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, 10:06 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 09:45 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Exactly, you don't even care what term I use.

Who's misrepresenting whom ? Weeping

(10-07-2015 09:45 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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?)

Wrong again, idiot. YOU attempted to say a "mind" (a perfectly REDICULOUS, notion, for some reason common here lately from trolls. You have not explained how this makes any sense in relation to what we know about how minds work. You wanted this idea to be accepted at least as a basis for a rational discussion. It does not even deserve ANY respect. You have no evidence for it.

(10-07-2015 09:45 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  You don't have to take this seriously. I just want to have a civil discussion about it. Feedback is all I want. Thanks.

You got it. Chas gave you the basic "feedback". Liar. IF that's really all you wanted you would have accepted it.

(10-07-2015 09:45 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

The is an atheist forum. YOU said you had an argument for a god. Now you whine when it was dismissed. Grow up.

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, 10:09 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 10:14 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 10:01 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

Thanks for proving you have no clue what you're even talking about.
Greene DID propose where the information was coming from.

The ONLY place we know that information is consciously processed is in functioning brains. It is a stretch, without any evidence to think it happens any other way, at this time. You really know very little about information processing.

I'm done here. I KNEW something was screwy.

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, 10:11 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 09:45 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 09:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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:  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:  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:  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:  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:  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.

You state in your OP, "I am a Philosophical Theist. I believe in the probable existence of what can be defined as 'god'."

So, you are not an atheist.
You are making an argument for the existence of something that can be defined as 'god'.

Your argument is based on an unsupported and far-fetched concept of reality.

The idea that reality relies on consciousness is incoherent.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
10-07-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 10:02 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
(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.

But "divine" simply means "of, or like god". So wouldn't that be redundant? The term 'god' is in the definition of divine, which is the term we're trying to narrow down. So it almost seems like to me that saying god is "divine" is redundant in this case.
So yeah, by definition, what I am talking about can be considered "like god" in the three terms I was using. So it would be divine. Made a mistake there.

But if what I am talking about is only 'like' god, but isn't actually god, or simply doesn't have to be god, then how does it being divine make it a religious god? Doesn't it still have to tie to a religion in order to be religious?
Christianity and Islam have similar characteristics assigned to their god - only they've added doctrines to explain a plethora of different intentions, moods and personalities their god has in order to conform to their specific religion. Wouldn't I also need to do so in order for this to be a religious god? If a being meets virtually none of the doctrines of any particular religion, then isn't it religion-less?

“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, 10:19 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 10:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  You state in your OP, "I am a Philosophical Theist. I believe in the probable existence of what can be defined as 'god'."

So, you are not an atheist.
You are making an argument for the existence of something that can be defined as 'god'.

Your argument is based on an unsupported and far-fetched concept of reality.

The idea that reality relies on consciousness is incoherent.

Precisely, I find the existence of what I'm talking about more probable, as I've explained, than the alternatives of multiple universes or ancestor simulations.

The idea that reality is dependent on conscious observation is supported in Quantum Mechanics, and I've tried to demonstrate that here.

I appreciate that you're on topic though. Thank you.

“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, 10:20 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I'm off to bed. I'll be back later.

“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, 10:29 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Looks like this has been picked apart by others..... And the replies to those objections have been very telling.

Good work!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 11:03 AM by The Polyglot Atheist.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 10:01 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

It is a stretch. A brain processes information, since the brain is the organ inside your skull. "Mind" is a term that refers to something abstract, it's not an object.

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  But if what I am talking about is only 'like' god, but isn't actually god, or simply doesn't have to be god, then how does it being divine make it a religious god? Doesn't it still have to tie to a religion in order to be religious?

Well... what is it then? Define it and explain why you can define it that way. Otherwise we're speaking of "fried air" like we say over here, i.e. nothing.

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Wouldn't I also need to do so in order for this to be a religious god? If a being meets virtually none of the doctrines of any particular religion, then isn't it religion-less?

What is a non-religious god? God *is* a religious concept. The purpose is to worship him/her/it, isn't it?

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
10-07-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 10:19 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 10:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  You state in your OP, "I am a Philosophical Theist. I believe in the probable existence of what can be defined as 'god'."

So, you are not an atheist.
You are making an argument for the existence of something that can be defined as 'god'.

Your argument is based on an unsupported and far-fetched concept of reality.

The idea that reality relies on consciousness is incoherent.

Precisely, I find the existence of what I'm talking about more probable, as I've explained, than the alternatives of multiple universes or ancestor simulations.

I find the existence of what you are talking about has the same problem as any other mind-first 'explanation'. Where did that mind come from and where did it exist and function?

Quote:The idea that reality is dependent on conscious observation is supported in Quantum Mechanics, and I've tried to demonstrate that here.

Not really. It is supported in one interpretation of QM, but not the two dozen other interpretations of QM.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 11:05 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(10-07-2015 04:53 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 06:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Even if these elements were collected in examination and held some value to them... it doesn't come close to proving the excessive manners of poorly analogized terms that are used.

If you did show how the universe operated on a graphical manner or that there was a constant vibration/sound component all across the universe vibrating on it's entire formation. Where is any of the logical steps without more assumptions to make analogies that it's something "virtual" or carries any of the constructed like elements those terminologies carry?

You may need to re-word this so I don't assume you mean something you don't.

So far, it sounds like you're asking something along the lines of why we say things like "virtual reality" or "Simulation" or "Hologram". Which is a good question if that's what you're asking.
I would say that we base many of our models on things we observe in our experience. So when we talk about other "universes", we are using the term "universe" to describe what we think is happening "outside" our universe based on the kinds of things we observe inside our own.

Anyways, if I answered a question you didn't ask, I apologize.
Just trying to keep the response-nazis off me. Rolleyes

Btw, where is Vosur? Normally I see him on my thread by now. He hasn't failed to present his $.02 in nearly any post I've made in the past.

That was part of the question yeah, but the other part I was leaning towards was showing how... even if the studies of these vibrations or graphical notions of the universes are found. That in no way makes it still quite logical to leap to think we are discovering our universe is simulated or calculatedly designed.

It's just still as solid a case that the universe/multiverses whatever are simply formulated in that manner.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: