Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[blablahblah]

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.

Actually there's some significance because it means all of those things belong in the same set of countable things. Oranges and grains of sand may seem completely different, but they're both countable types of objects, so they belong in the same set. This is pretty common in (OOP) computer programming where various classes of objects all inherit from a super class called 'object'. Now if I try something special, like create an assumption about reality, that assumption is also countable -- there's one -- so it also belongs in the same set together with the other objects.

Admittedly I'm not quite sure where he was going with this. Perhaps if I count the number of Greek gods, and you count the number of oranges, neither of us have a pre-existing basis to say "my things are more real than your things" because we both used the same technique: counting. And even if one of us does have a pre-existing basis, that basis is also a countable object that belongs to the same set. The "pot calling the kettle black" situation fits perfectly.

Infinity is an idea, not a number.

And numbers are not ideas?

  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.

But numbers don't have a size either. Look: 2 and 2 -- different font size, same number.

[1714780850]

1714780850

[1714780850]

1714780850

[1714780850]

1714780850

[the joint]

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?

While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others. 

Furthermore, if we can agree that any number, entity, concept multiplied by 1 is itself, then it should be obvious that this is a shared characteristic.

And by the way, a number is an idea too.  You ever seen a "2" in nature?  Neither have I.

[pedrog]

While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others. 

Furthermore, if we can agree that any number, entity, concept multiplied by 1 is itself, then it should be obvious that this is a shared characteristic.

And by the way, a number is an idea too.  You ever seen a "2" in nature?  Neither have I.

Yeah, that's very difficult to grasp for the "average person", Cantor developed the Set Theory and gone insane, and he had that in mind when studying "infinites."

The dispute between Mathematic exists versus is invented by humans is an ongoing discussion, and also very difficult for the "average person" to grasp.

I'm not trying to be condescending to anyone, but for having this kind of discussion people need to know quite a few amount of stuff and it would take ages to explain at an Internet forum.

[kokjo]

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.

it depends on what ever you talk about natural numbers(1,2,3,4,...) or ordinal numbers(1,2,3,4,...,infinity,2 infinity,...infinity^2,...infinity^infinity), or real numbers(1,2,3,pi, 5,7878787,...) or extended real numbers(-infinity,...-1,0,1,...+infinity).
The problem with ordinal numbers is that plus does no longer commute.

[darkmule]

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.

So basically, you reject math since set theory and Cantor.

Okay, but don't expect the world to join your retard parade.

[dank]

Everything is relative, everything scales up and down infinitely.  Life is merely a fractaling wave through an infinitely vast sea.  Another you exists inside your hand, just as you exist in the hand of a larger you.  Ultimately, with infinite dimensions, everything exists inside of you just as it exists everywhere outside.

And we know the universe and everything in it, complete unity, god, means everything.

Space is an illusion, outer space did not create you, you created it.  You are the center of the universe, you are the universe, you are consciousness, consciousness is god.

[darkmule]

Space is an illusion, outer space did not create you, you created it.  You are the center of the universe, you are the universe, you are consciousness, consciousness is god.

Did you actually get a degree in bullshit?  Because seriously. . .wtf?  How stoned do you have to be to generate a wall of gibberish like that?

[dank]

I was probably pretty stoned.  But this gibberish has vast meaning.

What is light?  What is sound?  Nothing but energy, waves of frequencies.  Everything is energy and your mind interprets these energies to create the illusion of time and space, when all we really are is a single point of consciousness.  Life is an elaborate dream.

[kokjo]

Space is an illusion, outer space did not create you, you created it.  You are the center of the universe, you are the universe, you are consciousness, consciousness is god.

Did you actually get a degree in bullshit?  Because seriously. . .wtf?  How stoned do you have to be to generate a wall of gibberish like that?

don't you see? dank is enlightened.

[Rassah]

1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.

I'm still looking for such proof.

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

Nope. but I wouldn't throw out random subjective coonclusions about what ground I'm walking on, either. I would only use conclusions I can observe and come to, and get closer to the correct answer by process of elimination (I should be able to tell it's not dirt, sand, or a furry fox butt). I wouldn't subjectively make up some story that sounds great, and claim that it's just as valid a conclusion as everything else (as the "God did it" folks do)

[Rassah]

While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others.  

If you are talking about Cantor's diagonalization, where the number p differs by a decimal digit from every real number n, and thus has no real number partner, the my answer is that p can not exist, or is an imaginary number. The reason is that since there is an infinite number of real number n's, you will never come to a conclusion on what p must be. In other words, it will take an infinite amount of n numbers for p to be created, or put another way, it will take an infinite amount of time, calculations, attempts, or whatever, in order to create p. So you will always get closer to creating p without actually creating it.

[BitChick]

1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.

I'm still looking for such proof.

In the Bible, Paul the Apostle hated Christians and was so sure he was right about what he believed that he even killed them.  God, out of His mercy, caused him to be blinded for a short time and asked him "Why do you persecute me."  Paul did not realize that he was doing the wrong thing.  He was quite sure he was doing the right thing.  God was merciful to Paul in revealing Himself to him because his heart was in the place of trying to be zealous for good, but he was just misguided.  

All of that said, be careful in your search for proof.  God has a way of showing us proof in ways that might not be terribly comfortable if we fight Him too much.  (Like Paul, Johah, etc . . ) But God does "discipline those He loves" so even if it is uncomfortable at times I still appreciate the times He has "knocked me off my horse" so to speak and shown me the error of my ways.  It is not that I enjoy it, but I know that it out of love for me that He does that.

Rassah, I know that you will respond that you would want nothing to do with a God that would do these sorts of things. As a mom to two girls I have come to have a different understanding.  It is a strange thing but as a parent of kids I understand God more than I used to.  I realize that I make my kids really upset with me sometimes when I correct them or tell them that they cannot have something or do something, but I make these decisions because I want what is best for my kids out of love for them.  Also, if I just let them do whatever they want would that be love?

But if you want or need proof, I will pray that you will have it.  I have been and will keep doing so until you get all the proof you need.  I know it annoys you but I think someday you might change your mind about that.  I hope so anyways.

[BitChick]

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.

Lucky would be the Earth forming by chance.  Extremely lucky would be the Sun being in the perfect distance from earth to cause the right temperature for life.  Impossible would be for man and woman to be formed by random chance of all of the molecules coming together in such a way to make life from nothing.

I know I am way off the topic here, but this came to my mind.

[the joint]

1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.

I'm still looking for such proof.

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

Nope. but I wouldn't throw out random subjective coonclusions about what ground I'm walking on, either. I would only use conclusions I can observe and come to, and get closer to the correct answer by process of elimination (I should be able to tell it's not dirt, sand, or a furry fox butt). I wouldn't subjectively make up some story that sounds great, and claim that it's just as valid a conclusion as everything else (as the "God did it" folks do)

1)  How much do you need?  What kind of proof/evidence supports 1 + 1 = 2 aside from self-contained mathematical examples?  The fact that 1+1 = 2 is pretty obvious isn't it?  Well, it's equally obvious (elementary school level kind of obvious) that mental and physical reality are fundamentally inseparable.  It's obvious because we already have established logical properties that directly state that it's impossible to assert an absolute separation between any two things without committing a logical fallacy, just like we have established mathematical rules of operation.

Basically, failing to acknowledge that mental and physical reality are fundamentally related is like disagreeing that 1 + 1 = 2 under any possible interpretation.  As soon as you assert an absolute difference between two things you immediately commit a logical fallacy.  

2)  The point is I don't know why you would select an empirical model of learning out of all the available methods to attempt to explain reality at such a high level of generality.  The scientific method is ill-equipped for the task.  If you're trying to formulate conclusions about something beyond the scope of the empirical model, then why not just pick a better model?  You're just self-handicapping by using the empirical model.  In this regard, you're like a bible banger for empiricism, and no matter how much I try to tell you that there's a whole world of knowledge that is totally (by definition) inaccessible through empiricism, for some reason you have a really hard time processing that.

[the joint]

While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others.  

If you are talking about Cantor's diagonalization, where the number p differs by a decimal digit from every real number n, and thus has no real number partner, the my answer is that p can not exist, or is an imaginary number. The reason is that since there is an infinite number of real number n's, you will never come to a conclusion on what p must be. In other words, it will take an infinite amount of n numbers for p to be created, or put another way, it will take an infinite amount of time, calculations, attempts, or whatever, in order to create p. So you will always get closer to creating p without actually creating it.

Yeah, that's one way of illustrating the point. 

[kokjo]

While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others.  

If you are talking about Cantor's diagonalization, where the real number(R) p differs by a decimal digit from every real rational number(Q) n, and thus has no real number partner, the my answer is that p can not exist(in Q), or is an imaginary number. The reason is that since there is an countable infinite number of real rational number n's, you will never come to a conclusion on what p must be in Q. In other words, it will take an uncountable infinite amount of n numbers(which does not exist, as Q is only countable) for p to be created, or put another way, it will take an uncountable infinite amount of time, calculations, attempts, or whatever, in order to create p. So you will always get closer to creating p without actually creating it. But yet it can be constructed by other means.

Do your believe that for every set A there exists a set, called the power set of A, P(A), that contains every subset of the set A? (The axiom of power sets)?

[dank]

1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.

I'm still looking for such proof.

In the Bible, Paul the Apostle hated Christians and was so sure he was right about what he believed that he even killed them.  God, out of His mercy, caused him to be blinded for a short time and asked him "Why do you persecute me."  Paul did not realize that he was doing the wrong thing.  He was quite sure he was doing the right thing.  God was merciful to Paul in revealing Himself to him because his heart was in the place of trying to be zealous for good, but he was just misguided.  

All of that said, be careful in your search for proof.  God has a way of showing us proof in ways that might not be terribly comfortable if we fight Him too much.  (Like Paul, Johah, etc . . ) But God does "discipline those He loves" so even if it is uncomfortable at times I still appreciate the times He has "knocked me off my horse" so to speak and shown me the error of my ways.  It is not that I enjoy it, but I know that it out of love for me that He does that.

Ain't dat the truth.

[Mondy]

We will never be able to prove god....

[pedrog]

We will never be able to prove god....

We will never be able to prove unicorns....

[yogi]

We will never be able to prove god....

We will never be able to prove unicorns....

We will never be able to disprove that dank is god....