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)

#321  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:13 pm

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


Fab. The sooner science gets around to realising I'm an elf, the better. :cheers:
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9010
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#322  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 1:17 pm

archibald wrote:

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 an elf.



archibald wrote:
Fab. The sooner science gets around to realising I'm an elf, the better.


"Gabrile's horn" is a far better example:

Image


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Horn

So, your initial point remains invalid (as is scientifically observable).


ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
In other words:
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)

#323  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:29 pm

You misunderstand, even with your weak analogy. I'm delighted to finally, scientifically, be recognised as the elf-god that I am. Thankyou. :cheers:

Next up: turd gods (I hope). Can I be that too?
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9010
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

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

#324  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 1:32 pm

archibald wrote:You misunderstand. I'm delighted to finally, scientifically, be recognised as the elf-god that I am. Thankyou. :cheers:

Next up: turd gods (I hope).


The misunderstanding is not mine.

You wanted "scientific instead of colloquial" so I granted you a scenario/wikipedia mathematical structure, named after the scientifically unfounded quantity, arc angel gabriel...

So, you'll have to try again, as you have failed to disregard the redefinition amidst 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)

#325  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 1:33 pm

archibald wrote: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?


(A)

Small nitpick:

Crude may mean approximation.
Simulations like illustris are approximations of the cosmos.


(B)
Turds are part of the cosmos, but merely turd creation is doable by non human mammals.
You don't need human intelligence to forge turds.

And so, in the regime of the creator/creation archaic "God", as it relates to universe yielding, human possesses general intelligence, which gives rise to crude universe yielding.
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Apr 21, 2017 1:36 pm, edited 3 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)

#326  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:34 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
archibald wrote:You misunderstand. I'm delighted to finally, scientifically, be recognised as the elf-god that I am. Thankyou. :cheers:

Next up: turd gods (I hope).


The misunderstanding is not mine.

You wanted "scientific instead of colloquial" so I granted you a scenario/wikipedia mathematical structure, named after the scientifically unfounded quantity, arc angel gabriel...

So, you'll have to try again, as you have failed to disregard the redefinition amidst the original post...


Um. I embraced the definition. It's unbecoming of an elf-god to do otherwise.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9010
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

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

#327  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:35 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Turds are part of the cosmos, but merely turd creation is doable by beetles.
You don't need human intelligence to forge turds.


So what? In that case, a beetle can be a turd god. Seriously.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9010
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#328  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2017 1:36 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
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.

Sure, I grasp the redefinition. It's transparently stupid, but not hard to understand.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7435
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

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

#329  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 1:37 pm

OlivierK wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
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.

Sure, I grasp the redefinition. It's transparently stupid, but not hard to understand.


Stupid? Why are unable to show how?
[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)

#330  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 1:38 pm

archibald wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Turds are part of the cosmos, but merely turd creation is doable by beetles.
You don't need human intelligence to forge turds.


So what? In that case, a beetle can be a turd god. Seriously.


Non human mammals don't have human level intelligence.
[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)

#331  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:40 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Non human mammals don't have human level intelligence.


But they are still turd gods. It's a scientifically observable fact.
Last edited by archibald on Apr 21, 2017 1:40 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: 9010
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

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

#332  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2017 1:40 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
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.

Sure, I grasp the redefinition. It's transparently stupid, but not hard to understand.


Stupid? Why are unable to show how?

I've already shown how.

Hell, even you've already shown how.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7435
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

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

#333  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 2:29 pm

OlivierK wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

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.

Sure, I grasp the redefinition. It's transparently stupid, but not hard to understand.


Stupid? Why are unable to show how?

I've already shown how.

Hell, even you've already shown how.


Merely empirical evidence was used to validate the redefinition.
Until that empirical evidence (illustris) suddenly ceases to have ever existed, the redefinition remains valid.
[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)

#334  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 21, 2017 2:35 pm

archibald wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Non human mammals don't have human level intelligence.


But they are still turd gods. It's a scientifically observable fact.


Until non-human mammals can engineer universes, they are not the class of creator/creation bound gods, the redefinition refers to.
[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)

#335  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 2:37 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Until non-human mammals can engineer universes, they are not the class of creator/creation bound gods, the redefinition refers to.


Maybe, but they're still turd-gods, and I'm an elf-god, right?


ps you forgot the word simulated there, before universe.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9010
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#336  Postby theropod » Apr 21, 2017 3:34 pm

Nobody has engineered a fucking universe. People have simulated, via software, a universe. Simulations are not a physicality. Just because a simulation exists it does not fucking make it a universe, crude, refined or otherwise. Asserting the same bullshit idiocy endlessly will never change this glaring reality. Trollish bullshit from start to finish. The claims of empirical support for this pseudo-intellectual trash are outright lies.

RS
17 years off-grid and counting.

Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 6925
Age: 63
Male

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

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

#337  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 4:43 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.

Again, a crude chair is still a chair.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27126
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#338  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 4:48 pm

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.


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:

Seriously, what do you hope to achieve with this?
Are you gunning for suicide by mod? Or just vapidly trolling?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27126
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#339  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 4:52 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.

There are however as far as linguistics and common sense are concerned.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27126
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#340  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 4:53 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
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.

In case you keep dishonestly pretending this hasn't already been pointed out to you, repeatedly: simulations are not crude universes, nor does it matter, since it has fuck all to do with your definition being nonsensical in the first place.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27126
Age: 28
Male

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

PreviousNext

Return to General Science & Technology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest