Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[BitChick]

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. 

[1714146244]

1714146244

[1714146244]

1714146244

[1714146244]

1714146244

[deadweasel]

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.

[kokjo]

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.

[deadweasel]

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]

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.

[deadweasel]

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]

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]

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.

[deadweasel]

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]

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.

[kokjo]

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.)

[deadweasel]

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]

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.

[deadweasel]

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.

[kokjo]

[Rassah]

Even though I am not Catholic I can somewhat understand what the priest was trying to accomplish. I think the priest was trying his best to comfort your friend.  It is really difficult to know what to say to someone who is grieving like that.

Not really. "I don't know" is a pretty simple answer, and is probably better than trying to make something up, and getting stuck with having to answer even more questions. But priests and religious types in general are pretty convinced that they know the answers - the "truth" - and can't help themselves.

We can argue with Him.  We can fight Him.  We can raise our fist at Him and tell Him how incredibly unfair it all seems.  But how fair was it for Him to receive beatings and even being crucified on a cross in one of the most horrific deaths this world ever had just for our sins?

Pretty fair, considering he knew that this would happened, and purposefully came to earth specifically in order to have it happen. God basically willingly committed suicide with that one. If I shoot myself in the head, how far is it of me to suffer through taking my own gun, putting the gun to my head myself, and pulling the trigger? Pretty stupid question when you put it that way.

[Vod]

Vod, consider this.

When God created the first couple he intended for humans to populate the earth and enjoy all of the things which he had created on earth for them to enjoy, animals, foods, landscapes, beauty (the list goes on). At this point we can assume that there was no intention for sin or pain as the first couple were considered 'perfect', in health and in mind.

Your premise is wrong, so the rest of your argument is wrong as well.

When your god created the first couple, he KNEW at that point that Eve would eat the apple, sin would be invented, and he would have to start causing pain and murdering people.  HE KNEW THIS, for he is all powerful and can see the future, even through free will.

No one has been able to prove that your god doesn't get off on the pain he causes others.  He seems to do it a lot.

[Rassah]

But the idea that the universe is just composed of our imagination, and that if we can imagine it, it is real, is not based on any science or logic. The sheep herders were not a prerequisite to creation, they were a prerequisite to making up the mythology fairy tale about a being we call god. And I think what I just demonstrated is that yes, if you spin fantasies to fit your own beliefs and imaginations, you can make your own fantasies and imaginations be whatever the hell you want them to be. That's not a very big discovery. It also has no bearing on science or the real world.

Weren't those sheep herders also prerequisite to the fairy tale you call "science"?

Nope. That happened centuries later, when some people specifically rejected the ideas of those sheep hearders, and decided to actually do physical experiments in the physical world. Many were even punished or burned for doing this by the sheephearder followers.

So, if having a logical conclusion is a mere fantasy of my imagination, then it must be as real as what you call science or "real" world. There is no difference.

I doon't follow. No, a logical conclusion is not just whatever fantasy you wish to imagine.

So now you have two singularities, one where physical universe emerged out of Big Bang and the other where you as a consciousness emerged out of that physical universe, where there was no prior concept of you. What makes you choose the model with two singularities instead of just one, where you exist unconditionally and the rest is a product (sometimes very elaborate) of your imagination. Shouldn't Occam's razor apply here?

Because a singularity is a physics defined term, that means matter and energy in such a compressed state, that the gravity there overcomes light and time itself, etc. etc. etc.? I'm pretty sure I was never a black hole. Nor was I ever a spontaneous quantum explosion of matter and antimatter. All those things involving the Big Bang actually have some actual physical science behind them, so please don't conflate terms. Occam's razor would make my consciousness much more basic and simpler than some mystical thing that many people try to push here, and likewise would make the idea of the universe spontaneously popping into existence the way we have witnessed particles pop into existence in particle coliders WAY more probable than some omnippootent consciousness popping into existence to create the universe.

There is no conclusive evidence, that brain creates consciousness, but there is some evidence (tabooed by "science" by the way), that brain receives consciousness.

We have pretty conclusive evidence that changing or damaging certain parts of the brain severely alters consciousness, that interfeering with brain chemistry alters consciousness, very good evidence on how brains are built and how they send signals, and practically no evidence that they receiive signals from elsewhere. Are you suggesting that brain damage due to physical trauma or disease actually interfeers with brain's "antenna" qualities, instead of actually damaging the consciousness that it works with? Your same Occam's raizor would say that the simplest explanation is that consciousness originates from the brain itself, as opposed to a vastly more complex idea that there is some great, unknown, untestable consciousness that our brain simply received (through what material or means, and why can't it be blocked)?

[BitchicksHusband]

The 'Hell' you speak of is a fabrication of the Catholic church.

The Bible uses primarily 2 words in relation to death, 'she'ohl' in Hebrew, and 'hai'des' in Greek. These words are often substituted for the word 'hell' in some bible translations, primarily Catholic ones. Cross referencing scriptures indicates that these terms 'she'ohl' and 'hai'des' are more likely references to the common grave of mankind, a symbolic reference to where all the dead are. No reference to the common catholic teaching of hell fire or torment, but a figurative location where most of mankind sleep in death (peacefully).

You are mostly correct.  But it is confusing.

"Hell" was originally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_%28location%29, which is the Norse (and in the old days English) version of Hades, a temporary place of the dead in this case ruled by the Norse goddess Hela.  It was an appropriate choice (in 1500-1600s) to translate "Hades" which is a similar place in the Greek.

But the meaning has shifted.  Today, when someone mentions "Hell", what they really mean is the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20):

11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

But as to the "no reference" part, we also see this in the Old Testament in Isaiah 66:24:

24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

And Jesus quotes this verse when talking about people that mess with children:

42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.  45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
    and the fire is not quenched.’

Perhaps you mistook it for the reference in the Bible to Gehenna? Gehenna was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem in which dead bodies unworthy of burial were thrown, as well as common garbage which was constantly on fire to avoid disease etc. Jesus used Gehenna to illustrate eternal destruction for people who would not come back from death. No constant torment or hell fire.

Gehenna was commonly understood at the time of the New Testament to be a reference to God's (eternal) punishment of the wicked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna#The_concept_of_Gehenna

But as seen above, Jesus clearly believes that, "the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched."

The only legitimate use of the word should be in reference to hell'ing potatoes, i.e. to bury them, or cover them up.

You have this backward.  The origin of the phrase comes from the place.

[Rassah]

There is still a "lake of fire" that all that are not found written in the book of life will be cast into along with the demons.  Basically Hades is thrown into there: See "Revelation20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire." This is the second death, the lake of fire.

When the bible was written, we didn't really know anything about fire. We knew that it was hot, and that it hurt. We know a lot more now. Out of curiocity, do you think whatever it is that souls are made of can chemically combine with oxygen? Because if souls can't combine with oxygen, then they pretty much can't burn and are impervious to fire. Likewise, do you think souls can have an electric field, to let the nerve endings send the electric impulses to tell the brain that there is pain somewhere, and do souls have brains capable of causing chemical reactions that would allow them to respond to pain? Pain, and fire, and very physical and chemistry-based things. I don't think souls, if existed, would even be able to sense fire.