Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Must a God, or some superior being, prove its existence?

Are we programmed by the Bible to think that God must be available to us as the Bible projects the events? Is it more likely that a superior life form from space would very likely be available to us than a true God of creation? Was the Biblical God a visitor from space intent on subjugating people of Earth?

.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Jim said - Was the Biblical God a visitor from space intent on subjugating people of Earth?

Jim, if so, he wasn't very successful, could we be any more war-like?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44
R
Ric Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44
I'm with you there, Blacknad. It seems to be in our nature to do things we're told not to do.


"The first Human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization." -Sigmund Freud
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
I doubt this topic will find much favor, or interest with the members so I will elaborate a little before it fades away. Our western world concept of God comes to us primarily from the Biblical record. It speaks from a burning bush, privately on a mountain top, travels in a cloud by day any appears as a light by night. It chooses a group of humans to carry out murder and genocide against its neighbors and after various killings and poisonings offers the chosen the escape from Egypt ? only after telling the chosen to borrow (steal) jewels and animals from the Egyptian?s before they leave Egypt. It is unable to easily communicate directly with its followers very well so a special Ark must be made to convey the signals. Most of the miracles, other than killing ?enemy? soldiers, take the form of natural phenomena, like parting water, and such.

I can accept there is logic to a superior being that creates but not one that is bent on destruction simply for personal attention. We can recognize this as an all too human trait and not what one would expect of a superior life form. If this life form deceived humans into submission it would have been due to some superior science it possessed which appeared like magic to humans.

I do not intend to demean the beliefs of others but this my take on the subject.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Jim,

I'm interested and don't see this as demeaning my beliefs. In fact, these are issues I grapple with myself and it is important to question them and not brush them under the carpet. Christianity is full of embarrassments for the onlooker with contemporary sensibilities.

Just a small point - you say:
...not one that is bent on destruction simply for personal attention.

This statement doesn't accurately represent any biblical picture of God and I would have a real problem with a superior being who's destruction is in effect just saying 'Hey - look at me.' There are other reasons why God destroys and its those that need questioning, not straw men.

I think it is a useful exercise to define how you would expect a god to communicate - and what. Also how you would expect it to act towards it's creation. This is a good basis for discussion, but understandably may take more time than you have to give to something like this.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4
P
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4
Jim,
I am of the opinion that there is a creative energy for sure which is the basic ingredient of everything in the universe. The question only is whether it is concious of its creation or not.


physic
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
jjw said, re the Biblical God?s methods:
...not one that is bent on destruction simply for personal attention.

Blacknad questioned:

This statement doesn't accurately represent any biblical picture of God and I would have a real problem with a superior being who's destruction is in effect just saying 'Hey - look at me.' There are other reasons why God destroys and its those that need questioning, not straw men.

Jjw reply:

While the bible presents much that may require interpretation this issue is not one that I see in doubt. References to things like ?there shall be no other gods before you?; the killing of the followers that made ?craven images? or worshiped Bal or did any squeaky thing diverting their attention or worship of ?it? elsewhere, was enough to warrant extinction. Every where within the bible the followers are compelled to submit to this one and only this one supreme control. That, to me, is the ultimate in seeking complete attention and getting it by force.

Possibly I simply read it differently from you. I see no free will offered by the Bible?s God. Those that had other beliefs were destroyed, routinely. This is very much like the conduct of people, not gods. There is a curious fact in the bible story to the effect that the Hebrew god never had the Hebrews directly attack Egypt as it did all of the other surrounding land owners. True, some alleged miracles of torture were visited upon the Egyptians while Moses bargained for their release (and god hardened pharaoh?s heart against the release?) but that was about it. The Egyptians had a litany of gods of all types and designs but that did not seem to upset the Hebrew god all that much.

I am probably committed to the idea that the benefactors of the Hebrews were not gods as creators of heaven and earth but rather some travelers with advanced science that decided to have some fun at humanities expense. Where did they go? It is just as likely as not that they ran short of fuel and had to split. Did their god die? Do not confuse the biblical god with the entity known as Jesus Christ. They are two different stories and different attitudes. That is all my preaching for today. Is this origins?
jjw

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
"Must a God, or some superior being, prove its existence?"

Well if it wants us to give it all our money and spend our time worshiping it then YES it bloody-well does!

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I'm not sure a god or superior being must prove its existence. But if there is no proof of its existence then it is irrelevant.

Except to those who use the threat of it to control other people's lives and money.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
jjw: "Must a God, or some superior being, prove its existence?"

To what end? For it's own good, perhaps not. But for us to believe in it, I think we should expect some strong evidence. Not "proof", but strong evidence.

But "God" and "superior being" are not necessarily synonymous. A "superior being" isn't necessarily supernatural. God is. "Superior Beings" may or may not be.

da: "I'm not sure a god or superior being must prove its existence. But if there is no proof of its existence then it is irrelevant."

EXACTLY!

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
God doesnt have to prove its existence because its God. Think about it. If I were a God. and you said "prove it". I'd say "go to hell" I dont answer to you [content deleted], I'm God."

Then I'd say "Without me you wouldnt be you so Shut the hell up!"

Plus: If you're asking for proof then that is proof enough that you believe enought to ask. So don't ask, and you will be an athiest.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"God doesnt have to prove its existence because its God."

'have to' is ambiguous terminology.

"Without me you wouldnt be you so Shut the hell up!"

I've noticed that gods tend to be as petty or noble as the people who imagine them.

"Plus: If you're asking for proof then that is proof enough that you believe enought to ask. So don't ask, and you will be an athiest."

No it isn't. If a person is open-minded he is willing to change his opinions based on available evidence. Unfortunately, many believers expect others to accept their testimony without any evidence. "Believe this because I believe it."

Believers aren't irritated that atheists don't believe in God - they're irritated by the fact that we don't agree with them.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
Very good. However the topic of the forum is not "Bash other peoples opinions because they're not as good as yours." Not to mention the logo says "whats on your mind" Not, "whats on your mind that its ok with the that ass the FalseFriend to express"
So Long. And thanks for all the attention.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Very good. However the topic of the forum is not "Bash other peoples opinions because they're not as good as yours." Not to mention the logo says "whats on your mind" Not, "whats on your mind that its ok with the that ass the FalseFriend to express"

The topic of this thead is "Must a God be available to us?"

I addressed that issue. I didn't bash your view. I criticized it - and rightly so, because it was wrong.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
This was my misbegotten post.

One of the things I had in mind was the difference between the Bibicle rendidtion where it is projected that their god was there with them talking to them and physically guiding them, and then its gone and no comment is offered as to why, where or when. This behavior to me suggests the possibilit that their so called god was a visitor from space and not "god" at all.

I know that space visitor will find antagonism with some members but if you accept the bible version the behavior of "god" is much more like that of a maniacle person at times.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
There is no evidence that there was a visitor from space.

There is no evidence that there is a god.

There is no evidence that anything in the universe requires the presence of either except by those who make their living preying on weak minds. For them gods, Santa Claus, and aliens are essential.


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
"Must a God, or some superior being, prove its existence?"

How do you mean; "Must" in what sense? In order to satisfy our couriosity; in order to make us jump through hoops?

"Must" in order to satisfy our "belief/knowledge" of "God"?

Obviously, too many, God has proved his/her/its existence
(the bible says so)..OTOH to many others; there is NO GOD.

So your question relates to the ego of God or to the satisfaction of humanity.

Interesting question. Taking DA Morgan's stance; God would not have let atrocities such as mass deaths occur (given a). what we believe to be God's morality and b). any "just" God would not let human suffering occur (what does God care about anything less than human [was Jesus an echinoderm or chimpanzee?.. no, supposedly, a human.].


Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Mung wrote:
""Must" in order to satisfy our "belief/knowledge" of "God"?"

I have no need that requires satisfying. But if you wish please amuse us by explaining the creation of smallpox.

God hasn't proven anything to anyone: Ever! What we have here is a bunch of mentally and morally weak people incapable of thinking for themselves and wishing to be told what to think, what to do, what is right, what is wrong, and hoping to be forgiven for being who they really are.

Your God, according to your bible, murdered every person on the planet except one family.

Your God, according to your bible, murdered every first-born male in an entire country.

Your God, according to your bible, invented anthrax, smallpox, diptheria, leukemia, and AIDS.

Oh and wants to be prayed to and worshipped. Not bad for six day's work.

And if you want to play your little game of not being a born-again fundamentalist nut-case by all means feel free to renounce the Bible. And please use a very clearly worded sentence. Thanks.


DA Morgan
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi Mung:

I must be getting vauge in my old age.

The Biblical characters appear to have believed strongly in THEIR god because he was there with them, talking, guiding and murdering them.
If THAT "god" was around would we believe?
Or whatever.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw004 wrote:
"I must be getting vauge in my old age. The Biblical characters appear to have believed strongly in THEIR god because he was there with them, talking, guiding and murdering them."

Not old ... just daft.

Your source of this information is the bible so lets see how that stands up.

1. Who wrote it? (provide proof)

2. When did they write it? (provide proof)

3. In what language did they write it (provide proof)

4. Did you read the original text?

5. If not which specific version did you read and how do you know it is 100% true in translation to the original? (provide proof)

6. If what you claim as proof in each of the above situations is, in fact, empirical proof, then it should be proof to a Jew and a Moslem and a Buddhist and a Hindu and followers of Janism, Shinto, Animism, etc. Certainly they don't quibble about the color of the sky or the temperature at which water boils or whether penicillin works. So there it is. Make your choice ... mindless hypocrite or step up to the challenge and explain to all what we've been missing all these millenia.

PS: If the invisible purple rhinoceros walked up to me, lifted his leg, and emptied his bladder I'd believe in him too. Neither is going to happen. And any person even remotely connected with reality knows you question is valueless.


DA Morgan
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi DA, you are at it again:

jjw said:
"The Biblical characters appear to have believed strongly in THEIR god because he was there with them, talking, guiding and murdering them."
If THAT "god" was around would we believe?

That is Hypo which expects you to accept the "fact" that the Biblical characters appear to have believed in "their" god, and by implication they feared their god.

You say the thought is valueless because you want me to identify the author(s) and all the people allegedly involved and that is not in any way relevant to the issue.

I think that if you were a member of Moses team you would have been on your knees as fast as the rest of them- But that is of no matter either.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw004 ... using your criterion a good read of Harry Potter would lead one to have empirical proof of the existence of a school of sorcery.

The only difference is that I know the author's name, I know in what language it was written, and I know I am reading a faithful copy of the original.

All hail our lord god Harry Potter. Magician to the universe. Now get down on your knees, pray for foregiveness, maybe Harry and the Invisible Purple Rhino will foregive you.

If I were on Moses' team here's precisely what I would have done. I would have told Moses there was zero proof that anything happened other than that he carved up some stuff when no one was looking
(he had adequate time and if any god had existed the tablets could have been handed to them i npublic), thht we'd been wandering in the stinkin' desert for a long long time due to the fact that his so-called god didn't give a damn about us. That many innocent children had died for no reason due to diseases, all so he could cajole a bunch of people into honoring a mass murderer.

Yes mass murderer. I know religious people have conveniently short memories but some of us would remember that innocent children were murdered in Egypt.

But no doubt you would have been as big a sycophant then as you are now. Toadying up to the inventor of smallpox and giving thanks for his goodness and love. You see some of us have a moral compass that still points to magnetic north.


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Maybe God, if there ever was one, is "deceased
".. no longer etc..thereby negating ever satisfying his/her/its existence.

p.s. DA Morgan, I truly enjoy your invisible purple rhinoceros analogy; quit a hoot.

Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Thank you DA:
Your comment "But no doubt you would have been as big a sycophant then as you are now. Toadying up to the inventor of smallpox and giving thanks for his goodness and love. You see some of us have a moral compass that still points to magnetic north.", assumes I am one of your hated Bible thumpers and that is not correct. The closest I come to belief in anything would probably make me an Adiest. But that is also not relevant.

This time I thought your humor outweighed your antaganisim, well done.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Mung ... I thank you and IPR thanks you too.

jjw004 ... we thank you too.

And the reason I take you as a bible thumper is that you write things such as:

"The Biblical characters appear to have believed strongly in THEIR god because he was there with them, talking, guiding and murdering them."

Your words.

This statement is no different than writing:

"In the latest Harry Potter book characters appear to believe strongly in ...."

Both statements are equal.

I'm planning to seek IPR's advice and write a book too. In it he will give brain-dead advice such as "love your neighbor as yourself" (most people don't like themselves very much), don't eat your children, and if you are going to kill yourself please don't make a big mess for someone else to clean up. I will then apply for tax exempt status and hopefully make as much money as all of the other professional con men and liars.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
Is this a forum for discussion, or a forum for conformity?

I would think that people as intelligent as you all claim to be, would take this opportunity to educate, not humiliate.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
There are many different ways to convey an idea. One can do so by being a good example. One can do so by lecturing or referencing a textbook. One can also do so with cynicism and sarcasm. Each one may be effective in some situations and ineffective in others.

If you think you have a different approach to offer than please do so. Criticizing the approach taken by others is not going to teach anyone anthing.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
You sound like me

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi Mung:
I think you implode way too easily.

My purpose for continuing on this Forum, even though I am using time that could be spent with better purpose elsewhere, is because I can be objective in the face of vocalized nonsense. Some of you are not sufficiently exposed to tolerate that kind of fungus. I am a retired administrative law trial lawyer so I have had a lot of exposure to many, if not all, of the types that seek to get you off balance by projecting themselves as your superiors. Not with me.

The easiest way to start this program is to demean whatever it is you have to say. If they are not far enough advanced in your subject the next step is to demand you provide proof, in their journals, of what you contend. Lawyers deal with precedents. That means we look to the past for determinations of the same question to guide us in our understanding of the current question and to help us gain a better understanding of our issue. Science pretends, and the advocates that are nasty and overbearing pretend, to consider new issues but it is a sham. The systems are so far apart when it comes to logic and the search for the truth that I am at times ashamed to make a comparison. I enjoyed having an opponent that thought he was the utmost or the new anti Christ because I could take advantage of that by comparative presentation of what the issues really meant. Since when do NEW theories appear in the old tired journals?

Way too much talk.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw004 wrote:
"I am a retired administrative law trial lawyer"

Someone acquainted with the concept of swearing affidavits with respect to authenticity of materials. And yes the theory, in western law, that one searches for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth by trying to evaluate who is the most convincing liar.

I would think someone with more than a passing familiarity with notarizing documents, swearing oaths, and the legal statues around perjury could do better than state: "the next step is to demand you provide proof."

Hypocrisy among the religion zealots has no bounds, no shame, no limits. I guess your god never ordered "Thou shalt not be a flaming hypocrite."


DA Morgan
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Let's cool it with the threats or I will be forced to delete posts.

Moderator.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
Perhaps another way to explore the question may be to imagine ourselves as gods.

Forgetting the roadblock in AI/consciousness for a moment, it?s possible some enterprising geek in the future will design a worm/virus that will install itself on PCs (think SETI shared computation) and turn each connected PC/Internet device into a ?neuron?. This creates a self aware entity.

So would it be aware of the ?real world? and us? Could it understand the real world? Would we want to make it aware of us? Wouldn?t it be fun just to watch it and see what it did?

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
'This creates a self aware entity.'

I think that belief in self awareness as an emergent property is problematic.

And as Uncle Al has pointed out, the connection speed between PC's would be a minute fraction of that between real neurons. If it was aware it would likely be a slow pondering moron with a single thought taking days.

Assuming it had access to the net, after a couple of centuries of slothful examination of its contents it would probably come to the conclusion that we are mostly defined by a desire to see each other naked and watching each other engaging in sex - and it couldn't fail to notice our history of war and violence.

It would probably be puzzled that there are people dying of starvation whilst 25% of the English are now classed as obese.

I think that based upon the contents of the net and the media in general it would form its own picture and would pay no heed to any one individual pleading in our defence.It would not arrive at a high view of humanity.

If it had access to defence mainframes and nukes then I don't think it would be that prudent or fun to just watch what it did.

'After considering the evidence I decided that the earth was best left to the ants and cockroaches - however, I'm a little lonely now.'

Blacknad.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
What does it mean to be...what is your purpose in this Brilliant Universe.
Hmm. It seems the topic was Artificial Intelligence and the use of a world-wide net of computers to achieve consciousness. You are totally off topic again.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
Interesting points Blacknad. But you posit that the data on the Internet would be ?understandable? by the entity as ?information?. This may not be the case. The data, computers and connections that would make up the entities universe may instead be viewed by the entity as the ?real world?.

Geography, natural resources, transportation routes = data files, processing cycles, networks.

So, if that is its universe (governed by its own laws that it could derive by observing network functions (file deletion = act of god!)), how then could it comprehend us or our real world?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
It appears that any advanced civilization would likely have a view of the entire universe as information.

Physics is currently strongly favoring an interpretation that there is nothing but information in a very real physical sense.

For example the total amount of information in a black hole is defined by its surface area at the event horizon which is thus directly related to mass and thus to gravity. When all is said and done ... there is likely nothing other than ones and zeros. What you are comprehending is not the pixels but rather the picture.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
KATE: "But you posit that the data on the Internet would be ?understandable? by the entity as ?information?. This may not be the case. The data, computers and connections that would make up the entities universe may instead be viewed by the entity as the ?real world?."

- You may well be right. I wonder though whether there is enough references to 'the internet and it's relationship to the real world' on the net for the entity to realise that there is something 'out there'.

But it is entirely possible that the only way it would realise us (and sorry for drawing religious comparisons) was if we addressed it directly and started a communication (revelation) and backed this up by adding or deleting sections of data (miracles) and even possibly entering cyberspace virtually and engaging directly (incarnation) laugh

Regards,

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
If it doesn't violate the laws of physics ... is it a miracle?

If it violates the laws of physics ... is it possible?


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
Thanks Blacknad,

Quote:
I wonder though whether there is enough references to 'the internet and it's relationship to the real world' on the net for the entity to realise that there is something 'out there'.
You're still assuming the entity "sees" data as we see data. Data in its universe would instead be more closely analagous to matter in our universe. In our universe, we don't see anything but matter when we look at matter.

The "natural laws" governing the behaviour of matter in the entity's universe would likely be some kind of ad hoc bastardization of TCP/IP.

Quote:
But it is entirely possible that the only way it would realise us (and sorry for drawing religious comparisons) was if we addressed it directly and started a communication (revelation) and backed this up by adding or deleting sections of data (miracles) and even possibly entering cyberspace virtually and engaging directly (incarnation)
Indeed.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
This is a very entertaining Forum at times.

I just read the last few postings and I see we are confronting the prospect if AI is aware, if computers are likely to take charge, etc.

The post was "Must a God be available to us?".

I am beginning to think that some members see computers as potential Gods. OK!
jjw

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I'm glad you are enjoying it. I find it entertaining myself at times. Also exasperating on occasion but never dull.

I think if the AI is aware, we had better hope it is benevolent. Maybe it can save us from ourselves. Would a computer ruled world be better or worse than today's world? Maybe one day we will find out. What rule by a rational being, based on logic and reason, be any better than what we have today? And once that computer is aware, who is to say it will remain rational, logical and reasonable? We like to think we know what a computer would do but I don't think we're prepared for the results.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
AI, eventually, will be used to develop AI. And it will likely do precisely the same thing as fire. Good if it warms your house and cooks your food. Bad if it burns your house to the ground: Expect both outcomes.

But who will leave earth, as the result of human evolution and explore the universe? It will be them ... not us. And it won't matter.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
5. If not which specific version did you read and how do you know it is 100% true in translation to the original? (provide proof)

6. If what you claim as proof in each of the above situations is, in fact, empirical proof, then it should be proof to a Jew and a Moslem and a Buddhist and a Hindu and followers of Janism, Shinto, Animism, etc. Certainly they don't quibble about the color of the sky or the temperature at which water boils or whether penicillin works. So there it is. Make your choice ... mindless hypocrite or step up to the challenge and explain to all what we've been missing all these millenia.

PS: If the invisible purple rhinoceros walked up to me, lifted his leg, and emptied his bladder I'd believe in him too. Neither is going to happen. And any person even remotely connected with reality knows you question is valueless.
da for once i agree with you.

as for #5, there is a quote ever since the king james version was created, dealing with witches. after a early version was discovered they find there was a slight problem with that quote. namely that to get the word witches out of the earlier verson, you had to mispell the word. left in the early version it discussed "mind poisoner" which is beleive to mean ppl that preached hate. considering that during that time frame church officals were dealing with trying to deal with ppl who would go to other religons if they were told they could no longer talk to the christian god (excommunication) i beleive the reason for the "mistranslation" is easy to figure out.

in other words you not only have to figure out which verion, who wrote it, but also who copied and translated it.

i have trouble with a god that says that you should question everythings (he must have created science) except what the preacher tells you.

in my religion, everyone has a different path they must follow, to find the truths that you are ready to find.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
heres a thought for today:

how do you know that you are not a computer ai program. think about it.

if you were, your preception of your body would be a creation of that program. your preception of the matter of the world would be created by the program. only your thoughts would be real and those would be part of the ai program. how would you know that you were not actually in a real world. your awareness of everything is dependant on your senses, which if you are part of a program, would be artifically created. taste would be artifically created. sight, sound, nothing more than electical signals anyway. feel, smell, just computer data.

how you would you know.

faith?


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"How do you know that you are not a computer ai program. think about it."

How do you know you are not an invisible purple rhinoceros?

Think about it!

If the answer is just a matter of faith ... there is no more reason to believe one answer than the other.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
How do you know you are not an invisible purple rhinoceros?

Think about it!

If the answer is just a matter of faith ... there is no more reason to believe one answer than the other.
as far as the faith things goes, your right

hmmm, an invisible purple rhinoceros, hmmm.

well ppl react to me so i know they can see me, one way or another, so if im invisible, i must have some sort of manner of making myself appear to be something other than purple.

a second point is that while i might not be the thin man, im not quite as big as a rhinoceros, so i would have to be a very small rhinoceros, who has the ability to move things much higher than itself, and which has the ability to use things that are shaped for a human. hmmm, shapeshifting? but would not that require a knowldege that you are shapeshifting?

logic would decree that if your an invisible rhinoseros, purple or otherwise, you would have some things that indicated that you were not human, which would beg the question "what am i?"


on the other hand, if all of your senses were just electrical signals being transmitted to a part of a computer, that was running a program that included the structure (proper term?) that it was a living, breathing, moving, independant lifeform with a human body, how would you know?

i dont even have a clue myself how you would know.

to go to scfi for an example (yes im sure its not real, but how do you know), in Star Trek, the next generation, Data (one of the characters, an android) accendently created an photonic lifeform that was aware of its surrounding. later, in another episode, moritari (the phontonic lifeform) show that he was still around and still aware. the solids (regular chacters had never found a way of bring the photonic in to the "solid world". in order to get back control over their ship. they devised a device that would give the photonics all the indicators that they were in solid world and allow them to explore it to their hearts content, but still it was a computer.

if you were a photonic trapped inside the computer how would you know.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"well ppl react to me so i know they can see me, one way or another"

Actually no one sees you.
There is no one else.
There is nothing else but your mind.
You are dreaming.
This is all an illusion.

Time to wake up and take out the trash.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
no thanks, im having too much fun laughing at your statements to take it out


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
You aren't really laughing. You are sobbing hysterically. It is just in your dream that you are laughing.

Wake up and take out the trash.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
im fully awake and too busy laughing at your antics to take you out to to the curb.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
Must a God, or some superior being, prove its existence?

Are we programmed by the Bible to think that God must be available to us as the Bible projects the events? Is it more likely that a superior life form from space would very likely be available to us than a true God of creation? Was the Biblical God a visitor from space intent on subjugating people of Earth?
Put yourself in the position of Mozes during the Exodus. The people you are leading are not listening to you and there is anarchy. You must impose law and order, the problem is that they won't accept any laws made by you. So, you pretend that the commandments were made by God. You must, of course, present it in such a way that the people will believe that. So, there must be some ''proof'' of God.

Today's leaders have led us to Iraq using ''proof'' of WMD, so not much has change since Biblical Times.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
[QUOTE]Put yourself in the position of Mozes during the Exodus. The people you are leading are not listening to you and there is anarchy. You must impose law and order, the problem is that they won't accept any laws made by you. So, you pretend that the commandments were made by God. You must, of course, present it in such a way that the people will believe that. So, there must be some ''proof'' of God.

Today's leaders have led us to Iraq using ''proof'' of WMD, so not much has change since Biblical Times.
on the other hand, put yourself in the head of an alien that looked nothing like humans. its much easier to pretend to be god and get one man to take the orders to the masses with a few fireworks thrown in to back up those commands. they would have known from watching man and from watching a few of the ppl that were in the group, that if they held moses up in the mountain long enough, there would be plenty of excuse for those fireworks. once the ppl got a load of those fireworks, getting them to follow the chosen leader would be a snap.

im not saying that the bibilical god is or was an alien, just pointing that out.

personally, i do believe that most of the "gods commands" were more something that was wanted by the person that recieved the command, to get the chruch exactly the excuse to do what the ppl running it wanted.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
To paraphrase R. D.:

"I may be dreaming everything,
I can know nothing except that
I think therefore I am".

A brilliant and courageous statement,
unfortunately a complete dead end.

"I can conceive of a God so there
must be one."

A cowardly submission to the Church.
If you want a God badly enough, you can
try to invent one, but it can never be
greater than yourself. A pretty sorry
excuse for a Deity.

Pragmatist

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Back to the topic:

The Count makes a point that I see as smart people convincing not so smarts to accept the ideas they offer. That is only a tiny speck of the issue. The Biblical "God" was a visible god. It led the mob by day with a cloud and it led the mob by night with a light or fire. For any person to stumble around in a wilderness for fourty years following such godly eminations is a little much.They could have circled the Earth many times.

At 3 miles an hour average for 10 hours a day we should go 30 miles. 30 miles times 365 is 10,950 miles a year times 40 years = 438,000 miles and 438,000 miles divided by Earths circmference of about 24,900 equatorial miles = about 17.6 times around the Earth. It would require one dumb mob to be led like that. Soooo no 40 years at all you might say so when to give the story meaning and when to not?
jjw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Perhaps Moses and his followers should have stopped smoking that stuff that was creating the smoke.


DA Morgan
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Must a CEO be available to US?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
three words. ken lay exxon.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5