It's comical how you can't get out out of the apophenia loop.
Tell me was Watson and Stockfish a creation by God or computer scientists?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's comical how you can't get out out of the apophenia loop.You have no idea what you're dealing with.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
His intellect and knowledge base would make Watson and Stockfish drool.
It's comical how you can't get out out of the apophenia loop.
Tell me was Watson and Stockfish a creation by God or computer scientists?
And did computer scientists rely on the supernatural in creating AI?
So by your own admission the creation of Watson and Stockfish by computer scientists did not require the supernatural nor the Bible for answers.
So by your own admission the creation of Watson and Stockfish by computer scientists did not require the supernatural nor the Bible for answers.
You will find this applies to science in general as well.
What's your point?
Do any of those except "god(s)" matchI don't know. There have been various suggestions, such as vacuum fluctuations, colliding branes, our universe being a black hole in another universe, and even creation by a god, but, so far as I am aware, nobody really knows.
How about first you respond to post #414
and let us know if you understand why
" science proves" is a nonsensical statement.
I already did that. Let's not deflect. I'm truly interested to see your proof.How about first you respond to post #414
and let us know if you understand why
" science proves" is a nonsensical statement.
I believe you are misunderstanding her.I already did that. Let's not deflect. I'm truly interested to see your proof.
I believe you are misunderstanding her.
"Proof" is not relevant to science because science deals in justifiable conclusions from evidence and not absolute proof. No scientific theory is proven beyond possibility of doubt, it is always a tentative conclusion.
In philosophy and mathematics an idea can have proof that it follows from whatever axioms are relevant... in science it is limited to the demonstrating found in the world around us.
However if you use "proof" in the sense of common language or legal terms then many scientific theories like
evolution and some aspects of relativity then they are proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence.
I don't understand your point here.I believe that you misunderstood me. The fact that you confirmed what I said is evidence that supports that belief.
Can time cease to exist in your understanding of relativity?I don't understand your point here.
You haven't been responding clearly to requests for evidence in this thread. You seem to be making predictions that the universe should behave according to Newtonian laws while also acknowledging ages and timelines associated with relativity.
Can time cease to exist in your understanding of relativity?
At the extremes theoretically. Anything with mass can't ever get to the speed of light, but it can approach it.Can time cease to exist in your understanding of relativity?
Nonsense, and it would have taken fewer words toI already did that. Let's not deflect. I'm truly interested to see your proof.
Time doesn't cease to exist, it can be stopped or frozen.Can time cease to exist in your understanding of relativity?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?