Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[cdtc]

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.

I see that you have your point of view which is a materialistic one so we could continue arguing like this for
an eternity and you would still defend your point of view like I mine.

[1713894370]

1713894370

[1713894370]

1713894370

[1713894370]

1713894370

[1713894370]

1713894370

[dank]

Time is an illusion we have due to cyclic changes in our world.  We only live in the present.

You can see beyond the horizon, psychedelics would help you see this.  If life is nothing more than a mathematical pattern unfolding itself, you can see or feel the pattern and figure out answers of the future.  Just like the Mayans, Hindus, Christians, Mormons etc. predicted the end (transition) of the world, they were quite accurate.

[RodeoX]

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.

As weird as this sounds, a lot of scientists and philosophers would say that this idea has merit. The idea of consciousness being outside of our bodies may be correct. In this model we living things tune into consciousness rather than create it.

[Rassah]

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. 

I think my model is much simpler. Basically, we assume that reality is objective, and we, as an objective species existing in that reality, subjectively percieve that reality through our senses. If you start with the assumption that reality is objective, i.e. it exists and is as it is whether we percieve it or not, and place the fault of subjectivity only on our own limited subjective senses and reasoning ability, all the logic falls into place just fine.

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.

That doesn't actually say anything. All you did was present a set of mathematical symbols, and claim that these symbols represent what you say they do. I don't even know if you mean a * b or something else, or if you mean 1 * a * 1 * b or 1-of-a * 1-of-b. Like, is 1 a number that is multiplied by other variables, or is 1 a function, like f in f(x)? If you're going to throw terms like these around, please take the time to explain them, since otherwise they don't have any meeting to anyone but yourself.

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?

Actually, it's not "I don't know," but rather "It is not x" and possibly "It is Y with a probability of %." For instance, I know Dank, if he ever does, will NOT have his festival in the Marianas Trench, in the vacuum of space, on the moon or the sun, and likely not on top of Mt Everest, the top of the mpountain range in Chile, in the middle of the Sahara, inside of a car or a small shed, or in my house. Or at any number of other things that can not accomodate the requirements of having a concert (such as viable temperatures and sound carying atmosphere). I think that is considerably more precise than simply "I don't know," especially since it lets us to narrow the choices to an overall where we DO know. Like, if I didn't know whether Dank would have his concert in Venue A or in Venue B accross the street from Venue A, I can say with certainty that Dank will have his concert in a specific city that contains both venues. Likewise, I know that Dank will have his concert on Earth, if he actually does have a concert. And hey, that's how science works

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.

If he is supposedly omnipresent, but yet can not be percieved, then...

[Rassah]

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.

I see that you have your point of view which is a materialistic one so we could continue arguing like this for
an eternity and you would still defend your point of view like I mine.

If that is the case, then the only conclusion is that both of us could be right. Right up until one of us isn't.

[Rassah]

Time is an illusion we have due to cyclic changes in our world.  We only live in the present.

You can see beyond the horizon, psychedelics would help you see this.  If life is nothing more than a mathematical pattern unfolding itself, you can see or feel the pattern and figure out answers of the future.  Just like the Mayans, Hindus, Christians, Mormons etc. predicted the end (transition) of the world, they were quite accurate.

If that's the case, why not just see what the next winning lottery number is, and not only fix your financial situation, but pay for as many concerts as you want?

[dank]

I'd rather do it on my own so people are a little bidazzled that a kid organized a million person concert by the time he's 27.

But as far as predicting patterns, I'm more so talking about the existence of humanity.  This is a finite planet and we are straight on the path to destruction with our current state of society.  The only way to avoid this is a rapid, exponential acceleration of consciousness amongst mankind, leading to the singularity, when we step into the next dimension.  And we can this happening today within individuals.  If we consciously kill our ego, we no longer have to live in a world with negativity and death.

If you look at society, in the 40-50's we had a lot of negativity on earth, leading to world wars.  In the 60's, nature corrected itself by the counter culture revolution aka hippies.  They had become aware of the negative entities on earth and sought something different in society, love and unity.  Psychedelics played a big role in their conscious evolution.  Then comes in the 80's, the drug coming in to play being cocaine, which we know can increase one's ego immensely.  Now with the current false flag attacks on our own country and with indefinite unjustified wars, nature is correcting itself yet again.  The youth, and others, are realizing the true state of the world, with the use of the internet, we are becoming a more unified global consciousness.  This will be the second bubble of love in modern society and this time we will not lose as people everyday are becoming more aware of the situation.

Then the day comes when more positive energy is present in a single location than negative, triggering singularity and wiping out the remainder of negativity.

[Rassah]

I'd rather do it on my own so people are a little bidazzled that a kid organized a million person concert by the time he's 27.

Trust me, people will be WAY more bidazzled if you show that you can win three lotteries in a row. Plus, besides the money, you will have an absolute proof that your power is real, and that you are god. You don't even have to fly, since flying is easy to fake with wires and fake camera tricks, but winning the lottery, especially from different organizations, is almost impossible to fake.

[dank]

People would say I'm lucky.  But when other people in the audience start flying too, I'm pretty sure I'll have everyone believing.

[Rassah]

People would say I'm lucky.  But when other people in the audience start flying too, I'm pretty sure I'll have everyone believing.

Lucky would be winning once. Extremely lucky would be winning twice. Impossible would be winning three times, in a row. And it should be very simple for you. If you fly, other people won't fly too, they'll just start questioning how you did it (magicians in La Vegas "fly" all the time). If you win the lottery three times, no one will question your power.

[dank]

The ones like me, who've had dreams of flying and believe it isn't impossible, will fly.

[Rassah]

The ones like me, who've had dreams of flying and believe it isn't impossible, will fly.

That's fine, but no one will believe you that it isn't just a magic trick. Come on dank, show us you can read the future like you claimed you could Or at least tell us what price bitcoin will be at by the end of the month.

Hey, speaking of computers and stuff, dank, serious suggestion: Your rhythm skills are really sucky and needs improvement, and what might help and motivate you to getting it perfect is you getting an account at www.ujam.com and using that to structure and improve your music. Don't know if you've heard of that service, but it can do some incredible things for music, even if all you start with is a basic melody.

[dank]

I'm reading the future by telling you there will be a music festival with a million people where singularity will occur by someone levitating.

You would tell if it was fake, you could see chords.

[Vod]

I'm reading the future by telling you there will be a music festival with a million people where singularity will occur by someone levitating.

Everything with you is a promise in the future.  You haven't done anything in the past or present.  With you we are always waiting for something to happen in the future.

And the future never comes...

[dank]

Right, like the collapse of the US economy isn't destined in our short future either?  Bitcoin won't blow up to 100,000?

We will see.  People are tired of working to live just to die, I offer a viable solution nobody has tried that I know will work because I am a seer and have foreseen visions of the occurrence throughout my life, even before I did drugs.  I wouldn't speak doubtfully about it because that will only make you look like the fool in the end.

[Vod]

We will see. 

I think that's your mantra right there dank.

It will always be tomorrow with you - it will never be today.

[dank]

You're right, I'm waiting for the rest of the world to catch up before it can happen.  Sometimes it's wiser to just not talk.

[the joint]

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.  

I think my model is much simpler. Basically, we assume that reality is objective, and we, as an objective species existing in that reality, subjectively percieve that reality through our senses. If you start with the assumption that reality is objective, i.e. it exists and is as it is whether we percieve it or not, and place the fault of subjectivity only on our own limited subjective senses and reasoning ability, all the logic falls into place just fine.

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.

That doesn't actually say anything. All you did was present a set of mathematical symbols, and claim that these symbols represent what you say they do. I don't even know if you mean a * b or something else, or if you mean 1 * a * 1 * b or 1-of-a * 1-of-b. Like, is 1 a number that is multiplied by other variables, or is 1 a function, like f in f(x)? If you're going to throw terms like these around, please take the time to explain them, since otherwise they don't have any meeting to anyone but yourself.

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?

Actually, it's not "I don't know," but rather "It is not x" and possibly "It is Y with a probability of %." For instance, I know Dank, if he ever does, will NOT have his festival in the Marianas Trench, in the vacuum of space, on the moon or the sun, and likely not on top of Mt Everest, the top of the mpountain range in Chile, in the middle of the Sahara, inside of a car or a small shed, or in my house. Or at any number of other things that can not accomodate the requirements of having a concert (such as viable temperatures and sound carying atmosphere). I think that is considerably more precise than simply "I don't know," especially since it lets us to narrow the choices to an overall where we DO know. Like, if I didn't know whether Dank would have his concert in Venue A or in Venue B accross the street from Venue A, I can say with certainty that Dank will have his concert in a specific city that contains both venues. Likewise, I know that Dank will have his concert on Earth, if he actually does have a concert. And hey, that's how science works

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.

If he is supposedly omnipresent, but yet can not be percieved, then...

1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.  Furthermore, if by simplicity you mean "conveniently throwing out information that doesn't fit into the method I've selected," then I agree with you.  I'm trying to tell you that there's other kinds of information that isn't empirical information, and while you've acknowledged that this other kind of information is real to some extent, you give its significance no inclusion whatsoever in your interpretation of reality.

That being said, using an empirical model is extremely practical for many things.  But it's entirely useless for forming theories about other kinds of information.  I'm inclined to think that your refusal to incorporate the significance of this 'other' kind of information is why you ultimately reject any concept of God.  It would never make sense to call anything 'God' in a strictly empirical model, especially when empiricism is limited by not only the problem of induction, but also by size (can't observe quantum-scale or global-scale) and rarity (UFOs, ET's, etc.).

2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen.  Here, I'll do three more:

a - a = 0  is really (1)a - (1)a = (1)0
1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3
"Apple" is really (1)Apple

Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something.  In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity.  This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other.

To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships.  Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'.  Take 'infinity' for instance.  Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "not-finite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others.  Consider the following scenario:

"Hey Bob, I like your...yard."
"Oh yeah?  How big do you think it is?"
"I don't know, but it looks HUGE!  You know how big mine is?"
"Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine."
""

And there you have it.  Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others.  And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough?  Give me a break.  Philosophers have the one-up on scientists and mathematicians all-day everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician).

3)  Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know."  Knowing that you can't know is still knowing.  It also makes for a better surprise.

4)  If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant?

[NewLiberty]

You would tell if it was fake, you could see chords.

Synesthesia much?

[hawkeye]

2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen.  Here, I'll do three more:

a - a = 0  is really (1)a - (1)a = (1)0
1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3
"Apple" is really (1)Apple

Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something.  In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity.  This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other.

To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships.  Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'.  Take 'infinity' for instance.  Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "not-finite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others.  Consider the following scenario:

"Hey Bob, I like your...yard."
"Oh yeah?  How big do you think it is?"
"I don't know, but it looks HUGE!  You know how big mine is?"
"Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine."
""

And there you have it.  Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others.  And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough?  Give me a break.  Philosophers have the one-up on scientists and mathematicians all-day everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician).

3)  Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know."  Knowing that you can't know is still knowing.  It also makes for a better surprise.

4)  If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant?

Jesus Christ!  OK, I'm not going to be kind any more.  Your logic is absolutely shocking and what's more, you are well aware of it.  You are deliberately deceptive and will be treated as such by me from now on.  You aren't interested in truth at all.  You just want to play with people.

Multiplying something by 1 only means you are saying there is one of this thing.  Nothing more.  It does not mean those things have a characteristic in common.

Infinity is an idea, not a number.   Having some infinites be bigger than others is complete nonsense.  It's like when my brother used to say I hate you infinity + 1 times in response to my I hate you infinity.  It's not a number, it doesn't have a size.

I'll bet you don't even try to get away with this crap in real life.  Just come on to a forum and think you'll have a little fun with people.  Is that it?