Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#301  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 8:35 am

John Platko wrote:Turns out Ike had God programmed years ago.



42
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#302  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 9:19 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
OlivierK wrote:So, in many mythologies, God speaks to humans. Since the ability to speak persists amongst humans in the world, therefore we can update the definition of god to retain the power of speech, and note that humans are now gods using the updated definition which has dropped all the omni-bullshit.

Seems... kinda stupid, but when it comes to creating a simulation, you're convinced by the logic. Nobody else seems to be, though.


Your comment/anecdote is nonsense/stupid.

Simply, that there is some higher intelligence outside of the universe that speaks to beings is scientifically unfounded.

Try again.


Joining late here.....

I think there is nothing essentially incorrect about the redefinition.

The idea that we have some of the qualities, abilities and/or properties that were (and are) attributed to what is understood as and meant by the word god is fine, imo.

Equally though, we could do it for other words.

I daresay that without too much of a stretch we could say that humans are elves. And if I am a mischief-creating elf then I am an elf-god, I suppose.

This approach is more versatile than I first thought.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#303  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 21, 2017 11:01 am

We could also redefine Jordan's argument as dogfood. Maybe a little bit of a stretch, but not beyond the mental gymnastics Jordan's deployed to reach his preferred outcome. Versatile indeed!
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 9887
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#304  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 12:06 pm

OlivierK wrote:That there is a higher intelligence outside of the universe that created the universe is similarly unfounded.

Oops, there goes the bathwater.


It appears you fail to grasp something very simple; that a higher intelligence outside of the universe that created the universe is unfounded, but that crude universes are created is not unfounded.

Image

This founded universe type (particularly, crude universes (simulations)) are those that are included in the redefinition, as mentioned in the original post.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#305  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 12:16 pm

OlivierK wrote:The problem with calling my comment stupid, Jordan, is that I was using your own argument (and even flagged for you, in the very post you quoted, that I also thought it was a stupid argument).

If it's so easy for you to spot that it's stupid when someone else says it, then sooner or later you'll join the dots. Or maybe not, I guess.




No, it is stupid, and does not use the line of empirical evidence bound to the redefinition.

So, that there is some higher intelligence that speaks to humans is still unfounded. (so your expression was silly)

...but that humans engineer crude universes, is empirically observed.

The clear difference here, is that the redefinition draws on empirical data, while your expression compounds nonsense.

Image
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Apr 21, 2017 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#306  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2017 12:19 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
OlivierK wrote:That there is a higher intelligence outside of the universe that created the universe is similarly unfounded.

Oops, there goes the bathwater.


It appears you fail to grasp something very simple; that a higher intelligence outside of the universe that created the universe is unfounded, but that crude universes are created is not unfounded.

Image

This founded universe type (particularly, crude universes (simulations)) are those that are included in the redefinition, as mentioned in the original post.

Nope. Speech by a higher intelligence outside the universe is unfounded, but speech within the universe by humans is trivially not unfounded.

Exactly the argument that you call "stupid" about speech applies to the creation of simulations.

Both are human skills.

It's stupid to attribute either to a god.

It's stupid to redefine god as anything in the universe capable of speech.

It's equally stupid to redefine god as anything in the universe capable of creating simulations.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7100
Age: 50
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#307  Postby theropod » Apr 21, 2017 12:23 pm

Asserted in the Original Post.

Again, simulations are not universes, or pictures of cars are cars.

How long do you plan on running this game? I have developed an nonbeliefism that your posts are sincere.

RS
16 years off-grid and counting.

Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 6636
Age: 63
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#308  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2017 12:23 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
OlivierK wrote:The problem with calling my comment stupid, Jordan, is that I was using your own argument (and even flagged for you, in the very post you quoted, that I also thought it was a stupid argument).

If it's so easy for you to spot that it's stupid when someone else says it, then sooner or later you'll join the dots. Or maybe not, I guess.


Image

No, it is stupid, and does not use the line of empirical evidence bound to the redefinition.

So, that there is some higher intelligence that speaks to humans is still unfounded. (so your expression was silly)

...but that humans engineer crude universes, is empirically observed.

The clear difference here, is that the redefinition draws on empirical data, while your expression compounds nonsense.

Nope, the analogy still holds. Every statement you make about creating universes can be turned around to one about speech, and vice versa. They're interchangeable examples:

So, that there is some higher intelligence that creates universes is still unfounded.

...but that humans speak, is empirically observed.

As long as you think that defining speech as a god-property is stupid, then you're equally arguing that defining simulation-creation as a god-property is stupid.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7100
Age: 50
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#309  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 12:26 pm

OlivierK wrote:
So, in many mythologies, God speaks to humans. Since the ability to speak persists amongst humans in the world, therefore we can update the definition of god to retain the power of speech, and note that humans are now gods using the updated definition which has dropped all the omni-bullshit.


OlivierK wrote:
Nope. Speech by a higher intelligence outside the universe is unfounded, but speech within the universe by humans is trivially not unfounded.

Exactly the argument that you call "stupid" about speech applies to the creation of simulations.

Both are human skills.

It's stupid to attribute either to a god.

It's stupid to redefine god as anything in the universe capable of speech.

It's equally stupid to redefine god as anything in the universe capable of creating simulations.


OlivierK wrote:
Nope, the analogy still holds. Every statement you make about creating universes can be turned around to one about speech, and vice versa. They're interchangeable examples:

So, that there is some higher intelligence that creates universes is still unfounded.

...but that humans speak, is empirically observed.

As long as you think that defining speech as a god-property is stupid, then you're equally arguing that defining simulation-creation as a god-property is stupid.


Let's break thing down toddler style:

To put it simply, God is not redefined on the boundary of that scientifically unfounded sequence.
The difference between these two, are that:

(1) No science for an outside intelligence speaking to humans. (No humans speaking to conscious entities inside their simulations either)
(2) There is science for humans creating crude universes.


FOOTNOTE:
PS: If the archaic God supposedly spoke, humans would still be re-definable as Gods, since we speak.
Speech would be yet another property, that is empirically founded. (I wonder why it would be sensible to exclude speech, speech had long been included as part of the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence)

But speech to entities in our simulation though, no.
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Apr 21, 2017 12:46 pm, edited 4 times in total.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#310  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2017 12:30 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Let's break thing down toddler style:

To put it simply, God is not redefined on the boundary of that scientifically unfounded sequence.
The difference between these two, are that:

(1) No science for an outside intelligence speaking to humans. (No humans speaking to conscious entities inside their simulations either)
(2) There is science for humans creating crude universes.

(3) No science for an outside intelligence creating universes.
(4) There is science for humans speaking.

You got nothing.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7100
Age: 50
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#311  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2017 12:31 pm

This thread just reminds me of
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7100
Age: 50
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#312  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 12:33 pm

OlivierK wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Let's break thing down toddler style:

To put it simply, God is not redefined on the boundary of that scientifically unfounded sequence.
The difference between these two, are that:

(1) No science for an outside intelligence speaking to humans. (No humans speaking to conscious entities inside their simulations either)
(2) There is science for humans creating crude universes.

(3) No science for an outside intelligence creating universes.
(4) There is science for humans speaking.

You got nothing.


Yes, there is no error detected in the redefinition as far as science goes.

OliverK wrote: God speaks to humans

As said prior, there is no human speaking to conscious beings in their simulations.


ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
PS: If the archaic God supposedly spoke, humans would still be re-definable as Gods, since we speak.
Speech would be yet another property, that is empirically founded. (I wonder why it would be sensible to exclude speech, speech had long been included as part of the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence)

...but speech to entities in our simulation though, no.


Image
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#313  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 12:41 pm

theropod wrote:Asserted in the Original Post.

Again, simulations are not universes, or pictures of cars are cars.

How long do you plan on running this game? I have developed an nonbeliefism that your posts are sincere.

RS



In case you missed it, that humans engineer crude universes (simulations like illustris) is what is included in the redefinition.
Creation of universes of our precise detail by some higher intelligence, is particularly what is excluded from the definition.

In other words, I am not conflating them, I purge the latter, as that (creation of our universe by some higher intelligence) is empirically unfounded.


That should be clear enough for you.
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Apr 21, 2017 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#314  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 21, 2017 12:42 pm

Sometimes you post in a thread and regret it. This is one of those threads. Why dont we have a thread removal button?

This is such a load of buffoonery even Trump could not make it up.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 36451
Age: 68
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#315  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 12:44 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sometimes you post in a thread and regret it. This is one of those threads. Why dont we have a thread removal button?

This is such a load of buffoonery even Trump could not make it up.


(1)
I would prefer a thread block button, to block "sheeple" like beings.

The redefinition of God occurs on empirically founded data, and is simple, and trivial to absorb, something "sheeple" minded beings fail to understand.

Well, this is largely predicted, and this is why nonbeliefism emerged from a brain like mine, in contrast to "sheeple" minded beings.


(2)
At least your horizon has somewhat expanded in the perusal of my thread.


(3)
PS. illustris is not buffoonery. Illustris is real: http://www.illustris-project.org/

[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#316  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2017 12:58 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Let's break thing down toddler style:

To put it simply, God is not redefined on the boundary of that scientifically unfounded sequence.
The difference between these two, are that:

(1) No science for an outside intelligence speaking to humans. (No humans speaking to conscious entities inside their simulations either)
(2) There is science for humans creating crude universes.

(3) No science for an outside intelligence creating universes.
(4) There is science for humans speaking.

You got nothing.


Yes, there is no error detected in the redefinition as far as science goes.

OliverK wrote: God speaks to humans

As said prior, there is no human speaking to conscious beings in their simulations.


ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
PS: If the archaic God supposedly spoke, humans would still be re-definable as Gods, since we speak.
Speech would be yet another property, that is empirically founded. (I wonder why it would be sensible to exclude speech, speech had long been included as part of the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence)

...but speech to entities in our simulation though, no.


Image

Sure.

There's no evidence of god speaking to humans, so we can purge that as scientifically unfounded and just redefine god as any being whose ability to speak is founded in science. So humans are gods, because they can speak, according to this (stupid) argument.

There's no evidence of god creating the universe, so we can purge that as scientifically unfounded and just redefine god as any being whose ability to create universes is founded in science. So humans are gods, because they write crude simulations that we call universes for no good reason, according to this this (doubly stupid) argument.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7100
Age: 50
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#317  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:06 pm

Well, illustris is a real thing, but I don't think it's a universe, crude or otherwise. It's an illustration. Hence the name, I'm guessing. As such, if making simulations makes me a god then I can manage a quick hand-drawn sketch of anything you like (including a universe) in about 2 minutes. I can also 'create' turds in about 2 minutes. Why doesn't that make me a turd god?

I don't see the point. Why do you want to call people gods?
Last edited by archibald on Apr 21, 2017 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#318  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 1:08 pm

archibald wrote:

Joining late here.....

I think there is nothing essentially incorrect about the redefinition.

The idea that we have some of the qualities, abilities and/or properties that were (and are) attributed to what is understood as and meant by the word god is fine, imo.

Equally though, we could do it for other words.

I daresay that without too much of a stretch we could say that humans are elves. And if I am a mischief-creating elf then I am an elf-god, I suppose.

This approach is more versatile than I first thought.

Image
I would have to evaluate properties of elves.
At any cost, this is why synonyms exist....

For example, fairy has origins about mythical creatures However, fairy may now describe human males
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#319  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:11 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
I would have to evaluate properties of elves.
At any cost, this is why synonyms exist....

For example, fairy has origins about mythical creatures However, fairy may now describe human males


First, colloquial is slightly different from scientific language (your standard, apparently) so be careful.

Second, evaluate away. I think you'll find I can be defined as an elf.
Last edited by archibald on Apr 21, 2017 1:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#320  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 1:11 pm

OlivierK wrote:

There's no evidence of god speaking to humans, so we can purge that as scientifically unfounded and just redefine god as any being whose ability to speak is founded in science. So humans are gods, because they can speak, according to this (stupid) argument.

There's no evidence of god creating the universe, so we can purge that as scientifically unfounded and just redefine god as any being whose ability to create universes is founded in science. So humans are gods, because they write crude simulations that we call universes for no good reason, according to this this (doubly stupid) argument.


It appears you know somewhat grasp the redefinition.

This is what science does, better approximates models with empirically bounded data.

In a similar way, unfounded properties were purged from astronomy over the years.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Science & Technology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest