I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[AV1611VET]

I thought that was rather funny.

Interesting that, when you adhere to the same arguments without changing, you're considered a troll.

Don't they say the definition of insanity is asking the same questions, but expecting a different answer?

 

[The_Order]

1. I obsserve chaotic systems that are not ordered.
2. I agree that order could be designed by an intelligence, but that is not the same as saying that intelligence is needed to create order.

1. As I mentioned before, not being able to notice a order does not mean there is not, so you cant say there is no order, you can only say you dont notice one. Similarly, not having seen how something was organized/ordered does not mean it was not, you can only say you have not seen how it was ordered, not that it was not ordered. Think of random examples from your daily life, pick something random and question what kind of order it has and what kind of system order pattern it might be part of, your brain will show you.

2. It is not that order might have been created by an intelligence, it was created by an intelligence. You have no other information, no other observation. What intelligence wants or does not want to do does not change anything for us. There is order and intelligence is what designs order. This intelligence has designed the system we are in and is communicating with us, but we have not even reached the stage of talking about that communication yet, because we are still stuck at the stage of accepting the existence of this intelligence.

 

[Bradskii]

2. It is not that order might have been created by an intelligence, it was created by an intelligence.

This is your proof?
1. There is an intelligence.
2. It creates order.
3. There is order, therefore there is an intelligence that created it.

I see a small problem...

 

[The_Order]

This is your proof?
1. There is an intelligence.
2. It creates order.
3. There is order, therefore there is an intelligence that created it.

I see a small problem...

Yes, it is that simple, simple enough for anyone who thinks about it a little to understand. This is how human behavior patterns are designed. If you observe how you behave in your daily life, you will see you act in this way. Inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, etc. In fact, before getting into topics like these, helping a person discover their own behavioral model, especially from an early age, should be a priority. It is essential to teach people how to distinguish between their sense of right and wrong and the desires that arise from their ego, and to help them adopt a model of behavior based on knowledge rather than personal ego.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, it is that simple, simple enough for anyone who thinks about it a little to understand. This is how human behavior patterns are designed. If you observe how you behave in your daily life, you will see you act in this way. Inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, etc. In fact, before getting into topics like these, helping a person discover their own behavioral model, especially from an early age, should be a priority. It is essential to teach people how to distinguish between their sense of right and wrong and the desires that arise from their ego, and to help them adopt a model of behavior based on knowledge rather than personal ego.

You assumed the conclusion in the first premise in order to arrive at the conclusion. You must have been sick the day they did logic in school.

 

[The_Order]

You assumed the conclusion in the first premise in order to arrive at the conclusion. You must have been sick the day they did logic in school.

No, I did not do it like that.

I believe I have done what I needed to do in this forum, thank you for your contributions and for taking the time. Bye.

 

[Bradskii]

No, I did not do it like that.

Not knowing how you've gone wrong is not an ideal position from which to improve that position.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

1. As I mentioned before, not being able to notice a order does not mean there is not, so you cant say there is no order, you can only say you dont notice one. Similarly, not having seen how something was organized/ordered does not mean it was not, you can only say you have not seen how it was ordered, not that it was not ordered. Think of random examples from your daily life, pick something random and question what kind of order it has and what kind of system order pattern it might be part of, your brain will show you.

2. It is not that order might have been created by an intelligence, it was created by an intelligence. You have no other information, no other observation. What intelligence wants or does not want to do does not change anything for us. There is order and intelligence is what designs order. This intelligence has designed the system we are in and is communicating with us, but we have not even reached the stage of talking about that communication yet, because we are still stuck at the stage of accepting the existence of this intelligence.

There is a good and well written article below about order and chaos: The Laws of Thermodynamics and it confirms what you say, a great intelligence has created all things if not the universe would be in total chaos and life Impossible. Furthermore a great amount of energy is still requited to keep this order. These laws of thermodynamics defined in physics are a proven fact and are certain.

it is worth a read and will take a few minutes at most and no formulas or calculus required;

Order from Chaos: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

One of the most well established scientific laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law was originally postulated in 1850 by Rudolf Clausius, a German scientist, and mathema…

inhisimage.blog

 

[Hans Blaster]

2. It is not that order might have been created by an intelligence, it was created by an intelligence. You have no other information, no other observation. What intelligence wants or does not want to do does not change anything for us. There is order and intelligence is what designs order. This intelligence has designed the system we are in and is communicating with us, but we have not even reached the stage of talking about that communication yet, because we are still stuck at the stage of accepting the existence of this intelligence.

This is a claim. It needs evidence.

That the order was created by intelligence is a unnecessarily elaborate proposal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is a good and well written article below about order and chaos: The Laws of Thermodynamics and it confirms what you say, a great intelligence has created all things if not the universe would be in total chaos and life Impossible. Furthermore a great amount of energy is still requited to keep this order. These laws of thermodynamics defined in physics are a proven fact and are certain.

it is worth a read and will take a few minutes at most and no formulas or calculus required;

The author certainly does pack falsehoods and misunderstandings densely into a short essay. It contains bad chemistry, bad biology, bad cosmology, bad physics, bad history, and especially bad thermodynamics into such a short essay.

Order from Chaos: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

One of the most well established scientific laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law was originally postulated in 1850 by Rudolf Clausius, a German scientist, and mathema…

inhisimage.blog

A triumph in the art of bad argument!

 

[partinobodycular]

2. It is not that order might have been created by an intelligence, it was created by an intelligence. You have no other information, no other observation. What intelligence wants or does not want to do does not change anything for us. There is order and intelligence is what designs order. This intelligence has designed the system we are in and is communicating with us, but we have not even reached the stage of talking about that communication yet, because we are still stuck at the stage of accepting the existence of this intelligence.

3. The only intelligence that I can be absolutely certain exists is my own, therefore I must be the designer.

 

[Nithavela]

Personally I think that all the disorder is clear proof for a divine being who created all of the disorder.

 

[Nithavela]

No, I did not do it like that.

I believe I have done what I needed to do in this forum, thank you for your contributions and for taking the time. Bye.

And now to never visit this site again and imagine yourself having converted oodles of people to Islam.

 

[Ophiolite]

1. As I mentioned before, not being able to notice a order does not mean there is not, so you cant say there is no order, you can only say you dont notice one. Similarly, not having seen how something was organized/ordered does not mean it was not, you can only say you have not seen how it was ordered, not that it was not ordered. Think of random examples from your daily life, pick something random and question what kind of order it has and what kind of system order pattern it might be part of, your brain will show you.

You mentioned it before, but you did not justify, or demonstrate the validity of your claim. In contrast the reality of chaos has been demonstrated multiple times, in different ways. For example:

The double pendulum is a classic laboratory demonstration of chaos. Though governed by Newton’s laws, its motion is unpredictable after a short time.
Rayleigh-Bénard Convection: Patterns in heated fluid layers transition from order to chaos depending on temperature gradients.

Experiments with nonlinear optical systems and feedback loops in circuits have shown chaotic oscillations.

2. It is not that order might have been created by an intelligence, it was created by an intelligence. You have no other information, no other observation. What intelligence wants or does not want to do does not change anything for us. There is order and intelligence is what designs order. This intelligence has designed the system we are in and is communicating with us, but we have not even reached the stage of talking about that communication yet, because we are still stuck at the stage of accepting the existence of this intelligence

Simply repeating an assertion without theoretical, or experimental justification for the assertion is raising fatuous trivia to a level of supposed significance. That is an act of desperation, or foolishness, or both.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not accept that in the slightest, especially since it's not even in the same part as the construction of the molten sea.

Ergo, you're very much wrong about that part being a 'Not To Scale' diagram. Fun fact: Not To Scale is only ever used when there are visual diagrams. Using it for written instructions is not only absurd but impossible.

QV please.

From AI Overview:

Written drafts are generally considered "not to scale." Scale drawings, like those in architecture or engineering, use specific ratios to represent real-world objects in a reduced or enlarged form. Written drafts, on the other hand, are typically sketches or preliminary versions and are not meant to represent precise measurements.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please.

From AI Overview:

Written drafts are generally considered "not to scale." Scale drawings, like those in architecture or engineering, use specific ratios to represent real-world objects in a reduced or enlarged form. Written drafts, on the other hand, are typically sketches or preliminary versions and are not meant to represent precise measurements.

Nope. Still don't accept that in the slightest and I do not care what an AI says about it.

You're adding stuff to the Bible, to say something it's not. Simple as.

 

[Ophiolite]

QV please.

From AI Overview:

Written drafts are generally considered "not to scale." Scale drawings, like those in architecture or engineering, use specific ratios to represent real-world objects in a reduced or enlarged form. Written drafts, on the other hand, are typically sketches or preliminary versions and are not meant to represent precise measurements.

This made no sense to me, so I asked ChatGPT and it confirmed that:

"The phrase "not to scale" has a very specific and well-established meaning: it refers to visual representations (like technical drawings, maps, models, or diagrams) that do not maintain a consistent ratio with the real-life dimensions of the objects they depict. It means: "This is a rough illustration, not a precise scaled representation of size or proportion."

So, unless the written text contains some visual element—a layout sketch, chart, or diagram—there's no reason to describe it as "not to scale." Saying that a textual draft is "not to scale" would be a category error."

If you wish I can pm you the full text of my query and ChatGPTs response.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This made no sense to me, so I asked ChatGPT and it confirmed that:

"The phrase "not to scale" has a very specific and well-established meaning: it refers to visual representations (like technical drawings, maps, models, or diagrams) that do not maintain a consistent ratio with the real-life dimensions of the objects they depict. It means: "This is a rough illustration, not a precise scaled representation of size or proportion."

So, unless the written text contains some visual element—a layout sketch, chart, or diagram—there's no reason to describe it as "not to scale." Saying that a textual draft is "not to scale" would be a category error."

If you wish I can pm you the full text of my query and ChatGPTs response.

The nub should have been obvious that 'Not to Scale' only and purely refers to VISUAL diagrams, not the written word. You can't give someone a purely written set of instructions and then go "Oh, by the way, none of this will be to scale." Engineering and construction doesn't work like that!!

 

[SelfSim]

In fact, before getting into topics like these, helping a person discover their own behavioral model, especially from an early age, should be a priority. It is essential to teach people how to distinguish between their sense of right and wrong and the desires that arise from their ego, and to help them adopt a model of behavior based on knowledge rather than personal ego.

I just wish those who think they have the right to ram their own distorted ideas and bad logic down the throats of young children, would come to grips with their own uncontrolled egos first.

 

[Ophiolite]

The nub should have been obvious that 'Not to Scale' only and purely refers to VISUAL diagrams, not the written word. You can't give someone a purely written set of instructions and then go "Oh, by the way, none of this will be to scale." Engineering and construction doesn't work like that!!

Your reservations about AI are, in many ways, reasonable. One can manipulate the response in preferred directions by the structure and content of the prompt. The best responses are obtained by expressing no explicit, or implicit expectation as to the "leaning" of the reply. Even then, having the AI critique its own response for false premises, flawed logic, or bias can be useful.

Using AI indiscriminately is as useful and as potentially dangerous as giving a five year old a chain saw.