Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,873 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 603,457
Pageviews Today: 827,172Threads Today: 186Posts Today: 4,076
09:25 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..

 
Ahem!
User ID: 467395
United Arab Emirates
01/07/2010 03:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Read and understand carefully before commenting...here goes:

Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.

In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories.

Gödel’s discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has earth-shattering implications.

Oddly, few people know anything about it.

Allow me to tell you the story.

Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.

So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a set of theorems.

That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.

Yes, it does seem perfectly “obvious” that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that Euclid’s postulates are a reasonable, and in factnecessary, set of 5 assumptions.

Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. There were so many things that were “obviously true,” but nobody could find a way to prove them.

In the early 1900’s, however, a tremendous wave of optimism swept through mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) became convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.

A unifying “Theory of Everything” that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.

In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible. He proved they would never prove everything. (Yeah I know, it sounds a little odd, doesn’t it?)

Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”

If you’ll give me just a few minutes, I’ll explain what it says, how Gödel proved it, and what it means - in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:


“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove.”


You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which we know are true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

You can draw a circle around a bicycle. But the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.

You can draw the circle around a bicycle factory. But that factory likewise relies on other things outside the factory.

Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but toeverything that is subject to the laws of logic. Everything that you can count or calculate. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language and philosophy.

Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement

“I am lying.”



“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.

Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted this Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that no statement can prove its own truth.

You always need an outside reference point.

The Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivists” of the time. They insisted that literally anything you could not measure or prove was nonsense. He showed that their positivism was nonsense.

Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic. Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.

He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things that are true than you can prove.

A “theory of everything” - whether in math, or physics, or philosophy - will never be found. Because it is mathematically impossible.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

Here’s what it means:

- Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
- All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
- You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.



Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle (from “all things” to “some things”) is deductive reasoning.

Example of a deductive reasoning:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle (from “some things” to “all things”) is inductive reasoning.

Examples of inductive reasoning:

1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal

1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs all falling objects

Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time.

Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. These laws rest on an assumption that the universe is orderly and based on fixed discoverable laws.

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.

(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can - around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

- There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove

- The universe as we know it is finite - finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
- The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself

- Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

- If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It’s immaterial.

- Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system - i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.

- Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:

- In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.8 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.

- The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.

- All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.

- Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.

When we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also self-aware.

Isn’t it interesting how all these conclusions sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?

Maybe that’s why it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.

The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!

Interesting aside…

If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:

“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”


If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know all systems rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the folks at Infidels cannot be correct. Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause.

Therefore Atheism violates the laws mathematics.

The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.

Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. They are two sides of the same coin. It had been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.

No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by rational thought, science and mathematics.

Perry Marshall
seraph
User ID: 851849
United States
01/07/2010 04:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
yawn Can i have the short unabridged version?
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 467395
United Arab Emirates
01/07/2010 04:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
bump
ThePatriotMind
Don't Tread on Me

User ID: 577234
United States
01/07/2010 04:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
yawn Can i have the short unabridged version?
 Quoting: seraph 851849



lol no one has attention spans anymore

fast food world i guess
Signed

The Patriot Mind

* please read "The Creature from Jykell Island" short easy read on how federal reserve was founded... Then follow that up with the movie "America: Freedom to Fascism "
Sir.Kalin

User ID: 858971
United States
01/07/2010 04:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
In spite of the way it may appear to some, I am not actually an atheist.

The inclinations of my personal beliefs at this point are probably much more towards those of a Deist, like Thomas Paine.

Added to favorites for future reference.

Last Edited by Lord.Kayle on 01/07/2010 04:10 AM
:LordKayleSig4:
- "Your best investment is ammo, because it's going to weird quickly." - AC 1196210

- "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson's Personal Seal
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 684270
United States
01/07/2010 04:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

If nothing can be proved then all of your assumptions including your incompleteness theorem cannot be proved as well.

Thats like saying "all statements are false except this one."

Science works because it's not about proving things. Science is about finding out how things work for practical purposes. It may or may not be able to prove deep philosophical questions which may or may not have answers.

God can never be disproved as much as pink unicorns can't be disproved.

You made quite a few assumptions to make god exist completely negating your whole argument about the incompleteness theorem.
Bleeding Thoughts

User ID: 859077
United States
01/07/2010 04:16 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"? If "god" has to be a conscious being then who created "god"?

Last Edited by Bleeding Thoughts on 01/07/2010 04:23 AM
ThePatriotMind
Don't Tread on Me

User ID: 577234
United States
01/07/2010 04:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"?
 Quoting: Bleeding Thoughts



Signed

The Patriot Mind

* please read "The Creature from Jykell Island" short easy read on how federal reserve was founded... Then follow that up with the movie "America: Freedom to Fascism "
Wraithwynd

User ID: 717743
United States
01/07/2010 04:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"? If "god" has to be a conscious being then who created "god"?
 Quoting: Bleeding Thoughts


Hmm, that was my thought too.
Sinkhole list:
Thread: Sinkholes Updated 28 Dec 2010
find a sinkhole, add it to this thread, please.

"Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15, NKJV).
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 808006
United States
01/07/2010 04:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"? If "god" has to be a conscious being then who created "god"?
 Quoting: Bleeding Thoughts


You cannot put a circle around God because "God" is an "uncaused cause"
God was not created he creates and is neither here nor there but is.

I really liked this.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 684270
United States
01/07/2010 04:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"? If "god" has to be a conscious being then who created "god"?


You cannot put a circle around God because "God" is an "uncaused cause"
God was not created he creates and is neither here nor there but is.

I really liked this.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 808006


Can't argue with that logic!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 808006
United States
01/07/2010 04:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Havent you ever read the bible?

And God said,"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end."

Makes perfect sense to me and fits into this theory perfectly.
OP (OP)
User ID: 467395
United Arab Emirates
01/07/2010 04:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

If nothing can be proved then all of your assumptions including your incompleteness theorem cannot be proved as well.

Thats like saying "all statements are false except this one."

Science works because it's not about proving things. Science is about finding out how things work for practical purposes. It may or may not be able to prove deep philosophical questions which may or may not have answers.

God can never be disproved as much as pink unicorns can't be disproved.

You made quite a few assumptions to make god exist completely negating your whole argument about the incompleteness theorem.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 684270


You've mede a few assumptions here. First I am not the author of this article. I posted it for reference.

Second, you did not comprehend the reasoning behind the article because it has the same logic and reasoning used by the scientific community. Science relies on proof and not just 'how things work for practical purposes'. Yet, there are scientific theorems (as mentioned above) that are solidy relied on without proof.

As a non-believer (athiest) one is expected to accept that the universe (world) just came into being without a source for its inception. Yet daily, in life, every change (creation, destruction, altercation) in a state of being or entity or atom has specific reasoning due to science. Basically, scientific laws exist that cause things to happen a certain way...but when it comes to the question of why do these laws exist? The answer generally in most cases ends up being "because they exists and that's that." No definitive proof of the 'why' is every addressed.

Looking at it scientifically as a believer in God (supreme being) the reason is simple. Because the world/universe works, changes/alters in a certain way due to interaction with other elements and scientific laws, it stands to reason that every change has purpose for the causality. Keeping that in mind, it is rather strange for me to just accept the fact that the universe/life came into being without a specific originator and a purpose and reason of origin. The universe life all exists based on complex scientific laws and theorems yet why these laws exists and not to address the question of who originated them is rather 'unscientific' in my view.
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 834029
United States
01/07/2010 04:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Man...you start of stealing from Hofstadter and you finish off with the most blurry and confused version of the Strong Anthropic Principle.



As an atheist who has been a science-watcher for decades, these are old ideas to me. Mossy, mouldering, decrepit old.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 684270
United States
01/07/2010 04:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

If nothing can be proved then all of your assumptions including your incompleteness theorem cannot be proved as well.

Thats like saying "all statements are false except this one."

Science works because it's not about proving things. Science is about finding out how things work for practical purposes. It may or may not be able to prove deep philosophical questions which may or may not have answers.

God can never be disproved as much as pink unicorns can't be disproved.

You made quite a few assumptions to make god exist completely negating your whole argument about the incompleteness theorem.


You've mede a few assumptions here.
I'm not anti-assumption

First I am not the author of this article. I posted it for reference.
I assume you agree with the article indirectly if you are posting it. Your opinions stated below agree with that assumption

Second, you did not comprehend the reasoning behind the article because it has the same logic and reasoning used by the scientific community. Science relies on proof and not just 'how things work for practical purposes'. Yet, there are scientific theorems (as mentioned above) that are solidy relied on without proof.
nothing is absolutely certain in science

As a non-believer (athiest) one is expected to accept that the universe (world) just came into being without a source for its inception. Yet daily, in life, every change (creation, destruction, altercation) in a state of being or entity or atom has specific reasoning due to science. Basically, scientific laws exist that cause things to happen a certain way...but when it comes to the question of why do these laws exist? The answer generally in most cases ends up being "because they exists and that's that." No definitive proof of the 'why' is every addressed.

science doesn't attempt to answer the why. only the how. The existing laws work because they haven't been proven not to work (in practical uses).Science does not have all the answers. There may or may not be a theory of everything that explains everything

Looking at it scientifically as a believer in God (supreme being) the reason is simple. Because the world/universe works, changes/alters in a certain way due to interaction with other elements and scientific laws, it stands to reason that every change has purpose for the causality. Keeping that in mind, it is rather strange for me to just accept the fact that the universe/life came into being without a specific originator and a purpose and reason of origin. The universe life all exists based on complex scientific laws and theorems yet why these laws exists and not to address the question of who originated them is rather 'unscientific' in my view.

science only attempts explaining how things work. It doesn't know (yet or maybe ever) the original conditions of how things were. I'm sorry your ideas of science were misguided.Science does not know all of the laws or theorems.

 Quoting: OP 467395


Your version of god was handed down to you by religion. Religion was mostly made up. Therefore, god has little to no meaning. It only exists as this quasi-supreme being, as you put it, in your mind. If this allows you to function and be happy, I'm very happy for you.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 467395
United Arab Emirates
01/07/2010 05:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Man...you start of stealing from Hofstadter and you finish off with the most blurry and confused version of the Strong Anthropic Principle.



As an atheist who has been a science-watcher for decades, these are old ideas to me. Mossy, mouldering, decrepit old.
 Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 834029


As an atheist you seem to pay very little attention to basic details like the fact that I did not write this article.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 856752
Hungary
01/07/2010 05:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
This is no proof. This is bending the words. You can't prove anything by just saying words.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 662708
Australia
01/07/2010 05:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Your version of god was handed down to you by religion. Religion was mostly made up. Therefore, god has little to no meaning. It only exists as this quasi-supreme being, as you put it, in your mind. If this allows you to function and be happy, I'm very happy for you.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 684270


You dont need to believe or follow any religion to beleive in God. A lot of atheists struggle with this concept. You can quite happily believe in God and reject all religions if you so choose.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 848282
Australia
01/07/2010 05:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
What if you put a circle around circles? CIRCLES WILL NO LONGER EXIST AND THEREFORE GOLDEL"S THEROY IS WRONG!!!
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 467395
United Arab Emirates
01/07/2010 05:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Your version of god was handed down to you by religion. Religion was mostly made up. Therefore, god has little to no meaning. It only exists as this quasi-supreme being, as you put it, in your mind. If this allows you to function and be happy, I'm very happy for you.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 684270


Yet another assumption. The question of spirituality (existance of supreme being) on a personal level, is not based on 'god was handed down to you by religion'.

Organized religion and what it teaches is not what is at debate here. The point is at a personal level, one has to address the reason for life and one's existance and how the world works. These are addressed by delving into spirituality.

The problem here i feel is that existance or non-existance of God is always turned into a debate on the lowest common denominator.

Assume all believers of God are square, organized religion followers who care little about science and logic.

And it is fairly cool to be an athiest in comparison, because I am in company of scientists and intellectuals who do not believe in God.

This stream of thought and belief within all societies and is rather assinine. And therefore it is a waste of time to have a real open-minded debate.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 281126
Netherlands
01/07/2010 05:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
It's not proof. it's just a theory that isn'proven.
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 834029
United States
01/07/2010 05:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Man...you start of stealing from Hofstadter and you finish off with the most blurry and confused version of the Strong Anthropic Principle.



As an atheist who has been a science-watcher for decades, these are old ideas to me. Mossy, mouldering, decrepit old.


As an atheist you seem to pay very little attention to basic details like the fact that I did not write this article.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 467395



Ah, sorry. Let me rephrase, then.


Man...you start off plagarising a guy who stole from Hofstadter, and you ended up with a confused and meandering blur in the direction of the Strong Anthropic Principle.

Well, at least you spent the six seconds it must have taken to scroll to the end of the article before you hit "Copy." So that makes you better than the chaps who post a YouTube link and offer no comment on it.

(But really, what's the point of borrowed words? Why can't you have your own ideas? Why can't you speak them in your own words? If you have ideas you think are controversial, don't you owe it to your audience, to yourself, and to the author to stand behind them? What sort of mealy-mouth excuse is it to say "Hey, I didn't write this, so don't ask me?" You COPIED it, didn't you? So it means something to you, right?)
Global Village Idiot

User ID: 836118
Ireland
01/07/2010 05:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Interesting, however....

- There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove

Why?
OP
User ID: 513483
United Arab Emirates
01/07/2010 05:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Ah, sorry. Let me rephrase, then.


Man...you start off plagarising a guy who stole from Hofstadter, and you ended up with a confused and meandering blur in the direction of the Strong Anthropic Principle.

Well, at least you spent the six seconds it must have taken to scroll to the end of the article before you hit "Copy." So that makes you better than the chaps who post a YouTube link and offer no comment on it.

(But really, what's the point of borrowed words? Why can't you have your own ideas? Why can't you speak them in your own words? If you have ideas you think are controversial, don't you owe it to your audience, to yourself, and to the author to stand behind them? What sort of mealy-mouth excuse is it to say "Hey, I didn't write this, so don't ask me?" You COPIED it, didn't you? So it means something to you, right?)
 Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 834029


Once again, I have to you don't really pay attention, do you? For starters, this article was received via email and I decided to post it in full because there was no link available. Second, the Author's name is mentioned mentioned at the bottom of the article. Go have a look. Third, plagarism would be a debate, if I was trying to sell this article as my own. Fourth, if you had taken the time to skim through some of the replies, you would have seen my opinions/points of view.

Needless to say, I am not surprised by your replies to this thread. It seems, (and is believed by most) that the easist form of showing one's own intellect is by demeaning someone else's point of view.

Debate with you on this issue is clearly a waste a time for me. Because as clearly evident by your replies, had a definitve argument you would have addressed it towards the author of the article or with the theory of Kurt Godel. You even after my initial reply continue to jump the gun and accuse me of plagarism. To me it proves that for you it is personal issue rather then a healthy exchange of opinions.

Learn to differentiate between arrogance and confidence. By debating me here on any level, does not prove your intellect or impresses any one that you seem to have a clearer view of reality. You have just proven your attitude to be uncivil and generically mediocre just like a lot of quick rant, close-minded people here.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 684270
United States
01/07/2010 05:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
Your version of god was handed down to you by religion. Religion was mostly made up. Therefore, god has little to no meaning. It only exists as this quasi-supreme being, as you put it, in your mind. If this allows you to function and be happy, I'm very happy for you.


Yet another assumption. The question of spirituality (existance of supreme being) on a personal level, is not based on 'god was handed down to you by religion'.

Organized religion and what it teaches is not what is at debate here. The point is at a personal level, one has to address the reason for life and one's existance and how the world works. These are addressed by delving into spirituality.

The problem here i feel is that existance or non-existance of God is always turned into a debate on the lowest common denominator.

Assume all believers of God are square, organized religion followers who care little about science and logic.

And it is fairly cool to be an athiest in comparison, because I am in company of scientists and intellectuals who do not believe in God.

This stream of thought and belief within all societies and is rather assinine. And therefore it is a waste of time to have a real open-minded debate.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 467395


ok, let me paint a picture for you.

Assume all knowledge is infinite or finite. Science only knows so much. It doesnt know or claim to know everything. Human's in general want to know the answers the basic deep philosophical questions no matter what. Some use science as a rough logical jump to make a guess at the answers. Sometimes you "feel" the answers. And then there are pre-packaged answers for you based on a mixture of the 3. At the end of the day, you don't know for certain those answers and that's why there is a wide range of debate. Opining on something is not the same as knowing it to some degree of certainty.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 564424
United States
01/07/2010 05:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
yawn Can i have the short unabridged version?
 Quoting: seraph 851849

OP cannot explain it simply, that requires true understanding.

Also Godel liked Islam, which follows the ways of a child rapist
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 848282
Australia
01/07/2010 05:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
yawn Can i have the short unabridged version?
 Quoting: seraph 851849


Sheesh, look up "unabridged" in the dictionary.
OP
User ID: 513483
United Arab Emirates
01/07/2010 06:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
ok, let me paint a picture for you.

Assume all knowledge is infinite or finite. Science only knows so much. It doesnt know or claim to know everything. Human's in general want to know the answers the basic deep philosophical questions no matter what. Some use science as a rough logical jump to make a guess at the answers. Sometimes you "feel" the answers. And then there are pre-packaged answers for you based on a mixture of the 3. At the end of the day, you don't know for certain those answers and that's why there is a wide range of debate. Opining on something is not the same as knowing it to some degree of certainty.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 684270


I agree with you completely. For me the point is to source and seek the truth as a personal endevour. To be open to ideas and other points of view to contemplate the answer (as close as one can get to it) based on the information you can access. For some, it is certainty on 'how things are'...it could be science ONLY enthusiasts who discount all spiritual aspects/studies/philosophies on the issue OR it could be religion ONLY enthusiasts who cling to only a specific version of reality as they are indoctrined to do.

My purpose for highligting this article was specifically to present an example of another opinion. There are many interpretations, studies, theories and opinions out there and we owe it to ourselves to be open to reading and understaning them rather than close our selves off to other views.

My pursuit of truth continues (at whatever level it may be) but the point is to continue to invesigate as much as one can to come to clearer understanding even if it is not definitive conclusion.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 826427
United States
01/07/2010 06:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
What the OP posted is completely true. There will always be small and narrow minds that can't possibly comprehend it, however. I see a few have already posted here very determined to seem intelligent and failing miserably.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 859118
United States
01/07/2010 06:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
The universe not explaining its self and being infinite doesnt prove god.

the sentences:

- All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.

- Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.

are made up imaginary sentences which prove nothing

this post is stupid.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 513483
United Arab Emirates
01/07/2010 06:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe..
OP cannot explain it simply, that requires true understanding.

Also Godel liked Islam, which follows the ways of a child rapist
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 564424


Revel in your ignorance and stupidity. You deserve it and nothing more.

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob