the God term
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2013, 07:17 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 06:59 PM)childeye Wrote:  I like your signature Chas. Yes that is well said particularly when speaking from a perspective of reverse engineering. I can see why my sincere sentiment would cause you to point to your signature. Still, we have essentially said the same thing from two differing perspectives. That such knowledge is not absolute. It's like quantum physics vs. relativity.

Well, those are both quite accurate.

I don't think we're saying the same thing at all.
Okay, we are suffering some miscommunication here. You say they are both quite accurate and that is what I meant by we both are saying the same thing from two different perspectives. How would you describe in the simplest terms the differences between quantum mechanics and the physics of relativity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:19 PM
RE: the God term
glitchhhhhh

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:21 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:14 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  You might not get it if you've never programmed anything in your life.

There are two ways to go about designing a program: you can either highly optimize something to do one specific task, using a bare minimum of resources, resulting in a fast, efficient, low-memory program that does the job as fast as possible with the least resource use possible.

Or you can design something to be general purpose, modular, and extensible, to allow easier maintenance and upgrades. This results in a slower, higher memory usage program, but it's much easier to modify it to do something else.


If I were an infinitely powerful force or being, omnipotent and omniscient, why the hell would I care about making it easier to modify? I'm omnipotent, all tasks are trivial. If I want to design, say, a fern, I would design it using the least number of components, and set it up to be as efficient as possible, with no extraneous code. If anything, I would prepackage a number of handy beneficial mutations (rather than relying on errors in the code which may or may not be helpful), and I would allow the plant to switch between variations of a gene on its own, rather than waiting for sexual recombination so that its offspring may or may not have the beneficial mutation.

What do we see instead? We see that ferns have more chromosomes than humans! And millions of genes, many of which are redundant or could be combined. It shares code with numerous other organisms, even though they could have easily been optimized by any omnipotent being worth its salt. It looks more like a base program that has been extended and modified and repurposed hundreds or thousands of times, rather than a highly efficient, designed machine.


If organisms were designed, they sure look like they were designed by a group of Linux hackers; not god.

Then why do most Linux hackers think they are gods? Dodgy

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
22-04-2013, 07:26 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 07:03 PM)childeye Wrote:  It seems that you should ask Phaedrus that question. If I were to guess, I think he is saying that God would not use random sequence to bring about order from Chaos, but I'm just guessing.

Why not make each creation unique? If you have an omniscient and omni-powerful God why would he make a system that to work needs to evolve from proto-bacteria through million of years to produce his supposed Perfect Image?
I like the way this question sounds. This is my view. First off, His Perfect Image is a matter of Character not DNA Design. So flesh is not pertaining to His Perfect Image. But supposing He used evolution as the means to an end, we know that time is relative. To Him it could have happened in a blink of an eye. What is time to an eternal existence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:29 PM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2013 07:47 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 12:56 PM)childeye Wrote:  My problem with what you say is Christianity is stupid yet you quote the Christ.

If you were a Twilight fan, would it not make sense to communicate in the terms of the Cullens? I'm a fan - well, Kristen Stewart and Ashley Greene kinda fan - but it is a stupid book. Big Grin


(22-04-2013 12:56 PM)childeye Wrote:  I therefore would ask if you ever contemplate the concept of rest as pertaining to the eventual course of human life in this world yet excluding death or absence of life? In other words an end to the motions of yin and yang as we see in this world?

When I draw my Gwynnies, I go away... kinda like no-self in meditation. But to be human requires an I. This is an inherent and inescapable contradiction, thus it is written - the tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao. Whatever is named as god, cannot be god, even my Gwynnies. (Although that girl smite me with a raised eyebrow. Big Grin)

The eventual course of human life is either extinction or evolution; one is obviously zero, however the other remains undefined. To propose a Creator imbues creation with purpose. What do you propose that purpose to be? Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:33 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:14 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  You might not get it if you've never programmed anything in your life.

There are two ways to go about designing a program: you can either highly optimize something to do one specific task, using a bare minimum of resources, resulting in a fast, efficient, low-memory program that does the job as fast as possible with the least resource use possible.

Or you can design something to be general purpose, modular, and extensible, to allow easier maintenance and upgrades. This results in a slower, higher memory usage program, but it's much easier to modify it to do something else.


If I were an infinitely powerful force or being, omnipotent and omniscient, why the hell would I care about making it easier to modify? I'm omnipotent, all tasks are trivial. If I want to design, say, a fern, I would design it using the least number of components, and set it up to be as efficient as possible, with no extraneous code. If anything, I would prepackage a number of handy beneficial mutations (rather than relying on errors in the code which may or may not be helpful), and I would allow the plant to switch between variations of a gene on its own, rather than waiting for sexual recombination so that its offspring may or may not have the beneficial mutation.

What do we see instead? We see that ferns have more chromosomes than humans! And millions of genes, many of which are redundant or could be combined. It shares code with numerous other organisms, even though they could have easily been optimized by any omnipotent being worth its salt. It looks more like a base program that has been extended and modified and repurposed hundreds or thousands of times, rather than a highly efficient, designed machine.


If organisms were designed, they sure look like they were designed by a group of Linux hackers; not god.
Have you accounted for mutations or corruption?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:38 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:33 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 07:14 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  You might not get it if you've never programmed anything in your life.

There are two ways to go about designing a program: you can either highly optimize something to do one specific task, using a bare minimum of resources, resulting in a fast, efficient, low-memory program that does the job as fast as possible with the least resource use possible.

Or you can design something to be general purpose, modular, and extensible, to allow easier maintenance and upgrades. This results in a slower, higher memory usage program, but it's much easier to modify it to do something else.


If I were an infinitely powerful force or being, omnipotent and omniscient, why the hell would I care about making it easier to modify? I'm omnipotent, all tasks are trivial. If I want to design, say, a fern, I would design it using the least number of components, and set it up to be as efficient as possible, with no extraneous code. If anything, I would prepackage a number of handy beneficial mutations (rather than relying on errors in the code which may or may not be helpful), and I would allow the plant to switch between variations of a gene on its own, rather than waiting for sexual recombination so that its offspring may or may not have the beneficial mutation.

What do we see instead? We see that ferns have more chromosomes than humans! And millions of genes, many of which are redundant or could be combined. It shares code with numerous other organisms, even though they could have easily been optimized by any omnipotent being worth its salt. It looks more like a base program that has been extended and modified and repurposed hundreds or thousands of times, rather than a highly efficient, designed machine.


If organisms were designed, they sure look like they were designed by a group of Linux hackers; not god.
Have you accounted for mutations or corruption?

In which case there would be extensive error correction. DNA error correction is very limited, completely incapable of recovering lost information, only able to correct one-base errors or damaged chains, often resulting in mutations anyway. The error correction in a 1980s hard drive is better than that of 'perfectly designed' DNA. Drinking Beverage

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:29 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  When I draw my Gwynnies, I go away... kinda like no-self in meditation. But to be human requires an I. This is an inherent and inescapable contradiction, thus it is written - the tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao. Whatever is named as god, cannot be god, even my Gwynnies. (Although that girl smite me with a raised eyebrow. Big Grin)
Nor is the creation the Creator.

Quote:The eventual course of human life is either extinction or evolution; one is obviously zero, however the other remains undefined. To propose a Creator imbues creation with purpose. What do you propose that purpose to be? Consider
To expose the source of vanity so as to eliminate the cause of corruption and appreciate the true value of what is Holy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:26 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 07:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Why not make each creation unique? If you have an omniscient and omni-powerful God why would he make a system that to work needs to evolve from proto-bacteria through million of years to produce his supposed Perfect Image?
I like the way this question sounds. This is my view. First off, His Perfect Image is a matter of Character not DNA Design. So flesh is not pertaining to His Perfect Image. But supposing He used evolution as the means to an end, we know that time is relative. To Him it could have happened in a blink of an eye. What is time to an eternal existence?

Wonderful, let's speculate on the unknown motives of a hidden god.

What's his screenplay? Crouching DNA, Hidden Designer?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-04-2013, 07:43 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 07:26 PM)childeye Wrote:  I like the way this question sounds. This is my view. First off, His Perfect Image is a matter of Character not DNA Design. So flesh is not pertaining to His Perfect Image. But supposing He used evolution as the means to an end, we know that time is relative. To Him it could have happened in a blink of an eye. What is time to an eternal existence?

Wonderful, let's speculate on the unknown motives of a hidden god.

What's his screenplay? Crouching DNA, Hidden Designer?
To expose the source of vanity so as to eliminate the cause of corruption and appreciate the true value of what is Holy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: