Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

[TagliatelliMonster]

science fiction? perhaps...but that means that Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Bill Gates are all pushing science fiction...in fact they seem rather worried about it, since they keep warning the public about the potential dangers of machine intelligence...
Again I have to point out that respected skeptic/ atheist Sam Harris finds it "unimaginable" that AI's will not come into existence. He points out that the viability of artificial intelligence (and by extension, “artificial/ simulated history”, ”artificial memories” etc. etc ) all follow logically from an atheistic materialistic worldview “I cant imagine a scientist not granting that- number one, we are going to make progress in computer design [to that extent]…and two- that there is nothing magical about biological material as far as intelligence is concerned”
Again Harris is echoing what most scientists believe– that it’s not only possible…it is inevitable (at least in some form).

What those people are talking about is vastly different from the computer you described, which would require near-infinite power.

but you are thinking in terms of weak- narrow AI....like a video game character which has programmed to exhibit traits of human consciousness....it is only mimicking consciousness....true artificial intelligence will be self-aware and conscious in the same way that humans are

The complexity of the code, doesn't change the fact that it's still just code running on a chip.

No matter what the program does, it's still just a program. The model it builds in memory is still just a virtual reality. Not actual reality.

 

[Michael]

View attachment 190897

That's about how I felt alright.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's about how I felt alright.

If you can't see the difference between computer models that on the one hand model phenomena of reality and on the other hand models phenomena of the imagination, then I can't help you.

I guess in your universe, Jar Jar Binks is a real life physical character.

 

[Michael]

If you can't see the difference between computer models that on the one hand model phenomena of reality and on the other hand models phenomena of the imagination, then I can't help you.

Do you have *any* idea how funny that sounds coming from you?

I guess in your universe, Jar Jar Binks is a real life physical character.

No, but in your "dark" universe, Jar Jar, and his three invisible brothers, Larry, Daryl and Daryl Binks are all impotent in the lab, and they only show up in computer simulations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you have *any* idea how funny that sounds coming from you?

No, but in your "dark" universe, Jar Jar, and his three invisible brothers, Larry, Daryl and Daryl Binks are all impotent in the lab, and they only show up in computer simulations.

Yawn.

psssst: it's the OP that is saying that because something shows up in a simulation, it also exists in reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...So there would be exactly zero reason for developing an AI engine that can become "aware" and be capable of emotional decision making and stuff.

The only reason I can imagine that something like that might be build, is in some kind of science experiment or similar, to better understand how brains work and psychological processes etc.

I just don't see it happening.

It's possible that it could be an unintended consequence of large-scale human brain simulations (or emulations) such as the Blue Brain project, but I suspect they'd try to avoid it - even if they would like to study the neurobiology of consciousness, and its related medical problems, the ethical issues would be overwhelming - as Jeremy Bentham said, "...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?..."

 

[Michael]

Yawn.

psssst: it's the OP that is saying that because something shows up in a simulation, it also exists in reality.

I'm just noting that your cosmology model is also based upon exactly the same premise.

 

[white gardenia]

I´m sorry, but refuting viewpoints held by atheists doesn´t help with proving the existence of God/Heaven, even less when those viewpoints aren´t defining atheism.

i m not sure i understand what youre saying....

most atheists do believe that human consciousness is a purely mechanistic function, right? I mean there arent many atheists who would believe in a supernatural component to human consciousness....
...unless youre implying a third option that im not aware of

 

[white gardenia]

Exactly.

While I get the concerns over AI, I think it misses the point.

The point of application software, is to accomplish a specific task.
Before one even thinks about building an application, there is a business need.
You kinda have to know what you're going to make and why, before you can start. So indeed, for all practical purposes, software is a tool.

AI is about having those applications improve themselves through machine learning.

Once the applications stop doing what they are meant to do, they become useless.
So there would be exactly zero reason for developing an AI engine that can become "aware" and be capable of emotional decision making and stuff.

The only reason I can imagine that something like that might be build, is in some kind of science experiment or similar, to better understand how brains work and psychological processes etc.

I just don't see it happening.

and maybe it wont...the verdict is still out.
but look at what ray kurzweil is working on right now...Google futurist claims we will be uploading our entire MINDS to computers by 2045 and our bodies will be replaced by machines within 90 years | Daily Mail Online

kurzweil is an extremely intelligent man and he is convinced that he will be able to download his consciousness into a computer by 2045. in fact he has made this his lifes work..and as soon as he or someone else has been successfully uploaded into a computer we will have the first artificial intelligence....(like i said in an earlier post this first artificial intelligence will probably be reverse engineered from a human or machine human "hybrid")

So i have to respectfully disagree with you when you say that "there would be exactly zero reason for developing an AI engine that can become "aware" and be capable of emotional decision making and stuff." right now there are many many extremely wealthy people, millionaires and billionaires who are donating large sums of money in the hopes that they will be able to escape death in the manner that kurzweil is describing....In fact I cant think of a better incentive to develop AI than that...basic survival...these wealthy people have come to the realization that all of their money and all of their material wealth will be useless at the instant they die ( something that Christians have always known-- "what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

 

[quatona]

i m not sure i understand what youre saying....

most atheists do believe that human consciousness is a purely mechanistic function, right?

I don´t know, but let´s say for argument´s sake that most atheists do. So what? Most atheists also go to work every day.
What most atheist do or think or believe doesn´t render this a tenet of atheism.
Thus, in order to prove that a God exists there is no point in tackling what most atheists do, say, think or believe.
You would have to prove that a God exists.

 

[white gardenia]

I don´t know, but let´s say for argument´s sake that most atheists do. So what? Most atheists also go to work every day.
What most atheist do or think or believe doesn´t render this a tenet of atheism.
Thus, in order to prove that a God exists there is no point in tackling what most atheists do, say, think or believe.
You would have to prove that a God exists.

in these forums i am saying that there is scientific proof that "souls" can can be created by humans.... ie consider the similarities between a virtual reality AI simulation (as described by Elon Musk, Bill Gates etc…) and the Judeo-Christian description of a human soul. Both are seemingly ephemeral yet indestructible conveyers of human consciousness. (After all, does the Bible ever tell us what souls are made of? Does the Bible ever tell us that souls are not made of simulacra? And even if reality does contain a supernatural and/or mystical component, it still makes sense that God would want us to use virtual reality/ AI technology to fight against the evils of death...you dont have to be a bible scholar to see that God is not a fan of death.....)


as far as proof for the existence of God...Tipler makes a very strong case for the existence of God in the video that I originally posted...and even explains how richard dawkins and other atheists also believe in a "prime mover" outside of space and time (ie the initial singularity) but, as he points out, they just prefer not to call it God... to hear this part of the discussion go to right around the 43:00 mark)

 

[quatona]

in these forums i am saying that there is scientific proof that "souls" can can be created by humans.... ie consider the similarities between a virtual reality AI simulation (as described by Elon Musk, Bill Gates etc…) and the Judeo-Christian description of a human soul. Both are seemingly ephemeral yet indestructible conveyers of human consciousness. (After all, does the Bible ever tell us what souls are made of? Does the Bible ever tell us that souls are not made of simulacra? And even if reality does contain a supernatural and/or mystical component, it still makes sense that God would want us to use virtual reality/ AI technology to fight against the evils of death...you dont have to be a bible scholar to see that God is not a fan of death.....)


as far as proof for the existence of God...Tipler makes a very strong case for the existence of God in the video that I originally posted...and even explains how richard dawkins and other atheists also believe in a "prime mover" outside of space and time (ie the initial singularity) but, as he points out, they just prefer not to call it God... to hear this part of the discussion go to right around the 43:00 mark)

When you quote me I am expecting you to address my post.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yawn.

psssst: it's the OP that is saying that because something shows up in a simulation, it also exists in reality.

That yawn is the biggest yawn in the universe. Michael with his electric universe nonsense could put anybody to sleep. In fact forcing people to listen to it for six hours a day is a punishment which could be introduced into the penal system. Although only for the most serious offences.

 

[Kylie]

Let me guess, since I haven't read the whole thread or watched the videos. This proof is because of quantum something or other?

If so, it's wrong.

 

[Kylie]

as far as proof for the existence of God...Tipler makes a very strong case for the existence of God in the video that I originally posted...and even explains how richard dawkins and other atheists also believe in a "prime mover" outside of space and time (ie the initial singularity) but, as he points out, they just prefer not to call it God... to hear this part of the discussion go to right around the 43:00 mark)

I heard the part about how he claimed that Dawkins was wrong and miracles are not actually violations of any physical laws.

But if miracles can happen without violating physical laws, what do you need God for? Surely, any miracle, since it obeys physical laws, can be explained WITHOUT God!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... if miracles can happen without violating physical laws, what do you need God for? Surely, any miracle, since it obeys physical laws, can be explained WITHOUT God!

Quite - if it's consistent with physical laws, it's just another name for a rare or improbable event.

 

[Uncle Mikey]

I'll just leave these here for those interested...

 

[lesliedellow]

I'll just leave these here for those interested...

I most sincerely hope that somebody had their tongue firmly planted in their cheek when they came up with that graphic.

 

[bhillyard]

I would be impressed if someone came up with some science from the Bible BEFORE scientists came up with it. Rather than taking a concept from science and trying to twist some extracts from the Bible to match AFTER the science.

 

[lesliedellow]

I would be impressed if someone came up with some science from the Bible BEFORE scientists came up with it. Rather than taking a concept from science and trying to twist some extracts from the Bible to match AFTER the science.

Even the technology they did have at the time, such as the smelting of iron, doesn't get a single mention in the Bible. The reason for that being its concern is with matters theological, and not with the technology of the iron age. So why the ridiculous attempts to find references to twenty first century science in it?