The last thing Science has left to prove is the existance of God. Of course, this brings us back to the babelfish:
That's not how science works. One does not set out to prove that something exists, but rather that it does not. If you succeed, you know it does not exist. If you fail, you have reason to suspect it might exist.
The product mix has stopped making sense, although only temporarily. In the portable line they have iBook G4 and MacBook Pro intel; in the desktop line they have iMac intel and PowerMac G5.
You're forgetting that they've also got all the machines they were selling yesterday.
iMac that's as powerful as a PowerMac? Who's gonna wanna buy PowerMacs for the next couple months?
Lots of people. If you need internal expansion, it's all you've got. And, if you rely upon any high-performance software, you'd be a fool to switch to Intel until there're native versions available.
And a MacBook Pro that's 10x more powerful than a iBook?!? There goes the iBook market...
Except that the base price of this new laptop is about what you'd pay for the top-of-the-line iBook maxed out with RAM, extended warranty, and the like. And, while it's faster, it's not gonna be ten times as fast. Today's iBooks are quite respectable machines.
Anybody else see the logic of transitioning the consumer desktop and pro laptop first, rather than starting with the consumer desktop and laptop, or the pro desktop and laptop, or the pro desktop and consumer laptop, or some other combination?
Sure, once you realize that they're offering these new machines in addition to all the old ones.
The energy state of the DNA molecule, and the resulting survival traits in the organism are to completely orthogonal concepts. It does not appear that you understand that.
[. ..]
Yes, that is exactly my point: Every permutation of DNA is equally likely. If you can demonstrate that this is not true, then please be my guest.
[. ..]
Mutations are more likely to be harmful than to be beneficial. Maybe you should check out these frogs in Minnesota [hamline.edu]. They will have a hard time producing any offspring at all.
Seriously, just what the fuck are you smoking?
On the one hand, you seem to be intelligent enough to realize that what gets encoded in an organism's DNA is far from random, and is, indeed, highly dependent on all the environmental pressures that have been so-well described since Darwin. In other words, an organism is what it is (and its DNA carries that particular encoding) for exactly the same reasons that a bunch of marbles is neatly organized in a shoebox.
On the other hand, you can't let go of the fact that, in laboratory conditions, DNA can be twisted into any shape you want--never mind that all but a vanishingly small number of those permutations would encode something that could never possibly result in a viable organism.
And you use this red herring to argue that evolution is impossible, that only your god's magical powers can explain the diversity of life?
Dude...you need drugs, all right. Just not the ones you're taking.
That's another way of saying that the DNA molecule can encode ANYTHING.
Duh.
Or that its encoding does not depend on energy state.
Like I said, bullshit.
Look, just how do you think DNA gets propagated? Do you really think that DNA encoded in an organism's cells is going to survive if it causes that organism to expend twice the energy to do half the work? Do you really think that a stronger, faster, more efficient organism--thanks to its DNA--isn't going to create more offspring?
The way I see it, there're two possibilities. The first, and most likely, is that you just cut-n-pasted that introduction to DNA because you found it linked off of some Liar-for-Jesus's website. You don't understand more than a few words of it, but that doesn't bother you. It sounds all technical and impressive, and it all boils down to, ``DNA can encode ANYTHING.'' You like that, because it's not too hard to then make the false leap to ``Every permutation of DNA is equally likely.'' You really like that one, because the obvious conclusion is that ``Only Jesus can make sure that only good DNA winds up in your genes.
Shit, even your summary contradicts your premise, when you talk about interlocking blocks bumping into each other. Right there, in that very paragraph, you demonstrate that, in the real world, DNA cannot encode ``ANYTHING.'' What makes you think that's in any way different from my example with the marbles, or a crystal, or anything else? Just how fucking stupid does Jesus make a person, anyway?
The other possibility is that you're the Liar-for-Jesus yourself. You know that it's all bullshit, but you also realize that, the more people who believe your lies, the more power you can wield over them and the more of their money they'll give to you.
So, if you did a cut-and-paste job, you owe it to yourself to educate yourself to the point that you can actually understand it. Because, if you do, you'll realize the smoke-and-mirrors job that somebody is putting on you.
And if you wrote it yourself, fuck off, eat shit, and die. You asshole Christians are doing your damnedest to create hell on Earth just so you can be smug in knowing that you're more powerful than those who've got your boots in their faces. Meanwhile, us atheists are trying as hard as we can to turn Earth into heaven--it doesn't exist anywhere else, after all--and we're damned sick of having to put up with your crusade to tear down everything we've built.
The information encoded in DNA does not depend on energy state.
Bullshit.
``Survival of the fittest'' is just another way of saying, ``reproductive efficiency,'' after all. And, if you don't believe that there's any correlation whatsoever between reproductive efficiency and dependency on an energy state, I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
[I]t is a surprise that people haven't found anything before now for Uranus. Its rotation is so strange and its properties so bizare that I would have thought that planetary astronomers would have concentrated extra effort onto it.
A cop walking his beat noticed a man, obviously drunk, searching the ground underneath a streetlight.
``Excuse me, sir, but what're you looking for?'' asked the cop.
``My...my keys,'' the drunk stammered. ``I d-dropped 'em.''
The cop paused for a moment, shining his flashlight around the area, which was quite obviously devoid of keys.
``Are you sure you dropped your keys here, sir?'' the cop asked.
``No...I dropped 'em back in the *hic* alley.'' replied the drunk.
``Well, why on Earth are you looking for your keys here, if you dropped them over there?'' demanded the cop.
Triumphantly, the drunk answers, ``Be...cause this is where the light is!''
Erm...that's not ``intelligence'' by any definition I've ever seen. You might as well subscribe to that whole intelligent falling schtick and be done with it.
The laws of physics are no more intelligent than the laws of nature. Unless you'd like to suggest that it's some sort of cosmic intelligence that makes 2 + 2 = 4?
My point exactly. It's the laws of nature that demand that marbles in a shoebox line up in nice, neat, orderly rows even if it was a random process that landed them in the box in the first place.
And it's quite similar laws of nature that demand that life, and ever-more evolved life, arises from the whatever-it-was we came from.
In otherwords, it was an unplanned, unguided and random process.
The real problem--primitive superstitious beliefs aside--is that people think that ``order'' can never come from ``randomness.'' Which, of course, is pure bullshit.
Take a heaping handful of marbles and toss them purely randomly into a shoebox. Hey-presto! Order from chaos!
Or, if you like, drop enough bowling balls onto a beach, close enough to each other, that they start to pile upon each other. Once again, order spontaneously arises from chaos--no matter how randomly you add the balls to the pile.
It's the exact same reason why crystals are so pretty, why large astronomical bodies are (essentially) spherical...and why life exists. In one word, ``entropy.''
If a state with higher entropy--and, therefore, one that's more stable--is more ordered than an alternative state with lower entropy, over time, the more ordered state will predominate. And, of course, local conditions will play a huge role in what's more stable. Those marbles in the box will take one configuration if the box has right angles to the edges, and another if the edges are round....
Really and truly, that old chestnut about the puddle being fascinated that it exactly fits the shape of the footprint is spot-on.
Cheers,
b&
Of course, the other big problems are that people have no fucking clue just how long a billion years is, or how large and diverse the Earth is. Start with any ludicrously improbable number you want to put on abiogenesis, and multiply that by a billion years and a third of a billion square miles of surface and a third of a billion cubic miles of ocean...and by the billions of solar systems in the galaxy and the billions of galaxies in the universe...and I guarantee you, your answer is greater than 1. b&
Does that also include all the necessary neurological adaptations that are necessary so that the organism can actually make sense of those light pulses? I didn't think so.
Dude...we're talking about brain cells here. You know, those things that're already doing that neurological stuff that makes sense of those electromagnetic signal thingies?
Ha ha, I'm laughing. I'm still waiting for someone to show me how random activity can produce order. I'm all ears.
Okay, fill your ears with this.
Go to the toy store. Buy a bag of marbles--at least a double handful.
Go to the shoe store. Get a shoebox.
Toss the marbles into the shoebox. Be certain to do this randomly!
Observe as the marbles spontaneously arrange themselves into the exact same arrangement as a beehive, and, hey-presto! What have we got? Why, order from chaos, of course!. For that matter, just try to keep the marbles from arranging themselves in a nice, neat, orderly fashion.
This whole ``order can never arise from randomness'' thing is pure bullshit. How do you think entropy works? If an ordered state is more stable than a disordered one, then the ordered state will persist where the disordered one won't. It's why astronomical bodies are (generally) spherical, it's why crystals are so pretty, and it's why you're here. So get over it, already: your god is completely superfluous, thankyouverymuch.
Tell me, which Christ is it that was tempted? The one that ascended from a room near Jerusalem where the disciples were seated 'round a table, outdoors after supper at Bethany, several weeks later at Mt. Olivet, or not at all? Because, like, I'd want to make sure I wasn't tempting the worng Christ and all.
Anyway, the reason it's written that you shouldn't tempt your god has nothing to do with his wristwear. It's written that way for the same reason that the Wizard of Oz is allergic to small dogs.
The answer to "will this program ever halt?" is always "yes" for any real program.
Huh? What the fuck are you smoking, and can I have some?
I mean, like, the first program most of us ever wrote is an example of one that, ported to a Turing machine, would never halt.
10 PRINT "HELLO"
20 GOTO 10
Anyone sufficiently well-versed in logic should know that classical logic can't prove its own correctness, so why insist on it?
Erm...like I said, just what the fuck are you smoking? The incorrect implications of your overly-broad statement aside, we've been discussing absolute limits that even a supposedly omnipotent being wouldn't be able to overcome. And, by way of suggesting that such limits don't apply...you cite exactly such a limit.
The "contradiction" you speak of is unfortunately wrapped in a bundle of "equivocation", much like your earlier post about unicorns as one-horned gazelles (i.e., you shifted the meaning and then applied what would be true in that case to the original term).
If you had read the next sentence, you would see that I went on to discuss the original term, itself. To wit: ``It wouldn't be too hard to prove that any of the magical properties they're supposed to have are impossible; that's all you'd need to prove that they mythical variety of unicorn doesn't exist.'' I really don't appreciate people lying about my own words.
You are finite, mortal, limited. God, supposedly, is not. So what makes you think that God must fit into your (limited grasp of) logic in order to exist?
Ah, yes. The old, ``You're too dumb to understand God'' argument. Number 93, if I'm not mistraken. Or were you going more for #31? Or perhaps #328?
Just because humans have limits doesn't mean that they're incapable of understanding the unlimited. Anybody who's managed to wrap his head around transfinite math can attest to that. And it's not that hard, either--a quick glance at the graph of y=1/x should be more than enough to understand that there really is no y that satisfies the equation when x=0. It's a simple matter of extrapolation. If you're incapable of it, 'tain't my problem.
Omnipotence might be compared to the infinity, but not the arbitrary limit you'd like to impose on it.
No. ``Omnipotence'' can only have one meaning: able to do anything. Come up with even one thing that can't be done--name a ``y'' for which y=1/0, for example--and the limit becomes quite real, not arbitrary.
I believe I stated that the greatest fool is the one who thinks he has a 'proof'.
And I believe that anybody who tosses out logic for dogmatic reasons is an idiot. And if you really think that every mathematician, logician, theoretician, and scientist since before Plato is a fool, then I think you're an anti-intellectual asshole.
The point you've missed is that God doesn't need to be "omnipotent" in the sense you've offered; he just needs to have root access to the universe. If the universe is (for example) a simulation running on God's computer, then he's got the drop on all of us, "omnipotent" or not.
The nature of the universe is irrelevant; all you're doing is pushing back the boundaries. If we're all just bits in a computer, all the exact same questions apply to that universe, the one in which the computer lives. And that's granting you the notion that ``universe'' is anything other than ``all that exists.'' Perhaps you'd prefer Dr. Sagan's term, ``Cosmos.''
The whole "omnipotence can not exist" thing is a distraction.
Only if you're more interested in the flickerings on the cave wall.
You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.
That begs the question, as it requires an assumption that you could limit God rather than the other way around
It does no such thing, for you are begging the question by assuming that your god exists in the first place, and that it's not subject to the most elementary limits of logic in the second. All I'm saying is that it's impossible to know everything. And I'm backing that statement up with the well-worn technique of saying, ``If you were right, that would lead inevitably to a contradiction; therefore, you're worng.''
Which is exactly what you're doing, declaring an omnipotent God to be impossible merely by defining it as impossible. Do you think that is rational?
sigh
An omnipotent god is not impossible because I have defined it thus. It is impossible because omnipotence itself is impossible, for much the same reason that there is no such thing as a largest prime number. Both premises lead quite quickly, and most inexorably, to irresolvable contradiction.
Would you accuse me of being an irrational fool for pointing out that there's no such thing as the largest prime number? No? So, why am I an irrational fool for pointing out that there's no most-powerful being?
Let me guess: first, you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything, even a contradiction.
If you define ``omnipotence'' as anything at all other than ``the ability to do anything,'' then the word loses all possible meaning. Because, see? It would therefore mean that I am omnipotent.
It's impossible for me to, for example, run a one-minute mile. But, if we examine the reasons for that, at a gross oversimplification, it's because I lack sufficient energy available in a sufficient form to accomplish the feat. In essence, I'm trying to make 2 + 2 = 5.
Take any so-called ``physical'' impossibility, and it will always, and usually trivially, reduce to a logical impossibility or contradiction. So, if ``omnipotent'' means ``able to do anything that's logically possible,'' then anything and everything with some sort of power is, by definition, omnipotent. Everything that's not possible is impossible for logical reasons, and you've already ruled out logical impossibilities as something to hold against claims of omnipotence.
Really, it's much like trying to put an upper bound on the set of natural numbers. ``God is the being that's larger than the largest number'' makes just as much sense.
All but God can prove this sentence true.
That statement is false. And I am correct, I said so myself.
No, you are incorrect.
Consider, for a moment, if God actually were to prove that the sentence is true. What would he have proven? Why, that he's incapable of proving that the sentence is true. Thus, God can't prove that the sentence is true, and therefore that part of the sentence is true. And we've just proven that the sentence is true, which takes care of the rest of it.
There you have it: something that I just did--and that you yourself can do--that your god never possibly could. Hardly sounds very omnipotent, does it?
And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem.
Actually he didn't. He proved that there's no algorithm that can determine whether any arbitrary computer program will halt. The question of whether magical or oracular methods might answer the question are outside the scope of the theory of computation.
Pardon me for being informal, but your observation doesn't change things.
I could just as easily state that it's impossible for God to create a Turing maching capable of solving the halting problem. Or, that even God doesn't know how to create a Turing machine that solves the halting problem. Either way, Mr. Turing drove yet another stake through the heart of this God-thing...yet people still haven't realized that they're worshipping a bloody corpse.
Tell me, God, ``Yes'' or ``No,'' will you answer, ``No''?
If God answers ``Yes,'' then God is telling you that he'll answer ``No.'' But that's a lie, because God clearly answered, ``Yes.''
If God answers, ``No,'' then he's saying that he's not going to answer, ``No.'' But he did.
So, there we have it. A question that even God can't answer. Something that even God can't know. Since it's part of the defintion of ``God'' that he can answer any question, that he knows everything, and since he can't do either with regard to this question, it's quite clear that God, as defined, is truly impossible and thus doesn't exist.
Now, unless you're that gas-pumping moron from New Jersey you were talking about, you should understand just exactly why your god is a married bachelor.
If a being is omnipotent in universe X, there's nothing he can't do in universe X.
Stop right there. In these discussions, the only definition of ``universe'' that is any way useful is ``everything that exists.'' What Dr. Sagan called the Cosmos.
And there're plenty of things that really, truly, are impossible in any universe (assuming there's more than one) in the Cosmos. Making 1 + 1 equal anything other than 2 (using the most common definitions of those terms) would be one of them, for example.
In the same sense, there can be no rock that God cannot lift in our universe, because God is omnipotent in our universe. That rock isn't even a logically possible configuration of matter, because omnipotence entails that God can lift all rocks.
Exactly. Logic is the rock that even God can't lift. So, if even God's hands are bound by logic, then logic is stronger than God. And who created logic, thus forever defeating God? God couldn't have, for--as we see everywhere we turn--logic is greater than he is.
The only solution to these problems is to realize that the premises are faulty. Don't ask, ``Who created the universe?'' Instead, ask, ``Is there even any possibility that the universe was created?'' The answer, clearly being, ``No,'' makes the first one moot. And, at that point, the idea that there's some all-powerful entity within the universe...but that this entity didn't create it...well, it's instantly obvious just how silly the whole thing is. Might as well talk about turtles springing from the navel of a flower.
That might be true in the realm of mathematics, but with maths you are dealing with very well-defined sets. Elsewhere, proof by contradiction is hardly trivial.
It depends entirely on the nature of the entity in question.
Are there no naturally-occurring pink elephants? Not likely. But, to prove it, you'd either have to perform a census of all elephants, or you'd have to find something along the lines of something in elephantine DNA that prevents pinkness.
Are there any triangular circles? Nope. Perpetual motion machines? Not a chance. Married bachelors? Ha!
And hey-presto! we've just come up with some more things that even a supposedly-omnipotent being couldn't do. Therefore, ``omnipotence'' is its own self-contained oxymoron.
All but God can prove this sentence true.
I'm sorry, but that statement does not "prove" anything. Sophistry is useful for entertainment and scoring cheap points, but it doesn't add anything of substance to the debate.
I'm sorry, but hand-waving won't do shit to stave off your crisis of faith.
I was thinking more along the lines of a formal proof and your example does not qualify.
Did I claim that it was a formal proof? Is this a mathmatical journal? Did you offer a formal definition of ``omnipotence''?
You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.
This is not a logical argument either.
Careful, I think your blinder might be slipping.
First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?
Those are interesting questions, and it is reasonable to assume that people have been debating such issues for thousands of years, and we haven't reached any universal conclusions yet.
Unh-huh. ``Teach the controversy.'' More properly, ``Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!'' Because, like, if you use your brain, we won't be able to pull the wool over your eyes.
All I did was point out that it is not logically possible to prove that something (outside of the realm of mathematics) does not exist.
And all I'm doing is pointing out that you're worng. Sorry.
...unless you've got a working perpetual motion machine to bring out? Because that's exactly as possible as your omnipotent god.
I cannot logically prove that hobbits do not exist.
It depends entirely on how you define, ``hobbit.'' Do you mean the magical creatures of Tolkein's fantasy? Because they'd be easy to disprove. If you mean the short hominids that might have lived on an Indonesian island...well, there's a pretty darned good chance that they actually did exist.
I cannot logically prove that the FSM (and his noodly appendage) does not exist.
The Flyng Spaghetti Monster is defined as the being that created the universe. Proving that the universe is creatorless is trivial; thus the FSM as defined clearly doesn't exist. Whether or not there's some remarkable being that resembles a giant plate of spaghetti is another matter entirely, but we can be certain that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe.
I cannot logically prove that unicorns do not exist - regardless whether any of those examples exist
And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:
Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?
(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')
Hmm.. I'm with you on the rest of that stuff, but you lost me there. Are you supposing that God is recursive, and therefore his solving the halting problem leads to a contradiction?
I'm just pointing out that it's perfectly reasonable to ask ``yes'' or ``no'' questions of ``God.''
Or, if you're not sure of the significance of the ditty, think of what either answer means.
It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.
sigh
Nonexistence proofs are trivial. Perhaps the most famous is Euclid's that ``the largest prime number'' doesn't exist.
As for a proof against omnipotence, here's one:
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience. So, if we can disprove omniscience, we've also oh-by-the-way disproved omnipotence. And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:
Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?
(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')
You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.
The modern theological god is essentially dependent on so many logically-impossible traits it's not even funny. First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?
You might as well define ``God'' as a married bachelor and be done with it.
Slashdot Mirror
gcnaddict wrote:
That's not how science works. One does not set out to prove that something exists, but rather that it does not. If you succeed, you know it does not exist. If you fail, you have reason to suspect it might exist.
It's that whole ``falsifiability'' thing.
Cheers,
b&
P.S. Check my .sig. b&
You're forgetting that they've also got all the machines they were selling yesterday.
Lots of people. If you need internal expansion, it's all you've got. And, if you rely upon any high-performance software, you'd be a fool to switch to Intel until there're native versions available.
Except that the base price of this new laptop is about what you'd pay for the top-of-the-line iBook maxed out with RAM, extended warranty, and the like. And, while it's faster, it's not gonna be ten times as fast. Today's iBooks are quite respectable machines.
Sure, once you realize that they're offering these new machines in addition to all the old ones.
Cheers,
b&
endoplasmicMessenger wrote:
Seriously, just what the fuck are you smoking?
On the one hand, you seem to be intelligent enough to realize that what gets encoded in an organism's DNA is far from random, and is, indeed, highly dependent on all the environmental pressures that have been so-well described since Darwin. In other words, an organism is what it is (and its DNA carries that particular encoding) for exactly the same reasons that a bunch of marbles is neatly organized in a shoebox.
On the other hand, you can't let go of the fact that, in laboratory conditions, DNA can be twisted into any shape you want--never mind that all but a vanishingly small number of those permutations would encode something that could never possibly result in a viable organism.
And you use this red herring to argue that evolution is impossible, that only your god's magical powers can explain the diversity of life?
Dude...you need drugs, all right. Just not the ones you're taking.
Cheers,
b&
endoplasmicMessenger wrote:
Duh.
Like I said, bullshit.
Look, just how do you think DNA gets propagated? Do you really think that DNA encoded in an organism's cells is going to survive if it causes that organism to expend twice the energy to do half the work? Do you really think that a stronger, faster, more efficient organism--thanks to its DNA--isn't going to create more offspring?
The way I see it, there're two possibilities. The first, and most likely, is that you just cut-n-pasted that introduction to DNA because you found it linked off of some Liar-for-Jesus's website. You don't understand more than a few words of it, but that doesn't bother you. It sounds all technical and impressive, and it all boils down to, ``DNA can encode ANYTHING.'' You like that, because it's not too hard to then make the false leap to ``Every permutation of DNA is equally likely.'' You really like that one, because the obvious conclusion is that ``Only Jesus can make sure that only good DNA winds up in your genes.
Shit, even your summary contradicts your premise, when you talk about interlocking blocks bumping into each other. Right there, in that very paragraph, you demonstrate that, in the real world, DNA cannot encode ``ANYTHING.'' What makes you think that's in any way different from my example with the marbles, or a crystal, or anything else? Just how fucking stupid does Jesus make a person, anyway?
The other possibility is that you're the Liar-for-Jesus yourself. You know that it's all bullshit, but you also realize that, the more people who believe your lies, the more power you can wield over them and the more of their money they'll give to you.
So, if you did a cut-and-paste job, you owe it to yourself to educate yourself to the point that you can actually understand it. Because, if you do, you'll realize the smoke-and-mirrors job that somebody is putting on you.
And if you wrote it yourself, fuck off, eat shit, and die. You asshole Christians are doing your damnedest to create hell on Earth just so you can be smug in knowing that you're more powerful than those who've got your boots in their faces. Meanwhile, us atheists are trying as hard as we can to turn Earth into heaven--it doesn't exist anywhere else, after all--and we're damned sick of having to put up with your crusade to tear down everything we've built.
Cheers,
b&
endoplasmicMessenger wrote:
Bullshit.
``Survival of the fittest'' is just another way of saying, ``reproductive efficiency,'' after all. And, if you don't believe that there's any correlation whatsoever between reproductive efficiency and dependency on an energy state, I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
Cheers,
b&
MisterBuggie wrote:
AOL
And, it would seem we're in good company. NASA hasn't heard of one, either.
Cheers,
b&
jd wrote:
A cop walking his beat noticed a man, obviously drunk, searching the ground underneath a streetlight.
``Excuse me, sir, but what're you looking for?'' asked the cop.
``My...my keys,'' the drunk stammered. ``I d-dropped 'em.''
The cop paused for a moment, shining his flashlight around the area, which was quite obviously devoid of keys.
``Are you sure you dropped your keys here, sir?'' the cop asked.
``No...I dropped 'em back in the *hic* alley.'' replied the drunk.
``Well, why on Earth are you looking for your keys here, if you dropped them over there?'' demanded the cop.
Triumphantly, the drunk answers, ``Be...cause this is where the light is!''
Cheers,
b&
Erm...that's not ``intelligence'' by any definition I've ever seen. You might as well subscribe to that whole intelligent falling schtick and be done with it.
The laws of physics are no more intelligent than the laws of nature. Unless you'd like to suggest that it's some sort of cosmic intelligence that makes 2 + 2 = 4?
Cheers,
b&
My point exactly. It's the laws of nature that demand that marbles in a shoebox line up in nice, neat, orderly rows even if it was a random process that landed them in the box in the first place.
And it's quite similar laws of nature that demand that life, and ever-more evolved life, arises from the whatever-it-was we came from.
Cheers,
b&
dan_sdot wrote:
The real problem--primitive superstitious beliefs aside--is that people think that ``order'' can never come from ``randomness.'' Which, of course, is pure bullshit.
Take a heaping handful of marbles and toss them purely randomly into a shoebox. Hey-presto! Order from chaos!
Or, if you like, drop enough bowling balls onto a beach, close enough to each other, that they start to pile upon each other. Once again, order spontaneously arises from chaos--no matter how randomly you add the balls to the pile.
It's the exact same reason why crystals are so pretty, why large astronomical bodies are (essentially) spherical...and why life exists. In one word, ``entropy.''
If a state with higher entropy--and, therefore, one that's more stable--is more ordered than an alternative state with lower entropy, over time, the more ordered state will predominate. And, of course, local conditions will play a huge role in what's more stable. Those marbles in the box will take one configuration if the box has right angles to the edges, and another if the edges are round....
Really and truly, that old chestnut about the puddle being fascinated that it exactly fits the shape of the footprint is spot-on.
Cheers,
b&
Of course, the other big problems are that people have no fucking clue just how long a billion years is, or how large and diverse the Earth is. Start with any ludicrously improbable number you want to put on abiogenesis, and multiply that by a billion years and a third of a billion square miles of surface and a third of a billion cubic miles of ocean...and by the billions of solar systems in the galaxy and the billions of galaxies in the universe...and I guarantee you, your answer is greater than 1. b&
...is being taught by a better professor.
Cheers,
b&
endoplasmicMessenger wrote:
Dude...we're talking about brain cells here. You know, those things that're already doing that neurological stuff that makes sense of those electromagnetic signal thingies?
Okay, fill your ears with this.
Go to the toy store. Buy a bag of marbles--at least a double handful.
Go to the shoe store. Get a shoebox.
Toss the marbles into the shoebox. Be certain to do this randomly!
Observe as the marbles spontaneously arrange themselves into the exact same arrangement as a beehive, and, hey-presto! What have we got? Why, order from chaos, of course!. For that matter, just try to keep the marbles from arranging themselves in a nice, neat, orderly fashion.
This whole ``order can never arise from randomness'' thing is pure bullshit. How do you think entropy works? If an ordered state is more stable than a disordered one, then the ordered state will persist where the disordered one won't. It's why astronomical bodies are (generally) spherical, it's why crystals are so pretty, and it's why you're here. So get over it, already: your god is completely superfluous, thankyouverymuch.
Cheers,
b&
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! BAAWA!
Oh, my, that's rich.
Tell me, which Christ is it that was tempted? The one that ascended from a room near Jerusalem where the disciples were seated 'round a table, outdoors after supper at Bethany, several weeks later at Mt. Olivet, or not at all? Because, like, I'd want to make sure I wasn't tempting the worng Christ and all.
Anyway, the reason it's written that you shouldn't tempt your god has nothing to do with his wristwear. It's written that way for the same reason that the Wizard of Oz is allergic to small dogs.
Cheers,
b&
The Famous Brett Wat wrote:
Huh? What the fuck are you smoking, and can I have some?
I mean, like, the first program most of us ever wrote is an example of one that, ported to a Turing machine, would never halt.
Erm...like I said, just what the fuck are you smoking? The incorrect implications of your overly-broad statement aside, we've been discussing absolute limits that even a supposedly omnipotent being wouldn't be able to overcome. And, by way of suggesting that such limits don't apply...you cite exactly such a limit.
Whatever.
Cheers,
b&
Ksisanth wrote:
If you had read the next sentence, you would see that I went on to discuss the original term, itself. To wit: ``It wouldn't be too hard to prove that any of the magical properties they're supposed to have are impossible; that's all you'd need to prove that they mythical variety of unicorn doesn't exist.'' I really don't appreciate people lying about my own words.
Ah, yes. The old, ``You're too dumb to understand God'' argument. Number 93, if I'm not mistraken. Or were you going more for #31? Or perhaps #328?
Just because humans have limits doesn't mean that they're incapable of understanding the unlimited. Anybody who's managed to wrap his head around transfinite math can attest to that. And it's not that hard, either--a quick glance at the graph of y=1/x should be more than enough to understand that there really is no y that satisfies the equation when x=0. It's a simple matter of extrapolation. If you're incapable of it, 'tain't my problem.
No. ``Omnipotence'' can only have one meaning: able to do anything. Come up with even one thing that can't be done--name a ``y'' for which y=1/0, for example--and the limit becomes quite real, not arbitrary.
And I believe that anybody who tosses out logic for dogmatic reasons is an idiot. And if you really think that every mathematician, logician, theoretician, and scientist since before Plato is a fool, then I think you're an anti-intellectual asshole.
Cheers,
b&
an Anonymous Coward wrote:
The nature of the universe is irrelevant; all you're doing is pushing back the boundaries. If we're all just bits in a computer, all the exact same questions apply to that universe, the one in which the computer lives. And that's granting you the notion that ``universe'' is anything other than ``all that exists.'' Perhaps you'd prefer Dr. Sagan's term, ``Cosmos.''
Only if you're more interested in the flickerings on the cave wall.
Cheers,
b&
Ksisanth wrote:
It does no such thing, for you are begging the question by assuming that your god exists in the first place, and that it's not subject to the most elementary limits of logic in the second. All I'm saying is that it's impossible to know everything. And I'm backing that statement up with the well-worn technique of saying, ``If you were right, that would lead inevitably to a contradiction; therefore, you're worng.''
sigh
An omnipotent god is not impossible because I have defined it thus. It is impossible because omnipotence itself is impossible, for much the same reason that there is no such thing as a largest prime number. Both premises lead quite quickly, and most inexorably, to irresolvable contradiction.
Would you accuse me of being an irrational fool for pointing out that there's no such thing as the largest prime number? No? So, why am I an irrational fool for pointing out that there's no most-powerful being?
Cheers,
b&
penguinoid wrote:
If you define ``omnipotence'' as anything at all other than ``the ability to do anything,'' then the word loses all possible meaning. Because, see? It would therefore mean that I am omnipotent.
It's impossible for me to, for example, run a one-minute mile. But, if we examine the reasons for that, at a gross oversimplification, it's because I lack sufficient energy available in a sufficient form to accomplish the feat. In essence, I'm trying to make 2 + 2 = 5.
Take any so-called ``physical'' impossibility, and it will always, and usually trivially, reduce to a logical impossibility or contradiction. So, if ``omnipotent'' means ``able to do anything that's logically possible,'' then anything and everything with some sort of power is, by definition, omnipotent. Everything that's not possible is impossible for logical reasons, and you've already ruled out logical impossibilities as something to hold against claims of omnipotence.
Really, it's much like trying to put an upper bound on the set of natural numbers. ``God is the being that's larger than the largest number'' makes just as much sense.
No, you are incorrect.
Consider, for a moment, if God actually were to prove that the sentence is true. What would he have proven? Why, that he's incapable of proving that the sentence is true. Thus, God can't prove that the sentence is true, and therefore that part of the sentence is true. And we've just proven that the sentence is true, which takes care of the rest of it.
There you have it: something that I just did--and that you yourself can do--that your god never possibly could. Hardly sounds very omnipotent, does it?Cheers,
b&
Black Parrot wrote:
Pardon me for being informal, but your observation doesn't change things.
I could just as easily state that it's impossible for God to create a Turing maching capable of solving the halting problem. Or, that even God doesn't know how to create a Turing machine that solves the halting problem. Either way, Mr. Turing drove yet another stake through the heart of this God-thing...yet people still haven't realized that they're worshipping a bloody corpse.
Cheers,
b&
Are you really this dense?
If God answers ``Yes,'' then God is telling you that he'll answer ``No.'' But that's a lie, because God clearly answered, ``Yes.''
If God answers, ``No,'' then he's saying that he's not going to answer, ``No.'' But he did.
So, there we have it. A question that even God can't answer. Something that even God can't know. Since it's part of the defintion of ``God'' that he can answer any question, that he knows everything, and since he can't do either with regard to this question, it's quite clear that God, as defined, is truly impossible and thus doesn't exist.
Now, unless you're that gas-pumping moron from New Jersey you were talking about, you should understand just exactly why your god is a married bachelor.
Cheers,
b&
llamaluvr wrote:
Stop right there. In these discussions, the only definition of ``universe'' that is any way useful is ``everything that exists.'' What Dr. Sagan called the Cosmos.
And there're plenty of things that really, truly, are impossible in any universe (assuming there's more than one) in the Cosmos. Making 1 + 1 equal anything other than 2 (using the most common definitions of those terms) would be one of them, for example.
Exactly. Logic is the rock that even God can't lift. So, if even God's hands are bound by logic, then logic is stronger than God. And who created logic, thus forever defeating God? God couldn't have, for--as we see everywhere we turn--logic is greater than he is.
The only solution to these problems is to realize that the premises are faulty. Don't ask, ``Who created the universe?'' Instead, ask, ``Is there even any possibility that the universe was created?'' The answer, clearly being, ``No,'' makes the first one moot. And, at that point, the idea that there's some all-powerful entity within the universe...but that this entity didn't create it...well, it's instantly obvious just how silly the whole thing is. Might as well talk about turtles springing from the navel of a flower.
Cheers
b&
So...all you've done is have your god admit that it's not omnipotent. Was that your point?
Cheers,
b&
why-is-it wrote:
It depends entirely on the nature of the entity in question.
Are there no naturally-occurring pink elephants? Not likely. But, to prove it, you'd either have to perform a census of all elephants, or you'd have to find something along the lines of something in elephantine DNA that prevents pinkness.
Are there any triangular circles? Nope. Perpetual motion machines? Not a chance. Married bachelors? Ha!
And hey-presto! we've just come up with some more things that even a supposedly-omnipotent being couldn't do. Therefore, ``omnipotence'' is its own self-contained oxymoron.
I'm sorry, but hand-waving won't do shit to stave off your crisis of faith.
Did I claim that it was a formal proof? Is this a mathmatical journal? Did you offer a formal definition of ``omnipotence''?
Careful, I think your blinder might be slipping.
Unh-huh. ``Teach the controversy.'' More properly, ``Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!'' Because, like, if you use your brain, we won't be able to pull the wool over your eyes.
And all I'm doing is pointing out that you're worng. Sorry.
...unless you've got a working perpetual motion machine to bring out? Because that's exactly as possible as your omnipotent god.
It depends entirely on how you define, ``hobbit.'' Do you mean the magical creatures of Tolkein's fantasy? Because they'd be easy to disprove. If you mean the short hominids that might have lived on an Indonesian island...well, there's a pretty darned good chance that they actually did exist.
The Flyng Spaghetti Monster is defined as the being that created the universe. Proving that the universe is creatorless is trivial; thus the FSM as defined clearly doesn't exist. Whether or not there's some remarkable being that resembles a giant plate of spaghetti is another matter entirely, but we can be certain that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe.
Dster76 wrote:
I'm just pointing out that it's perfectly reasonable to ask ``yes'' or ``no'' questions of ``God.''
Or, if you're not sure of the significance of the ditty, think of what either answer means.
Cheers,
b&
why-is-it wrote:
sigh
Nonexistence proofs are trivial. Perhaps the most famous is Euclid's that ``the largest prime number'' doesn't exist.
As for a proof against omnipotence, here's one:
Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience. So, if we can disprove omniscience, we've also oh-by-the-way disproved omnipotence. And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:
(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')
You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.
The modern theological god is essentially dependent on so many logically-impossible traits it's not even funny. First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?
You might as well define ``God'' as a married bachelor and be done with it.
Cheers,
b&