Logical proof of a deistic "God"

[martillo]

Are you familiar with Poe?

No. What the Hell is that?

 

[Michael 345]

No. What the Hell is that?

Poe's Law <<< Poe

Similar to Murphy's Law, Poe's Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

The law was named after theologian Dr. Harry Lee Poe, a cousin of Edgar Allan Poe, who promoted the concept in his book "The Gospel and Its Meaning: A Theology for Evangelism and Church Growth."

You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think

Hence my Poe at the end of my post



Don't mock the Poe

 

[martillo]

Poe's Law <<< Poe

Similar to Murphy's Law, Poe's Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

The law was named after theologian Dr. Harry Lee Poe, a cousin of Edgar Allan Poe, who promoted the concept in his book "The Gospel and Its Meaning: A Theology for Evangelism and Church Growth."

You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think

Hence my Poe at the end of my post



Don't mock the Poe

Got it.

 

[martillo]

Due to the conceptual problems related to Electric and Magnetic Forces I'm confronting in some Physics' Forum I find appropriated to present here and other forums the same claim:

I'm sorry. I forgot I'm an Engineer and that what I can do and I am qualified to do is not Science but Engineering. And as an Electrical Engineering then I claim:
As a qualified Electrical Engineer and in front of the current denying of the concept of "action at a distance forces" in electric and magnetic interactions and the replacement of it by the concept of photons' particles as "force carriers" as spread out on the internet, I demand Physics Science Community to present convincing experimental evidence of the presence of photons in all well known phenomena and experiments involving interactions between pieces of charged objects, pieces of magnets, wires and inside of all kind of running electric motors.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You could ask nicer.

 

[martillo]

Well, I must apologize for post #44. Actually a big mistake because someone in other forum talked about photons as "force carriers" leaving me with a serious misunderstanding.
Actually what we have is about experimentally undetectable "virtual particles" in spite of "action at a distance" concept...
I wonder which would be more strange...

 

[Beer w/Straw]

People will think I'm dumb...

Ask a coherent question.

 

[martillo]

People will think I'm dumb...

Ask a coherent question.

I don't have any question for you, only propositions you don't have capability to analyze properly as you already shown so nothing with you.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I don't have any question for you, only propositions you don't have capability to analyze properly as you already shown so nothing with you.

That's nice.

 

[Michael 345]

People will think I'm dumb...

Ask a coherent question.

I'm with you

Ask a coherent question and chances are you will obtain a coherent answer

Put forward a rambling proposition or theory or a bold assertion

The proof of the existence of a deistic "God" follows quite obviously:

and you will get "dumb" bunnies like us bowing down to your superior knowledge and breathlessly waiting on your next greatest revaluation

I'm staying turned

How about you beerie?

 

[martillo]

Well, I will ask why Science would not consider the possibility of a "Universal computing system" running the Physics laws over the elementary particles. If Science does not admit any kind of intelligence behind because the lack of evidence, it could sustain that in that case the computing system would surge "spontaneously" someway. Why not? If nowadays Science sustain that an entire Universe with even very sophisticated forms of life surged "naturally" why not some "Universal computing system" running the physics laws? This way there would not be problems with the concept of "action at a distance forces". We would just stay discussing if some kind of "God" exists or not.
I know with this my argument on the proposed proof of the OP becomes failing but I must recognize this possibility now...

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, I will ask why Science would not consider the possibility of a "Universal computing system" running the Physics laws over the elementary particles. If Science does not admit any kind of intelligence behind because the lack of evidence, it could sustain that in that case the computing system would surge "spontaneously" someway. Why not?

1. What problem does our understanding of the universe have that this hypothesis attempts to solve?
2. How is this hypothesis better at explaining some aspect of our universe than our current theory of The Standard Model?
3. What evidence is there to, never mind support the hypothesis, but to put it forth in the first place?
4. How would our universe being run on a computer be different than if it were not?

The reason I raised my fanciful suggestions about the nature of the universe is to compare and contrast them with your idea. How is your hypothesis less fanciful? "Because it involves a computer rather than a mythical character" is not sufficiently compelling.

 

[martillo]

1. What problem does our understanding of the universe have that this hypothesis attempts to solve?
2. How is this hypothesis better at explaining some aspect of our universe than our current theory of The Standard Model?
3. What evidence is there to, never mind support the hypothesis, but to put it forth in the first place?
4. How would our universe being run on a computer be different than if it were not?

The reason I raised my fanciful suggestions about the nature of the universe is to compare and contrast them with your idea. How is your hypothesis less fanciful? "Because it involves a computer rather than a mythical character" is not sufficiently compelling.

You know, the possibility of a "natural and spontaneous Universe's computing system"came to me just now while discussing on the forum. For now all what I can say is that would solve the problem related to the concept of "action at a distance forces" which becomes perfectly understood if we consider the laws of Physics as functions and equations running in some computing system (discrete, analogue, quantum or whatever would be). May be the possibility could rise new paradigms in Physics...

 

[spidergoat]

You know, that possibility came to me just now while discussing on the forum. For now all what I can say is that would solve the problem related to the concept of "action at a distance forces" which becomes perfectly understood if we consider the laws of Physics as functions and equations running in some computing system (discrete, analogue, quantum or whatever would be).

There are several theories on action at a distance, all more plausible than a god. In this case the universe itself is the computing system. You don't need to simulate anything when you already have the actual thing. Anyway, your theoretical controller (a profoundly Western concept) would need to be as complex as the universe itself, the very definition of compounding assumptions unnecessary, also known as the principal of Occam's Razor.

 

[DaveC426913]

You know, the possibility of a "natural and spontaneous Universe's computing system"came to me just now while discussing on the forum. For now all what I can say is that would solve the problem related to the concept of "action at a distance forces" which becomes perfectly understood if we consider the laws of Physics as functions and equations running in some computing system (discrete, analogue, quantum or whatever would be). May be the possibility could rise new paradigms in Physics...

If action at a distance is the only thing your hypothesis explains then your hypothesis is unnecessarily complex.

Essentially you are invoking an entire computer universe - fraught with all sorts of problems that have no answer - simply to find a place to hang some hidden forces or actions.
Why not dispense with the whole problem of a universe-computer and address the issue of these hidden entities that are causing this action at a distance?

You've gone form a gigantic, larger-than-the-universe, impossible-to-defend construct that you need to imagine into existence, to a simple set of mystery forces.

Way easier to assert and defend.

In short, as with most alternative theories, this one raises way, way, WAY more questions than it answers.

 

[DaveC426913]

There are several theories on action at a distance, all more plausible than a god. In this case the universe itself is the computing system. You don't need to simulate anything when you already have the actual thing. Anyway, your theoretical controller (a profoundly Western concept) would need to be as complex as the universe itself, the very definition of compounding assumptions unnecessary, also known as the principal of Occam's Razor.

Very eloquently stated.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ironically, either way you look at it, the universe-computer fails Occam's Razor. Thusly:

If it is being used to propose/justify the existence of God, then it raises the question: why would God need to simulate the universe? Why would he need a computer at all? Why would he not just create all the components for real?

Counter-intuitively, the upshot is that the 'universe-computer' hypothesis is actually even less plausible than the 'God made everything' hypothesis.

 

[Dywyddyr]

For now all what I can say is that would solve the problem related to the concept of "action at a distance forces"

The only "problem" with "action at a distance" is that you refuse to acknowledge that you're mistaken.

which becomes perfectly understood if we consider the laws of Physics as functions and equations running in some computing system (discrete, analogue, quantum or whatever would be).

No it doesn't.
Even IF there were something "calculating" there's no actual mechanism included in your "hypothesis" for actually causing movement/ reaction.
The ONLY way it would work is if the entire universe were a simulation [1] rather than an actual physical universe "run" by a program.

May be the possibility could rise new paradigms in Physics...

I don't think"ignoring the scientific facts" will ever catch on as a physics paradigm, new or otherwise.

1 Something you've implicitly excluded earlier: I mean by "implement" for them to actually work in reality.

 

[Michael 345]

The only "problem" with "action at a distance" is that you refuse to acknowledge that you're mistaken.


No it doesn't.
Even IF there were something "calculating" there's no actual mechanism included in your "hypothesis" for actually causing movement/ reaction.
The ONLY way it would work is if the entire universe were a simulation [1] rather than an actual physical universe "run" by a program.


I don't think"ignoring the scientific facts" will ever catch on as a physics paradigm, new or otherwise.

1 Something you've implicitly excluded earlier: I mean by "implement" for them to actually work in reality.

It does not compute

It does not compute

It does not compute

It does not compute

Blue screen of death

Reboot Reboot Reboot

Wrrrrrr Clicccccck

Abnormal shut down

Do you wish to start in safe mode?

YES

Muuuum

Unable to comply. Please call technical support at god 1800 or devil 666

 

[martillo]

Dywyddyr wrote:

The only "problem" with "action at a distance" is that you refuse to acknowledge that you're mistaken.

And here we have who in other forum denied "action at a distance" to exist insisting in "Einstein's photons" as "force carriers" to be the unique real thing and causing me the big trouble of demanding Physics Science Community to present experimental evidence for them in common electric phenomena and experiments. He, as a moderator in that forum suspended me for three days in posting that demand. For instance Dywyddyr wrote there:

However, you need to remember that the very concept of "photon" ( the force carrier of electromagnetism ) is actually a brain child of Einstein himself - he proposed this concept, and developed it, even before quantum field theories were conceived of. So in that sense, he did indeed mention it - it is essentially his own idea.

Now I know, thanks to the discussion here that the "force carriers" are not Einstein's photons at all but "virtual particles" which have nothing to do with those photons except for travelling at light velocity. I also know now that "action at a distance" actually is considered as a real possibility in current Physics Science as for instance spidergoat wrote right above at post #54:

There are several theories on action at a distance, all more plausible than a god. In this case the universe itself is the computing system. You don't need to simulate anything when you already have the actual thing.

So, what the Hell are you doing Dywyddyr here now???!!! Are you crazy or what???!!!