Why do the fags here believe science and god are mutually exclusive.

File: 13 KB, 583x357, 1307661166997.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:19:32 2011 No.3475706 [Reply] [Original]

Why do the fags here believe science and god are mutually exclusive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:20:32 2011 No.3475712 They lack proper rationalization skills.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:20:32 2011 No.3475713 >"We" >Implying the posters here are a single organism instead of individuals with their own opinions >Implying this isn't going to turn to shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:21:32 2011 No.3475714 cause god doesn't exist science deals with things that exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:21:32 2011 No.3475718 >>3475713 Its always religion vs science. Never religion and science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:22:32 2011 No.3475720 File: 8 KB, 251x240, 1296006088934.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3475714 >god doesn't exist

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:23:32 2011 No.3475722 File: 328 KB, 478x534, 1310666501648.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3475714 >cause god doesn't exist seriously guys.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:23:32 2011 No.3475723 Because believing requires proof. "I read it in a 1900 year old book written by a anonymous collective of religious, political and social activists" isn't considered scientific proof of anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:25:32 2011 No.3475726 >>3475723 >proof I don't think you understand what an axiom is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:25:32 2011 No.3475728 >>3475723 the proof needed for believing something isn't quite as strict for the proof needed for science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:26:32 2011 No.3475732 Science requires falsifiability, and god is not falsifiable. Your personal belief or disbelief in god is separate from the objective reality science provides.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:26:32 2011 No.3475733 >>3475726 >I don't think you understand what an axiom is. If he doesnt understand axioms, then he doesnt understand Science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:28:32 2011 No.3475735 >>3475732 >objective reality Can i have some proof of this objective reality science provides.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:28:32 2011 No.3475736

You can't define it properly, and when you do you have many mututally exclusive definitions.
The concept itself becomes naturalistic when explained and thus loses its "supernatural" explanations.
Many of the attributes one gives to such dieties are contradictory.
If you remove the contradictory properties and instead use a definition which is logical, you usually end up in a situation where either it's hard to call it "god" or it's a state of existence which humans could attain themselves if they work hard enough in understanding the natural world.
If you're going for a mysticist approach which just places this concept outside of explanation, it either can't affect us in any way or doesn't matter at all, if it does affect us or matters to us, science can of course reason with it. Science itself deals with testable and falsifiable concepts, which yours might not be. Even from a purely philosophical perspective, the concept is filled with contradiction.

Either way, what we may not regard as a deity, you may regard as one (imagine aliens being able to manipulate matter freely or having superintelligence far above humans).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:28:32 2011 No.3475737 >>3475735 So you agree that he doesnt understand science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:29:32 2011 No.3475740 Here, also have the explanation I gave in another thread: http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/3474679#p3474716

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:32:32 2011 No.3475744 i also believe beavers and the grand canyon are mutually exclusive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:32:32 2011 No.3475747 >>3475735 Look up the definition of the word objective if my statement confuses you. Your insistence that I provide affirmative evidence for something when we're discussing the merits of science leads me to believe you are a shameless troll.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:32:32 2011 No.3475748

>>3475736
>You can't define it properly
Im sure the general consensus is the creator of the universe.
>"supernatural" explanations
Who said supernatural
>Many of the attributes one gives to such dieties are contradictory.
What attributes are contradictory
>it's a state of existence which humans could attain themselves if they work hard enough in understanding the natural world.
Its possible for someone to gain omniscience by some scientist definition of the universe.
>doesn't matter at all
Opinion

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:34:32 2011 No.3475752 >>3475747 You say that as if you didn't assume it exist.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:34:32 2011 No.3475753

>>3475726
It's a fancy word math guys use.
Given the set of x objects, which operate under the basic rules y (y would be the axiom stuff) what further relantionships can we deduce?
>>3475728
Thinking and critical thinking aren't the same. So what? I think (or believe) I just had some good tea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:36:32 2011 No.3475757 Because science separates fact from fiction and god is fiction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:36:32 2011 No.3475758 >>3475752 I tried understanding what you typed, I really did.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:36:32 2011 No.3475759 >>3475740 >omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent What part of this can you not understand.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:38:32 2011 No.3475763 >>3475757 >science separates fact from fiction No it doesn't. It doesnt even try. I could have accepted it if you said math does but science... not in the least. It only says what is most likely, it never says what is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:40:32 2011 No.3475770 >>3475758 Science presupposes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:40:32 2011 No.3475772 >>3475759 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2292#comic It even has pictures.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:42:32 2011 No.3475780

>>3475748
> Im sure the general consensus is the creator of the universe.
Okay, let's run with that. What created the creator?
You will have to add a magical exception to prevent the creator from requiring a creator for himself and so ad infinitum.
Now if you add an exception for the creator, why not just say the universe existed by itself. Now this may sound strange, but it actually requires considerably less information than a complex thing like an intelligent being. A multiverse is considerably simpler. A mathematical theory of everything is even simpler than that, it requires almost no information at all to bring into existence our universe, of course, unless you rely on the existence of the universe relying on magical properties (why? I could show how to deconstruct most of those arguments here, but I'm afraid this is a bit too much /phi/ and not enough /sci/).
Now let's try another type of creator: someone simulating the universe you live in. Should you worship it? Don't see why. If this upper universe exist independently, then so does yours, as long as they don't interact (follows from arithmetical platonism or lesser), so there's no reason to care that someone simulated your universe, at least if they don't interact with it(in which case it would be a different mathematical object containing both universes). There's no evidence of an interventionist god.

I could keep on going, but you'll need a more precise definition. Oh, and don't bother adding complete omnipotence as that doesn't exist (leads to contradiction very easily, you should be able to do a reductio ad absurdum quite easily).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:44:32 2011 No.3475784 >>3475770 You are correct, scientific knowledge is based on the assumption that reality is falsifiable. This is why science and god are unrelated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:46:32 2011 No.3475789 >>3475780 >What created the creator Where did you get this question from? Its foolish. Please elaborate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:47:32 2011 No.3475790 >>3475784 So you agree that they are not mutually exclusive but how does this make them unrelated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:47:32 2011 No.3475792 >>3475789 It is a straightforward question. You are asserting that for a thing to exist it needs to have a creator. A creator is a thing. Who created the creator?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:49:32 2011 No.3475794 >>3475772 The third one. >Benevolet >God works in mysterious dickish ways I disagree with. I dont see how one is shortening this leg.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:50:32 2011 No.3475799 >>3475790 Yes, as is apparent from my initial statement >>3475732 I make no claims about them being mutually exclusive. Until you or some other theist can provide an empirical test for god, science is not related to your belief in it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:51:32 2011 No.3475801 >>3475794 >If god is both willing and able, whence comes evil?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:52:32 2011 No.3475802 >>3475792 Consciousness. Did someone create yours? Is the conscious mind a 'thing.' Its the same as saying an nothingness is a thing. Are you asserting that nothingness has a creator.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:52:32 2011 No.3475804 >>3475801 Free will

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:53:32 2011 No.3475806 >>3475802 You're asserting that god created my consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:54:32 2011 No.3475810 >>3475806 I never asserted that.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:55:32 2011 No.3475812

>>3475789
> Where did you get this question from?
You ask the question "what created the universe?" and your answer is god (hence why you defined it that way). Now I regard ``God'' as something whose existence can be explained, like that of the universe (whose existence you explained by defining a ``God''), which means that it would require something to create ``God'', but if I assume that another "upper" ``God'' (or whatever else, let it be abstract object "X"), now this "upper" ``God'' also needs to have his existence explained, and thus you intruduce something even higher than it and so on, it regresses into an infinity of steps, which shows that the argument is flawed. Now what we can do (as you did) is assume that ``God'' doesn't need a creator (we add an exception for ``God''), but then the question becomes, if you can add an exception for ``God'', why not add an exception for the universe? The universe's laws of physics are very simple, while ``God'' being an intelligent being is a lot more complicated (I might add, it's very likely that the whole universe (just ours), is a lot simpler than your brain or your body as far as complexity theory goes), and Occam's razor says we should prefer simple explanations to complex ones. The simplest explanation is to just say that the universe didn't need a creator and just existed independently. This may sound strange, but even that can be reduced to a state where its existence is inevitable and requires no information at all (mathematical monism and some related positions do this(both the subjective and objective versions)).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:56:32 2011 No.3475814 >>3475810 You're asserting my consciousness is separate from the universe then? So my consciousness is supernatural?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:57:32 2011 No.3475817 >>3475804 If god is all knowing, then how can he create beings without effecting them with causality?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:58:32 2011 No.3475820

>>3475799
>empirical test for god.
Lets get down to what these test prove. Nothing. Only what is likely. Science said the earth was the center of the universe. Science says its not. From a giant objective perspective it could be the center with the appearance of revolving around things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 05:59:32 2011 No.3475823 >>3475817 He doesnt. What does that have to do with free will.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:00:32 2011 No.3475826 Here have another excellent related argument: http://lesswrong.com/lw/uk/beyond_the_reach_of_god/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:00:32 2011 No.3475828 >>3475820 No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method You can rejoin the discussion when you understand what we're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:00:32 2011 No.3475831 >>3475814 In the same manner my imagination is seperate from the universe. Does that make it supernatural. Supernatural things happen inside of my imagination thats certain.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:02:32 2011 No.3475836 >>3475823 If god knows your next response, how is you responding to me an exercise of free will? This is explained in the comic with pictures, you can refer back to it if you are getting flustered.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:02:32 2011 No.3475839 >>3475828 So are you arguing that scientific test actually proves things and not what is only likely. Allow me to point you to >>3475726

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:07:32 2011 No.3475857

>>3475836
I could go about this two ways.
You say gods knowledge of the future affects you. how you. Any affect it could have would change his knowledge of the future which would mean that it didnt affect you as it was wrong and form an paradox. How can he know what you are going to chose to do if you dont chose to do it. You seem to be assuming that hes observing time in the same manner you are.
Secondly. You seem to be assuming the future is a concrete concept. Its not.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:09:32 2011 No.3475862

>>3475839
There is no "likely" involved, probability has no bearing on the scientific method. Scientists don't prove things, they disprove them and accept the remaining rigorously tested hypotheses as truth. If you cannot provide a way to test god's existence that satisfies the conditions in the link I provided for you, then god is not related to science.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:10:32 2011 No.3475866

>>3475831
Your thoughts are not supernatural. Your brain has internal states corresponding to all your thoughts, and thus various neurons correlate to various qualia.
Now, qualia itself (or "hard problem of consciousness") is a tricky problem, one which science can graze (in the way of finding the correlates, and we hope in the future more in the form of self-experimentation). Ways of dealing with qualia range from denying it exists to assuming it exists and that it supervenes on: physical matter OR structure OR functionality OR computation OR platonical computation. Personally I'm quite fond of:
brain->matter->universe->multiverse->mathematical platonia (objective reality)
brain->computation/functional structure->mathematical platonia (consciousness, or "How an algorithm feels from the inside")
Mostly because it's incredibly simple, doesn't require matter to have magical properties, and is a very elegant explanation for both our existence (and that of our reality) and the existence of consciousness.
(Of course, I could also just deny consciousness away, but that's not something I can really do as we humans cannot really believe we are p zombies(regardless of what we are), beyond saying that it's the internal state of my brain within the context of its functionality)

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:12:32 2011 No.3475871

>>3475862
>Disprove them
No it doesnt. It only proves that it is unlikely. In the example I created for you science says the earth is the center of the universe, then it says the earth isnt. But it could later say that the earth is the center of the universe at a later date. Science does not confine itself to its limitations. It does not claim to prove anything.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:14:32 2011 No.3475881

>>3475857
As a being that perceives a setting which is both spatial and temporal in nature, it's reasonable to assume that an omniscient god has a conception of the way I observe my surroundings. Since he knows everything about the universe and himself, it's also reasonable to assume that the reality he exists in, and hence the reality we exist in, is deterministic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:15:32 2011 No.3475884 >>3475871 You are not demonstrating a basic understanding of what we're discussing, so I'm no longer engaging in this debate with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:17:32 2011 No.3475888 >>3475866 My thoughts take place in my conscious mind. Are you saying that the conscious mind doesnt not exist. Because I could argue that it is the only thing that does exist. Dual nature. Youre argument leads to the chicken/egg dilemma.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:18:32 2011 No.3475893 >>3475888 Yours leads to the "OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGODI'MSOFUCKINGSTUPIDWHAT" dilemma.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:22:32 2011 No.3475898

>>3475881
See theres the thing. Your argument against Omniscience is that free will cannot exist with it.
You assume God does not have free will either.
You completely misinterpreted the concept of free will because by your definition, it cannot exist which defeats your argument.
Free will asserts that the present does not guarantee a future outcome. So god knowing the present would not guarantee the future.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:25:32 2011 No.3475906 >>3475893 What do you find stupid about the argument. Personally I would like to avoid it at all cost since it would halt the progress of the conversation. But it should be brought up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:25:32 2011 No.3475907 >>3475898 If god is uncertain of the future then he is not omniscient. You are boring.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:27:32 2011 No.3475911 >>3475907 As I said. You are assuming that he is viewing it in the same manner you are and that it is concrete. The future is nothing more than possibilities. You cant know something that doesnt exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:28:32 2011 No.3475919 >>3475907 What is your definition of omniscience. Because there i believe lies the problem.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:28:32 2011 No.3475920

>>3475906
>Are you saying that the conscious mind doesnt not exist. Because I could argue that it is the only thing that does exist.
>Are you saying that the conscious mind doesnt not exist.
>doesnt not exist.
>does exist.
>Are you saying that the conscious mind does exist?
>Are you saying that the conscious mind does exist? Because I could argue that it is the only thing that does exist.
>What do you find stupid about the argument.
All of it, since it's not an argument it's nonsense.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:30:32 2011 No.3475922

>>3475888
I'm saying you have 2 ways out of this problem.
One is to assume consciousness doesn't exist as there is no physical reason for it to exist when we examine it from the outside, however we all have our own internal "mind states" which are also identical informationally to what is going on in your brain (what neurons are firing and how).
The other is to assume a form of dualism. All forms of dualism which interact where consciousness "moves" matter are falsifiable (and false). If you assume consciousness supervens on something (such as the brain), it's fine, but you're going to have various problems (I suggest reading Chamler's varied work on the subject, he's likely the best philosopher arguing for dualism and his arguments aren't really that bad, however you should keep in mind his arguments are mostly for the forms where consciousness supervenes on something, and doesn't have a causal nature).
Now supervenience on matter or more "magical" matter (with special "consciousness-giving" properties) has some major problems, if you want to see some, look at the "Movie Graph Argument".
One possible solution to it could be given in the form of computationalism on top of arithmetical platonism, and you can also use that to derive the multiverse as well, thus you get two birds with one stone.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:30:32 2011 No.3475925

>>3475922
> continued
Either way, this goes into "philosophy of mind" and "philosophy of physics" section, although I argue that we can at least partially test some of these hypotheseses, but I'm getting off-track here. The point being is that even if a ``God'' exists in such a platonist worldview, it's nothing more than a superintelligence and it has nothing to do with wether our universe exists or not, and it would also mean that we could tehoretically even create such a superintelligence ourselves if we work hard enough. Still, such a ``God'' is hardly omnipotent (it can only affect what is within its own structure, and there are always structures outside of it) or omniscient (always structures outside, although it could of course study as many as it wants; if you go outside of computationalism, and toward a more general platonia, you may be able to reach some AI(like AIXI) which could technically could have "complete" knowledge, but this is questionable). Oh, and omnibenevolence itself is tricky, it leads to ethical dilemmas, many of would be unsolvable without assuming some axioms, and even then, hurting someone may be impossible, and in our world, we can more or less safely say we don't have an interventionist god, the problem of evil is too great.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:33:32 2011 No.3475930 >>3475911 Omniscience includes knowing the stuff you're not capable of knowing as a human. It means knowing everything. >>3475919 All knowing.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:36:32 2011 No.3475943

>>3475930
>Omniscience includes knowing the stuff you're not capable of knowing as a human
Where did you get this from. Its dumb. Its like saying asking whats the speed of darkness.
But you agree in the sense of being all knowing. Heres an example. When you dream. From the dreams perspective you are all knowing as you know everything in the dream world. In your dream you are omniscient from inside of the dream.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:40:32 2011 No.3475955 >>3475943 No, you are not grasping the totality of omniscience. If you know everything, it means you literally know everything. There is nothing you do not know. You are not omniscient in a dream.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:41:32 2011 No.3475959 >>3475955 If something does not exist, then it is not part of everything yet.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:42:32 2011 No.3475967

>>3475922
I do not limit existence to physical existence.
An analogy would be to a falling ball. The ball's velocity is the brain and the acceleration is the conscious mind.
For instance. If the mathematical operation 4^(1/2) were executed right now the result would be plus or minus two. Only one result will occur but both are possible. The conscious mind is what tips the scale.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:43:32 2011 No.3475968 Omniscience also reminds me of the contradictions that result from assuming an Universal Set exists.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:45:32 2011 No.3475973

>>3475955
You are twisting knowledge. How can you know something that doesnt exist. Its textbook omniscience. You've heard of omniscient perspective. When reading from this point of view you are taking an omniscient perspective of the story. The story and the dream are the same. You are omniscient by definition in the dream.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:46:32 2011 No.3475978 >>3475968 How is the a contradiction. You assume that one wouldnt know the possibility of every set.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:47:32 2011 No.3475981

>>3475706
Science and god are not mutually exclusive by definition, nor by deductive argument from the definitions.

Science has merely disproven the existence of god through inductive reasoning on evidence.

There is no dragon in my garage, nor in yours either.

The Dragon In My Garage, by Carl Sagan
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

There are two kinds of dragons in my garage, the unfalsifiable, and the falsified. Believing in either kind is retarded.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:49:32 2011 No.3475986

>>3475967
I wish you would actually read my full argument. I did give you both options, both where you assume consciousness doesn't exist and one where we assume that it's the most real thing (wether you assume an objective reality or not). Even in the case where you take the most subjective view, this ``God'' is still lacking any properties of any importance. You basically have to add all kinds of magical properties and make a more COMPLICATED theory for everything (be it the reality's existence or your own consciousness). One of the simplest views would be at least arithmetical platonism, and that excludes the omnipotent (and possibly omniscient) deity, and even if this deity "thinks" he created this universe, it would still be false as the universe can exist independently in such a model (same goes of consciousness).
The only theory where you can actually have what you want is some forms of mysticism which don't really explain anything (compared to the alternatives) and frankly hardly make any sense, beyond being constructed to suit the existence of this deity (also please don't subject such mystic views to reason!)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:51:32 2011 No.3475996 >>3475981 No one said god isnt falsifiable. Just not by our standards or standards we could begin to grasp. But that doesnt mean his existence is unfalsifiable.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:52:32 2011 No.3476000

>>3475996
You have no proof for the dragon in your garage, and you have lots of proof against the existence of a dragon in your garage. This evidence is quite weighty. Ergo, there is no dragon in your garage, though we will keep our minds open to new evidence.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:53:32 2011 No.3476002
File: 40 KB, 300x391, NotThisShitAgain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because the moderator of this board is a butthurt faggot who takes religion as a personal insult and bans anyone who disagrees with him.

I couldn't give two shits about this board, but I also like story time on /co/, and the ban affects all boards on 4chan.

In short: I likes my Punisher max, so I play along with Hiltermod.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:55:32 2011 No.3476007 >>3475959 >>3475973 You are correct and I concede things that don't exist can't be known. Before we continue down this vein, if the future doesn't yet exist, how are you proposing the future is created?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:56:32 2011 No.3476011

>>3475986
There are no magical properties. Im giving him the same property I give myself. A conscious mind.
>the universe can exist independently in such a model
Do you know the difference between a brain dead person and a person who isnt brain dead. As I brought up. Dual nature. One cannot exist without the other.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:58:32 2011 No.3476015

>>3476007
We assume the future exists due to inductive reasoning. That is, we assume it based on the data in our minds which itself is based on past states having existed.
On the other hand, there is no way to induce existence of a deity. If one tries hard enough, they could even show that no such thing as a deity exists (given certain definitions of ``deity''), or if it does, it should be named something else.

Let me turn this question to you? How did you induce the existence of a deity?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:00:32 2011 No.3476022 >>3476015 Answer my question first. Are you asserting that time exists all at once and abandoning concepts such as past, present, and future?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:00:32 2011 No.3476023

>>3476011
> Do you know the difference between a brain dead person and a person who isnt brain dead.
A brain-dead person is one where the normal functioning of his brain is disrupted and thus he has no meaningful internal state and thus no consciousness.
> One cannot exist without the other
What does this have to do with a deity? I see absolutely no reason why conscious minds require one, nor why this universe requires one. There are much simpler explanations for both of them (although some of these explanations are still detabable as to which is true, but neither actually require any sort of deity).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:00:32 2011 No.3476026 ITT: Intelligent arguments with minimal trolling/shit-flinging... I am impressed /sci/...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:02:32 2011 No.3476028 >>3476007 >created The future is a change in the state of the present or rather the possibility. By definition the future can never exist because it would have to have occurred making it the past or be occurring now making it the present.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:04:32 2011 No.3476033 >>3476028 Kay that's fine, so you're saying one present moment causes another?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:04:32 2011 No.3476034 >>3476022 Only the present exist. The past existed, and the future has not yet come into existence yet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:05:32 2011 No.3476036 >>3476034 What causes the future to eventually exist?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:06:32 2011 No.3476039 Because religion doesn't follow scientific method

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:07:32 2011 No.3476041

My god this conversation has drifted into meaningless land. I'm not trying to troll. Just noting that you guys are talking about nonsense.

What does it mean for time to exist? Nonsense. You cannot describe how reality would be different if "time existed" and "time did not exist", and thus you're talking about nonsense, literal nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:07:32 2011 No.3476044 >>3476039 This doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive, just separate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:08:32 2011 No.3476046 >>3476041 Seeing as how time is a pretty explicitly defined concept, yes you can discuss how reality exists with and without it.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:08:32 2011 No.3476049 >>3476044 Religions frequently, if not always, make factual claims. These factual claims are almost always made without backing evidence. Thus they are completely bunk and bogus, and anyone believing in such claims is a retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:09:32 2011 No.3476053 >>3476033 Not quite. The rate of change in the present moment causes the future. The derivative of the present if you will.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:09:32 2011 No.3476054

>>3476022
I'm not the same person as to the one you were addressing in that post, but I'll give you my position if you wish:
The totality of all consistent mathematical structures exists. For simplicity's sake, I'll only consider arithmetical ones (and thus computational) as it's simpler to assume its consistency and is sufficient for both explaining the universe and the mind.
Now in this case, we could have a multiverse (such as the MWI one) existing by itself as an object. Time in this multiverse is merely the change between states (applying a function to one state gives you a large number of other states, and so on). Within this structure, a self-aware substructure exists (let this structure be you or me for the sake of the argument), this substructure can only record the passage of time in one direction as that's the type of molecular mechanism that it is (even with reversible laws of physics), it would be literally impossible to experience any thoughts except when the arrow of time exists, this also means you can't experience anything from other branches from your perspective. So the arrow of time is a requirement for conscious experience within a multiverse (even if it could go "sideways"). Tegmark calls this the "bird view" (outside, the objective reality object), and your/my view: the "frog view" (inside, subjective reality).

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:10:32 2011 No.3476057

>>3476054
> continued
Anyways, that's about it why we think time exists and we move through time. I don't personally know if continuity of consciousness exists or wether we're merely a sea of "Observer Moments" where we experience qualia consistent with whatever substructure and so on (we can never experience inconsistent qualia, thus we will believe in continuity of time, regardless of whether it exists or not).
While this is all fine to think about, what exactly does it have to do with ``God''? I could even argue that ``God'' cannot be conscious as he's not embedded in time, and thus ``God'''s thoughts are always the "same" and no consciousness exists (and no qualia).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:10:32 2011 No.3476058 >>3476053 Why don't we exist in one perpetual, unchanging present moment?

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:11:32 2011 No.3476062 >>3476058 Scientists do not know. We do not. We know that, because the evidence says so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:12:32 2011 No.3476064 >>3476049 Supposing that 99% of religion is bullshit does not mean that the other 1% is bullshit as well.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:12:32 2011 No.3476066 >>3476064 I repeat: factual claims without evidence are bullshit. God is one such claim.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:13:32 2011 No.3476068 >>3476058 Are you asking why time exist? Even if the present was unchanging it doesnt mean its the same moment. (thats horribly worded but i believe you will understand)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:13:32 2011 No.3476069 >>3476066 The factual claims about god are not the kind that are testable by science, that doesn't make them bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:14:32 2011 No.3476070 >>3476066 Science presupposes. It hypocritical to say religion is wrong for doing so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:15:32 2011 No.3476074 >>3476066 >Axioms Evidence in the sense you are looking for does not exist.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:15:32 2011 No.3476075

>>3476066
Their problem is that they provide no valid definition for what it is, nor why we should prefer it to saner explanations (except for one: it's a "mind killer" in the sense that it makes people stop thinking about the "hard problems" and they just leave it to "goddidit" instead of actually thinking)/

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:15:32 2011 No.3476076

>>3476070
Science presupposes nothing except that inductive reasoning reasoning based on evidence is an effective strategy.

Religion presupposes that there is some agent out there who answers some prayers of humans and interacts observably in this world to answer those prayers.

There is nothing to compare.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:16:32 2011 No.3476079

>>3476054
>>3476057
Thanks for explaining so eloquently. The person I was previously speaking with asserted that a future moment didn't necessarily exist, and so in such a framework god had no knowledge of the future and freewill was possible at the same time as his omniscience. I was asking the question so that he would admit that, in one way or another, god must have been the cause of that future moment and therefore has knowledge of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:16:32 2011 No.3476082 >>3476076 >Science presupposes nothing -1/10 Doesnt know the existence of said evidence is based on the assumptions.

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:18:32 2011 No.3476086

>>3476082
Protip: Science functions independently of whether we're "in the real world" or "in The Matrix". Either way I'm going to be hungry tomorrow, and I'll want to get food. Whether or not I'm in The Matrix is immaterial to this discussion. It's meaningless. Without some observable implication, it is exactly meaningless. Discussing unobservables is meaningless, and philosophical masturbation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:20:32 2011 No.3476088 >>3476086 >meaningless Thats a unique method to express you buttfrustration.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:21:32 2011 No.3476089 >>3476064 "It really is a nice theory. The only defect I think it has is probably common to all philosophical theories. It's wrong."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:21:32 2011 No.3476090 >>3476054 where did you get this from >``God'' cannot be conscious as he's not embedded in time

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:21:32 2011 No.3476091 >>3476088 If you make a factual claim and are unable to distinguish it from its opposite claim, then your claim has no meaning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:22:32 2011 No.3476093 Why?!? You mother fucking retards! No one here believes in god, stop acting smart and stop replying to this fucking thread. You are so easy to troll, fuck. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:23:32 2011 No.3476095 >>3476091 So you agree. You have to assume something first with zero factual evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:23:32 2011 No.3476097 >>3476089 sure, if you like

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:25:32 2011 No.3476099 The universe is omnipotent and omniscient. This is a falsifiable claim. Problem, science?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:25:32 2011 No.3476100 File: 185 KB, 500x337, 1296620083924.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3476093 >No one here believes in god

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:25:32 2011 No.3476102

>>3476095
I said that already. Science assumes the effectiveness of inductive reasoning on evidence. That is a reasonable assumption.

Assuming that god exists is not.

I have no recourse besides to call you insane. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Aka not using inductive reasoning on evidence. Aka not practicing science. Not practicing science -> being insane.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:26:32 2011 No.3476103 >>3476099 >The universe is omnipotent and omniscient. This is a falsifiable claim. It's not well defined enough to be falsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:27:32 2011 No.3476104 >>3476102 The existence of the evidence is based on the assumption. It does not support the assumption.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 07:28:32 2011 No.3476107 >>3476104 Are you suggesting that I'm not aware of some surroundings? If you're going to reject this common shared experience that we all have, then you are a nihilist, and this conversation /is/ meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:28:32 2011 No.3476108 >>3476107 consensus=/=fact

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:30:32 2011 No.3476113 >>3476107 Copernicus was a nihilist by your standards. Is everything he said meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:32:32 2011 No.3476117 >>3476103 The universe is the totality of everything that exists. Omnipotence is unlimited power. Omniscience is the capacity to know everything. Use Google next time.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:32:32 2011 No.3476118

>>3476090
A mind reasons, makes inferences, deduces, it works with inputs from the environment and updates its internal states as well as interacts with the environment, it itself is part of the environment (except if it's a simulated mind, if you want to go there, but even simulated minds are embedded in a computational structure which requires some temporality to function). You could break down each conscious experience (let's say physically equivalent to the firing of a neuron) in time and call it an "Observer Moment". Such OMs are linked temporally, which is what you usually think of as your "stream of consciousness" as you receive data from the environment and yourself change with it.

What exactly is the thought of ``God''? It already knows "everything", it is one HUGE observer moment containing all possible reasoning that ever existed, all possible experiences, good or bad, and so on. It literally is everything and... Nothing. The totality of all experiences means nothing at all if it isn't related to something in particular. I think temporality is an axiom, a requirement for conscious experience, but obviously this is unfalsifiable, despite being a very strong intuition (can someone could give a better argument that wouldn't require it to be an axiom?). Now, if this deity could temporally follow your own mind, it could reason about it, but then it would acquire temporality. What I'm arguing is that self-aware substructures exist within the totality of ``everything mathematically possible'', but this atemporal ``everything mathematically possible'' is likely not a deity, nor is it conscious, despite containing conscious observers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:36:32 2011 No.3476124 the scientific process is fundamentally poisonous to the religion. God on the other hand, should not be affected by science, or religion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:37:32 2011 No.3476126 >>3476118 Your initial claim implies free will does not exist. You cannot use this claim to argue against god as it is defeats itself. Possibility and actuality are not the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:41:32 2011 No.3476133 >>3476118 I dont think you understand what a stream of consciousness is.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:41:32 2011 No.3476135

If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:43:32 2011 No.3476137 >>3476118 So my dream is based on environmental updates. Pure bullshit. They may affect the dream but the dream is not a result of it.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:45:32 2011 No.3476141

>>3476126
> Your initial claim implies free will does not exist.
I really don't know what ``free will'' means. If it means that consciousness causes physical change, I disagree with that, and science disagrees with that.
If ``free will'' means "doing what you want, but not being able to control what you want", I'm fine with that (deterministic universe or not), but there's no contradiction there.
If ``free will'' means physical indeterminism, that exists in my model. While quantum effects shouldn't really change your thought process, unless a lot of them happen, I'll assume that they do for the sake of this argument. A MWI-like multiverse means that each plank time you constantly keep splitting into a huge number of copies (well, the universe is constantly) splitting, and you never know in which state your current observer moment is in. You have indeterminism from the first person perspective. You could even roll a quantum dice and base your decisions on that, they would be different across the multiverse, however the MWI multiverse itself would be deterministic, just like the larger mathematical universe would be, but being an observer is an indeterminate thing in itself (which observer are you now? why is it you, not me?)
If this is too complicated of an argument, think of this:
someone makes 10 copies of you and places each copy in a room, and each room is numbered from 1 to 10. Each copy will have a different subjective experience, each will see a different number, each copy will be different from that moment on, they will have their randomness. Is this really ``free will'' or merely indeterminism.
I try to avoid using the word ``free will'' as there's so many definitions of them, same with ``God''. I think we should be more precise when we talk about such concepts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:46:32 2011 No.3476142 >>3476135 Would you like to here my morality babble. I do not and will not claim to understand the workings and methods of God. But I would not mind sharing my interpretation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:48:32 2011 No.3476146 >>3476142 Unless you got something different than the typical >you cannot understand god >LOL THAT WORD DOESN'T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS >contextcontextcontextcontextcontext then go ahead.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:48:32 2011 No.3476147

>>3476137
Your brain is part of the environment. You are part of the environment. Neurons fire when you dream, the state of the brain keeps on changing. You can close your eyes and recall memories (which are stored in your brain) and navigate those memories and make any fancyful dream. It's still interacting with the "environment", as you are part of the environment in this case (exception would be a simulation where the brain simulation is in a different place, but the argument still stands, we're merely talking about 2 environments then. Even if you say your consciousness takes part of the platonic realm, there will still be internal states of the computation there, and thus "interaction", despite being internal.)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:49:32 2011 No.3476149 >>3476147 My conscious mind is not part of the environment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:49:32 2011 No.3476150 >>3476142 No one really cares about your subjective justifications of a fictional being's arbitrary actions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:51:32 2011 No.3476153 >>3476149 >not defining my >not defining conscious >not defining mind >not defining part of >not defining environment I thought /sci/ suppose to be smart and good at arguing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:51:32 2011 No.3476155 Hey atheists, if there is no God, why did I find my keys?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:52:32 2011 No.3476158 >>3476155 >theist attempt at trolling

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:59:32 2011 No.3476168

>>3476149
Are you saying that if you were to drink some alcohol, you wouldn't get drunk and have drunk thoughts? Or does it mean that if someone went and made some of your neurons fire (through some physical methods, some accessible today) you wouldn't get some involuntary thoughts that wouldn't happen if they didn't mess with your brain?
If consciousness exists, it supervenes on physical states or functional states that are equivalent to those physical states, or computational states which are identical to the physical ones and so on. Either way, messing with your brain, will certainly affect what you experience. Your mind may be a shadow or the brain that makes everything that you are. If it isn't, then changing the brain should not change the mind.
Now I won't be so cruel as to say that your brain being destroyed would result in your anihilation. You may wonder what I could contrive to make this work? Here's a few possibilities:
1) there exists a branch in the multiverse where you survived, and thus your experience will always be consistent with living, but you will also be in constant change, and you may not be the same person in 50 years as you are now.
2) Some generally intelligent being simulates this universe (or merely takes a view of one of the many possible universes), and picks up the brain's state right before you died, then instantiates this pattern that you call yourself in his world. This would be your deity's equivalent of Heaven. Still no soul involved here, nor any omnipotence or omniscience or even omnibenevolence. It's just a general intelligence living in an universe which allows it far more computational capacity than is physically possible in our own. If arithmetical platonism is true, we could engineer such a thing ourselves if we succeed in mind upload someday.

I keep wondering and wondering, why exactly must one posit a deity?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:00:32 2011 No.3476171 >>3475706 > Why do the fags here believe science and god are mutually exclusive. Science and Carl Sagan are not mutually exclusive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:04:32 2011 No.3476176 Science and God are only incompatible for those for whom science is their god.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:12:32 2011 No.3476197

>>3476146
When it is said that you cannot understand god it is meant in the sense that you are a child in comparison to him. Not that you cannot understand but you are not able to understand as you are now. But that doesnt we cant try.
For starters I do not like the phrase fear god. I believe it would be more accurately stated as revere which can be exchanged. You fear god like a child fears their parent.
The second brings up faith. God may be infinitely wise but i am not. I concern myself with my future because it is mine. What exactly are you doubting.
>If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
Ask and you shall receive. How can you expect something when you are not even willing to ask for it.
>If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
Blasphemy. Erecting temples in his honor is another thing.
>If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses?
Being weak is not justification for your actions. passively and actively being weak are two different things.
>If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
People have this thing they do where they rebel when they feel oppressed. But I do not feel oppressed by god. I am free to do, but that does not mean I will not be held accounted for my actions.
>If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
The ignorant cannot be held accountable. But you can be held accountable for rejecting the light. Free will is not an excuse.
> If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
What?
>If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
Why do we attempt to understand the universe?
>IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?
The universe is convinced. Why aren't you.
>If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest.
Self evident axioms. How do they work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:15:32 2011 No.3476202 >>3476168 That does mean that it is part of the environment. As stated early in this thread. The brain and conscious mind have a dual nature relationship. One is part of the environment. The other is not.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:18:32 2011 No.3476207 >>3476197 If you have no evidence for a factual proposition, then believing in it is retarded. End of discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:18:32 2011 No.3476209 >>3476168 >multiverse Bullshit. Two things cannot occupy the same point. Out of infinite possibilities only one exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:19:32 2011 No.3476212 File: 727 KB, 2048x3072, 1308751469494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3476207 >assuming evidence based on assumptions as fact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:20:32 2011 No.3476214 >>3476207 He asked a metaphysical question and i answered. Why don't you try following the conversation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:21:32 2011 No.3476217 >I keep wondering and wondering, why exactly must one posit a deity? One posits a deity when it is the best explanation for one's observations of reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:22:54 2011 No.3476218 >>3476176 Holding a flawed system as your god I seriously hope you guys dont do this

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:23:32 2011 No.3476222 >>3476218 Dude, stick around /sci/ for a few hours. TONS of people do this.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:23:32 2011 No.3476223

>>3476176
> Science and God are only incompatible for those for whom science is their god.
While that metaphor may sound clever, it actually just shows how far is one willing to define a word that means different for everyone (``god''). Science itself is nothing more than a methodology which assumes an objective reality from which we can derive models by using the evidence available to us, it is a way of wringling out truth about what something ISN'T and making consistent and updatable theories. It's not magic. It's something everyone should be able to understand, even little kids experiment with reality all the time to understand how to function within it.
A better way to say it would be that some people will refuse to posit the existence of something without evidence to back it up, and without being able to falsify the given claims (because there may be an infinity of unfalsifiable explanation for a given phenomena, none of which would offer predictive power). It may be said that for some people science has taken god's place as an explanation, instead of "god did it", they say "the cause was this mechanism which we can assume based on the given evidence as it's the simplest possible explanation".
I'm not even denying deites, I just can't conceive their existence. For anythign that I can conceive, they have naturalistic explanations. For things that have contradictory properties, I simply cannot assume their existence (more than I can assume 0=1).
I wouldn't be that surprised by any powerful naturalistic existence, that may very well exist outside of this universe (such as some general intelligence doing an universe simulation), but I would be surprised by a supernatural entity (what exactly is that supposed to be? I cannot conceive that, it is to have any effect on us at all.)

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:27:32 2011 No.3476227

Some of our most modern notable scientists, Einstein, Hawking, Sagan etc. don't necessarily believe in a god/gods but don't completely dismiss the idea because as many of them have said, it would take a greater knowledge of the universe than we have to completely dismiss the notion of a God.

In an era where pretty much every concept of an absolute(absolute space, absolute time etc) has been refuted, it takes an exceptionally ill educated or ignorant person to deal in absolutes(there definitely is/isn't a god). A lot of people who deal in absolutes have little experience applying the scientific method of rationality. Considering you're on /sci/, I'm not surprised with some of the replies you're getting.

Agnostic-atheist reporting in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:27:32 2011 No.3476228 >>3476223 Imagine the universe is gods dream. His streaming subconscious. Not outside the universe. But beyond it in a sense. Not that hard to conceive. Where did you get that he was a supernatural entity?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:28:32 2011 No.3476229 >>3476227 Einstein was a deist.

>>	Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk Sat Jul 30 08:29:32 2011 No.3476232 >>3476228 If this is his dream, maybe we should wake him up. Wouldn't want him to be late for work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:30:32 2011 No.3476234 >Jumping through hoops to try to justify the possibility of an unfalsifiable, unobservable being Stay classy /sci/

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:30:32 2011 No.3476235

>>3476197
>ask and you shall receive
except you are not receiving anything. even if you did, it is not from the God. understand this, and you'll stop being a middle class sheep

>blasphemy
yes, it is blasphemy for religion to take a God, and erect temples and many other things by extension. because you know, the extension part is the main message when you make concise metaphors like this.

being weak isnt just physically weak. it's not a minor's fault to have sex with an adult. because the child is mentally weak. you gonna punish the kid now?

once again, you missed the mark completely. you can't offend god because he is all powerful. so why does he hand out punishments when he cannot be offended.

the ignorant can be held accountable. it's a fundamental concept that drives the justice system. unless you disagree with thousands of years of legal arguing between every imaginable position and intellect possible. you don't argue with this. and no I cannot be held accountable for rejecting the light. I am filled with weakness by God, that's entrapment, which is morally wrong. therefore God is morally wrong.

what what? if he's got this grand plan, why you pray to him? he's gonna change his grand plan just for you?

the universe is conceivable

lol @ the universe is convinced. atheism has been on the rise for years.

>axioms
oh look, someone who read a book somewhere some long ago coming in here trying to act smart. I admire your perfect punctuation too. how do you do it? btw, you side stepped every point that's been made. not that a sheep would know that. at least the intellectuals of your side can put up logical arguments instead of regurgitation the same old crap like a sheep.

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:30:32 2011 No.3476237

>>3476227
>Some of our most modern notable scientists, Einstein, Hawking, Sagan etc. don't necessarily believe in a god/gods but don't completely dismiss the idea because as many of them have said, it would take a greater knowledge of the universe than we have to completely dismiss the notion of a God.

There are different definitions of the word god being thrown around. They said that thinking of the deist god, or a completely non-interacting god. For the traditional idea of god which interacts daily to answer prayers, that kind of god has been falsified. Most of those cited would agree with that.

>>3476229
>Einstein. Deist.
False.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:30:32 2011 No.3476239 >>3476232 You are implying that he is not awake.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:31:32 2011 No.3476240 >>3476237 Einstein was a textbook deist. He believed in god in the sense that he was the author of the universe.

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:32:32 2011 No.3476246

>>3476240
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

Yes. They have a wiki page for that.

Note specifically:

>It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Einstein's one of those asshats who uses the word "god" to refer to nature and the laws of physics.

>>	Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk Sat Jul 30 08:32:32 2011 No.3476247 >>3476239 So, what? Are we a daydream, then?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:33:32 2011 No.3476250

>>3476209
> Out of infinite possibilities only one exist.
Same point? What does that mean.
If number 123 exists, number 987 cannot exist? What the...

Why would I assume only one possibility? Why would I make up such a complicated explanation for a single possible universe in the whole of existence.
What about simulated universes? I assume you don't think beings living in those would be conscious.

Why do you prefer the more complex explanation to the simpler one?
I tried my best to give you my viewpoint and why I think it's the best possible explanation I can come up for now (and not only that, I hope that I will be able to test my hypothesis within my lifetime - it only has one requirement: that humans manage to abstract the brain enough to make mind uploading possible. It may not be possible today, but it is testable.)

While I can see why someone would believe in ``God'' if they were indoctrinated as young children (I was to some extent, despite not actually ever having come to grips with the concept of a deity). Why do you think such existence is necessary to explain the world when simpler explanations exist? Is it an emotional reason? Is it a lack of knowledge? Is it some knowledge/evidence that I do not have, yet you have not yet shown it in this thread...

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:33:32 2011 No.3476252

>>3476235
>even if you did, it is not from the God.
I dont think you understand how this works.
Second yo are implying that I care for wealth. What I want is not material. You can never give it to me. But I need a certain amount of wealth to be able to attain it. Hierarchy of needs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:34:32 2011 No.3476256 >>3476247 Maybe. Conceivable right?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:35:32 2011 No.3476257

>>3476223
>A better way to say it would be that some people will refuse to posit the existence of something without evidence to back it up, and without being able to falsify the given claims (because there may be an infinity of unfalsifiable explanation for a given phenomena, none of which would offer predictive power).

That's not a better way to say what I said, it's you saying a completely different thing. And the way you are constructing the idea here clearly shows that for you, science is effectively god. There is an implicit assumption there that there is no valid knowledge beyond scientific knowledge, which pretty much just means you're assuming your conclusion.

>I'm not even denying deites, I just can't conceive their existence.

The more I try to discuss this issue with people, the more I come to think that there is an unbridgeable gap between the ways we think. As you say, you cannot conceive of what seems perfectly obvious to me. How could I even explain to you what I'm thinking?

>I wouldn't be that surprised by any powerful naturalistic existence, that may very well exist outside of this universe (such as some general intelligence doing an universe simulation), but I would be surprised by a supernatural entity (what exactly is that supposed to be? I cannot conceive that, it is to have any effect on us at all.)

I think this is the problem with taking a view that says that everything has one particular characteristic (being "natural"). Figure out which qualities you consider natural. The qualities of the supernatural are beyond those.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:35:32 2011 No.3476261

>>3476252
>>3476252
you do understand, that was there specifically to bait you. I needed to know if you are worth the time talking to. evidently not, as you are just another middle class sheep.

the speaker cannot imply, implications are always from the audience. the more you know, sheep.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:36:32 2011 No.3476263

>>3476246
didnt read the entire page. You are saying he believed in the spinoza god. Heres a statement from him near his death
>I'm absolutely not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:37:32 2011 No.3476267 >>3476261 >Implying im middle class.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:38:32 2011 No.3476270 >>3476261 >the speaker cannot imply, implications are always from the audience. Those are inferences, not implications. Implications are what the author does. Well done being completely and utterly wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:38:32 2011 No.3476271 >>3476267 you talk and think like one, that's all that matters in the context of this conversation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:38:32 2011 No.3476273 >>3476271 ORLY?

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:38:32 2011 No.3476274

>>3476263
>spinoza god
You need to do some more research dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

>Spinozism is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, and both matter and thought as attributes of such. Spinoza claimed that the third kind of knowledge, intuition, is the highest kind attainable.

Spinoza's god is not personal. That is, it is not an agent. It does not cause. It is nature.

When he disses atheism, he just dislikes their usually overbroad claims about no things outside the universe at all, and he dislikes the "in your face" aspect as well.

Einstein is /not/ a deist. He did not have a positive belief that there is a personal, supernatural agency which created the universe. That is the definition of a deist. Einstein is not a deist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:39:32 2011 No.3476276 Ever noticed how people from seemingly all regions of the world develop different deities? Omitting that nobody should believe any god because of a lack of evidence, why would you believe one god over another?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:39:32 2011 No.3476277 >>3476270 >>3476270 >implying the word implication on 4chan hasn't been confuddled with inferences since the beginning of time. words. how do they work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:40:32 2011 No.3476279 >>3476246 >Einstein's one of those asshats who uses the word "god" to refer to nature and the laws of physics. The qualities assumed in the "laws of physics" are not significantly different from those of divine fiat.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:40:32 2011 No.3476281 >>3476276 >>3476276 don't do that, you'll make their brain explode

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:40:32 2011 No.3476278 >>3476274 I never implied that the Spinoza god was personal. I was using it in the sense that you are.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:41:32 2011 No.3476282 >>3476278 Spinoza's god exists inside this universe. It is not something outside the universe which caused it. Spinoza is not a deist. Einstein is not a deist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:41:32 2011 No.3476283 >>3476274 Personal god= theist Einstein was a deist. Why dont you learn what it is you are saying first.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:41:32 2011 No.3476285 >>3476279 Could you be more clear please? I don't see what you're trying to imply.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:41:32 2011 No.3476287 >>3476282 >caring about what others believe in this is why people hate religion

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:42:32 2011 No.3476290 >>3476276 I don't see the problem. People conceive of god(s) in different ways. Cultural morphology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:42:32 2011 No.3476291 Science and god aren't mutually exclusive; science and a literal belief in religion are mutually exclusive.

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:43:32 2011 No.3476292

>>3476283
>Personal god= theist
Again, no. Please educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

The difference between a theist and a deist is one believes in miracles, temporary suspensions of the laws of physics, by some agency partially outside the universe, that existed before the universe, or something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:43:32 2011 No.3476293 >>3476282 You seem to have misunderstood. I was pointing out how Einstein said he was not a follower of Spinoza. Not that he was. Spinoza is not a deist but Einstein was.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:44:32 2011 No.3476297

>>3476285
Many of the things attributed to God don't go away when reality is reconceived in an entirely scientific manner. They just get attributed to other things. Creation of reality to quantum vacuum fluctuation, limits of reality to logic instead of divine decree, etc.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:45:32 2011 No.3476298

>>3476257
No, I never said science is god, but I put everything to the test of reason. Some things I can assume LIKELY based on inductive reasoning (such as the multiverse), if I can falsify those claims through experient, that's excellent. Those inductive beliefs actually do have some predictive power (assuming they pass the test). If they don't have predictive power, why bother considering them except for the sake of mere wondering. (They wouldn't alter my behavior obviously). I've made too many philosophical claims in my posts, some being scientifically falsifiable, others being only testable (if the test fails, you wouldn't "live", so not exactly falsifiable). Either way, I don't shy away at thinking beyond testable things, but I do shy away from changing my behavior based on things which are completly untestable. My main problem is with the term ``god'', it means different things to different people, which is why I tried to understand what it means for you, and in cases where contradictions could arise, I pointed them out.

Maybe what I should say is that I don't think there is anything beyond reasoning - there may be things so complex that they cannot fit completly in our mind (even talking about a sand dune would have that effect), but certainly we can reason about them. Scientific method is a very good way of functioning in a natural universe and we should use it. It's not a god, it's a damn useful reasoning tool which gives results.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:45:32 2011 No.3476300 >>3476292 You dont even understand what a personal god is do you. One interacts with the universe, the other created it and no longer interferes.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:45:32 2011 No.3476301 >>3476293 A deist is someone who believes in a creator god, a god who created the universe, but hasn't really interacted with it since. Einstein is not a deist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:46:32 2011 No.3476302 >>3476301 Did you read the quote i posted. He's a textbook deist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:46:32 2011 No.3476303 >>3476300 >>3476301 samefag harder

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:48:32 2011 No.3476308 >>3476303 So im arguing with myself using the same arguments to contradict myself?

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:48:32 2011 No.3476310 >>3476302 Which quote? Hard to tell when you're anon. I still maintain that he does not believe in a creator god, and thus he is not a deist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:49:32 2011 No.3476314 >>3476298 >No, I never said science is god I'm inferring from how you think, not what you explicitly claim.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:49:32 2011 No.3476316 >>3476308 sounds like a clever troll to me. 1/10 o wait, this is /sci/, there are standards here. 01/0

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:49:32 2011 No.3476317 >>3476314 Although to be more precise, science is a religion rather than the god itself. At least to some. Possibly you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:50:32 2011 No.3476319 >>3476316 >this is /sci/, there are standards here. you must be new.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:50:32 2011 No.3476320 >>3476310 see>>3476263 Textbook deism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:50:32 2011 No.3476322 Atheist are so stupid. Even Darwin and Einstein converted to Christianity on their deathbeds. Do you really think you are smarter than them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:51:32 2011 No.3476326 >>3476322 >he think einsteins dead where do you think the internet came from

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:52:32 2011 No.3476328 >>3476320 That's not embracing a creator god. No belief in a creator god ->no deism.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:52:32 2011 No.3476329
File: 251 KB, 1680x1050, xavier_renegade_angel_416_1680.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Well, I don't believe in what other people call the "supernatural" (I think that any such things would be 100% natural) because I've never seen it, despite what can only be called a frantic search for it. I don't care for all the intellectual claptrap that people spew about whether or not God exists. To me, the problem of evil is just as meaningless and myopic as any argument for the existence of God. I guess you could call me a 'weak atheist'.

Also I don't think science can supply any means of discerning the existence or nonexistence of God. Simply because we don't need God to explain why everything exists doesn't mean God doesn't exist. The god of the Gaps argument is retarded on both sides.
And fundamentally, science is a tool. It doesn't concern itself with objective truth in the layman sense of the word, and therefore is compatible with nearly any worldview.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:52:32 2011 No.3476330 >>3476326 >he thinks the internet needed a creator duh, the internet is god, the uncaused cause.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:53:32 2011 No.3476331 >>3476322 False. Please go away troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:53:32 2011 No.3476333 >>3476328 He made the analogy of god to the author of the universe. Textbook deism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:54:32 2011 No.3476336 >>3476328 Did you read the quote. He clearly pointed out the belief in a creator.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:54:35 2011 No.3476335 >>3476322 nigger you best be trollin. this is christfag propoganda with absolutely no documentation, nor unbiased scource to corroborate. gtfo sci

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:56:32 2011 No.3476340

>>3476333
>>3476336
You're reading into it. I read it as saying that there is order in the universe. You're inferring that he thinks that the order must be the result of a creator. You missed the memo on what Spinoza's god is if you think that.

I read the quote, and I do not see a clear indication that he believed in a creator.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:57:32 2011 No.3476342 >>3476340 >>3476340 lrn2infer I saw the clear indication.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:57:32 2011 No.3476343

>>3476314
I do assume everything has an explanation, thus I assume everything is natural, even things outside of our universe (if you want, this would include 'deities'). I accept indeterminism from the first person point of view, but I assume the whole to be deterministic.

Now within some philosophical framework, I could conceive how a interventionist (or non-interrventionist) deity which creates "Heaven"'s (or Hell's, if he has bad ethics) for you could appear entirely within natural laws (for example, assuming only the existence of arithmetic and that the mind is what one mathematical possibility feels from the inside). Still, no evidence for such an interventionist deity exists in our world. I even have a probabilistic explanation for why finding oneself in an universe controlled by a interventionist deities are highly improbable (and thus very rare), but I'm getting carried away here.

The whole mysterious, unexplanable deity that people from common religions posit is a very strange thing for me, because people intentionally put it beyond reason, usually so they could give it attributes which are impossible (omnipotence would be one such example). So strange that I cannot conceive things with impossible/inconsistent properties existing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:57:32 2011 No.3476346 >>3476340 The order is the creator.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 08:59:32 2011 No.3476351

>>3476340
He says someone wrote the books and put them in order in a manner he cannot conceive. Plain as fucking day.
>The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.
Lrn2readingcomp

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 08:59:32 2011 No.3476352 >>3476342 And it is not there. Also: Steven Nadler talk on Spinoza - Part 1 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIYOC6RQ_LY

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:01:32 2011 No.3476356 >>3476352 Did you miss the beginning where he says he doesnt consider himself a follower. We all know what Spinoza is. Grow up. Im starting to believe you are still in highschool failing english. It is saturday.

>>	AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 09:01:32 2011 No.3476359 >>3476351 All I can say is that if you've actually read what he wrote, you knew that he used metaphor liberally. He is not stating there unequivocally that there is an agency which designed the laws of physics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:02:32 2011 No.3476363 >>3476359 >The child knows someone must have written those books. >knows someone must have written those books. >someone must have written those books. Plain as fucking day.

AnotherAnon Sat Jul 30 09:03:32 2011 No.3476366

>>3476356
Einstein frequently does not mean literally these quotes. When he says "God does not play dice", does that mean he thinks that god personally controls every single quantum interaction? No. He's using metaphor. He's not arguing for an omnipresent dice player.

Same thing here.

Damn literalists. And damn Einstein for using so much metaphor. Did he not understand that the religious asshats quote mine the bejesus out of their opponents?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:04:32 2011 No.3476370

>>3476346
Have you seen the order of math? You can only start with a few simple axioms, and if they don't lead to a contradiction (consistency), you can find infinite order and chaos within them. Do you claim that that particular axiomatic system is god, or a conscious being? It may very well contain conscious observers and whole universes in it, but to give it impossible properties (omnipotence), let's say as an axiom, would make it inconsistent and thus inexistent physically.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:07:32 2011 No.3476378

>>3476366
He was saying god does not play fucking dice as in he made the universe and it is deterministic.
He is a deist. Of fucking course he doesnt believe god controls every single quantum interaction. If i make a clock do i control every turn of the hand as it ticks.
This is why is said you were failing english. Your reading comprehension skills are poor.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:08:32 2011 No.3476382 >>3476366 Confirmed for not knowing what you are talking about.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:08:32 2011 No.3476383

>>3476343
>I do assume everything has an explanation
More than that, a rational, communicable, objective explanation within the framework of how you currently understand logic.
>thus I assume everything is natural, even things outside of our universe (if you want, this would include 'deities'). I accept indeterminism from the first person point of view, but I assume the whole to be deterministic.
Why? Seems like an unnecessary assumption to me.
>Still, no evidence for such an interventionist deity exists in our world.
Not to you, perhaps. This is not the case for everyone.
>I even have a probabilistic explanation for why finding oneself in an universe controlled by a interventionist deities are highly improbable (and thus very rare), but I'm getting carried away here.
Sounds interesting. Like to share?
>The whole mysterious, unexplanable deity that people from common religions posit is a very strange thing for me, because people intentionally put it beyond reason, usually so they could give it attributes which are impossible (omnipotence would be one such example). So strange that I cannot conceive things with impossible/inconsistent properties existing.
The disconnect is: you are trying to understand everything without changing your way of thinking, they are trying to change their way of thinking to understand.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:10:32 2011 No.3476390 >>3476370 The order of math is a divine quality traditionally (Logos). Also, I don't see why omnipotence should be impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:10:32 2011 No.3476391 >>3476366 That was not a metaphor when he said he wasnt a believer in Spinoza. How that denial feel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:34:32 2011 No.3476428 ITT: Theist successfully asserting their belief

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:43:32 2011 No.3476444 >>3476428 you don't have to make up silly crap, you can just say "bump"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:48:32 2011 No.3476458 >>3476444 Thought id point it out before the thread died.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:00:32 2011 No.3476471

>>3476390
The thing is that if a deity wouldn't exist, math would still continue to hold as it is merely "if {axioms} then {theorems} within {logic/inference system}". As for omnipotence, can it do impossible, illogical things (for example, make a false statement true)? Then the system is inconsistent and thus doesn't exist.

>>3476383
> More than that, a rational, communicable, objective explanation within the framework of how you currently understand logic.
I don't assume consciousness is comunicable, I merely assume that if consciousness exists, it is an exact reflection of the object (or its physical states), but these states may not be communicable (except I suppose, if we someday engineer ourselves some form of telepathy, but this seems unlikely given our naturally evolved architecture which isn't that easy to modify for such things - instead I've seen some AI systems which are build for communicating entire "thought" structures). I do assume most other things are communicable.
> Why? Seems like an unnecessary assumption to me.
If something contains everything that is consistent (for example, all mathematical structures which are consistent), can it change? Not exactly deterministic as it's infinite (countable if you only count computable structures, uncountable if you count their outputs, uncountable if you count uncomputable structures outside of arithmetical platonism and within more general mathematical platonism). Either way, how can indeterminism work here, except for specific objects (thus subjective first-person view is indeterminism).
incredibly rare).

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:00:32 2011 No.3476472

>>3475706
>science and god are mutually exclusive

That's begging the question. The question is not "Are god and science exclusive?" It's "Does a god or gods exist?"

And for everything you know of in this world, you use evidence to determine whether to accept information as true or not. Trouble is, even the most rational of people won't use this standard against their cherished beliefs because of the social stigma it carries with it.

If I, for instance, told you that I have in my possession a "Magic Sandwhich that cures cancer," would you believe me? What if I said "You just need to have faith. If you believe in the sandwhich, it will cure your cancer. If you don't, it won't."

Eh?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:01:32 2011 No.3476475

>>3476471
> continued
> Sounds interesting. Like to share?
To reason probabilitistically about anthropic stuff such as in what universe one finds oneself, one needs a measure. Tegmark suggested a general thing like simplicity, which is fine, but inexact. Schmidhuber invented the Universal dovetailer which is basically Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble, only for computable structures only. This dovetailer runs all possible programs, from shortest to longest. At first time step, it runs the simplest, then at the next, it runs a step from the simplest and a step from the next one after the simplest, and so on (eventually it would also run itself, which should also be simple). Either way, an universe with a deity (let's say merged into the laws of physics) would be much more complex than a simple universe which only contains 'laws of physics' (ours are "simple" especially given speed of light, relativity, how classical law arises out of the statistical properties of the quantum world), thus such universes would be less likely to be experienced (they would of course be experienced, just they would be incredibly rare).

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:03:32 2011 No.3476480

>>3476475
> continued
Now I'll present another agument, this time, assume you are a human which abstracted his mind into a computational structure ( a program ) and placed this program within some simple laws of physics (such as a cellular automatom), if any such theories of everything that I've mentioned before are true (and even some subjective ones which I'd love to mention, but I have no time for now. I suggest reading "Theory of Nothing", "Permutation City" and everything-list if you want some ideas), you would find yourself within this universe you just created, you may have engineered this universe to give you exponentially (or just polynomial) growing computing power.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:05:32 2011 No.3476485

>>3476480
> continued
Now you go and start running this Universal Dovetailer which is simple, and have copies of yourself or some AI look over the states looking for patterns that look like yourself (assuming you don't know the laws of physics), now once you found some state of our universe that contains yourself, you decide to play interventionist god with it. What do you think the results would be? For each change, you generate one state where you intervened, and one where you didn't (remember this all exists within some platonic realm, so both structures exist; and even if you don't assume that, you can just assume MWI with all possible particle configurations, and the configuration you just caused is one of those "infinitely improbable" ones). And for each intervention, more timelines where you stop intervening will start existing, and only one timeline where you intervene will exist, thus it becomes very improbable(rare) for an observer to find themselves in such states (of course, there will be one consistent timeline where all your interventions had effect!). You may be upset of this and your solution would be to leave your upper universe and insert yourself into the very laws of physics of that universe, making it a lot more complicated, it would also be one where only your possibilities would play out (no full MWI). However, can avoiding the full MWI even be possible? Only if the laws of physics actually require your existence, for example, if you're some sort of god which grants prayers or gives magical powers to their believers, you would constantly intervene in the world (or even make copies of you which intervene in the splits and so on), such an universe may very well be seen as a "magical universe" as found in fantasy tales, despite actually being orderly at its core (your mind+laws of physics).

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:06:32 2011 No.3476486

>>3476485
> continued
Let me remind you again, that it would be a lot more complex and thus have less observer moments, much lesser than MWI worlds where "everything happens", or even non-MWI, but with laws of physics far different from our own.
Now there is even one more point here. If an observer's "universe" can have consistent laws where you don't exist/interfere, that possibility will also exist (and also be more likely to experience due to UD). In the end, it's a matter of the measure of the observer moments you cause vs the totality of naturally occuring observer moments.
Another thing that might be worth noticing is that if one were to just self-insert into an universe like our own (merely by adding oneself on top of the laws, not having entirely different laws that make your existence REQUIRED for the proper functioning of the universe), natural observer moments(from an universe with only "laws of physics" without you) would be more numerous than those in your complicated self-insert universe. Now I'm not claiming that a completly magical universe (although orderly on the inside, but "magical" enough for the observers to never question your existence) couldn't exist, merely that such universes would contribute very little to the total measure of observer moments (since universes which work with similar principles as MWI just allow all possibilities, thus be a lot more numerous for mathematical reasons).

I apologize for the late response, I was away for a some half and hour..

captcha: amichn Turing's

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:06:32 2011 No.3476491 *an hour

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:17:32 2011 No.3476526 >>3475706 "God exists"... is METAPHYSICAL statement.... and Physics and META-Physics... have always been two different things. Really, if you haven't read and understood Aristotle.. you need to STFU.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:20:32 2011 No.3476533 >>3476526 What if one reaches a point where certain metaphysical properties can be testable? Does it become physics then?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:25:32 2011 No.3476544 >>3476533 Yes. Energy and momentum were considered metaphysical qualities and have become part of physics. Most of this is proeblematic because people don't really know what they mean when they use the words "physical" and "metaphysical".

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:42:32 2011 No.3476580

>>3476486
And I completly forgot the third possibility: insertion as an alien within the world. You would obviously have the advantage of crafting fine things (our world's example of molecular nanotech or elementary particle *tech) which may be very difficult, if not impossible for native inhabitants to create. This would grant you the most observer moments, but you would cmpletly lose your deity status, traded merely by technological dominance over that world (but you'd still be subject to the same rules, and potentially can even end up being destroyed by them). Not really a case for a deity, but it does give you a higher OM measure.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 11:12:32 2011 No.3476658

>>3476580
> continued
Another thing that I should have probably worded differently is 'creation' and 'engineering'. Obviously when one finds themselves in a set of observer moments consistent with them having launched such self-contained universes of their own design containing their mind, they will assume they created/engineered them, when it is in fact merely descovering what was already there in the ``plentitude'' of consistent mathematical structures. However, for practical reasons we may use the term, just how we say we wrote a program or a song, even if some encoding of that program or song exists within the set of natural numbers.
The other thing is the self-insertion within the laws of physics of some universe. This was mostly just a thought experiment, but if one were to take this seriously, I'd imagine some AGI or superintelligent AGI with some set of directives compatible with your own or merely some unrecognizable transformation of one's self which doesn't truly maintain that much of identity over time would be used (would you really want to remember every damn little thing that you did on a cosmic scale with a finite little mind(even if you would modify that mind to never tire of such things)?)

I suppose it's just an example that humans probably wouldn't want to be(come) that sort of existence.

On a tangential, it reminds me that certain groups essentially want to engineer their own little superintelligent deity to grant their local wishes (think of SIAI). I'm agnostic on the concept of how well would self-improving AGI work, but that's irrelevant to this whole argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 11:24:32 2011 No.3476697 >>3476658 >science/atheism vs religion troll thread >200+ posts Every. Fucking. Day. I hate this place and everyone in it.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 11:41:32 2011 No.3476757

>>3476471
>The thing is that if a deity wouldn't exist, math would still continue to hold

I don't buy this claim. I don't know that the logic behind math is independent of something I cannot remove to test such potential dependencies. First of all it might be in breach of the anthropic principle, in that we may develop perceptions of logic based on whatever logic present in our world, and if you remove the foundation and change logic to something else, the new logic might appear just as logical as the old logic did. Secondly, logic itself is inscrutable; the connections that make things make sense are invisible and unconscious. Thirdly, the order behind math is a divine quality which leads to god, not god leading to the divine quality of math because math is awesome.

>As for omnipotence, can it do impossible, illogical things (for example, make a false statement true)?

Of course, it if couldn't, it wouldn't be omnipotence.

>Then the system is inconsistent and thus doesn't exist.

Now you're placing logic as the arbiter of reality. I did agree that Logos is a divine quality, but traditionally, Deus creates Logos, so there's no reason to assume that logic dictates what can and cannot be. Not even from an atheist perspective.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 11:47:32 2011 No.3476787

>>3476471
>If something contains everything that is consistent (for example, all mathematical structures which are consistent)

First of all, if your mathematical structures are consistent, then they are also incomplete, as I understand Godel to be saying.

>Either way, how can indeterminism work here, except for specific objects (thus subjective first-person view is indeterminism).

In the ideal system you present, I dunno. But reality is not such a system; there are always outliers. And this is explained by that it is the Deus that creates the Logos, not the other way around.

Reading your long explanation now. Thanks for putting it all up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 11:50:32 2011 No.3476797 File: 48 KB, 533x653, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3475706 science demands proof for theories gods existence is theory that has no proof therefore people following this scientific method don't think god exists

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:00:32 2011 No.3476833

>>3476475
A lot of your information science knowledge is entirely new to me, however
>Either way, an universe with a deity (let's say merged into the laws of physics) would be much more complex than a simple universe which only contains 'laws of physics' (ours are "simple" especially given speed of light, relativity, how classical law arises out of the statistical properties of the quantum world), thus such universes would be less likely to be experienced (they would of course be experienced, just they would be incredibly rare).
I don't see how this follows. From an emergence perspective (consciousness emerging from complex physical structures), surely the more complex the universe the more likely there would be experience of them. And from an emanation perspective (primacy of consciousness), a universe without a deity is actually more complex than one with.

>I apologize for the late response

I apologize for the fact that it's going to take me a long time to properly understand your argument before replying to it. But it seems quite elegant, and I'm enjoying it, so thank you very much.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:07:32 2011 No.3476856

>>3476757
> in that we may develop perceptions of logic based on whatever logic present in our world, and if you remove the foundation and change logic to something else, the new logic might appear just as logical as the old logic did.
Mathematicians have actually developed many logics, some incompatible with others, other so weird that their only purpose is to rescue inconsistent theories. Logics themselves could be parsed by any turing-complete machine and inferences can be done through such universal machines (of course if that isn't to your liking, I suggest you look at the turing-church thesis and how most computational machines can be shown to be equivalent). In the end, logic is not a thing that requires human mind, although it is something that can be built using it. It should also be noted that logics could also arise randomly, for example an interesting experiment is to just throw axioms at random (or merely enumerate them) and you'll see most of them collapse into triviality, while certain logics would be consistent and thus work fine as metasystems (Tegmark makes this argument much more detailed in this papers, just look them up on arxiv).

>Of course, it if couldn't, it wouldn't be omnipotence.
That would make the system inconsistent as it would require to host a contradiction (turning false into true). Some paraconsistent logics may be able to save such systems, but you shouldn't think having to rely on such logics as being a good thing.

>, so there's no reason to assume that logic dictates what can and cannot be.
Then everything reduces to triviality.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:07:32 2011 No.3476859

>>3476856
If you take that stance, one can't really argue with it, as it's not an argument that works within reason (you're assuming something is true, which leads to contradiction in most systems, but of course, even if it would lead to contradiction within yours, it wouldn't be possible for you to see it). The only thing that I can say is to just randomly enumerate axiomatic systems and see what results, start with some simple binary logics first.

Anyways, here's the relevant papers, books and posts related to the concepts that I've talked about:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0011122
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Mathematical_Monism

http://lesswrong.com/lw/uk/beyond_the_reach_of_god/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1zt/the_mathematical_universe_the_map_that_is_the/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/qr/timeless_causality/

(And some wonderful, but higly related fiction: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/Permutation.html )

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:08:32 2011 No.3476862

>>3476859
> continued
You're free to judge them within your own mind and see what you make of them.

>Not even from an atheist perspective.
My perspective is basically a mathematical platonist one, but it's flexible enough to allow considering some related concepts to it as alternate explanations. It does result in deity-less universes most of the time and general intelligences within some universes may very well grow to attain essentially the same powers as deities (very fast growing computational power, enough to simulate computable universes). I attained this perspective after thinking for many years on these "hard issues". I won't claim it's perfect, but it may become testable in the future and it even has some interesting predictive powers, it's the nearly the simplest class of ontologies that I can think of, unifies both physical existence and consciousness, thus for now it's what I consider as "most likely true" (no absolute beliefs, always keep them updatable). Also, obviously I explained that deities are possible, merely rare, and general intelligent agents may eventually attain the same possibilities within such ontologies, as such deities are merely entities with huge amounts of computational power and lots of intelligence.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:13:32 2011 No.3476884

>>3476856
>That would make the system inconsistent as it would require to host a contradiction (turning false into true). Some paraconsistent logics may be able to save such systems, but you shouldn't think having to rely on such logics as being a good thing.

My personal experience is that seeming paradox is actually the road to truth, so I guess we have a fundamental disagreement here.

>Then everything reduces to triviality.

Not at all. There is plenty that falls under logic's command. Omnipotence is just one of the things that doesn't.

>If you take that stance, one can't really argue with it, as it's not an argument that works within reason (you're assuming something is true, which leads to contradiction in most systems, but of course, even if it would lead to contradiction within yours, it wouldn't be possible for you to see it).

This is precisely the problem I see in your position as well.

Thanks for the links, and the insight into your perspective. I will enjoy delving into it at length.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:17:32 2011 No.3476902

We don't. Everything is compatible with God because God is made up and can be designed, altered and established to fit into any given situation.
Here, we both aspire to be scientists while simultaneously remaining atheistic. it's very possible to be a religious scientist. You seem to have been confused.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:21:32 2011 No.3476912 "yeah, i believe that everything in the universe can be explained rationally by science. BUT i also believe that god causes it all." That is why you jesus science people are retarded.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:22:32 2011 No.3476918

>>3476833
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_information_theory
^ That's the complexity that I was talking about. That "Theory of Nothing" book that I linked also goes into it.

Here's a practical example:
You wrote a song, and recorded it in WAV,MP3 or FLAC or whatever you wish. This song now takes a large amount of information to describe. It may be more compressible without loss of information.

Now consider natural numbers. They are very easy to define (Peano's axioms. All you need is a 0 symbol and a successor function/closure that you can apply to elements part of natural numbers. Two numbers are equal if their successors are equal.)
The information to describe natural numbers is very small {0,1,2,3,...} (or with Peano's axioms).
It's considerably smaller than the information required to describe your song. Yet, your song is contained within natural numbers, along with all possible programs, all possible data files, all possible movies, posts, books, songs, etc.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:23:32 2011 No.3476921

>>3476918
> continued
The information required to describe an universe's laws of physics is assumed to be small, although we don't know what exactly they are at the moment, hwoever both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not that complex informationally speaking. Even if you were to make some nasty mish-mash of them (instead of a nice consistent theory), they would still require little information to describe them.

Now consider your brain. It's exactly like that song: billions of neurons, trillions of synapses. It's a very complex thing, although originally it required little information to describe (DNA), however that doesn't contain 'you' (all kinds of memories, reflexes, thought patterns, etc), but merely a chemical mechanism of how your brain might be created, but even so, the environment will play such a huge role that you would end up with slightly different brains starting from the same genetic code, not to mention that the environment is why you have memories at all, and why we can think, be self-aware and so on.

Now imagine you are to take some simple laws of physics and are now encoding your brain within the initial state of those laws of physics: the entire system will now require considerably more information to describe than one with a simple initial/compressible state than one which contains you and whatever else you might require for your survival.
This is not an argument about possibility (both cases are possible), but an argument about what would get computed more often by the Universal Dovetailer, thus contributing more observer moments. Maybe you don't care for this as far as your consciousness is concerned as long as continuity (or its illusion) is preserved, but it does affect the probability of wether you find yourself in a simple universe or one with a deity intervened in the very laws of physics themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:24:32 2011 No.3476925 >>3476912 Everything can be explained rationally except for rationalization.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:26:32 2011 No.3476932 >>3476912 Strawman. The actual position is that science is great for some stuff but not everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:31:32 2011 No.3476952 >>3476921 >>3476918 Ok, I get what your saying about universes based on emergence. It's a good argument, although I'm not convinced that arguing from probabilities does much for reaching definite claims about the reality we find ourselves is.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:33:32 2011 No.3476965

>>3476918
To put it more simply, a program containing just something to generate the universe would be very small as far as its descripition goes, but a program which contains the laws of some universe and a whole mind will require a considerably longer program (for example, imagine it practically along the lines of 500KB, while the second one could very well require 10 to the 18th power + 500KB + a few hundred MB for maintenance (for example, self-replicating "computing elements" to maintain your mind within this universe's laws). The practical result is that this program will run very late within the UD, compared to all simple universes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:34:32 2011 No.3476972 File: 49 KB, 571x556, 1284038850740.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] itt: people who don't even understand how airfoil works claim to be able to comprehend and, indeed, even possess the ultimate knowledge of nature of the universe

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:43:32 2011 No.3477026

>>3476952
The UD is just one model. It's a rather interesting one in my opinion, although I tend to prefer more arithmetical platonist views. Such a model allows one to talk about probability of experiencing OM's where universes have simple laws as opposed to complex ones. Science says that we find ourselves within a simple universe right now, although of course, it could very well be a complex one, unless you validate MWI. This is possible to some degree of confidence if you attempt some quantum suicide experiment, but it wouldn't be very moral as it would affect those around you. Still, such validation is only possible from the first person. Validation of one of those computational theories of everything that I was talking about would essentially be a lot more moral and less costly, it would merely require that we develop mind uploading someday and just encode ourselves into such a structure and run it. If we experience a future within such a structure beyond the original running time, it's mostly validated, but true validation would be if you just make the universe in such a way as to attain more computational power than is possible in our universe and just simulate our own world or break some "impossible" crypto, thus that would assure you that you are not being simulated within your own world.

Thus both MWI and that class of theories of everything are testable. The only issue is that communicating the result of the test for MWI is only possible for a small number of branches. And communicating the results of the "platonic computational universe" 'creation' would only be available to yourself and those that are inserted in the structure with yourself (of course, nothing stop you from creating more observers in the structure, and nothing stops you from finding your original universe by searching the UD and then inserting yourself into some branches).

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:44:32 2011 No.3477031
File: 946 KB, 989x611, Toro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

We do not believe they are mutually exclusive. We do believe they are entirely unrelated. 'Science' is a word for a process of solving problems including but not limited to understanding why we are here. God is an answer to that question that does not follow the scientific process. Thus god is not scientific (but not necessarily unscientific).

pic unrelated

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:48:32 2011 No.3477054 >>3476227 "Agnostic atheist reporting in" Are you also going to tell us about your favorite bands?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:49:32 2011 No.3477062 File: 12 KB, 288x213, whatis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3475706 I don't know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:50:32 2011 No.3477068 go sit on top of a nuclear reactor /sci/ since you can't see the radiation it clearly doesn't exist

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:51:32 2011 No.3477071

>>3476972
It's been mostly a debate between someone who asserts a deity's existence and supremacy is required for anything to exist at all and someone who asserts various testable metaphysical theories which try to answer the same question without requiring a deity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:52:32 2011 No.3477077 >>3477068 You can measure radiation with physically constructible tools. Can you measure God's existence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:54:32 2011 No.3477086 Because science is studying everything that can be studied. God cannot be studied. The two are mutually exclusive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 12:56:32 2011 No.3477097 >>3477071 It wasn't a debate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:03:32 2011 No.3477125 >>3477097 >Assertion without proof >Quarreling over semantics >Fullretard.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:09:32 2011 No.3477153 >>3477125 >>Fullretard.jpg indeed you are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:40:32 2011 No.3477252 >>3476533 no. That is not what the word Metaphysics means. You could do a psychological or historical study of WHY a particular group of people use a particular Metaphysical system.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:42:32 2011 No.3477262 >>3476544 You mean they changed their Metaphysical ASSUMPTIONS.... and therefore their Science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:44:32 2011 No.3477273 >>3476544 Metaphysics=Theology in Aristotelean terms.. but we would call it 'Philosophy of Science'.... it is the Theologians that got the short of end of the stick... anybody who is a 'Theologian' now is just jerking off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:48:32 2011 No.3477293 >>3477252 What if a blief which is currently considered more close to the realm of metaphysics than actual physics becomes testable, is it really right to keep calling it metaphysics even then?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:49:32 2011 No.3477302 >>3477262 No, that is nothing like what I mean. Energy and momentum are metaphysical quantities, never directly observable, inferred only through the effects they have upon observable phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:57:32 2011 No.3477536 >>3477302 You are wrong. So now you just have to sit there in your wrongness and be wrong. And you can brag to your friends that you 'won'... if you had any. But I am ANONYMOUS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:59:32 2011 No.3477539 Op is greatest troll of all time. I worship him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:59:32 2011 No.3477541 >>3477536 Winning is nothing to brag about. Being wrong is much better, because then you have a chance to learn something new. What was wrong about it? Can you see energy by itself? Measure pure momentum?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math