Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 08:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  When I asked you "A simulation of what, and there goes 'free will' " instead of actually answering the question you lit on the "free will" and totally ignoraed the important question "simulation of what" ... oh wait ... "simualtion of WHAT".

Because you answered your own question within the question.
The answer is -A simulation of the universe.
This is so basic, I did not (and still don't) think it deserved an answer.
How do you not understand this?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 09:32 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 09:58 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  This is not to "prove" anything. That's the point of speculation - it's just speculation.

You said it was an "argument" for "God". You said nothing about speculation, you dishonest troll.

(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  His point about the terminology is the same you're trying to explain here. Instead of understanding what I'm saying - "This being shares the same characteristics as 'god'", you're insisting that I'm actually saying "This being is god".

You introduced the word in an atheist forum. Take responsibility for what you did, you dishonest troll.

(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  That's totally fine if I should not use the word "god". What do you think will be the difference in response if I instead make a thread titled "Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of Intelligent Platonic Information-Processing Consciousness"?

Obviously you know nothing about Neuro-science and why that is preposterous bullshit. There is no difference. They are BOTH crap ideas. One is as bad as the other. They both deserve no resoect without EVIDENCE. You have presented NONE.

(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm not sure how else to explain this any more clearer - What I am talking about is not "god" in the religious sense that you're referring to. What I am talking about has a specific definition and consequently shares some of the same characteristics as the base definition of "god".

What you're talking about is a self-made up pile of crap with NO EVIDENCE and you want others to accept your grabage. Like a 2 year old, you demand others accept your definition, the dishonestly say "Oh I'm just asking questions". Liar.


(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So I gave one example which was - If you were to somehow step into the fifth
dimension. You would be considered omnipresent. You would have access to the entire timeline of the universe no different than we have access to x,y, and z (our three dimensions).This example went right over peoples heads. I'm not saying definitively that this means it's "omnipresent". I am saying that it means that it would appear to be omnipresent to us. Very speculative, right? Exactly. Thumbsup

Bullshit. No evidence presented. Nice fairy tale. Why should anyone take it seriously ? It "went over no one's head" ... you presented no EVIDENCE for it.

(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't characterize this as divine.

You used the word "god". You said you had a argument for "God'.... capital "G". WTF were we supposed to think ?


Quote:I mean 'god' in a narrow sense for the purpose of argument, that is all.

WTF does THAT even mean ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 09:35 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Holy shit, you really are an asshole.
I don't want to make that judgement based on one conversation with you, but none of the way you're acting is warranted. I have no other way of describing you right now aside from complete asshole.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 09:45 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 09:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  This is not to "prove" anything. That's the point of speculation - it's just speculation.

You said it was an "argument" for "God". You said nothing about speculation, you dishonest troll.

How does "argument" mean it's not speculation? Since when were arguments "proof" in every case?
If that really is the case, then I apologize.

(10-07-2015 09:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  His point about the terminology is the same you're trying to explain here. Instead of understanding what I'm saying - "This being shares the same characteristics as 'god'", you're insisting that I'm actually saying "This being is god".

You introduced the word in an atheist forum. Take responsibility for what you did, you dishonest troll.

And you've spent needless energy in trying to misrepresent what I'm saying, imply that I'm talking about a religious deity, and then say I'm actually an atheist. And a troll is someone who intentionally causes interruption in otherwise normal situations.... I'm the troll?

(10-07-2015 09:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  That's totally fine if I should not use the word "god". What do you think will be the difference in response if I instead make a thread titled "Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of Intelligent Platonic Information-Processing Consciousness"?

Obviously you know nothing about Neuro-science and why that is preposterous bullshit. There is no difference. They are BOTH crap ideas. One is as bad as the other. They both deserve no resoect without EVIDENCE. You have presented NONE.

Exactly, you don't even care what term I use.

So let me get this straight - If someone comes on here and simply presents an argument for something they think makes sense to them. Your approach is to make your entrance into that conversation as if they are somehow "nuts"? (Oh, and ironically state that "no one" has attacked anyone's character, right?)

(10-07-2015 09:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm not sure how else to explain this any more clearer - What I am talking about is not "god" in the religious sense that you're referring to. What I am talking about has a specific definition and consequently shares some of the same characteristics as the base definition of "god".

What you're talking about is a self-made up pile of crap with NO EVIDENCE and you want others to accept your grabage. Like a 2 year old, you demand others accept your definition, the dishonestly say "Oh I'm just asking questions". Liar.

I don't want anyone to accept what I am presenting here. I simply wanted to have a conversation about it. I originally came on here to say "Check this stuff out, where do you think I went right, and where do you think I went wrong?"
Your response was to insult me and tell me that I'm nuts... classy.

(10-07-2015 09:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So I gave one example which was - If you were to somehow step into the fifth
dimension. You would be considered omnipresent. You would have access to the entire timeline of the universe no different than we have access to x,y, and z (our three dimensions).This example went right over peoples heads. I'm not saying definitively that this means it's "omnipresent". I am saying that it means that it would appear to be omnipresent to us. Very speculative, right? Exactly. Thumbsup

Bullshit. No evidence presented. Nice fairy tale. Why should anyone take it seriously ? It "went over no one's head" ... you presented no EVIDENCE for it.

You don't have to take this seriously. I just want to have a civil discussion about it. Feedback is all I want. Thanks.

(10-07-2015 09:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't characterize this as divine.

You used the word "god". You said you had a argument for "God'.... capital "G". WTF were we supposed to think ?

Well you're supposed to ask questions, because that's what I pointed out was the original intention of the post.
But go ahead, come in here and insult me and the material I'm presenting right off the bat. That sounds very reasonable.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 09:53 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 09:57 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 09:28 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 08:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  When I asked you "A simulation of what, and there goes 'free will' " instead of actually answering the question you lit on the "free will" and totally ignoraed the important question "simulation of what" ... oh wait ... "simualtion of WHAT".

Because you answered your own question within the question.
The answer is -A simulation of the universe.
This is so basic, I did not (and still don't) think it deserved an answer.
How do you not understand this?

Oh my fucking god.
You fool.
It's YOU that doesn't get it. The *simulation* of what's in a (supposed) *mind* IS THE UNIVERSE itself. You have it precisely BACKWARDS.
No wonder your garbage sounds so idiotic. You don't even get the BASIC idea you are even talking about. Greene and the other cosmologists have proposed that the UNIVERSE is the simulation of the data running on the surface of the universe, (not in a "mind" BTW).

Maybe you better get out a dictionary and look up the word "simulation, and draw some lines for yourself ... so you can get your own words.

OMFG. Facepalm .... Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 09:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh my fucking god.
You fool.
It's YOU that doesn't get it. The *simulation* of what's in a (supposed) *mind* IS THE UNIVERSE itself. You have it precisely BACKWARDS.
No wonder your garbage sounds so idiotic. You don't even get the BASIC idea you are even talking about. Greene and the other cosmologists have proposed that the UNIVERSE isis the simulation of the data running on the surface of the universe, (not in a "mind" BTW).

Maybe you better get out a dictionary and look up the word "simulation, and draw some lines for yourself ... so you can get your own words.

OMFG. Facepalm .... Weeping

That would have made more sense if you stated the question "A simulation 'from' what?" How am I supposed to know you meant it that way?
You asked the question ambiguously. Don't flatter yourself.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 09:35 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Holy shit, you really are an asshole.
I don't want to make that judgement based on one conversation with you, but none of the way you're acting is warranted. I have no other way of describing you right now aside from complete asshole.

Yes.
I REALLY am an asshole.
So fucking what.
It has NOTHING to do with the questions at hand child.

I really do get that infants cannot be challeneged without having tantrums.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 09:55 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 09:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh my fucking god.
You fool.
It's YOU that doesn't get it. The *simulation* of what's in a (supposed) *mind* IS THE UNIVERSE itself. You have it precisely BACKWARDS.
No wonder your garbage sounds so idiotic. You don't even get the BASIC idea you are even talking about. Greene and the other cosmologists have proposed that the UNIVERSE isis the simulation of the data running on the surface of the universe, (not in a "mind" BTW).

Maybe you better get out a dictionary and look up the word "simulation, and draw some lines for yourself ... so you can get your own words.

OMFG. Facepalm .... Weeping

That would have made more sense if you stated the question "A simulation 'from' what?" How am I supposed to know you meant it that way?
You asked the question ambiguously. Don't flatter yourself.

No it doesn't make more sense.
Nice try. You just don't get it.

AT ALL.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
The answer to that question is precisely the same as Greene and other cosmologists have said. I am in agreement with them, and they are precisely the ones that brought that notion to my attention. And you're right, they don't really mention where the data is coming from. I've made the argument that we are able to process information similar to that. So for me, it's not much of a stretch to think that a mind is possibly processing said information.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 09:22 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I have a question for you, The Polyglot Atheist. Perhaps we can better understand terms this way.

If the term "god" is interchangeable in a religious sense (i.e. different religions define god in several different ways), then what definition are you going by? So far, I've been trying to go simply by the base characteristics you find in most general definitions of 'god' - i.e. Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience.
If I miss understand anything, it seems like it would be the sum of those three terms.
As far as I know, however, the term 'god' is more or less an abstract term that is molded into different shapes depending on who you're talking to.

I already provided that definition: A divine being that created the universe and rules it (in a more or less direct manner). Divine here already includes the 3 features you listed. Also because not having those features means you're not a god.

Yes, "god" is a rather abstract term, and that's the problem.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: