Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[the joint]

I find it ironic that so many fallacies and false assumptions are being made in many of the responses to BitChick's stated beliefs.  A couple are: the assertion of a false dichotomy between free will and determinism, arguing that it is inherently wrong to circularly use the bible to support itself when logic circularly supports itself (and so does the Real Universe as it, too, is, self-contained), misunderstanding the implications of what a monotheistic god is, etc.

You guys need to get your marbles straight first before you criticize her beliefs.  The worst part is that, in general, her beliefs are more accurate than yours (yes, God exists by logical necessity).

[1715151784]

1715151784

[1715151784]

1715151784

[1715151784]

1715151784

[Vod]

I find it ironic that so many fallacies and false assumptions are being made in many of the responses to BitChick's stated beliefs.  A couple are: the assertion of a false dichotomy between free will and determinism, arguing that it is inherently wrong to circularly use the bible to support itself when logic circularly supports itself (and so does the Real Universe as it, too, is, self-contained), misunderstanding the implications of what a monotheistic god is, etc.

You guys need to get your marbles straight first before you criticize her beliefs.  The worst part is that, in general, her beliefs are more accurate than yours (yes, God exists by logical necessity).

Ok fine - let me post an even simpler question.  

How can your god be a loving one if he purposely creates people he knows he will have to murder later?  Does he whack off to their suffering?

(god does NOT exist by logical necessity, so I challenge you to back up your statement)

[NewLiberty]

It may be less about god deserving love, or proofs of existence, than the benefit people get from loving.

Love sustains us, emboldens us, and being loved gives us strength. People thrive more with it than without it.
There is sufficient scientific and empirical evidence for this.

Belief in god may thus contribute to evolutionary success if it yields these benefits, which may explain a part of why it persists.



If you have a goal of dispensing with the belief, you would have to first provide the benefits needed to replace what it offers.

This is also the lesson of bitcoin, to fiat, which I suspect is a much more feasible replacement proposition, and thus perhaps a better use of our energies.

[Vod]

Belief in god may thus contribute to evolutionary success if it yields these benefits, which may explain a part of why it persists.

As belief in a god has fallen, human population and education has risen.

Religion only persists because people pass on the lies (brainwash) to their children who don't know any better.  If people would let their children decide for themselves then religion would disappear in a generation.  

[dank]

Belief in god may thus contribute to evolutionary success if it yields these benefits, which may explain a part of why it persists.

As belief in a god has fallen, human population and education has risen.

Ego, knowledge of the physical world has risen, yes.  But all this technology isn't really necessary.  Once we evolve to a certain level we won't need phones or computers to contact people, everyone you know will be summoned by your will.

And along with technological advances comes advances in weaponry and warfare.  Look what the world's come today, it's falling apart at the seams.  This world could use some god, not necessarily religion, but god, some love.

Religion only persists because people pass on the lies (brainwash) to their children who don't know any better.  If people would let their children decide for themselves then religion would disappear in a generation.  

I could say the same thing about the government.

[Vod]

Religion only persists because people pass on the lies (brainwash) to their children who don't know any better.  If people would let their children decide for themselves then religion would disappear in a generation.  

I could say the same thing about the government.

Maybe for you - a guy that gets destroys his brain and contributes nothing to society other than as a thief...

For the rest of us, a sudden collapse of government would mean a loss of roads, fire services, protection, etc.  Only the 0.1% (or less) of us that were prepared to live without society would survive.  A lazy ass dreamer like yourself would be dead after 3 days of no water.

[NewLiberty]

Belief in god may thus contribute to evolutionary success if it yields these benefits, which may explain a part of why it persists.

As belief in a god has fallen, human population and education has risen.

Religion only persists because people pass on the lies (brainwash) to their children who don't know any better.  If people would let their children decide for themselves then religion would disappear in a generation.  

Probably not the best argument.  If you look around the planet at the places with the most population growth, they are mostly those places with more religiosity.


Useful lies tend to persist much longer than useless ones in the minds in which they take root.  Basic memetics.  Consider whether there may be more than one reason religions persist.

[dank]

Religion only persists because people pass on the lies (brainwash) to their children who don't know any better.  If people would let their children decide for themselves then religion would disappear in a generation.  

I could say the same thing about the government.

Maybe for you - a guy that gets destroys his brain and contributes nothing to society other than as a thief...

For the rest of us, a sudden collapse of government would mean a loss of roads, fire services, protection, etc.  Only the 0.1% (or less) of us that were prepared to live without society would survive.  A lazy ass dreamer like yourself would be dead after 3 days of no water.

Absence of government != societal shut down

Absence of government == complete natural freedom

Absence of government == world peace

Absence of government == heaven

in that order.

[Vod]

Probably not the best argument.  If you look around the planet at the places with the most population growth, they are mostly those places with more religiosity.

Yes, these are all the places with the least education.  In countries with high education you see religious beliefs plummet.

[NewLiberty]

Probably not the best argument.  If you look around the planet at the places with the most population growth, they are mostly those places with more religiosity.

Yes, these are all the places with the least education.  In countries with high education you see religious beliefs plummet.

Yes, as well as population growth.

[Rassah]

Why don't you pray for amputees?

It is not that God could not just grow a leg or arm from nowhere if He so chose to do that. It seems God intervenes more when the person's life could be lost.  Perhaps He has more for them to accomplish on this earth? 

What if someone has lost a liver? That is kind of like a "limb." And without it, a person will die within a matter of days. How come there are no records of any humans ever regrowing or restoring any lost body parts, and why is that more "unnatural" than cancer cells and tumors just "disappearing."

[Rassah]

But as a mom I know that the shots will actually keep her from becoming sick later and encountering a disease that could harm her.

Why would you do something so cruel as interfere with God's plan to possibly try to send your children to heaven sooner???

[dank]

Why don't you pray for amputees?

It is not that God could not just grow a leg or arm from nowhere if He so chose to do that. It seems God intervenes more when the person's life could be lost.  Perhaps He has more for them to accomplish on this earth? 

What if someone has lost a liver? That is kind of like a "limb." And without it, a person will die within a matter of days. How come there are no records of any humans ever regrowing or restoring any lost body parts, and why is that more "unnatural" than cancer cells and tumors just "disappearing."

Because it involves the creation of matter rather than healing something that can be fixed easier.  Just cause nobodies done it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Vod, I'm still waiting for your reply to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-J7cnUV28Q

[elektibi75]

Are you kidding me,this is ultra trolling....

[interlagos]

It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it.  If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does.  We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to.  If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.

What if I imagine a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings?

Who's imagining (creating) it?

??

He, and now you, and now I, and now the reader of this...all did imagine/contemplate a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings.
According to your formulations.

So you just demonstated how you and I and others exist prior to any Universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of God. Congratulations!

Therefore God is a collective of all of us

Do we get a group discount at Tautologies 'R' Us?

There is no tautology here. Simple logic. Assume that in imagination land everything is possible. Then it is very easy to demonstrate, that you cannot imagine the universe guided by physical laws alone, which would give birth to you (it is important point, not just any abstract universe, but the one which has you in it), because you are already the one imagining it in the first place. Do you follow? You can't have both - yourself sporadically emerging as product of physical laws and yourself designing those laws to begin with, it leads to contradiction.

[interlagos]

It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it.  If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does.  We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to.  If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.

What if I imagine a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings?

Who's imagining (creating) it?

??

He, and now you, and now I, and now the reader of this...all did imagine/contemplate a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings.
According to your formulations.

So you just demonstated how you and I and others exist prior to any Universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of God. Congratulations!

Therefore God is a collective of all of us

Do we get a group discount at Tautologies 'R' Us?

There is no tautology here. Simple logic. Assume that in imagination land everything is possible. Then it is very easy to demonstrate, that you cannot imagine the universe guided by physical laws alone, which would give birth to you (it is important point, not just any abstract universe, but the one which has you in it), because you are already the one imagining it in the first place. Do you follow? You can't have both - yourself sporadically emerging as product of physical laws and yourself designing those laws to begin with, it leads to contradiction.

Another way to think of God is to understand it as a process of resolution of a logical paradox, which arises from the statement "all powerful".

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create a condition, where it would begin facing limits of its power.

The paradox is then in the fact, that in both cases the statement leads to contradiction.
If God cannot create that condition, then he is not all powerful.
If he can, then he will begin facing limits of its power.

I believe existence is the momentum of this paradox. It was never created, but it can never settle.

That's because the people who invented an "all powerful god" didn't put much thought in it.

You don't have to invent anything. The power of the paradox is that it's the only thing that has substance to it. Statements that are logically true or false are static and in that sense are dead. Conclusions like A leads to B and B leads to C are transitory, they are paths of creation. The paradox is a living energy, it is the engine of creation, the perpetuum mobile of a kind. It can never settle.

By giving people a free will, God attempts to create a condition, where it begins facing the limits of its power. If we consider two equal opposites - positive and negative, then having a free will to choose between the two makes the whole thing slightly more positive, because having choice is a "good" thing. Therefore by giving choice, positive (or God) paradoxically becomes the greater attractor, and that gives creation it's momentum, that sets things in motion, so to speak.

Another way to say this, is that God loves you so much, that it allows you to think and witness, that you are not loved at all.

[the joint]

I find it ironic that so many fallacies and false assumptions are being made in many of the responses to BitChick's stated beliefs.  A couple are: the assertion of a false dichotomy between free will and determinism, arguing that it is inherently wrong to circularly use the bible to support itself when logic circularly supports itself (and so does the Real Universe as it, too, is, self-contained), misunderstanding the implications of what a monotheistic god is, etc.

You guys need to get your marbles straight first before you criticize her beliefs.  The worst part is that, in general, her beliefs are more accurate than yours (yes, God exists by logical necessity).

Ok fine - let me post an even simpler question.  

How can your god be a loving one if he purposely creates people he knows he will have to murder later?  Does he whack off to their suffering?

(god does NOT exist by logical necessity, so I challenge you to back up your statement)

Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.

Thus, when we observe the Real Universe, it means that part of the Real Universe is observing itself.  You could say that consciousness is self-referential.

So, when god "creates people," what you get are stratified "pieces" of global consciousness.  This is why we perceive time as linear...we are stratified and localized to particular swaths of spacetime.  In contrast, the mind of god observes everything in perfect superposition where things like freedom and constraint (structure...determinism) are counterbalanced.

[NewLiberty]

It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it.  If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does.  We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to.  If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.

What if I imagine a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings?

Who's imagining (creating) it?

??

He, and now you, and now I, and now the reader of this...all did imagine/contemplate a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings.
According to your formulations.

So you just demonstated how you and I and others exist prior to any Universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of God. Congratulations!

Therefore God is a collective of all of us

Do we get a group discount at Tautologies 'R' Us?

There is no tautology here. Simple logic. Assume that in imagination land everything is possible. Then it is very easy to demonstrate, that you cannot imagine the universe guided by physical laws alone, which would give birth to you (it is important point, not just any abstract universe, but the one which has you in it), because you are already the one imagining it in the first place. Do you follow? You can't have both - yourself sporadically emerging as product of physical laws and yourself designing those laws to begin with, it leads to contradiction.

In your imagination land, why do you imagine that I can not imagine a physical law governing my ability to design a universe with only physical laws including one which allows me to do just that?  Or even to imagine new logical rules, everything is possible, yes?  Even contradictions could be imagined if I needed one, which I never would, as I could simply imagine that it wasn't one. (see what my imagination did there?)

This is trivially easy since in the logic of this world, we have the principle of explosion, a logical rule that from a false premise one can deduce anything, and we started from "Assume that in imagination land everything is possible."  From such a start, the only thing which can be false are limits on truth, as it can be infinitely stretched.

We are traipsing into Voltaire's Candide, the best of all possible worlds.  Your formulation is consistent.  It is not false so much as circular.

[interlagos]

It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it.  If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does.  We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to.  If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.

What if I imagine a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings?

Who's imagining (creating) it?

??

He, and now you, and now I, and now the reader of this...all did imagine/contemplate a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings.
According to your formulations.

So you just demonstated how you and I and others exist prior to any Universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of God. Congratulations!

Therefore God is a collective of all of us

Do we get a group discount at Tautologies 'R' Us?

There is no tautology here. Simple logic. Assume that in imagination land everything is possible. Then it is very easy to demonstrate, that you cannot imagine the universe guided by physical laws alone, which would give birth to you (it is important point, not just any abstract universe, but the one which has you in it), because you are already the one imagining it in the first place. Do you follow? You can't have both - yourself sporadically emerging as product of physical laws and yourself designing those laws to begin with, it leads to contradiction.

In your imagination land, why do you imagine that I can not imagine a physical law governing my ability to design a universe with only physical laws including one which allows me to do just that?  Or even to imagine new logical rules, everything is possible, yes?  Even contradictions could be imagined if I needed one, which I never would, as I could simply imagine that it wasn't one. (see what my imagination did there?)

This is trivially easy since in the logic of this world, we have the principle of explosion, a logical rule that from a false premise one can deduce anything, and we started from "Assume that in imagination land everything is possible."  From such a start, the only thing which can be false are limits on truth, as it can be infinitely stretched.

Well you can refine then that "in imagination land everything that is logical is possible", then what you will arrive at is that your model of the universe is illogical. Isn't that sufficient enough?

[maz]

But He does not murder us. I suppose you could say that the fact that there is a Hell and that we choose to go there is God murdering us?

I'm more worried about your belief in hell than anything else.