1 of 2
1
Scientific evidence of God (by an atheist)
Posted: 20 November 2016 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2016-11-20

{{{THIS IS READABLE IN FOUR MINUTES}}}
{{{CLICK image to automatically ENLARGE it}}}

.

.

.

vNvaWxL.png title=source: imgur.com

.

.

.

Alternatively, see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SasizIMHKOI


Original article:
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f24a0b#.e7t3se5be

Author:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
http://folioverse.appspot.com/

[Source Code] Naive Approximation/Basis of God:
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God

.

.

.

.

.

.

**INTRIGUING NOTE**

(‘A’)


I had tweeted to Sam Harris (an atheist neuroscientist), notifying him of my ATHEISTIC nature, WHILST stipulating of his closed mindedness (I had used expletives) - in NOT recognizing the likely hood of non-omniscient Gods, (on scientific observation).

A few weeks after said tweet, Sam conceded of the serious possibility, that mankind shall likely compose a type of ‘God’ in this video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg&nohtml5=False

SEE video section “14:08”.


(‘B’)


I have not any certainty, whether I had influenced his video, but I had tweeted him the article stipulated in the original post.
Here is the article once more:
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f24a0b#.gew83ll3i

(‘C’)

Albeit, not all beings are as reasonable as Sam Harris, or other scientists, which is quite disappointing.


(‘D’)
Albeit, it is quite likely, that Gods are on the horizon: http://god-is-coming.appspot.com/

[ Edited: 21 November 2016 10:07 PM by ProgrammingGodJordan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2016 01:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21

You are reading things in to Sam’s AI talk that aren’t there. This is like hearing the Beatles talk to you through their albums.

You are not talking about “God” in any traditional sense, rather god-like powers that we have been obtaining for a few thousand years. This is just a new twist on the god of the gaps argument.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2016 10:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2016-11-20
Lausten - 21 November 2016 01:08 PM

You are reading things in to Sam’s AI talk that aren’t there. This is like hearing the Beatles talk to you through their albums.

You are not talking about “God” in any traditional sense, rather god-like powers that we have been obtaining for a few thousand years. This is just a new twist on the god of the gaps argument.

 

(‘A’)

Incorrect. It appears that you have failed to reduce the passage (ABSENT opinion/belief/faith)

 

(‘A.i’)

Note that I am atheisticOne need not belief/faith/certainty/opinionsuch that one observes PROBABILITIES.[ielikelihood of the existence of God-bound entities]
Already existent
are compute models that express 10^14 synaptic operations/sof the estimated 10^+16 synaptic operation/s amidst the human neuronal process

 

(‘A.ii’)

Furthermore, I simply highlight that Sam, a prominent atheist, expressed of the likely creation of God-related entities, (perhaps on the boundary of my tweet to him, weeks PRIOR to his said saying)

 


(‘B’)

OF COURSE, God is likely properly naturally defined, on the regime of scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences, [Moore’s Law etc] such that TRADITION is disregarded. [AS EXPRESSED AMIDST THE ORIGINAL POST]

 

 

(‘C’)

Mankind partially satisfies the theistic definition qua God, particularly possessing the ability to likely generate non trivial intelligence.

The theistic God definition simply likely fails to entirely obtainon the boundary of said scientific sequencewhence mankind (of non-omniscientnon-omnipotent qualitypartially satisfies the theistic definition qua Godparticularly possessing the ability to likely generate non trivial intelligence

However, mankind, of non-omniscient, non-omnipotent quality, predominantly disregards the theistic God definition.

Thusly, the theistic traditional God definition is likely quite wrong, or rather very minutely accurate; God is thereafter, NATURALLY ACCURATELY any likely NON-OMNISCIENT, NON-OMNIPOTENT entity with the ability to generate non trivial intelligence, as seen in the likelihood of mankind’s (of non-omniscient, non-omnipotent quality) said ability.

[ Edited: 21 November 2016 10:27 PM by ProgrammingGodJordan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2016 07:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2016-11-29

Such a system will rely upon a continuum style computer since space and time are continuous.

I can see some potential in this line of thinking, particularly within continuous time tremendous freedoms can be unleashed; as if the big bang happened only a moment ago to these supposed gods.

I’ll take the polytheistic road when forced to choose, but before this I worship the sun. Likely that’s as far as they can see: cute little sparklers.

This line of thinking is cause for a pretty large break with the physics that has been built up. As a formal assumption it does insinuate .

Your formatting above is troublesome on this site. Plain text is probably better.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2016 11:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  244
Joined  2015-12-10

Uh…who cares? Why should anyone care? What difference does it make? How do you know?

 Signature 

By expanding knowledge of the real, reduce the environmental footprint of of ignorance…in any and every way you most desire.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 December 2016 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2016-12-21

This does not show that God exists or probably exists.  It shows that an advanced intelligence could be created in the future.  This intelligence, however, would not be a god.  A “god” by definition is a hypothetical supernatural intelligent agent.  The advanced intelligence would not be supernatural.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2016 08:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1337
Joined  2005-01-14
Gary Whittenberger - 21 December 2016 01:49 PM

This does not show that God exists or probably exists.  It shows that an advanced intelligence could be created in the future.  This intelligence, however, would not be a god.  A “god” by definition is a hypothetical supernatural intelligent agent.  The advanced intelligence would not be supernatural.

Which is the reason I didn’t even bother to respond to the Original Post.  I find that there’s no percentage in talking to people who define “god” any old way they want.  smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2017 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
Advocatus - 28 December 2016 08:06 AM
Gary Whittenberger - 21 December 2016 01:49 PM

This does not show that God exists or probably exists.  It shows that an advanced intelligence could be created in the future.  This intelligence, however, would not be a god.  A “god” by definition is a hypothetical supernatural intelligent agent.  The advanced intelligence would not be supernatural.

Which is the reason I didn’t even bother to respond to the Original Post.  I find that there’s no percentage in talking to people who define “god” any old way they want.  smile

Ok, I don’t want to muddy this up. But here are a couple of facts the way I understand them.
If you are using the term “GOD” as a name. Then by a timeline it is NT.
 
The NT timeline used a lot of Stoics thinking. Which is: God. A preconception is an innate disposition to form certain conceptions. The most frequently mentioned preconceptions are the concept of the good and the concept of God. Since the Stoics held that the soul is a blank sheet at birth, the preconception cannot be a specific cognition but only an innate disposition to form certain concepts.

And the Greeks in that timeline used Logos for Jesus, which means “word”, “discourse” or “reason”.

Point being. That God is a concept. Jesus is logic or the intelligent you are talking about. And the Christians were having a hard time figuring out how all this was going to come together. I mean, you got God and Jesus together to make one god. But now you also have the soul, which being blank at birth gains knowledge. Thus making every person with a soul and knowledge part of god. As the Stoics thinking is: The human soul is a portion of God within us, both animating us and endowing us with reason and intelligence.
   
Now, you have to ask yourself. If all this is not explained in the bible stories, then why is this part of Christianity? And it is because they had to know what god is and what god is not.
 
Thus they came up with the doctrine of the Trinity. Where you have God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit.  It may have solved the problem of what god is and is not at the time. But today, it is not fully agreed upon what all the god like functions of the Holy Spirit are. But it is agreed by the doctrine of the Trinity that you need all three or you don’t have a NT god.
 
Point being, that if the NT god does exist, then he has only been around for less than 1,700 years as a trinity god.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2017 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2016-12-21

Yohe said “If you are using the term “GOD” as a name. Then by a timeline it is NT.”

When I use “God” I use it as a proper name for one particular god.  “God is the hypothetical distinct, unique, spiritual person who is necessarily existing, everlasting, everywhere-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, fully free, self-sufficient, perfectly moral, and supremely authoritative; who created our universe and any others which might exist; who at least sometimes intervenes in our universe, especially in human affairs; who wants us humans to believe and behave in certain ways in our current lives for which he sometimes rewards us in an afterlife; and who wants us not to believe and behave in other ways for which he sometimes punishes us in an afterlife.”  This is the god common to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and possibly a few other groups. 

Jews, Christians, and Muslims don’t all agree on the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, or even a soul. 

Also, an advanced intelligent being need not be a god.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2017 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
Gary Whittenberger - 03 January 2017 06:11 AM

Yohe said “If you are using the term “GOD” as a name. Then by a timeline it is NT.”

When I use “God” I use it as a proper name for one particular god.  “God is the hypothetical distinct, unique, spiritual person who is necessarily existing, everlasting, everywhere-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, fully free, self-sufficient, perfectly moral, and supremely authoritative; who created our universe and any others which might exist; who at least sometimes intervenes in our universe, especially in human affairs; who wants us humans to believe and behave in certain ways in our current lives for which he sometimes rewards us in an afterlife; and who wants us not to believe and behave in other ways for which he sometimes punishes us in an afterlife.”  This is the god common to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and possibly a few other groups. 

Jews, Christians, and Muslims don’t all agree on the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, or even a soul. 

Also, an advanced intelligent being need not be a god.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. You are only using one-third or two-thirds of the Trinity. Therefore you are not using GOD unless you use all three-thirds of GOD. The Trinity and the Roman Church is very, very clear on this point. And most people today understand that the Trinity God is not the same god as in the OT. It is not even the same god as understood by the Eastern Orthodox Christians because they don’t agree with the Trinity. They wanted to keep the OT god the same as the NT god. And the Trinity god needs Jesus to form the one god.
 
If you use timelines, then you understand that religion has been around for 100 to 300 thousand years. Religion started in the Age of Domestication. Religion in that age had heaven and spirit but no god. Several of those old religions from the Age of Domestication are still with us today. They had no need for a god then, and they have no need for a god today in their religion. Gods that came about in the Age of Deities started off as stars, animals and evolved to humans. The human gods were mostly married with children.
 
Going back to the Age of Domestication according to passed down pre-history stories. You had the people that were known as the upper and lower gods. Thus the term god, meant “knowledge”. Jesus taught a lot of Gnostic script. Gnostic means “knowledge”. And the Greeks referred to Jesus as Logos, or “knowledge”. The painting in the churches portray Jesus as standing on a Gnostic Cloud. The Gnostic Cloud is formed when a lot of knowledge is gathered in one place. The cloud lights up and omits lights of knowledge. Thus the people understood Jesus as a teacher of knowledge. Known as a Buddha in the East.
 
Point being. The Churches and Popes who could talk directly to God himself have not been able to agree on a standard meaning of “god is” and “god is not”. But we have preachers all across the Bible belt that will tell you what god is and is not. So, how can they be talking about the same god? Both cannot be the prime authority.
 
I am not even going to get into the “afterlife”. Why should I if the bible couldn’t really explain it? Afterlife in the time before gods came to be was fully explained and understood.
 
Gary, you explained what the today’s god of belief is pretty good. But that is not the god that can be found in past history. So, I would have to place your god on the timeline of gods as evolving from the 1860’s and evolving with changes thought the creation verses evolution thinking. 
 
Your god has the common factors of most of the other gods. And that is as you stated “all-knowing”. The knowledge factor.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2017 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2016-12-21

All those other gods you speak of are only of historical interest to me.  I’m focused on “God” as believed in by most of the people in the world right now, the one for which I provided the definition.

The evidence for God’s existence is poor, and there are several strong arguments against his existence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2017 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
Gary Whittenberger - 21 December 2016 01:49 PM

This does not show that God exists or probably exists.  It shows that an advanced intelligence could be created in the future.  This intelligence, however, would not be a god.  A “god” by definition is a hypothetical supernatural intelligent agent.  The advanced intelligence would not be supernatural.

Of course it wouldn’t be, it would be limited by the same physical laws that govern all processes in the Universe.

This would come under the category of sufficiently advanced technology appearing as magic to cultures of a much lower level of advancement.

For instance if FTL is impossible as it appears to be now then this A.I. “god” isn’t going to travel from place to place faster than photons can.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2017 12:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
Gary Whittenberger - 03 January 2017 10:23 AM

All those other gods you speak of are only of historical interest to me.  I’m focused on “God” as believed in by most of the people in the world right now, the one for which I provided the definition.

The evidence for God’s existence is poor, and there are several strong arguments against his existence.

Gary I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. There is just one major flaw to the theory. And that is no one really believes in the god you described. Not even one percent of one percent. The actions of people speaks louder than words when it comes to proving the real beliefs of people. One example is actions of the bone boxes. Totally contrary reactions for anyone that really thought or believed in god. Another was the Nag Hammadi Library. If people really believed what you claim, then it does not matter that these gospels did not make it into the bible. If they talked about the messages from god, your god, and they do. Then that should have been enough to get full attention and not denial. I think you will find that a lot of believers will know a lot more about their favorite sports team than about their god. Ask yourself, if you were born on the other side of the earth and to a different god. Do you think you would be believing in that god as much and you do your god? Point being, when did you start believing and what was that believing based upon? God is not the only example of an accepted theory by most of the population in the world. The major population belived at one time that you got your knowledge by sun light entering your eyes with knowledge and the knowledge resided in your heart. Then it was not that long ago that the whole population believed in Ether Winds, something that never really existed except in the minds of the people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2017 05:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21

DougC doesn’t believe in god Mike. He gets that there is a history of gods. His interest is in the current version of Christianity and other religions that are affecting the current political landscape. You seem to be straddling two worlds. On the one hand, you have some theories about the evolution of belief and the term “god”. But when you start talking about actual people that use these terms, you don’t seem to get that they don’t care about your theories. They only care about what they are told in Sunday School. They don’t care about Nag Hamadi because those never made it into the canon. They don’t care that the canonization process was a few men who didn’t know what they were doing or where the scripture they had came from. They believed they had words from God, the Christian God, and their king told them to make the words mean things that would keep them all powerful, so they did.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2017 08:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
DougC - 03 January 2017 06:12 PM

For instance if FTL is impossible as it appears to be now then this A.I. “god” isn’t going to travel from place to place faster than photons can.

Oh ye of little faith. God can do anything, don’tchya know. He can read our thoughts, ignore our prayers and flit about the universe at will.

Children dying of cancer is just part of his plan.

[ Edited: 04 January 2017 08:43 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2017 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 04 January 2017 05:27 AM

DougC doesn’t believe in god Mike. He gets that there is a history of gods. His interest is in the current version of Christianity and other religions that are affecting the current political landscape. You seem to be straddling two worlds. On the one hand, you have some theories about the evolution of belief and the term “god”. But when you start talking about actual people that use these terms, you don’t seem to get that they don’t care about your theories. They only care about what they are told in Sunday School. They don’t care about Nag Hamadi because those never made it into the canon. They don’t care that the canonization process was a few men who didn’t know what they were doing or where the scripture they had came from. They believed they had words from God, the Christian God, and their king told them to make the words mean things that would keep them all powerful, so they did.

Your right. If you boil it down. Most people will believe in items that they think is best for them for social and personal reasons. Call it human survival. The point I am trying to work my way to with Gary is that AI just might replace god in the not to distance future. To do that I have to point out what god really is or the discussion will never reach the point. This post is about AI and god so a foundation needs to laid down to connect the two.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1