Profile
June 23, 2017, 10:35:57 AM
 #551

Quote
The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is contradictory and stupid logic, what they're essentially saying is that if you believe it is real then it must exist and that's the kind of arguments that religious people have been using for years, whether or not they are correct is down to the evidence provided as we've known yet again for years, I also noticed that these articles don't bother going into any of the actual maths or scientific evidence for this theory which basically means they're putting up a ridiculous headline so they'll get people reading.

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

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.




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


Cool
matuson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile
June 23, 2017, 11:27:33 AM
 #552

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.

joebrook
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 266


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
June 23, 2017, 12:36:22 PM
 #553

Quote
The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is contradictory and stupid logic, what they're essentially saying is that if you believe it is real then it must exist and that's the kind of arguments that religious people have been using for years, whether or not they are correct is down to the evidence provided as we've known yet again for years, I also noticed that these articles don't bother going into any of the actual maths or scientific evidence for this theory which basically means they're putting up a ridiculous headline so they'll get people reading.

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

I believe with this premise, everything that we have a name for must exist, the human mind cant just imagine things like that, the unicorn, dragons and God does or did exist. God still exists though. So does the Devil.



BITVEST DICE
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄███
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░
▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄
▀██░████████░███████░█▀
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████
▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Slow death
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


Need a Campaign Manager? https://goo.gl/qpZyp7


View Profile
June 23, 2017, 01:04:04 PM
 #554

Quote
The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is contradictory and stupid logic, what they're essentially saying is that if you believe it is real then it must exist and that's the kind of arguments that religious people have been using for years, whether or not they are correct is down to the evidence provided as we've known yet again for years, I also noticed that these articles don't bother going into any of the actual maths or scientific evidence for this theory which basically means they're putting up a ridiculous headline so they'll get people reading.

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

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.




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


Cool


You must be very happy because someone created a thread like this. Cheesy



So i open this topic and i see the title of this very old thread and i thought finally someone would show photos and videos showing god... I did not see anything useful


BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1456


View Profile
June 24, 2017, 05:16:56 AM
 #555

Quote
The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is contradictory and stupid logic, what they're essentially saying is that if you believe it is real then it must exist and that's the kind of arguments that religious people have been using for years, whether or not they are correct is down to the evidence provided as we've known yet again for years, I also noticed that these articles don't bother going into any of the actual maths or scientific evidence for this theory which basically means they're putting up a ridiculous headline so they'll get people reading.

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

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.




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


Cool


You must be very happy because someone created a thread like this. Cheesy



So i open this topic and i see the title of this very old thread and i thought finally someone would show photos and videos showing god... I did not see anything useful



Not as happy as you will be if you realize God exists, and then believe what He tells us in the Bible about Jesus-salvation.

Cool
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!