Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[Rassah]

The way I look at it, I just see fear as our human instinct and love as our inner god, ego vs soul.  I feel that if we remove all fear of god, and anything, we would be left closer to god.

Only in the sense that you will be ignoring your fear telling you to stop doing stupid/dangerous things, will keep making stupid/dangerous things, and get your ass killed faster. Though I think you will just end up closer to dirt.

What?  If you're going to reply to everybody at least have a rational debate so people can reply back.

Less ego = less fear = more happiness, more peace, more understanding, all of which indicate being close to god.

You need fear to tell you that riding a bike at high speed without a helmet will likely end up getting you "closer to god." Basically, fear is a biological instinct that keeps us alive as a species, by making us fear things like steep cliffs and hungry lions.

[Rassah]

Laws are not natural, the universe has none.  Our collective reality is only subject to 'laws of physics' and limitation because we believe it to be so.

Why is it that all of us have been believing this for literally millions of years, and not a single one of us has realized they they could just stop believing and do whatever they wanted?

Even better, why, or even how, do all animals believe it and follow the laws of physics, too?

[dank]

The way I look at it, I just see fear as our human instinct and love as our inner god, ego vs soul.  I feel that if we remove all fear of god, and anything, we would be left closer to god.

Only in the sense that you will be ignoring your fear telling you to stop doing stupid/dangerous things, will keep making stupid/dangerous things, and get your ass killed faster. Though I think you will just end up closer to dirt.

What?  If you're going to reply to everybody at least have a rational debate so people can reply back.

Less ego = less fear = more happiness, more peace, more understanding, all of which indicate being close to god.

You need fear to tell you that riding a bike at high speed without a helmet will likely end up getting you "closer to god." Basically, fear is a biological instinct that keeps us alive as a species, by making us fear things like steep cliffs and hungry lions.

Laws are not natural, the universe has none.  Our collective reality is only subject to 'laws of physics' and limitation because we believe it to be so.

Why is it that all of us have been believing this for literally millions of years, and not a single one of us has realized they they could just stop believing and do whatever they wanted?

Even better, why, or even how, do all animals believe it and follow the laws of physics, too?

Apparently people have, for I have broken physics and my friend has levitated.  It just has not stuck as we're surrounded by negativity, in order for us to keep that infinitely powerful energy with us, we need to work together to channel a large amount of positive energy into a unified group, a music festival for example would do wonders.

It's like falling in love, if any of you know what that's like.  I send my positive energy to you, you receive that energy and channel it and a little more back to me, I receive it and repeat.  Before you know it, a feedback loop is created (sorta like how guitars resonate feedback through an amp) and this energy will build and build until it is greater than the negative energy limiting us.

[dank]

Curious if any of you understood what I'm conceptualizing here?  That's the best way I could describe the actual shift in events that take place to enable one to fly.

[cooldgamer]

The way I look at it, I just see fear as our human instinct and love as our inner god, ego vs soul.  I feel that if we remove all fear of god, and anything, we would be left closer to god.

Only in the sense that you will be ignoring your fear telling you to stop doing stupid/dangerous things, will keep making stupid/dangerous things, and get your ass killed faster. Though I think you will just end up closer to dirt.

What?  If you're going to reply to everybody at least have a rational debate so people can reply back.

Less ego = less fear = more happiness, more peace, more understanding, all of which indicate being close to god.

You need fear to tell you that riding a bike at high speed without a helmet will likely end up getting you "closer to god." Basically, fear is a biological instinct that keeps us alive as a species, by making us fear things like steep cliffs and hungry lions.

Laws are not natural, the universe has none.  Our collective reality is only subject to 'laws of physics' and limitation because we believe it to be so.

Why is it that all of us have been believing this for literally millions of years, and not a single one of us has realized they they could just stop believing and do whatever they wanted?

Even better, why, or even how, do all animals believe it and follow the laws of physics, too?

Apparently people have, for I have broken physics and my friend has levitated.  It just has not stuck as we're surrounded by negativity, in order for us to keep that infinitely powerful energy with us, we need to work together to channel a large amount of positive energy into a unified group, a music festival for example would do wonders.

It's like falling in love, if any of you know what that's like.  I send my positive energy to you, you receive that energy and channel it and a little more back to me, I receive it and repeat.  Before you know it, a feedback loop is created (sorta like how guitars resonate feedback through an amp) and this energy will build and build until it is greater than the negative energy limiting us.

And this is why you don't do drugs, kids

[dank]

Guess you've never fallen in love to know how powerful that energy is?

[NewLiberty]

Curious if any of you understood what I'm conceptualizing here?  That's the best way I could describe the actual shift in events that take place to enable one to fly.

Douggie Adams explained it for us.  Just have to fall, and miss the ground.

[Kouye]

I have to admit I haven't read full thread yet, but I did read Gödel, Escher, Bach, and enjoyed it a lot.
From my understanding, god could exist, indeed. But only if we had created it.

A neuron is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information through electrochemical signals. These signals between neurons occur via synapses, specialized connections with other cells. Neurons can connect to each other to form neural networks.
[...]
A number of specialized types of neurons exist: sensory neurons respond to touch, sound, light and numerous other stimuli

How easy is it to replace "neuron" by human in the previous description?
It is possible that our interactions gave birth to some sort of "meta" counsciouness, and that's the only link to "god" I can see from this book.

The ant/memory part explains what I mean so well. Just read the book.

[kokjo]

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)?

No, I don't. There can be two sets that are not mathematically related in any way. We can still count them subjectively, as if by yanking two unrelated numbers out of a barrel of infinite numbers, and saying "This number here, for this number there" and perform this excersise infinitely.

No, you cannot count all the real numbers(R), you cannot create a one-to-one mapping between N and R, as there are not enough natural numbers, by cantors diagonal argument. If you give me a any mapping between N and R, that you say is surjective, I can always constructively find a number in R that you miss with your surjection, and your surjection is not surjective.

Cardinality(roughly equvivalent of size) of set are defined by the existence of injections and bijections(and surjections, but that require AC) between them. As we can construct a bijection(f(x) = 2x) between the natural numbers(N) and the even natural numbers(2,4,6,8,...), we say that the even natural numbers have the same cardinality as all of the natural numbers.
On the other hand any injection from the natural numbers can't be surjective, and can't therefor be a bijection, we then say that R have a greater cardinality then N. But we can show that the set of all subsets of N have the same cardinality as R.


(You should really go read some elementary set theory, your posts about them seems that you are unable to comprehend what the fuck is going on. This is in no way criticism, set theory is at some times really counter intuitive, and most have, like you, difficulty of understanding it.)

[Rassah]

(You should really go read some elementary set theory, your posts about them seems that you are unable to comprehend what the fuck is going on. This is in no way criticism, set theory is at some times really counter intuitive, and most have, like you, difficulty of understanding it.)

I kind of understand what this is about, where you can have a number in one set that doesn't exist in another set, and I do understand the concept, but that's really only applicable if you are trying to match your one set to the other mathematically. I can take one of your numbers from set B, which can't exist in set A, and say that I'm matching it with the number 1 from set A. In the end, I still have two sets where no matter how many number units I pick out of it, there will always be +1 unit left to pick out. So if I just look at infinity, and ignore mathematical relationships between sets, the ∞+1 of one set is really no different from the ∞ of the other set. Not because of what they contain, but because neither one has an end.

[buggrock]

There is no such thing as god, it is only.a perception.

Chinese people, worship a chinese god

Arab people, worship a arab god

If cats had a god, they.would worship a cat god.

If horses had gods, it will be a horse god.

Unfortunately, believe it or not. Knowledge in itself is what creates, and divides our world. Knowledge is evil.

With our intellegence, we fragment, label, and divide everything in the world. Thus causing conflict, hate, greed, jealousy and wars.

I have no interest in religion, politics, marriage or education. It is all a method of control, to me.

[dank]

I think you are mistaken that religions worship a different god.  Polytheism is still monotheism from a different perspective.  There is one universe, that which, is god.

The universal god is love and light.

[buggrock]

Polytheism, monotheism, god, etc... Its all nonsense.

The purpose of life is living it.
The most important thing in life is Relationships.

Simple is that.

Sitting there and worshiping, praying and worrying about your beliefs and gods is a distraction, waste of your time, and hogwash

If you have children, you wouldn't want them to worry, worship and think of you (there creator) all day long. You would want them to enjoy life to the fullest.

For your sake, If there was a god (which there isnt). We are his children. It wouldnt want you to worry, pray and worship it. It would want for you to live the life he has given you to the fullest

[dank]

So if you say the important thing in life is relationships, could we simplify that to love?  Love is god.  Love is conscious energy.  Consciousness is god.  Everyone has love in them, everyone is conscious, everyone is god.

It matters not to worship god.  Though when you love god, you're loving yourself, which feels good man.

[kokjo]

Rassah: Do you believe that the equation x^2 = 2 have at least one solution?

[NewLiberty]

I think you are mistaken that religions worship a different god. 

Different religions each claim this.  He is not mistaken in relaying their claims.
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

Your assertion seems to be that the religions are wrong about what they believe and instead that you know what they believe better than they do?

[kokjo]

I think you are mistaken that religions worship a different god.  

Different religions each claim this.  He is not mistaken in relaying their claims.
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

Your assertion seems to be that the religions are wrong about what they believe and instead that you know what they believe better than they do?

don't try to assign meaning to what dank says, you can't. dank is the one and only enlightened god, and we are too. its all love. just love.

[Rassah]

Rassah: Do you believe that the equation x^2 = 2 have at least one solution?

Yes? Should be two solutions.

[kokjo]

Rassah: Do you believe that the equation x^2 = 2 have at least one solution?

Yes? Should be two solutions.

The positive root of that polynomial(the square root of 2) is not a rational number(Q)(do you require a proof? please say so).
So at least there exist a number that cannot be written as a quotient of two integers(Z), right?
That means, as a consequence, that there must exist another set of numbers(hint: R) which contains the numbers that are not rational.

Do you see where this is leading?

[NewLiberty]

I think you are mistaken that religions worship a different god.  

Different religions each claim this.  He is not mistaken in relaying their claims.
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

Your assertion seems to be that the religions are wrong about what they believe and instead that you know what they believe better than they do?

don't try to assign meaning to what dank says, you can't. dank is the one and only enlightened god, and we are too. its all love. just love.

When surrounded by circular reasoning, is it irrational to point out a tangent diametrically opposed to assist foci?