God proof models

[magnifier661]

Good for you and those who think so.

I agreed with Further, so there goes that theory.

The thing is, NOBODY who's posted in this thread agrees with you. Why is that?

Agrees with what? That God exists?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this thread is to account for models and empirical tools to prove God exists. Regardless if you believe in God or not, the tools exists, therefor your silly claim that there are no means or empirical tools or observations to measure or try and measure the existence of God.

That's where you failed. Your mockery of arguments are trying to debate the existence of God, which is why I am laughing at you. This thread was not meant to proof that God exists, rather to prove there are tools in place to prove God exists.

 

[Denny Crane]

Agrees with what? That God exists?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this thread is to account for models and empirical tools to prove God exists. Regardless if you believe in God or not, the tools exists, therefor your silly claim that there are no means or empirical tools or observations to measure or try and measure the existence of God.

That's where you failed. Your mockery of arguments are trying to debate the existence of God, which is why I am laughing at you. This thread was not meant to proof that God exists, rather to prove there are tools in place to prove God exists.

Agrees with you on much of anything. Nobody's said you are right about much. The tool is not a good one. Nice try, but it failed.

 

[magnifier661]

You don't need the entire framework of the universe.

If you want to consider water, you don't need to wait for 2 hydrogens and one oxygen to join before the next ones can join. You might get bazillions of them joining at the very same instant.

And you abuse the term axiom.

Axiom is a term without conspiracy, just as you quoted. I refute your concept, therefor it is a false axiom. You haven't given a shred of proof that supports your theory.

 

[Denny Crane]

Axiom is a term without conspiracy, just as you quoted. I refute your concept, therefor it is a false axiom. You haven't given a shred of proof that supports your theory.

OK Einstein.

 

[magnifier661]

Agrees with you on much of anything. Nobody's said you are right about much. The tool is not a good one. Nice try, but it failed.

And boom goes the dynamite!

Your admission that it's a tool ends the debate. Because you claimed there are zero. Thanks for playing. I don't need you to believe it's a good or bad one. Just that there are tools in place.

 

[magnifier661]

OK Einstein.

Weird how you use this debating tactic, then start name calling when it's turned back at you. How contradictory?!?! Go figure

 

[Denny Crane]

And boom goes the dynamite!

Your admission that it's a tool ends the debate. Because you claimed there are zero. Thanks for playing. I don't need you to believe it's a good or bad one. Just that there are tools in place.

OK Einstein.

 

[magnifier661]

OK Einstein.

Sweet! You can move along now... Being in over your head is a hard pill for you to swallow, but you should get used to it by now

 

[Denny Crane]

Sweet! You can move along now... Being in over your head is a hard pill for you to swallow, but you should get used to it by now

OK Einstein.

 

[magnifier661]

OK Einstein.

How old are you? This playground banter doesn't make your case any better

 

[Further]

You've got this backward. It's not "do you believe there is such things as being God". It's using the axiom what would be God. So the equation is not God exists, therefor he exists. It's "because there are positives, and God is considered positive, and this positive is everywhere, then God exists".

The modal of Godel would not work under your axioms.

i really believe you are too caught up in winning an argument to stop and analyze what you say. I have tried to break it down, sorry I failed.

 

[magnifier661]

Here is the problem with Denny's axiom "multiple processors". The original argument was using the entire atoms of the universe. Denny is talking about a small closed system "the earth"; which doesn't take a genius to understand how it is dwarfed by the entire universe.

Another account that further supports life on Earth is the age of Earth as compared to the universe. As Marazul's posted argument; it accounts for the age of the universe, not earth.

So for Denny to get that little motor in his head to cranking; let's assume his "multiprocessor theory" does work. He would need to know the entire atom availability on Earth, take account for the actual time that the proposed "first self replicating molecule" on Earth came into being; then run his multi-processor concept.

Even then it wouldn't work.

 

[magnifier661]

i really believe you are too caught up in winning an argument to stop and analyze what you say. I have tried to break it down, sorry I failed.

It's not about winning the argument. I am using Godel's theorem with an entirely new set of parameters. This is science right? As I said a few pages back; "Is darwin's model now the same from conception?"

So changing the parameters "or axioms" void the model?

 

[MarAzul]

MarAzul,

Does your CPU have more than one core? If you have a dual core CPU, it can do the same computation in each core, meaning you can do two computations in the time a single core would take to do one.

How many "cores" is the universe? Your argument assumes one.

But there isn't just one. There is one "core" for each hydrogen atom. A trillion trillion trillion cores.

That's why your argument makes no sense.

I can tell you didn't read. But you do know computer or cores do not create time. Only God exists outside our time relative to us. The time required since the singularity we perceive is insufficient to create any life without the assistance of something beyond time. No number of cores create more time.

Perhaps this is why no man knows how to get it done even with all the cores we possess.
You see the power we have, but it is completely inadequate.

 

[Denny Crane]

I can tell you didn't read. But you do know computer or cores do not create time. Only God exists outside our time relative to us. The time required since the singularity we perceive is insufficient to create any life without the assistance of something beyond time. No number of cores create more time.

Perhaps this is why no man knows how to get it done even with all the cores we possess.
You see the power we have, but it is completely inadequate.

The proof you offered was that all chemical reactions must happen in a serial manner. But they don't. If you put salt in water and I put salt in water at the same time, my salt doesn't wait for yours to dissolve. Ya dig?

I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

 

[magnifier661]

I can tell you didn't read. But you do know computer or cores do not create time. Only God exists outside our time relative to us. The time required since the singularity we perceive is insufficient to create any life without the assistance of something beyond time. No number of cores create more time.

Perhaps this is why no man knows how to get it done even with all the cores we possess.
You see the power we have, but it is completely inadequate.

Well that and "these cores" would mean every molecule in the universe has a predisposed information bank for every living being or inorganic thing in this universe. The cores do no good unless there is a program to those computers to run the algorithms. It would be useless without it.

 

[magnifier661]

The proof you offered was that all chemical reactions must happen in a serial manner. But they don't. If you put salt in water and I put salt in water at the same time, my salt doesn't wait for yours to dissolve. Ya dig?

I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

Okay, but your simplified concept is wrong. In chemistry there are series of events that need to take place for one reaction. Your example is "putting salt in water" what chemical composition comes from that? How does that now effect, let's say the combination of sulfur? And what environmental conditions will effect it in another way? Then how about the bank of atoms available to make it happen?

Your simplifications are actually wrong. Chemistry, organic chemistry, biology and cosmology are more detailed than this simply analogy

 

[MarAzul]

The proof you offered was that all chemical reactions must happen in a serial manner. But they don't. If you put salt in water and I put salt in water at the same time, my salt doesn't wait for yours to dissolve. Ya dig?

I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I read the article, you obviously have not.

Ha! It is funny when you think of it.

I practice using science and math. and I know God put me here to do just that, so I believe in God.
You sir believe in science and random chance with out doing the math. Forget Godel, Galileo told you that is foolish.
You really should start take some axioms to heart, it will improve your performance.

 

[magnifier661]

I read the article, you obviously have not.

Ha! It is funny when you think of it.

I practice using science and math. and I know God put me here to do just that, so I believe in God.
You sir believe in science and random chance with out doing the math. Forget Godel, Galileo told you that is foolish.
You really should start take some axioms to heart, it will improve your performance.

It seems that Denny thinks "if I don't acknowledge the axioms, then it never happened".

 

[Denny Crane]

I read the article, you obviously have not.

Ha! It is funny when you think of it.

I practice using science and math. and I know God put me here to do just that, so I believe in God.
You sir believe in science and random chance with out doing the math. Forget Godel, Galileo told you that is foolish.
You really should start take some axioms to heart, it will improve your performance.

I actually did read it and I've seen it before. The number of planck times from the beginning of time until now is enough time. The argument you cite is simply wrong because it assumes that only one thing can happen per planck time. But salt in my water and salt in your water can dissolve in the same planck time. You can literally have a billion people dissolving salt in water at the exact same planck time.

Your argument assumes only one thing can happen.

 

[MarAzul]

I actually did read it and I've seen it before. The number of planck times from the beginning of time until now is enough time. The argument you cite is simply wrong because it assumes that only one thing can happen per planck time. But salt in my water and salt in your water can dissolve in the same planck time. You can literally have a billion people dissolving salt in water at the exact same planck time.

Your argument assumes only one thing can happen.

My argument has a built in proof. No monkey have produce any Shakespeare work and no man has a clue how to produce life nor does he know how many cores he needs to get there.
And I do know why and I know someone that also knows why.
You have faith but no knowledge and millions agree with you, but have no idea why, nor have they ever done the math.

 

[magnifier661]

My argument has a built in proof. No monkey have produce any Shakespeare work and no man has a clue how to produce life nor does he know how many cores he needs to get there.
And I do know why and I know someone that also knows why.
You have faith but no knowledge and millions agree with you, but have no idea why, nor have they ever done the math.

Funny you should mention that monkey theory. I always find it extremely contradictory that an atheist is fine using these hypothetical concepts, then completely discount others that use the concept of God. As you mentioned, it hasn't been observed, but the logic is okay because it came from a fellow atheist.

 

[Further]

Funny you should mention that monkey theory. I always find it extremely contradictory that an atheist is fine using these hypothetical concepts, then completely discount others that use the concept of God. As you mentioned, it hasn't been observed, but the logic is okay because it came from a fellow atheist.

I have no problem discussing a hypothetical God or assuming such in some specific thought experiment. But what you are asking is for us to accept that God exists in order to demonstrate a formula that shows that God could exist. Asking to assume in this case goes contrary to the intended goal of the formula, to prove that God exists with math and science and not with assumptions or religious views. It just doesn't work. If you want me to assume God exists for some other reason, I can play games too.

 

[tlongII]

11 pages. Unbeavable.

 

[magnifier661]

I have no problem discussing a hypothetical God or assuming such in some specific thought experiment. But what you are asking is for us to accept that God exists in order to demonstrate a formula that shows that God could exist. Asking to assume in this case goes contrary to the intended goal of the formula, to prove that God exists with math and science and not with assumptions or religious views. It just doesn't work. If you want me to assume God exists for some other reason, I can play games too.

No I am asking you if you think creation is positive? You keep bringing up "if God exists" as the base axiom. I am not using that axiom.

So I will ask you again "do you think creation is a positive"?

 

[MarAzul]

I have no problem discussing a hypothetical God or assuming such in some specific thought experiment. But what you are asking is for us to accept that God exists in order to demonstrate a formula that shows that God could exist. Asking to assume in this case goes contrary to the intended goal of the formula, to prove that God exists with math and science and not with assumptions or religious views. It just doesn't work. If you want me to assume God exists for some other reason, I can play games too.

So here is the net result of you position.

You have faith that God does not exist and that we got here by random chance even though accredited mathematicians tell you the math does not work. You do not need to do the math because you have faith that you are correct. That is fine if it is your position. Do I understand you correctly?

 

[Further]

No I am asking you if you think creation is positive? You keep bringing up "if God exists" as the base axiom. I am not using that axiom.

So I will ask you again "do you think creation is a positive"?

If I believed in God, I would likely think creation is a positive, so for the purpose of this rabbit hole, yes it's positive.

 

[Further]

...

 

[magnifier661]

If I believed in God, I would likely think creation is a positive, so for the purpose of this rabbit hole, yes it's positive.

Wait a minute... I am not talking about theistic creation. I'm talking about creation like "a baby being born" or "the sun giving life to plants".

 

[barfo]

So I will ask you again "do you think creation is a positive"?

You created this thread, and it certainly has no positive attributes.

barfo