Scientific proof that God exists?

[Videlicet]

The mind carries many latent "circuits" that must be activated through the blueprint encoded in the 56 unused base pairs of DNA.

The universe functions similar to that of a bio computer - we can see formations of such processes through mathematics, physics, and computation. Consciousness is only EM energy vibrating at a high enough frequency to allow movement in less time frames, giving many the perception of it being "conscious" when "conscious" is a state everything exists in, relative to the plane / dimension in which they vibrate in.

Similar effects are seen in electron orbital patterns, as their signature shape is directly influenced by the energy state of the leptons, in which by jumping levels, the electrons change the way they are perceived, even though quantum spin 1/2 particles are not fully perceivable in 3D frames [time].

Thank You,
Viz.

[1714653143]

1714653143

[1714653143]

1714653143

[1714653143]

1714653143

[1714653143]

1714653143

[1714653143]

1714653143

[1714653143]

1714653143

[yampi]

The universe is a network of peers that's why quantum superpositions and such are possible.

So it logically follows that the creator of the universe is obviously the all-powerful all-knowing all good spaceless timeless uncaused transcendent personal deity who chose the ancient jewish desert dwellers to write down his message on scrolls and then eventually reveal himself to the rest of us by doing things like turning water into wine while in the form of his own son, an ancient Jewish carpenter who was eventually sacrificed so that he could forgive you for not living up to standards that are impossible for you to live up to.
original wall of text is credit to darkmatter2525

Well actually, it logically follows that the creator of the universe is us, The observer(s?)

[username18333]

Logical self-reference provides the 'independent network' capable of "learn[ing] to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network's hidden units."

It is interesting to consider under which conditions a representation will remain unconscious based on combining these two principles (Cleeremans, 2008). There are at least four possibilities. First, knowledge that is embedded in the connection weights within and between processing modules can never be directly available to conscious awareness and control. This is simply a consequence of the fact that consciousness, by assumption, necessarily involves representations (patterns of activation over processing units). The knowledge embedded in connection weights will, however, shape the representations that depend on it, and its effects will therefore detectable – but only indirectly, and only to the extent that these effects are sufficiently marked in the corresponding representations. This is equivalent to Dehaene and Changeux’s (2004) principle of “active firing.”

In closing, there is one dimension that I feel is sorely missing from contemporary discussion of consciousness: Emotion (but see, e.g., Damasio, 1999, 2010; LeDoux, 2002; Tsuchiya and Adolphs, 2007). Emotion is crucial to learning, for there is no sense in which an agent would learn about anything if the learning failed to do something to it. Conscious experience not only requires an experiencer who has learned about the geography of its own representations, but it also requires experiencers who care about their experiences.

[username18333]

The universe is a network of peers that's why quantum superpositions and such are possible.

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

[username18333]

Ah, but one could easily design an experiment to eliminate this bias. The truly skeptical should do just that!

Natural selection already has: had “purple” been of such great benefit to plants, it would be (at least, more) ubiquitous in the plant kingdom.

[edward222]

If god exist, he need put some text under this line 
---------------------------------------------------------
Ahem!!! You want some text?

Ow just quoted this message and there was already a text.. hhhhmmm

[Vod]

If god exist, he need put some text under this line 
---------------------------------------------------------
Ahem!!! You want some text?

Ow just quoted this message and there was already a text.. hhhhmmm

Yep - lying is the way religion BS spreads!

[the joint]

Logical self-reference provides the 'independent network' capable of "learn[ing] to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network's hidden units."

It is interesting to consider under which conditions a representation will remain unconscious based on combining these two principles (Cleeremans, 2008). There are at least four possibilities. First, knowledge that is embedded in the connection weights within and between processing modules can never be directly available to conscious awareness and control. This is simply a consequence of the fact that consciousness, by assumption, necessarily involves representations (patterns of activation over processing units). The knowledge embedded in connection weights will, however, shape the representations that depend on it, and its effects will therefore detectable – but only indirectly, and only to the extent that these effects are sufficiently marked in the corresponding representations. This is equivalent to Dehaene and Changeux’s (2004) principle of “active firing.”

In closing, there is one dimension that I feel is sorely missing from contemporary discussion of consciousness: Emotion (but see, e.g., Damasio, 1999, 2010; LeDoux, 2002; Tsuchiya and Adolphs, 2007). Emotion is crucial to learning, for there is no sense in which an agent would learn about anything if the learning failed to do something to it. Conscious experience not only requires an experiencer who has learned about the geography of its own representations, but it also requires experiencers who care about their experiences.

A couple points:

1)  With regards to the first quotation (see emboldened phrases):  I dislike assumptions.  I try to avoid them if possible.  In this case, it is.

Also, I find the idea that knowledge is embedded between processing modules problematic, at least inasmuch as it would be relevant to, well...processing modules.  Practically, this consideration seems to fall by the wayside of any relevance, both as a response to my comment and to you or I.

2)  

e·mo·tion
əˈmōSH(ə)n/
noun
a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
"she was attempting to control her emotions"
synonyms:   feeling, sentiment; More
instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge.
"responses have to be based on historical insight, not simply on emotion"
synonyms:   instinct, intuition, gut feeling; More

Since we know pre-limbic living things learn, too, I'm focusing on the emboldened characteristics of the word "emotion."  Accordingly, I'm having a hard time understanding why learning requires experiencers who care about experiences.  

learn·ing
ˈlərniNG/Submit
noun
the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught.
"these children experienced difficulties in learning"
synonyms:   study, studying, education, schooling, tuition, teaching, academic work; research
"a center of learning"
knowledge acquired through experience, study, or being taught.
"I liked to parade my learning in front of my sisters"
synonyms:   scholarship, knowledge, education, erudition, intellect, enlightenment, illumination, edification, book learning, information, understanding, wisdom
"the astonishing range of his learning"

Based upon these definitions: 1) Emotion is defined independent of reason or knowledge; 2) Learning is knowledge acquisition.

Original claim:  Learning requires experiencers care about their experiences.

Premise 1:  Emotion = not reason or knowledge
Premise 2:  Learning = acquiring knowledge
Premise 3 (Introduced): Caring is an emotional experience.

Rephrased claim:  Those able to acquire knowledge are enabled by an unreasonable, unknowledgeable experience.

Edit:  To clarify, I understand the differences between general experience, emotional experience, and learning from emotional experience (e.g. "This makes me feel bad/good").  I just don't find it convincing at all that a learner requires an emotional experience, which by definition provides no reason or knowledge upon which to act.  I think we can learn just fine by following logical rules of inference which yield sound conclusions whether we give a damn or not.

Edit 2:  I'd like to give some further thought to whether incentives are required for learning.

[Astargath]

If God (Bible God) really existed, jesus should have existed aswell, how come there are not historical facts about any of them? There are some vague mentions in some papers but real historical facts, i havent seen any.

[the joint]

If God (Bible God) really existed, jesus should have existed aswell, how come there are not historical facts about any of them? There are some vague mentions in some papers but real historical facts, i havent seen any.

1) It would be a logical and theoretical impossibility for there to be any "historical facts" about the "Bible God."  Such an entity falls outside the scope of Empiricism, and there could never be any physical evidence for such a thing even if you assume outright that it exists.

2) If the "Bible God" really existed, according to what/whom does it follow that Jesus necessarily should have existed?  The Bible?

Logically, if we assume "Bible God" exists, Jesus is plausible (both as only a human and as a "Son of God" human).

[username18333]

Edit:  To clarify, I understand the differences between general experience, emotional experience, and learning from emotional experience (e.g. "This makes me feel bad/good").  I just don't find it convincing at all that a learner requires an emotional experience, which by definition provides no reason or knowledge upon which to act.  I think we can learn just fine by following logical rules of inference which yield sound conclusions whether we give a damn or not.

Edit 2:  I'd like to give some further thought to whether incentives are required for learning.

A learning rate of 0.15 and a momentum of 0.5 were used during training of the first-order network. In a first condition of “high awareness,” the second network was trained with a learning rate of 0.1, and in a second condition of “low awareness,” a learning rate of 10⁻⁷ was applied. Ten networks were trained to perform their tasks concurrently throughout 200 epochs of training and their performance averaged. The performance of all three networks is depicted in Figure 3.

You confuse the development of consistent “representations (patterns of activation over processing units)” (Cleeremans 6) with the phenomenology of a conscious experience begotten thereof.

[bitmarket.io]

like yo u's a fag

[BADecker]

If God (Bible God) really existed, jesus should have existed aswell, how come there are not historical facts about any of them? There are some vague mentions in some papers but real historical facts, i havent seen any.

The writing of historical events is done by the conquerors, those who have the authority to decide what gets into the history books.

The Old Testament is a history of Israel. While Israel was a nation of reasonable strength at times, God limited their conquests to this tiny strip of land at the east end of the Mediterranean. Besides this, their existence as a nation lasted only about 1,500 years (2,000 if you want to include all the way back to the time of Abraham), most of which time Israel was a fledgling nation. And it has been about 1,900 years since their destruction in 70 A.D. by the Romans until they became a nation again in modern times. In other words, Israel has never really been one of the great nations except that they are one of very few that have ever been resurrected after a period of almost 2,000 years.

Besides this, for whatever reason, the nation of Israel was mostly feared, hated and despised. We see many posts in various threads right in this forum that talk about killing the "Joos."

The point? Why would any conqueror maintain a history of Israel? Rather, the conquerors of the world would eliminate as much mention of them as possible.

In addition, the Jewish leaders are in a bit of a quandary about the history of Israel. The history includes much looking forward to the Messiah. Too much history would help to prove that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophesies. Yet the Jews traditionally don't want Jesus as the Messiah, because He wasn't the great earthly leader that they were looking for. God wants a leader who will lead people to salvation for the New Universe. That's Who the Messiah would be, and that's Who Jesus was and is.

The point about this? Even Jewish leaders don't want the history of Israel to exist too clearly before the world. It might take away from their position as leaders if their people saw the truth.

Now, this whole thing is the thing that makes the Bible very strong. Much of the Bible is history. It is history not corroborated by other history except in a small way. But, if you search for it, you can find other history that shows that the Bible is correct, like the ruins of ancient Jericho, or the land bridge across the Red Sea where Israel crossed when they came out of Egypt in the Exodus. More history will come out into the open as time goes on.

Why does this make the Bible strong? Because the conquerors, although they could cover up the other history, couldn't destroy the Bible. Not only could they NOT destroy it, it is one of the greatest writings of all time, translated into dozens of languages around the world. The reason for this is that God is holding the Bible in place against all the evil forces of the world so that people worldwide can see the way to be saved.



EDIT: The miracle that is the Bible helps to prove the existence of God.

[Pentax]

If God (Bible God) really existed, jesus should have existed aswell, how come there are not historical facts about any of them? There are some vague mentions in some papers but real historical facts, i havent seen any.

The writing of historical events is done by the conquerors, those who have the authority to decide what gets into the history books.

<snip>


Why does this make the Bible strong? Because the conquerors, although they could cover up the other history, couldn't destroy the Bible. Not only could they NOT destroy it, it is one of the greatest writings of all time, translated into dozens of languages around the world. The reason for this is that God is holding the Bible in place against all the evil forces of the world so that people worldwide can see the way to be saved.



EDIT: The miracle that is the Bible helps to prove the existence of God.

No, it could not be destroyed, but it could be 'versionized', edited, massaged.

This is my main issue with the Bible.  Well, a large one anyhow. 

We do not know who wrote it.  We do not know who changed it.  We do not know the intent of any of them.

After watching the the Catholic Church during my short time on the planet, and how they have operated as a political machine, it boggles my mind to think what was done to the Bible over the last several hundred years.

I don't believe this book or any 'holy' book, as there is zero doubt in my mind that, regardless of their original origins and contents, these things have been bastardized by people for their own purposes for literally hundreds of years.

[BADecker]

If God (Bible God) really existed, jesus should have existed aswell, how come there are not historical facts about any of them? There are some vague mentions in some papers but real historical facts, i havent seen any.

The writing of historical events is done by the conquerors, those who have the authority to decide what gets into the history books.

<snip>


Why does this make the Bible strong? Because the conquerors, although they could cover up the other history, couldn't destroy the Bible. Not only could they NOT destroy it, it is one of the greatest writings of all time, translated into dozens of languages around the world. The reason for this is that God is holding the Bible in place against all the evil forces of the world so that people worldwide can see the way to be saved.



EDIT: The miracle that is the Bible helps to prove the existence of God.

No, it could not be destroyed, but it could be 'versionized', edited, massaged.

This is my main issue with the Bible.  Well, a large one anyhow.  

We do not know who wrote it.  We do not know who changed it.  We do not know the intent of any of them.

After watching the the Catholic Church during my short time on the planet, and how they have operated as a political machine, it boggles my mind to think what was done to the Bible over the last several hundred years.

I don't believe this book or any 'holy' book, as there is zero doubt in my mind that, regardless of their original origins and contents, these things have been bastardized by people for their own purposes for literally hundreds of years.

What can you mean by, "We do not know who wrote it." Of course we don't know them. They are long gone.

We do know, however, that the Bible was barely changed. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the variations are minor, even from the Bible of today.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't maintain the Bible. God does.

The Bible "copies" that have been changed by people to use false writings to control people, have fallen away. Just because science (which many people worship) has changed greatly in the last 300 years, as shown by its writings, doesn't mean the Bible has. In fact the evidence of the "sameness" of the Bible is so much greater than that of scientific writings that it blows science right out of the water regarding accuracy.

[QuestionAuthority]

Why are there so many different religious texts then and which one is right? I'm partial to the King James Version of the Christian bible because there's lots of sex and violence in that one. Is the Quran right? What about the Torah? Are the Vedas, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Tao Te Ching, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, or the Buddhist Sutras correct? Do you really believe there are billions of people believing in the wrong religion and the wrong God? Why did God ignore those parts of the world? Were they not worthy of the attention and weirdness he inflicted on the 1/4 of the world he played with back then?

[Pentax]

If God (Bible God) really existed, jesus should have existed aswell, how come there are not historical facts about any of them? There are some vague mentions in some papers but real historical facts, i havent seen any.

The writing of historical events is done by the conquerors, those who have the authority to decide what gets into the history books.

<snip>


Why does this make the Bible strong? Because the conquerors, although they could cover up the other history, couldn't destroy the Bible. Not only could they NOT destroy it, it is one of the greatest writings of all time, translated into dozens of languages around the world. The reason for this is that God is holding the Bible in place against all the evil forces of the world so that people worldwide can see the way to be saved.



EDIT: The miracle that is the Bible helps to prove the existence of God.

No, it could not be destroyed, but it could be 'versionized', edited, massaged.

This is my main issue with the Bible.  Well, a large one anyhow.  

We do not know who wrote it.  We do not know who changed it.  We do not know the intent of any of them.

After watching the the Catholic Church during my short time on the planet, and how they have operated as a political machine, it boggles my mind to think what was done to the Bible over the last several hundred years.

I don't believe this book or any 'holy' book, as there is zero doubt in my mind that, regardless of their original origins and contents, these things have been bastardized by people for their own purposes for literally hundreds of years.

What can you mean by, "We do not know who wrote it." Of course we don't know them. They are long gone.

We do know, however, that the Bible was barely changed. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the variations are minor, even from the Bible of today.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't maintain the Bible. God does.

The Bible "copies" that have been changed by people to use false writings to control people, have fallen away. Just because science (which many people worship) has changed greatly in the last 300 years, as shown by its writings, doesn't mean the Bible has. In fact the evidence of the "sameness" of the Bible is so much greater than that of scientific writings that it blows science right out of the water regarding accuracy.

I mean that we don't know who wrote it.  nothing more and nothing less, but that's a huge thing all the same.

while the Dead Sea Scrolls may be the most ancient version we have of the Old Testament, we do not know when it was written, really ( the scrolls 300 BC-100AD most likely) or by whom, although it is assumed to be a copy of earlier texts in any case, so we don't know when it was originally written, or by whom, or what their motives were.

Further to that, the scrolls have nothing to do with what most people think of as the Bible, and what I was talking about in the first place, which is the New Testament.

I've simply seen too much manipulation by 'men of God' to think they didn't bend things more than a little bit when putting these materials together.  

My mistrust of the media and politicians goes back well beyond the current era, as I do not think the crazy things we see today are new games at all, really.  I think men are corrupt and will do anything to grab and hold power and I think that has always been the case.  

[Buffer Overflow]

We do know, however, that the Bible was barely changed. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the variations are minor, even from the Bible of today.

The dead sea scrolls are only evidence that the bible is old. But we knew the bible was old anyway, which was never in dispute.
However, don't make the classic mistake of believing because something is very old, it must be true.
Lies do not age and mature into truth.

[BADecker]

What can you mean by, "We do not know who wrote it." Of course we don't know them. They are long gone.

We do know, however, that the Bible was barely changed. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the variations are minor, even from the Bible of today.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't maintain the Bible. God does.

The Bible "copies" that have been changed by people to use false writings to control people, have fallen away. Just because science (which many people worship) has changed greatly in the last 300 years, as shown by its writings, doesn't mean the Bible has. In fact the evidence of the "sameness" of the Bible is so much greater than that of scientific writings that it blows science right out of the water regarding accuracy.

I mean that we don't know who wrote it.  nothing more and nothing less, but that's a huge thing all the same.

while the Dead Sea Scrolls may be the most ancient version we have of the Old Testament, we do not know when it was written, really ( the scrolls 300 BC-100AD most likely) or by whom, although it is assumed to be a copy of earlier texts in any case, so we don't know when it was originally written, or by whom, or what their motives were.

Further to that, the scrolls have nothing to do with what most people think of as the Bible, and what I was talking about in the first place, which is the New Testament.

I've simply seen too much manipulation by 'men of God' to think they didn't bend things more than a little bit when putting these materials together.  

My mistrust of the media and politicians goes back well beyond the current era, as I do not think the crazy things we see today are new games at all, really.  I think men are corrupt and will do anything to grab and hold power and I think that has always been the case.  

There are three basic ways that I see that we can test how authentic the Bible is.

1. Read it and see how it makes sense (or not) regarding life. One need remember that the Bible was written for all people, but was also written for the people who lived at the times that it was written. Thus, it has many different customs and ideas in it that don't fit our times and customs completely, and certainly not exactly. Yet there is content that fits all human beings because all people are basically similar.

2. We need to look at the traditions of the nation of Israel regarding what they think about the Bible. When we do this, we need to know enough about this nation to see that they officially incorporate into "their" Bible, the Talmud and other writings, that we don't consider to be part of the Bible... and the whys for these differences. In addition, much of Jewry doesn't consider the New Testament to be truth at all.

3. Since most of us are not scholars of the history of the Bible, we need to see what the scholars say. We need to look at the real scholars, not simply the Internet scholars (like myself?) who produce second hand scholarly info, or who neglect the sense of the Bible in the documentation of its history. We need to examine the consensus of the best Bible scholars. And, that might take a bit of work.

My though is to read the Bible, especially the New Testament, slowly, not trying to pick it apart the first few times reading it, just to get the feel of what it seems to speak to one's heart. BibleGateway - https://www.biblegateway.com/ - has loads of English translations and multitudes of other language translation so that one can read the Bible right online if so desired.

[the joint]

Edit:  To clarify, I understand the differences between general experience, emotional experience, and learning from emotional experience (e.g. "This makes me feel bad/good").  I just don't find it convincing at all that a learner requires an emotional experience, which by definition provides no reason or knowledge upon which to act.  I think we can learn just fine by following logical rules of inference which yield sound conclusions whether we give a damn or not.

Edit 2:  I'd like to give some further thought to whether incentives are required for learning.

A learning rate of 0.15 and a momentum of 0.5 were used during training of the first-order network. In a first condition of “high awareness,” the second network was trained with a learning rate of 0.1, and in a second condition of “low awareness,” a learning rate of 10⁻⁷ was applied. Ten networks were trained to perform their tasks concurrently throughout 200 epochs of training and their performance averaged. The performance of all three networks is depicted in Figure 3.

You confuse the development of consistent “representations (patterns of activation over processing units)” (Cleeremans 6) with the phenomenology of a conscious experience begotten thereof.

Which part of my post indicates that confusion?  I thought this was covered when I acknowledged "learning from emotional experience," where learning is to "conscious experience begotten thereof," and the emotional experience itself is to "patterns of activation over processing units."