Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[yogi]

If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.

FTFY

And natural processes are the result of...?

The flying spaghetti monster 

[1714025818]

1714025818

[1714025818]

1714025818

[the joint]

If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.

FTFY

And natural processes are the result of...?

The flying spaghetti monster 

The go-to response for someone without a good answer.

[yogi]

If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.

FTFY

And natural processes are the result of...?

The flying spaghetti monster  

The go-to response for someone without a good answer.

The problem of infinite regression is one that exists in both the natural and supernatural view of the universe. I could say that natural processes are driven by the fundamental force of the universe. You could then come back and say "And fundamental forces are the result of...?", ... and so on... On the other hand I could say "And the flying spaghetti monster is the result of...?" ... and so on ...

There is always a limit to our knowledge, at some point we have to say 'I don't know'. But, just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean that God did it and to assume so is illogical.

[dank]

If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.

FTFY

And natural processes are the result of...?

The flying spaghetti monster 

So, god.

[hawkeye]

If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.

FTFY

And natural processes are the result of...?

The flying spaghetti monster  

The go-to response for someone without a good answer.

I'm guessing you missed the irony of your response.

[the joint]

If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.

FTFY

And natural processes are the result of...?

The flying spaghetti monster  

The go-to response for someone without a good answer.

The problem of infinite regression is one that exists in both the natural and supernatural view of the universe. I could say that natural processes are driven by the fundamental force of the universe. You could then come back and say "And fundamental forces are the result of...?", ... and so on... On the other hand I could say "And the flying spaghetti monster is the result of...?" ... and so on ...

There is always a limit to our knowledge, at some point we have to say 'I don't know'. But, just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean that God did it and to assume so is illogical.

No, you don't have to say you don't know.  Knowing through reason is fully contained within the realm of logic.  Logic is self-contained.  It reinforces itself.  Anything outside of logic isn't an "I don't know."  It's more like a "don't even bother going there because it's pointless to try."  You know that tree that falls in the forest where nobody's around to perceive it?  I don't either.

As long as you adhere to some essential rules you can never be wrong.  The reason you can never be wrong is because logic says you can never be wrong, so long as you're logical.

Because logic reinforces itself, 'infinite regressions' and other paradoxes must be self-resolving, for if they weren't, logic 1) is an incomplete method for forming true statements and therefore can't be trusted, and/or 2) is not self-contained, meaning there is some higher-order law (an illogical one, at that) at play capable of making sense of paradoxes, and therefore it can't be trusted.

Referencing "supernatural," I think we could both agree that this generally (and literally) means "above or superior to natural law."  This could imply a few things.  It could imply the possibility that something could directly manipulate or influence natural law and cause the law itself to change.  It could also imply the possibility that something could manipulate the content that the law governs without changing the law itself.  Or it could imply the possibility of both.  After all, were talking about "natural processes" here, and "natural processes" describes a relationship between both physically real content and abstractly real law.

Now, is supernatural possible?  Well, first of all, supernatural does NOT necessarily mean illogical.  It's quite plausible to imagine, for example, that for no apparent reason you could raise your arms up and start floating up into the air.  All I'm asserting is that it's possible to imagine.  And, given that thoughts are logical constructs, I'm also asserting that it's possible to imagine something quite "supernatural" (defying gravity).  This would be a concept representing a supernatural manipulation of content without manipulating the law itself.  The Jesus miracles are also examples of this.

Now, what about the other case?  Is is possible to imagine something supernatural affecting the law itself?  The whole concept of a god that is "outside of reality" but is real enough to "be inside of reality when he wants to" goes nowhere fast.  If something is real enough to be considered real, it would always be inside of reality and never outside of it.  A much more interesting option is a law that intrinsically changes itself.  If a law changes itself, then something interesting happens -- both the law and the content governed by that law are changed dynamically in tandem.

So, yes, I think supernatural is very possible, logically.  All you need is a Universe with an informational feedback loop.

[Rassah]

Laws governing physical reality are abstract. Another word for 'abstract' is 'mental' to the extent that you cannot assert something abstract to exist without acknowledging that it exists due to mind.

In fact, the abstract metrics that we use give definition to our conception of physical reality.  For example, if we use a metric that you can divide infinitesimally, then we might say that space is continuous.  But, if we suddenly use a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space becomes discontinuous.

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are talking about XD

Because logic reinforces itself, 'infinite regressions' and other paradoxes must be self-resolving, for if they weren't, logic 1) is an incomplete method for forming true statements and therefore can't be trusted, and/or 2) is not self-contained, meaning there is some higher-order law (an illogical one, at that) at play capable of making sense of paradoxes, and therefore it can't be trusted.

A person who gives a logical "I know! It's ..." answer to the question "What's behind that horizon?" will come out rather foolish as soon as the person who said "I don't know" walks over to check it out. You have some strange concepts of logic...

[Rassah]

Everything happens for a reason. That reason may just be something other than god. For instance, if you took a whole bunch of magnet bars with N and S at opposite ends, tossed them into the air, and let them fall freely over a large space, you'll see them orient themselves into large lines and curves, as the S's attract to the N's. Were the reason they oriented themselves in such a way god's doing? Or was it basic physics?

You are missing my point. God is the creator of everything on earth, so he created
all the physical laws that we are  aware at the present time and that's your reason.

So if god created physical laws, then who created god?

But why would they orient themselves into lines and curves?  Who made the laws of physics?  Did the laws of physics just happen by random chance too?  What you call "basic physics" is not all that basic is it?

Same question. If god always existed, why couldn't physical laws always exist, too?

[dank]

The great eternal always has and always will.

[ajax3592]

The great eternal always has and always will.

Actually God is universal energy that we can feel >>That's the reason they say God is everywhere. It's the universal energy.
We are made from star dust, so that energy resides in us >>The reason they say God resides inside us

[the joint]

Laws governing physical reality are abstract. Another word for 'abstract' is 'mental' to the extent that you cannot assert something abstract to exist without acknowledging that it exists due to mind.

In fact, the abstract metrics that we use give definition to our conception of physical reality.  For example, if we use a metric that you can divide infinitesimally, then we might say that space is continuous.  But, if we suddenly use a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space becomes discontinuous.

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are talking about XD

Because logic reinforces itself, 'infinite regressions' and other paradoxes must be self-resolving, for if they weren't, logic 1) is an incomplete method for forming true statements and therefore can't be trusted, and/or 2) is not self-contained, meaning there is some higher-order law (an illogical one, at that) at play capable of making sense of paradoxes, and therefore it can't be trusted.

A person who gives a logical "I know! It's ..." answer to the question "What's behind that horizon?" will come out rather foolish as soon as the person who said "I don't know" walks over to check it out. You have some strange concepts of logic...

1) A metric is an abstract measurement.  Metrics are used to describe reality.  There can be no metric (and thus no measurement or description of reality) without a mind to evoke the metric itself. 

2) A person who says "it's impossible to know that which is over the horizon and cannot be perceived" is more correct than the person who says "I don't know what's over the horizon."  But if you decide to check it out, that changes things completely and the question becomes relevant to a current description of reality.

[BitChick]

Everything happens for a reason. That reason may just be something other than god. For instance, if you took a whole bunch of magnet bars with N and S at opposite ends, tossed them into the air, and let them fall freely over a large space, you'll see them orient themselves into large lines and curves, as the S's attract to the N's. Were the reason they oriented themselves in such a way god's doing? Or was it basic physics?

You are missing my point. God is the creator of everything on earth, so he created
all the physical laws that we are  aware at the present time and that's your reason.

So if god created physical laws, then who created god?

No one created God.  He was, and is and is to come.  He is eternal.  Living in finite bodies in a world that has a beginning and an end we see things in the physical but cannot grasp the idea of eternity fully.  Everything around us is going through a process of life and then death so this is really beyond us at this point.

BTW, don't ever try to think about where God came from!  I have tried to do that a few times and it just makes me dizzy.    

[Rassah]

1) A metric is an abstract measurement.  Metrics are used to describe reality.  There can be no metric (and thus no measurement or description of reality) without a mind to evoke the metric itself. 

A metric is just a way for us to subjectively quantify an objective world. Some people might say a distance is one inch, some people might say that it is 3 centimeters, but egardless of their subjective measurements, that length still exists. So I see measurements as simply a way for us to describe reality, not for us to define or create reality from our minds. We say what we see, we don't create what we say.

2) A person who says "it's impossible to know that which is over the horizon and cannot be perceived" is more correct than the person who says "I don't know what's over the horizon."  But if you decide to check it out, that changes things completely and the question becomes relevant to a current description of reality.

If it changes things completely, then the person who said "it's impossible to know" is abviously more wrong that the person who says "I don't know yet." The phrase "it's impossible" also implies that we shouldn't even try, which is a MAJOR issue with conservative religion, where they claim "God did it" or "Only god knows," and don't bother investigating it themselves. So, obviously, I am extremely hostile to that idea.

[Rassah]

So if god created physical laws, then who created god?

No one created God.  He was, and is and is to come.  He is eternal.  Living in finite bodies in a world that has a beginning and an end we see things in the physical but cannot grasp the idea of eternity fully.  Everything around us is going through a process of life and then death so this is really beyond us at this point.

And laws of physics can't be "was, and is and is to come ... eternal ... [and] living in finite bodies in a world that has a beginning and an end" because...?

[the joint]

1) A metric is an abstract measurement.  Metrics are used to describe reality.  There can be no metric (and thus no measurement or description of reality) without a mind to evoke the metric itself. 

A metric is just a way for us to subjectively quantify an objective world. Some people might say a distance is one inch, some people might say that it is 3 centimeters, but egardless of their subjective measurements, that length still exists. So I see measurements as simply a way for us to describe reality, not for us to define or create reality from our minds. We say what we see, we don't create what we say.

2) A person who says "it's impossible to know that which is over the horizon and cannot be perceived" is more correct than the person who says "I don't know what's over the horizon."  But if you decide to check it out, that changes things completely and the question becomes relevant to a current description of reality.

If it changes things completely, then the person who said "it's impossible to know" is abviously more wrong that the person who says "I don't know yet." The phrase "it's impossible" also implies that we shouldn't even try, which is a MAJOR issue with conservative religion, where they claim "God did it" or "Only god knows," and don't bother investigating it themselves. So, obviously, I am extremely hostile to that idea.

1). You're just plain wrong in your assumption that an objective world exists independent of subjectivity.

2). Things change completely because whereas once it was impossible to perceive beyond the horizon (and thus impossible to reason about what's beyond it) you moved beyond the horizon to check it out.  If you're not beyond the horizon, then it is absolutely impossible to reason about what is beyond it.  The phrase "it's impossible" holds when you can't perceive past the horizon, but it does not hold if you are perceiving beyond the horizon.  

[dank]

The great eternal always has and always will.

Actually God is universal energy that we can feel >>That's the reason they say God is everywhere. It's the universal energy.
We are made from star dust, so that energy resides in us >>The reason they say God resides inside us

Exactly, the great eternal consciousness.

[cdtc]

Everything happens for a reason. That reason may just be something other than god. For instance, if you took a whole bunch of magnet bars with N and S at opposite ends, tossed them into the air, and let them fall freely over a large space, you'll see them orient themselves into large lines and curves, as the S's attract to the N's. Were the reason they oriented themselves in such a way god's doing? Or was it basic physics?

You are missing my point. God is the creator of everything on earth, so he created
all the physical laws that we are  aware at the present time and that's your reason.

So if god created physical laws, then who created god?

But why would they orient themselves into lines and curves?  Who made the laws of physics?  Did the laws of physics just happen by random chance too?  What you call "basic physics" is not all that basic is it?

Same question. If god always existed, why couldn't physical laws always exist, too?

No one, God always existed and always will. The concept of time only exists on earth.

[Rassah]

1). You're just plain wrong in your assumption that an objective world exists independent of subjectivity.

I can say the same about you, and we would still be exactly where we started, with both of us thinking we are right. So...

2). Things change completely because whereas once it was impossible to perceive beyond the horizon (and thus impossible to reason about what's beyond it) you moved beyond the horizon to check it out.  If you're not beyond the horizon, then it is absolutely impossible to reason about what is beyond it.  The phrase "it's impossible" holds when you can't perceive past the horizon, but it does not hold if you are perceiving beyond the horizon.  

This can actually go both ways:

A. You *can* reason what is beyond the horizon based on what you know is in front of it, and what you know about the world/system it exists in (if we are on sea, the only answers to that question are "water" or "beach" and not "mountain" or "waterfall" or "a land of meat"). I do this all the time in my profession, where I don't know what our financial situation will be at the end of the fiscal year, but I can reason what it will most likely be based on data I have right now. This is also how we reason what is in other solar systems, or what other planets are composed of. We don't actually percieve what they are made of, we just make reasoned conclusions based on what we see here in our solar system.

B. You can't percieve what is beyond the horizoon and it's impossible to reason what is beyond it, and thus since you can't percieve god, it is impossible to reason about god's existence.

[Rassah]

Same question. If god always existed, why couldn't physical laws always exist, too?

No one, God always existed and always will. The concept of time only exists on earth.

Same follow-up to you as to BitChick then: Why can't laws of physics simply have always existed and always will? The concept of time exists within the laws of physics; it's not a law of physics itself. In other words, time is different here on earth from places elsewhere, and was different far in the past (slower) than it is now, because time is a function of the laws of physics that could have just as easilly always existed and always will, too.

Fun fact: Time is even different in the GPS satelites that orbit the earth, than it is here on earth, due to those satelites traveling much faster, and this different must be compensated for with your GPS device.

[the joint]

1). You're just plain wrong in your assumption that an objective world exists independent of subjectivity.

I can say the same about you, and we would still be exactly where we started, with both of us thinking we are right. So...

2). Things change completely because whereas once it was impossible to perceive beyond the horizon (and thus impossible to reason about what's beyond it) you moved beyond the horizon to check it out.  If you're not beyond the horizon, then it is absolutely impossible to reason about what is beyond it.  The phrase "it's impossible" holds when you can't perceive past the horizon, but it does not hold if you are perceiving beyond the horizon.  

This can actually go both ways:

A. You *can* reason what is beyond the horizon based on what you know is in front of it, and what you know about the world/system it exists in (if we are on sea, the only answers to that question are "water" or "beach" and not "mountain" or "waterfall" or "a land of meat"). I do this all the time in my profession, where I don't know what our financial situation will be at the end of the fiscal year, but I can reason what it will most likely be based on data I have right now. This is also how we reason what is in other solar systems, or what other planets are composed of. We don't actually percieve what they are made of, we just make reasoned conclusions based on what we see here in our solar system.

B. You can't percieve what is beyond the horizoon and it's impossible to reason what is beyond it, and thus since you can't percieve god, it is impossible to reason about god's existence.

1) I explained to you why you can't be right regarding your assumption of an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality.  There's an entire logical principle dating back to the ancient Greeks (and likely before them) that states exactly this...it's the principle that states differences arise from sameness and similarities.  Your methodology to forming conclusions about reality incorporates a false assumption about reality itself.  Reality includes both subjectivity and objectivity, and so a comprehensive model of reality must explain how each defines the other. 

Everything shares a fundamental identity with everything else.  In mathematics, this fundamental identity is a distributive property represented by the number '1'.  Consider a statement, "ab = xy".  This is really 1(a)1(b) = 1(x)1(y).  The property of identity is a mathematical law that distributes to everything.  Everything is united by this principle of identity...of cohesion.

2a) You can reason about what's behind the horizon in a probabilistic way, but that's another way of saying "I don't know."  Instead, I can say "I know that it's impossible to know what's beyond the horizon" and be correct.  You never know where Dank is having his million man music festival.  It's always just over the horizon, isn't it?

2b) Non-sequitur.  The reason is because "beyond the horizon" (not-visible) and "horizon" (visible) are localized distributions in spacetime.  Your conclusion would only be valid if you're talking about polytheistic gods.  A monotheistic god is omnipresent.