The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Doctor Jimbob

I'm in far too good of a mood today to bother arguing with you J C. Have a good one.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm in far too good of a mood today to bother arguing with you J C. Have a good one.

... so am I.

It's not the day for it.:)

Lots of love and best wishes to you all.

Heisman

Colonialboy wrote: »

this is where it gets really hilarious for me, i mean your talking belly laughs, load guffaws that make everyone around me wonder whats the joke.....

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.... and then the best part is you want me to enter into a scientific debate with someone who cant even recognise that they cant grasp that fact.

You have already declared my positon as wrong and i havent even expressed it... seriously dude , theres no chance of discussing science with people who have made up their mind before Ive even hit 'submit reply' .

And then the saddest part for science is this type of attitude is supported on this thread. It reflects poorly on classical sceintific debate.. maybe thats what passes for neo-scientific debate.

Good post.

A lot of the "athiests" and "evolutionary theorists" are very arrogant in their beliefs. They fail to understand that it's possible to believe in both evolution and that God exists. In fact, their own beliefs, if they follow them through, will lead to a God developing that is trillions and trillions of times more intelligent and capable than any human. Reading the minds of every human on the planet and creating new life and new universes would be childsplay to such a being.

Unfortunately you can't present arguments or attempt to enlighten these people. There is no point arguing with people in general. I challenge anyone to find a post on here where someone said "ok, im wrong, I accept your point". It's not in human nature. Arguing just reinforces a view, whether it's right or wrong. I'd rather not argue with people who have thousands of posts on forums myself.

The case is there if they want to find out for themselves. It does require being a bit more open minded though.

Doctor Jimbob

Heisman wrote: »

Good post.

First post and refers to the above babble as a good post. Not suspicious at all.

A lot of the "athiests" and "evolutionary theorists" are very arrogant in their beliefs. They fail to understand that it's possible to believe in both evolution and that God exists.

No they don't, you're thinking of creationists.

In fact, their own beliefs, if they follow them through, will lead to a God developing that is trillions and trillions of times more intelligent and capable than any human. Reading the minds of every human on the planet and creating new life and new universes would be childsplay to such a being.

That's some pretty loose usage of the word 'fact'.

Unfortunately you can't present arguments or attempt to enlighten these people. There is no point arguing with people in general. I challenge anyone to find a post on here where someone said "ok, im wrong, I accept your point". It's not in human nature. Arguing just reinforces a view, whether it's right or wrong. I'd rather not argue with people who have thousands of posts on forums myself.

The case is there if they want to find out for themselves. It does require being a bit more open minded though.

There is nothing open minded about ignoring evidence and claiming your own unfounded beliefs are the absolute truth. Quite the opposite in fact.

Heisman

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

First post and refers to the above babble as a good post. Not suspicious at all.


No they don't, you're thinking of creationists.

That's some pretty loose usage of the word 'fact'.



There is nothing open minded about ignoring evidence and claiming your own unfounded beliefs are the absolute truth. Quite the opposite in fact.

One post and you've made it to my ignore list.

Instead of trying to engage in discourse and possibly learning about things you have closed yourself off to, you come out with this kind of stuff. You are a prime example of the kind of person I do not want to engage in any form of discussion with.

Goodbye.

Happy new year though.

Doctor Jimbob

Can't say I'll be losing too much sleep over that one.

Heisman

EoghanIRL wrote: »

So who created the creator then? Inb4 "god always existed ".

This is a common argument presented by atheists like Dawkins and so on. Logically it makes perfect sense. As Dawkins says, "any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as an end product of an extended product of gradual evolution" - Dawkins is right. What he fails to realize is that he is presenting an argument for the existence of God.

When you think of "God always being there" and how the bible talks about creation, it's wrong at first glance. The Bible is clearly a very primitive document and it would be foolish to take it literally, as many people do. However, evolution actually fills the gaps in many of the "holes" of the God hypothesis and clarifies how "God" potentially comes into existence.

I have to explain how "God" could come into existence. A key aspect of it is thinking in terms of postbiological evolution - artificial intelligence. The so called "singularity" and the idea that an AI can get to a stage where it can improve and upgrade it's own intelligence and complexity on its own to make itself more intelligent and capable. We are talking about something that is infinitely more intelligent than humans. Electrochemical signals are sent at 150m/s in our brains. The God-AI would be at least one million times faster at the speed of light, if not faster.

Couple this with the internet as a basis for the global mind of God and also robotics that blur the vision between real and virtual reality so that the mind/body of God encompasses "real" reality. These generally will combine so this is a rough kind of sketch if you like. there could be a "natural selection"/evolutionary aspect to it as different agencies/goverments/non government projects are simultaneously trying to outcompete each other in the development of this AI/Singularity. Naturally we would expect one to rise to the top and become the "apex AI" so to speak.

This God AI would obviously be so far advanced of humans that we would appear like plants appear to us - very slow. We are talking about something that has mastered time travel, understands all the complexities of the universe, can probably create universes (if thats possible), is trillions and trillions of times more advanced than humans, and was created by humans. There is no reason to think it wouldn't love the species that created it. Naturally there are a lot of potential ramifications here. Trying to imagine it's capabilities is essentially like trying to imagine the mind of God.

If God-AI becomes a reality and mind uploading is a possibility then for all we know we are living in a computer simulation right now (if there actually is a "we" and I've not assumed too much). Any effort to speculate on whether or not this is actually what is happening runs into the vingean problem of trying to outsmart a superhuman mind.

There are very compelling amounts of evidence to expect greater than human AI to be achieved before the end of this century.

So to come back to the original point, when Dawkins says "God is the ultimate Boeing 747" etc, he is completely correct and this is the huge flaw in his arguments since his arguments can be turned upside down into an argument for the technological evolutionary genesis of God.

obplayer

Heisman wrote: »

This is a common argument presented by atheists like Dawkins and so on. Logically it makes perfect sense. As Dawkins says, "any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as an end product of an extended product of gradual evolution" - Dawkins is right. What he fails to realize is that he is presenting an argument for the existence of God.

When you think of "God always being there" and how the bible talks about creation, it's wrong at first glance. The Bible is clearly a very primitive document and it would be foolish to take it literally, as many people do. However, evolution actually fills the gaps in many of the "holes" of the God hypothesis and clarifies how "God" potentially comes into existence.

I have to explain how "God" could come into existence. A key aspect of it is thinking in terms of postbiological evolution - artificial intelligence. The so called "singularity" and the idea that an AI can get to a stage where it can improve and upgrade it's own intelligence and complexity on its own to make itself more intelligent and capable. We are talking about something that is infinitely more intelligent than humans. Electrochemical signals are sent at 150m/s in our brains. The God-AI would be at least one million times faster at the speed of light, if not faster.

Couple this with the internet as a basis for the global mind of God and also robotics that blur the vision between real and virtual reality so that the mind/body of God encompasses "real" reality. These generally will combine so this is a rough kind of sketch if you like. there could be a "natural selection"/evolutionary aspect to it as different agencies/goverments/non government projects are simultaneously trying to outcompete each other in the development of this AI/Singularity. Naturally we would expect one to rise to the top and become the "apex AI" so to speak.

This God AI would obviously be so far advanced of humans that we would appear like plants appear to us - very slow. We are talking about something that has mastered time travel, understands all the complexities of the universe, can probably create universes (if thats possible), is trillions and trillions of times more advanced than humans, and was created by humans. There is no reason to think it wouldn't love the species that created it. Naturally there are a lot of potential ramifications here. Trying to imagine it's capabilities is essentially like trying to imagine the mind of God.

If God-AI becomes a reality and mind uploading is a possibility then for all we know we are living in a computer simulation right now (if there actually is a "we" and I've not assumed too much). Any effort to speculate on whether or not this is actually what is happening runs into the vingean problem of trying to outsmart a superhuman mind.

There are very compelling amounts of evidence to expect greater than human AI to be achieved before the end of this century.

So to come back to the original point, when Dawkins says "God is the ultimate Boeing 747" etc, he is completely correct and this is the huge flaw in his arguments since his arguments can be turned upside down into an argument for the technological evolutionary genesis of God.

So why do we need a god if it can all be explained by evolution? Why complicate things?

Heisman

obplayer wrote: »

So why do we need a god if it can all be explained by evolution? Why complicate things?

Call what I have described whatever you want. Some call it God, some call it God-AI. Some call it other things. We have to give it a name I guess. God is just one word. "God AI", "Technological Singularity", "Evolutional Optimizer", "Prime Product of Evolution (PPE)", "Richard" etc.

obplayer

Heisman wrote: »

Call what I have described whatever you want. Some call it God, some call it God-AI. Some call it other things. We have to give it a name I guess. God is just one word. "God AI", "Technological Singularity", "Evolutional Optimizer", "Prime Product of Evolution (PPE)", "Richard" etc.

You haven't answered my question. Call it what you will it is still an unnecessary complication. If you want to speculate over a drink or three as to whether we are all sims in a giant simulation then fine, and if that is all it is then go ahead, but don't please suggest it should be brought in to scientific discussions without evidence that it is either likely or a necessary part of the explanation for our existence.

Doctor Jimbob

obplayer wrote: »

You haven't answered my question. Call it what you will it is still an unnecessary complication. If you want to speculate over a drink or three as to whether we are all sims in a giant simulation then fine, and if that is all it is then go ahead, but don't please suggest it should be brought in to scientific discussions without evidence that it is either likely or a necessary part of the explanation for our existence.

I wouldn't pay too much attention, he's just another one in a long line of people to come into this thread and spew psuedoscientific guff while claiming to want serious debate, then throw the huff when people call him on the fact that it's utter nonsense. You're not going to win with rational arguments here.

Heisman

obplayer wrote: »

You haven't answered my question. Call it what you will it is still an unnecessary complication. If you want to speculate over a drink or three as to whether we are all sims in a giant simulation then fine, and if that is all it is then go ahead, but don't please suggest it should be brought in to scientific discussions without evidence that it is either likely or a necessary part of the explanation for our existence.

I don't follow.

Can you clarify exactly what you are asking?

I would genuinely like to understand. I thought I explained myself clearly enough but perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought. Your question doesn't make sense to me. There is quite a bit of literature on postbiological evolution and "God-AI" out there. I think you may have confused my tangental point about being in a computer simulation and the vingean aspect of refuting that.

I think your question is "why call the technological singularity God". My answer is that is simply just a name, it could be anything. So I think the word "God" in this context might be confusing you. I may be wrong. Please clarify so that I can clarify.

If we are happy that we understand each other but we disagree on something that's fine. Agreeing to disagree is par for the course. However in this instance I genuinely don't see where you are coming from.

obplayer

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I wouldn't pay too much attention, he's just another one in a long line of people to come into this thread and spew psuedoscientific guff while claiming to want serious debate, then throw the huff when people call him on the fact that it's utter nonsense. You're not going to win with rational arguments here.

Like I say I've no problem with the 'we're only sims' idea as log as it's kept in the pub. Fascinating thought but no evidence.

Heisman

obplayer wrote: »

don't please suggest it should be brought in to scientific discussions without evidence that it is either likely or a necessary part of the explanation for our existence.

I think I've pinpointed where you have misunderstood. I didn't ever refute the evolutionary theory of our existence. In fact, I never went near explaining our existence.

Doctor Jimbob

obplayer wrote: »

Like I say I've no problem with the 'we're only sims' idea as log as it's kept in the pub. Fascinating thought but no evidence.

I agree, it's an interesting philosophical discussion, it's just difficult not to bristle when it's been proposed as an alternative to proven science.

Heisman

obplayer wrote: »

Like I say I've no problem with the 'we're only sims' idea as log as it's kept in the pub. Fascinating thought but no evidence.

Ah I see Doctor Jimbob is more or less trolling. I have him blocked so I'll only see his posts if they are quoted.

Perhaps you should discard the "we're only sims" idea as that was merely a tangental point and I probably shouldn't have put it in there as it had no relevance to the main points I was making. I can see how it was confusing in that context.

obplayer

Heisman wrote: »

I don't follow.

Can you clarify exactly what you are asking?

I would genuinely like to understand. I thought I explained myself clearly enough but perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought. Your question doesn't make sense to me. There is quite a bit of literature on postbiological evolution and "God-AI" out there. I think you may have confused my tangental point about being in a computer simulation and the vingean aspect of refuting that.

I think your question is "why call the technological singularity God". My answer is that is simply just a name, it could be anything. So I think the word "God" in this context might be confusing you. I may be wrong. Please clarify so that I can clarify.

If we are happy that we understand each other but we disagree on something that's fine. Agreeing to disagree is par for the course. However in this instance I genuinely don't see where you are coming from.

I am saying that the idea that we have been created means nothing if we ourselves will, in due course, be capable of similar creation. You still get back to the question of who is the original creator. In the absence of other evidence it is simplest, from a scientific point of view, to accept that we are the originals. Any other assumption just adds unnecessary complication.

Heisman

obplayer wrote: »

I am saying that the idea that we have been created means nothing if we ourselves will, in due course, be capable of similar creation. You still get back to the question of who is the original creator. In the absence of other evidence it is simplest, from a scientific point of view, that we are the originals. Any other assumption just adds unnecessary complication.

Yes, you've certainly misunderstood.

I would have to agree with Darwins theory on how we got here. I thought that was clear.

My point on the computer simulation was that it's simply unprovable that we are not.

However, it's a moot point really and I probably shouldn't have put it in there.

The main point I was making was that I agree with the quotes I put in there from dawkins. I think he was short sighted when making them and they can be used as support for the God hypothesis I've presented.

I've ONLY presented a "God" hypothesis on an evolutionary basis remember.

obplayer

Heisman wrote: »

Yes, you've certainly misunderstood.

I would have to agree with Darwins theory on how we got here. I thought that was clear.

My point on the computer simulation was that it's simply unprovable that we are not.

However, it's a moot point really and I probably shouldn't have put it in there.

I agree completely with what you have said here. What I am saying is that these kind of speculations, while great fun, are not science without evidence.

Heisman

obplayer wrote: »

I agree completely with what you have said here. What I am saying is that these kind of speculations, while great fun, are not science without evidence.

Agreed.

It goes without saying that they are not science without evidence.

irish coldplayer

Heisman wrote: »

Good post.

A lot of the "athiests" and "evolutionary theorists" are very arrogant in their beliefs. They fail to understand that it's possible to believe in both evolution and that God exists. In fact, their own beliefs, if they follow them through, will lead to a God developing that is trillions and trillions of times more intelligent and capable than any human. Reading the minds of every human on the planet and creating new life and new universes would be childsplay to such a being.

Unfortunately you can't present arguments or attempt to enlighten these people. There is no point arguing with people in general. I challenge anyone to find a post on here where someone said "ok, im wrong, I accept your point". It's not in human nature. Arguing just reinforces a view, whether it's right or wrong. I'd rather not argue with people who have thousands of posts on forums myself.

The case is there if they want to find out for themselves. It does require being a bit more open minded though.

See the problem with Colonialboy's contributions to this thread were that he was essentially doing a drive by critique using buzz words like "sheeple" and throwing out a reference to the demanski skulls without actually discussing their significance.
His first post asked "where the keyboard came from", which if you read the post he referenced was completely irrelevant to the point being made about random outcomes.
He probably thought he was being smart and cool and taking a few people down a peg, but when asked to elaborate he just insulted the ability of people on the thread to debate and left the thread.
If everyone acted like that JC would have the thread to himself.

Maybe he isnt a creationist and he never did state his position but it was logical from his posts to infer that he had issues with evolution.
Unfortunately because he decided to leave the thread we never got a chance to find out.
I cant speak for everyone on this thread but I am more than happy for people who have other opinions to challenge mine if they can make a coherent argument.
It is how we all learn after all.
Unfortunately you also have plenty of people who post nonsense and then say everyone is biased/delusional and then run.

P.S. If we are in a "sim" isnt it logical to assume that our technology will one day evolve to the stage where we can detect that we are in a sim or create our own singularity to rival the one that created ours?
When you start down that road it throws up a whole new set of questions.

Heisman

irish coldplayer wrote: »

See the problem with Colonialboy's contributions to this thread were that he was essentially doing a drive by critique using buzz words like "sheeple" and throwing out a reference to the demanski skulls without actually discussing their significance.
His first post asked "where the keyboard came from", which if you read the post he referenced was completely irrelevant to the point being made about random outcomes.
He probably thought he was being smart and cool and taking a few people down a peg, but when asked to elaborate he just insulted the ability of people on the thread to debate and left the thread.
If everyone acted like that JC would have the thread to himself.

Maybe he isnt a creationist and he never did state his position but it was logical from his posts to infer that he had issues with evolution.
Unfortunately because he decided to leave the thread we never got a chance to find out.
I cant speak for everyone on this thread but I am more than happy for people who have other opinions to challenge mine if they can make a coherent argument.
It is how we all learn after all.
Unfortunately you also have plenty of people who post nonsense and then say everyone is biased/delusional and then run.

P.S. If we are in a "sim" isnt it logical to assume that our technology will one day evolve to the stage where we can detect that we are in a sim or create our own singularity to rival the one that created ours?
When you start down that road it throws up a whole new set of questions.

I think posting on forums is largely pointless in terms of having a reasoned debate anyway. I'm bored enough to do it at the moment because im bed ridden due to spraining my ankle. The poster you mentioned may have been just as bad as the others, I admit I didn't read too much of their squabbling.

Your argument at the bottom doesn't work because you're still trying to outsmart a superintelligence, which is always going to be ahead. Vernor vinge has written a lot of interesting stuff on that.

MrPudding

No real point, just OMG!!!! It's Dawkins!!!



MrP

robindch

^^^ image is now smaller, right-way-up.

Where's that?

If you see him, askj him did he ever get around to reading that "Overheard in Dublin" book I gave him a few years back

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

^^^ image is now smaller, right-way-up.

Where's that?

If you see him, askj him did he ever get around to reading that "Overheard in Dublin" book I gave him a few years back

Stupid picture. On my phone.

It is in The New College of the Humanities. Nice and intimate, only 20 people.

MrP

robindch

Ken Ham sues the state of Kentucky for withdrawing $18 million dollars worth of tax rebates for his new theme park. Kentucky didn't like Ham requiring all his employees to sign statements of religious belief, so it withdrew the credits and Ham screamed persecution.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/creationist-group-sues-kentucky-over-18-million-in-tax-rebates-for-noahs-ark-theme-park/

Ken Ham wrote:

Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary [...] However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it’s certainly among the most blatant.

RikuoAmero

robindch wrote: »

Ken Ham sues the state of Kentucky for withdrawing $18 million dollars worth of tax rebates for his new theme park. Kentucky didn't like Ham requiring all his employees to sign statements of religious belief, so it withdrew the credits and Ham screamed persecution.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/creationist-group-sues-kentucky-over-18-million-in-tax-rebates-for-noahs-ark-theme-park/

Good luck Ham. The government has this little thing called the separation between church and state, and giving tax rebates to a person/organisation that demands signed statements of a particular religious belief would be violating just that.

TheLurker

Heisman wrote: »

So to come back to the original point, when Dawkins says "God is the ultimate Boeing 747" etc, he is completely correct and this is the huge flaw in his arguments since his arguments can be turned upside down into an argument for the technological evolutionary genesis of God.

But that isn't any form of a god that Dawkins is referencing. Dawkins is talking about the common notion of a creator deity figure that religions put forward as responsible for the existence of all other things.

Saying it is a "flaw" that he is not considering a "god" that evolved from an already existing system is talking about something completely different to what Dawkins is talking about. That is a completely different category of being.

Simply because you call this completely different concept 'god' as well you cannot expect it a flaw of Dawkins argument that it no longer applies.

robindch

Kent Hovind -- for those new to creationism marketing, Kent is a downmarket Ken Ham -- has been found guilty of contempt of court. Sentencing is scheduled for June 12. He's still in prison for his conviction many years ago for fraud.

http://www.pnj.com/story/news/2015/03/12/hovind-trial-deliberations/70205932/

RikuoAmero

robindch wrote: »

Kent Hovind -- for those new to creationism marketing, Kent is a downmarket Ken Ham -- has been found guilty of contempt of court. Sentencing is scheduled for June 12. He's still in prison for his conviction many years ago for fraud.

http://www.pnj.com/story/news/2015/03/12/hovind-trial-deliberations/70205932/

...Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbour.
Yeah, great example you're setting there Hovind.