Logical proof of a deistic "God"

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by martillo, Aug 6, 2017.

  1. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    No. What the Hell is that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,494
    Poe's Law

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    <<< 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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Poe at the end of my post

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Don't mock the Poe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Got it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    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:
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,327
    You could ask nicer.
     
  9. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    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...
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
  10. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,327
    People will think I'm dumb...

    Ask a coherent question.
     
  11. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    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.
     
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,327
    That's nice.
     
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,494
    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

    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?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    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...
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    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.
     
  16. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    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...
     
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    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.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    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.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    Very eloquently stated.
     
    spidergoat likes this.
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    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.
     
  22. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,494
    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


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Dywyddyr wrote:
    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:
    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:
    So, what the Hell are you doing Dywyddyr here now???!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Are you crazy or what???!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017

Share This Page