Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Why God is scientifically redefinable (an atheist article)

#1  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Mar 22, 2017 2:05 pm

Image

Why is God scientifically redefinable?

(a) Recall that humanity had not always had rigorous modern science.

(b) Recall that a root guess that the universe perhaps began/had an origin-source; with respect to creator-styled entity sequences (the typical archaic claimed God, See any archaic cosmology that encompassed creator-typed god) had been established prior to modern science . (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawking singularity theorems ...)

(c) Recall that science is a medium that updates, as scientists produce new data. However, until now, the archaic science of Gods was not updated in modern science terms.

(d) For example, recall 'astronomy'. Science updated from astronomy in antiquity to modern astronomy. The word 'astronomy' maintained regardless.


...
And so, "god" is updatable in modern science terms.



...
Adapted from paper:
https://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_sci ... an_atheist
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Mar 23, 2017 11:07 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

Ads by Google


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

#2  Postby Rumraket » Mar 23, 2017 9:49 am

So little of this makes any sense. Perhaps most of all the fact that your post begins with a picture of a painting of Isaac Newton.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12640
Age: 37
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

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

#3  Postby Rumraket » Mar 23, 2017 9:51 am

So your post amounts to the statement 'the meanings of words change over time, so we should change the meaning of the word God to mean something specific in science, associated with cosmology and the beginning of the universe'.

Here's an idea: Nope.

I like my idea better.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12640
Age: 37
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

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

#4  Postby Sendraks » Mar 23, 2017 10:07 am

You could redefine God in such a way. Well you could try to do it. I imagine that you'd fail abysmally.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13766
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

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

#5  Postby Animavore » Mar 23, 2017 10:08 am

I'd imagine that any redefinition would be absolutely unacceptable to many theists and not what they believe at all.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 39166
Age: 39
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

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

#6  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Mar 23, 2017 10:22 am

Animavore wrote:I'd imagine that any redefinition would be absolutely unacceptable to many theists and not what they believe at all.


Both atheists and theists would probably disregard such a redefinition.

Anyway, as an atheist (I have zero belief, so naturally I lack belief in God or gods) I am not bounded by such emotional biases.

This is because the redefinition occurred on the boundary of science, and one need not believe in God as redefined via science above above.

This is why I had come to invent a paradigm called 'non-beliefism'.
[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 sn

#7  Postby Fallible » Mar 23, 2017 11:35 am

Rumraket wrote:So little of this makes any sense. Perhaps most of all the fact that your post begins with a picture of a painting of Isaac Newton.


He edited it after you responded, so now your post doesn't make sense. That's a bit naughty.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 44346
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#8  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Mar 23, 2017 1:56 pm

Fallible wrote:
Rumraket wrote:So little of this makes any sense. Perhaps most of all the fact that your post begins with a picture of a painting of Isaac Newton.


He edited it after you responded, so now your post doesn't make sense. That's a bit naughty.


I didn't notice his comment.
But anyway, any grabby image shall suffice...
[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)

#9  Postby Keep It Real » Mar 23, 2017 2:01 pm

My definition of god is compatible with science, so yes, in light of scientific facts god can be redefined to fit with the known truths about the world.
"What's it like to be rich? You can't have two lunches." - some famous musician.
"Who want's activism?" PMSL 'till I dehydrate and die in the desert - somebody.
https://soundcloud.com/sciteks
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 4373
Age: 36
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

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

#10  Postby Sendraks » Mar 23, 2017 2:17 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
But anyway, any grabby image shall suffice...


I can see you've really though this through.
:coffee:

Regardless, you don't make post-hoc changes to your posts when people have already commented, where those changes might make the subsequent comments look out of place or misleading, without some sort of acknowledge of those comments in your editing.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13766
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

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

#11  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Mar 23, 2017 5:10 pm

Sendraks wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
But anyway, any grabby image shall suffice...


I can see you've really though this through.
:coffee:

Regardless, you don't make post-hoc changes to your posts when people have already commented, where those changes might make the subsequent comments look out of place or misleading, without some sort of acknowledge of those comments in your editing.


As I said, I had not noticed his comment...
[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 sn

#12  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Mar 23, 2017 5:11 pm

Sendraks wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
But anyway, any grabby image shall suffice...


I can see you've really though this through.
:coffee:

Regardless, you don't make post-hoc changes to your posts when people have already commented, where those changes might make the subsequent comments look out of place or misleading, without some sort of acknowledge of those comments in your editing.


Yes, like humble astronomy (that included mythical components) the archaic God is likewise redefinable to fit the truths of the world....
[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)

#13  Postby Thommo » Mar 23, 2017 5:19 pm

Astronomy became scientific in the same way that medicine, physics, biology and other sciences did: Keep the bits that fit evidence, throw out the mythology and develop a rigorous method of inquiry.

If you do that to theology there's nothing left.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21926

Print view this post

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

#14  Postby newolder » Mar 23, 2017 5:25 pm

The truths of the world, eh? Can't wait to read that list (unless it's DisneyWorldTM again)...
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 3843
Age: 6
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

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

#15  Postby LucidFlight » Mar 23, 2017 6:00 pm

Fallible wrote:
Rumraket wrote:So little of this makes any sense. Perhaps most of all the fact that your post begins with a picture of a painting of Isaac Newton.


He edited it after you responded, so now your post doesn't make sense. That's a bit naughty.

Yeah, I was thinking, Samuel L Jackson has never played Isaac Newton in any movies that I know of.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Bob Bobson
Posts: 9087
Male

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

Ads by Google


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

#16  Postby Fallible » Mar 23, 2017 6:08 pm

Ah, that you know of.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 44346
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

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

#17  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Mar 23, 2017 6:36 pm

Thommo wrote:Astronomy became scientific in the same way that medicine, physics, biology and other sciences did: Keep the bits that fit evidence, throw out the mythology and develop a rigorous method of inquiry.


If you do that to theology there's nothing left.


(A)
If we do that to typical archaic gods, entities with particular abilities remain:

(1) ability to create universes
(2) ability to create non-trivial intelligence



(B)
Modern neuroscience shows that humans can create non-trivial intelligence by learning tasks etc.

Modern events show humans creating sophisticated simulations of our cosmos.

So, universe yielding abilities are not separate from science.
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Mar 23, 2017 6:50 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)

#18  Postby Thommo » Mar 23, 2017 6:49 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Thommo wrote:Astronomy became scientific in the same way that medicine, physics, biology and other sciences did: Keep the bits that fit evidence, throw out the mythology and develop a rigorous method of inquiry.


If you do that to theology there's nothing left.


(A)
If we do that to typical archaic gods, entities with particular abilities remain:

(1) create universes
(2) create non-trivial intelligence


Those are not qualities common to gods actually. Thor didn't do either of those things, Hades didn't do those things.

Also, it's worth attention that the correct analogue of "astronomy" is "theology" and not gods. If you look at some element of astronomy that survived the pre-scientific to scientific transition, it's usually some observable like a star, moon or planet or some feature of the periodic behaviour of those observables.

There are no analogous features of gods, the closest we can get is conventions of things that the divine has in common, which does not in fact include the capacity for universe creation.

It thus seems likely that redefining the language of theology to describe a "cause of the universe" (if there is one) or somesuch to be a "god" is more likely to obfuscate than clarify.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:(B)
Modern neuroscience shows that humans can create non-trivial intelligence by learning tasks etc.


I don't think it does. Machine learning hasn't sprung out of neuroscience and it's far from clear that calling that "non-trivial intelligence" is accurate.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Modern events show humans creating sophisticated simulations of our cosmos.

So, universe yielding abilities are not separate from science.


Simulations, by definition are not universe yielding, so that seems to be an error.

Again, it might also be worth mentioning the difference in sophistication between any simulation of our cosmos and the actual cosmos. There's an enormous amount of ground covered in the equivocation over treating them both with the label of "sophisticated".

It's always worth contextualising these sorts of comparison and humans can't actually simulate anything as complex in terms of intelligence as an ant brain. Let alone a planet of trillions of intelligent organisms, or the solar system of thousands of massive objects in which it resides or the galaxy of tens of billions of stars in which that resides or the observable universe of tens of billions of galaxies, or whatever larger structure that resides in.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21926

Print view this post

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

#19  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Mar 23, 2017 6:58 pm

Thommo wrote:
Also, it's worth attention that the correct analogue of "astronomy" is "theology" and not gods. If you look at some element of astronomy that survived the pre-scientific to scientific transition, it's usually some observable like a star, moon or planet or some feature of the periodic behaviour of those observables.

There are no analogous features of gods, the closest we can get is conventions of things that the divine has in common, which does not in fact include the capacity for universe creation.

It thus seems likely that redefining the language of theology to describe a "cause of the universe" (if there is one) or somesuch to be a "god" is more likely to obfuscate than clarify.


Modern science, such as digital physics, etc describe a construct by which universe may emerge from computation.
Modern science, such as penrose hawking singularity theorems describe origins.

In other words, our universe may be both computable, and may have emerged.



Thommo wrote:

Those are not qualities common to gods actually. Thor didn't do either of those things, Hades didn't do those things.



This is why the document referred to the concept of creator styled gods.

The class of creator styled archaic Gods is updatable therein.

Code: Select all
Also, keep in mind that science has been observed to update words/concepts such as 'gravity', that had multiple meanings to various cultures.


Thommo wrote:

I don't think it does. Machine learning hasn't sprung out of neuroscience and it's far from clear that calling that "non-trivial intelligence" is accurate.


You misunderstood my prior comment.

I was referring to the instance that humans can self-engineer their brains by learning tasks, i.e. they can produce smarter instances of themselves, aka create non-trivial intelligence.


Thommo wrote:
Simulations, by definition are not universe yielding, so that seems to be an error.

Again, it might also be worth mentioning the difference in sophistication between any simulation of our cosmos and the actual cosmos. There's an enormous amount of ground covered in the equivocation over treating them both with the label of "sophisticated"


This does not change the instance that universe yielding is a human performable construct. (albeit crude universe yielding)

Remember that the redefinition aims to purge scientifically unfounded properties. Perhaps the creation of a cosmos of our detail is not possible, but we already see cognitive machines that exceed humans in cognitive tasks.

So, there is indication that whatever our universe consists of, may be sufficient to construct environments that may garner non-trivial artificial 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)

#20  Postby Thommo » Mar 23, 2017 7:07 pm

So boiling that down to something more economical in its use of words:-

- Humans learn.
- The universe may or may not have been "created".

Agreed on both points. That's not actually informative though. The purpose of redefinition is clarification, I gave my reasons for suspecting this proposal would obfuscate rather than clarify. I'm not seeing anything that could even hypothetically lead to a reason to change that suspicion.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21926

Print view this post

Next

Return to General Science & Technology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest