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)

#341  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 4:57 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.

Since theism isn't a scientific model, theory or concept, your argument fails, again.
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

Ads by Google


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

#342  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 5:00 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
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).

You do realise you've repeatedly posted stuff that demonstrates you haven't the faintest clue how science works?
Meaning that your judgment on the scientific quality of other people's posts is completely inane?
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#343  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 5:03 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.

Correct, the trolling is.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
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...

Verily thou spoutest the most obtuse ende queer bollocks. :roll:
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#344  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 5:06 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
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 theoretical, simulated approximations of the cosmos.

FIFY.
They are not however a cosmos.
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#345  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 5:07 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?

Stop projecting your own faults onto your interlocutors.
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#346  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2017 8:49 pm

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

Agreed: valid, but stupid, just like redefining god as any being able to speak (having rejected the unfounded "God told Moses" sort of stuff) as a god-property.

As people have pointed out, when you reject scientifically unfounded god-properties, you throw out all the properties that were uniquely held by gods (including omnipotence, omniscience, ability to perform miracles, talking to people from outside the universe, creating the universe), and are just left with properties that are also held by non-gods (ability to perform stage magic, ability to speak, ability to simulate universes).

Given that creating a simulation is patently not creating a universe, you'd have a better (but still stupid) argument if you just tried to argue that Penn and Teller are saints, because you've updated the definition of "miracle" to more scientifically reasonable "convincing act of illusion".

You've used a lot of big words, often incorrectly, but your argument is no more than:

a) Illustris exists,
b) It's kinda-sorta a universe,
c) science has rendered the gods of antiquity surplus to requirements, by showing that none of the properties that defined gods as gods are founded on evidence
d) so we can re-use the word god for people who display crude approximations of god properties, like the folk who make kinda-sorta universes.

And the problem is that
a) is true
b) is false
c) is true
d) is stupid (that is, it's true, we could redefine god that way, but there are no good reasons to, and good reasons not to).

Your defense against criticism is
a) really IS true!!!! (despite nobody claiming otherwise)
b) is so too true!!! It really is a universe. My proof is that I don;t understand the word "crude", and I can use that misunderstanding to construct some lame semantic trickery that nobody sane would accept.
c) if anyone agrees with you that science has discarded all the defining properties of ancient gods as unfounded, you attack them
d) I can redefine god in stupid ways if I want. And sure, you can. All that's left is to convince others it's not stupid. A dozen pages of failure to convince even one person that it's not stupid should perhaps be a pointer for you on how good an idea that is.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7441
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

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

#347  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 21, 2017 8:53 pm

Goddamn. Head shot.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10507
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#348  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 22, 2017 12:20 am

Thomas Eshuis 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.

Since theism isn't a scientific model, theory or concept, your argument fails, again.


Image

Unbeknownst to you, science did not always contain robust properties.

There is something called science in antiquity. (archaic mythical god concept was a part of science in antiquity)

This is why I continuously repeated "Astronomy once included mythical components".

Like astronomy that once included mythical components, God is updatable in modern science terms.
[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)

#349  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 22, 2017 12:24 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
(A)

Small nitpick:

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

FIFY.
They are not however a cosmos.


Ironically the redefinition particularly purges the instance that our cosmos was forged by some higher intelligence, and instead refers to crude cosmos/simulations.

The very definition in (A) above describes the instance that crude cosmos is not the actual thing.

Your expressions are disappointing...

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Stop projecting your own faults onto your interlocutors.


My only fault here here is existing in a universe where you (and humans/"sheeple" like you) also exist...
[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)

#350  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 22, 2017 12:28 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Thomas Eshuis 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.

Since theism isn't a scientific model, theory or concept, your argument fails, again.


Image

Unbeknownst to you, science did not always contain robust properties.

Since you know next to nothing about, you've no basis to assert what I do or do not know.
All you're achieving by making such remarks is demonstrating dishonesty on your part.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:There is something called science in antiquity. (archaic mythical god concept was a part of science in antiquity)

Eh no.
The modern scientific method has very little to do with the scientia from the ancient Romans and Greeks.
Theism doesn't present a testable and tested scientific theory. It's a bunch of assertions based on myths faith.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:This is why I continuously repeated "Astronomy once included mythical components".

And, as has already been pointed to you, that form of astronomy wasn't scientific.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Like astronomy that once included mythical components, God is updatable in modern science terms.

Nope, still humpty-dumpty nonsense.
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#351  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 22, 2017 12:31 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
(A)

Small nitpick:

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

FIFY.
They are not however a cosmos.


Ironically the redefinition particularly purges the instance that our cosmos was forged by some higher intelligence, and instead refers to crude cosmos/simulations.

Thus becoming ever more devoid and detached from it's common usage. :nono:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:The very definition in (A) above describes the instance that crude cosmos is not the actual thing.

So, according to your asinine humpty-dumpty definition, computers are gods.


ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Your expressions are disappointing...

If only I cared for your trollish disappointment.... :roll:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Stop projecting your own faults onto your interlocutors.

My only fault here here is existing in a universe where you (and humans/"sheeple" like you) also exist...

QED more personal attacks and thereby a demonstration that Jordan either hasn't read the FUA he signed, or is a troll.
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#352  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 22, 2017 12:37 am

Image

SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND: Science is known to replace mythical components with empirical measures (better approximate models with more and more empirical data).



OlivierK wrote:
As people have pointed out, when you reject scientifically unfounded god-properties, you throw out all the properties that were uniquely held by gods (including omnipotence, omniscience, ability to perform miracles, talking to people from outside the universe, creating the universe), and are just left with properties that are also held by non-gods (ability to perform stage magic, ability to speak, ability to simulate universes).

Given that creating a simulation is patently not creating a universe, you'd have a better (but still stupid) argument if you just tried to argue that Penn and Teller are saints, because you've updated the definition of "miracle" to more scientifically reasonable "convincing act of illusion".


You don't throw out everything. In toddler like terms, crude universes (simulations) are empirical measures of the actual universe. Science is known to replace mythical components with empirical measures. So, the ability to yield crude universes remains.


OlivierK wrote:
You've used a lot of big words, often incorrectly, but your argument is no more than:

a) Illustris exists,
b) It's kinda-sorta a universe,
c) science has rendered the gods of antiquity surplus to requirements, by showing that none of the properties that defined gods as gods are founded on evidence
d) so we can re-use the word god for people who display crude approximations of god properties, like the folk who make kinda-sorta universes.).


(a) I did mention (a), and (a) is empirically observed.
(b) I did not say a was an actual universe. Ironically, the redefinition purges that our universe was forged by some higher being, but instead, crude universes (SIMULATIONS) such that humans are creators of said constructs...
(c) One large property, the ability to engineer crude universes remains. (Crude universes are LITERALLY APPROXIMATIONS OR MEASURES OF OUR COSMOS)
(d) See (c) above.



OlivierK wrote:
Your defense against criticism is
a) really IS true!!!! (despite nobody claiming otherwise)
b) is so too true!!! It really is a universe. My proof is that I don;t understand the word "crude", and I can use that misunderstanding to construct some lame semantic trickery that nobody sane would accept.
c) if anyone agrees with you that science has discarded all the defining properties of ancient gods as unfounded, you attack them
d) I can redefine god in stupid ways if I want. And sure, you can. All that's left is to convince others it's not stupid. A dozen pages of failure to convince even one person that it's not stupid should perhaps be a pointer for you on how good an idea that is.


My defense is simply empirical data.


SafeAsMilk wrote:
Goddamn. Head shot.


I wouldn't mind a head shot after experiencing the "points"/silly expressions (including yours) given by others on this thread.
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Apr 22, 2017 6:23 am, edited 5 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)

#353  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 22, 2017 12:42 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:There is something called science in antiquity. (archaic mythical god concept was a part of science in antiquity)

Eh no.
The modern scientific method has very little to do with the scientia from the ancient Romans and Greeks.
Theism doesn't present a testable and tested scientific theory. It's a bunch of assertions based on myths faith.

And, as has already been pointed to you, that form of astronomy wasn't scientific.



(1)
Your response above is nonsense.
You must probably realize that mankind had not always had robust modern science, but it was science in antiquity regardless.

Here is a wikipedia link for convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... _antiquity

(2)
The point is, the name astronomy maintained regardless.
[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)

#354  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 22, 2017 1:10 am

Oh look, we're back to that old thing that's already been addressed a thousand times. I guess learning from past mistakes isn't a feature of programmers who want to call themselves gods.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10507
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#355  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 22, 2017 6:21 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:Oh look, we're back to that old thing that's already been addressed a thousand times. I guess learning from past mistakes isn't a feature of programmers who want to call themselves gods.


Let me reiterate.
Your points were nonsense.

If your points followed with empirical data, while disregarding the god redefinition, I would have long made that publicly known.
[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)

#356  Postby Manticore » Apr 22, 2017 7:09 am

I can't even believe 'ProgrammingGodJordan' is a programmer.
Programmers have to be capable of consistently logical thought.
Vague, confused wafflings don't make it when total accuracy is essential.
The existence of just one racist is proof that there exists at least one person who could be reasonably classified as sub-human.
User avatar
Manticore
 
Posts: 206

Country: Tanzania
Tanzania (tz)
Print view this post

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

#357  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 22, 2017 7:18 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Image

SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND: Science is known to replace mythical components with empirical measures (better approximate models with more and more empirical data).

Except that it isn't. But do continue to demonstrate you haven't a clue what you're talking about.


ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
As people have pointed out, when you reject scientifically unfounded god-properties, you throw out all the properties that were uniquely held by gods (including omnipotence, omniscience, ability to perform miracles, talking to people from outside the universe, creating the universe), and are just left with properties that are also held by non-gods (ability to perform stage magic, ability to speak, ability to simulate universes).

Given that creating a simulation is patently not creating a universe, you'd have a better (but still stupid) argument if you just tried to argue that Penn and Teller are saints, because you've updated the definition of "miracle" to more scientifically reasonable "convincing act of illusion".


You don't throw out everything. In toddler like terms, crude universes (simulations) are empirical measures of the actual universe. Science is known to replace mythical components with empirical measures. So, the ability to yield crude universes remains.

More blindly regurgitated PRATTs and another inflammatory remark. :roll:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
You've used a lot of big words, often incorrectly, but your argument is no more than:

a) Illustris exists,
b) It's kinda-sorta a universe,
c) science has rendered the gods of antiquity surplus to requirements, by showing that none of the properties that defined gods as gods are founded on evidence
d) so we can re-use the word god for people who display crude approximations of god properties, like the folk who make kinda-sorta universes.).


(a) I did mention (a), and (a) is empirically observed.

Also completely immaterial. In both senses of the word.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
(b) I did not say a was an actual universe. Ironically, the redefinition purges that our universe was forged by some higher being, but instead, crude universes (SIMULATIONS) such that humans are creators of said constructs...

Again, computers are gods.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
Your defense against criticism is
a) really IS true!!!! (despite nobody claiming otherwise)
b) is so too true!!! It really is a universe. My proof is that I don;t understand the word "crude", and I can use that misunderstanding to construct some lame semantic trickery that nobody sane would accept.
c) if anyone agrees with you that science has discarded all the defining properties of ancient gods as unfounded, you attack them
d) I can redefine god in stupid ways if I want. And sure, you can. All that's left is to convince others it's not stupid. A dozen pages of failure to convince even one person that it's not stupid should perhaps be a pointer for you on how good an idea that is.


My defense is simply empirical data I make shit up as a I go along, ignoring all sound criticisms and lie about doing so.

FIFY.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Goddamn. Head shot.

I wouldn't mind a head shot after experiencing the "points"/silly expressions (including yours) given by others on this thread.

More desperate blind dismissal that won't fool anyone here. :nono:
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#358  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 22, 2017 7:21 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:There is something called science in antiquity. (archaic mythical god concept was a part of science in antiquity)

Eh no.
The modern scientific method has very little to do with the scientia from the ancient Romans and Greeks.
Theism doesn't present a testable and tested scientific theory. It's a bunch of assertions based on myths faith.

And, as has already been pointed to you, that form of astronomy wasn't scientific.



(1)
Your response above is nonsense.

Your resorting to blind dismissal is getting rather obvious and silly.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
You must probably realize that mankind had not always had robust modern science, but it was science in antiquity regardless.

Except that it wasn't. But do continue to demonstrate you're just making shit up.


ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Here is a wikipedia link for convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... _antiquity

(2)
The point is, the name astronomy maintained regardless.

And ancient astronomy is significantly different from modern astronomy and ancient astronomy isn't science.
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#359  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 22, 2017 7:22 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Oh look, we're back to that old thing that's already been addressed a thousand times. I guess learning from past mistakes isn't a feature of programmers who want to call themselves gods.


Let me reiterate.
Your points were nonsense.

If your points followed with empirical data, while disregarding the god redefinition, I would have long made that publicly known.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that you are the sole and objective arbiter of what is or isn't nonsense.
You aren't.
"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: 27133
Age: 28
Male

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

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

#360  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 22, 2017 8:11 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Also completely immaterial. In both senses of the word.


Illustris is not "immaterial". Illustris is an empirically observable phenomenon.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
(b) I did not say a was an actual universe. Ironically, the redefinition purges that our universe was forged by some higher being, but instead, crude universes (SIMULATIONS) such that humans are creators of said constructs...

Again, computers are gods.


Yes, any machine/entity with general human level intelligence (if possible) is god-bound. (As mentioned in the redefinition)
We already see cognitive machines exceeding humans in some cognitive task, and machines do more and more cognitive tasks as time passes. (As far as is empirically observed)

Image
http://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_scie ... an_atheist

However, no such computer/artificial machine yet exists, as far as I am aware.
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Apr 22, 2017 8:20 am, 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

PreviousNext

Return to General Science & Technology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest