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.
In my initial interests to computers back a long time ago, I found it is impossible to design a computer that has real creativity, that can have feelings.
If we can't do it nature can't evolve it
Can you just tell me what your position is and where you want to take this line of questioning? You seem to reject certain things which are not supposed to be a point in question. Your position is so alien that I need you to spell it out for me.
How did you "find" that? How would you know if a computer did or didn't have feelings? And why did you think that it was in your personal capability to design a computer that could have feelings?
That doesn't follow.
eudaimonia,
Mark
If you have done programming before you know your program does not have feelings.
You can go find any computer sciense student/professor and ask them to write a program that have real feelings, and they will tell you either it is not possible (those are the good ones), or it will take time (the young ones)
In my initial interests to computers back a long time ago, I found it is impossible to design a computer that has real creativity, that can have feelings. If we can't do it nature can't evolve it, so there must be something that is not material to this world, that is my initial concept of God.
Then I read about how one should "Love your neighbor as yourself", that we are all sinners and only God can save us, if we all held such views this world will be a much better place, and that concept is not just 1st century, it is eternal.
You lost me at "Observe."In a godless model of the universe, there are four potential explanations for the Big Bang, which I will refer to as the t=0 event so that those who believe in a 6000 year old universe will be more inclined to participate.
I. The t=0 event occurred for no reason and with no cause.
II. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) came into existence for no reason and with no cause.
III. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) have existed eternally. Eternal existence is a nonsensical notion in this universe but it is possible to describe a universe wherein this is plausible.
IV. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes resulted from previously existing things, which resulted from previously existing things, and etcetera ad infinitum.
I'll admit that none of these seem to be very satisfying, and what's more, there's no actual evidence to favor one over another. To compound problems further, we see that even if you grant any of them that the atheist chooses (say, choice I.), we are still left with this troublesome conclusion:
1. The universe has properties.
2. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*
3. The properties of the universe were not intelligently assigned.
4. The properties of the universe are random.
All the theist must do now is remark that it is unreasonable to believe that the universe as it is came to be by chance, and therefore its properties must be intelligently assigned.
Have I dug my own grave?
To be fair, the theist has only won once he shows that the same logical scrutiny can be applied to his worldview and that it will be shown to be more reasonable and/or more likely to be true.
Observe:
1. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*
2. God has properties.
3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.
4a. Assume God did not assign his own properties to himself.
5a. No one assigned God his properties, so they are not intelligently assigned.
6a. God's properties are random.
4b. Assume God did assign his own properties to himself.
5b. We can reasonably agree that God assigned himself his own properties according to his own preferences.
6bA. Assume God assigned himself his own preferences.
7bA. Before God assigned himself his own preferences, he did not have any preferences.
8bA. God assigned himself his own preferences randomly.
9bA. God assigned himself his own properties according to random preferences.
10bA. God's properties are random.
6bB. Assume God did not assign himself his own preferences.
7bB. God's preferences are not intelligently assigned.
8bB. God's preferences are random.
9bB. Go to 9bA.
Therefore, God's properties are random. If God created the universe, he created its properties. God's random properties are responsible for the creation of the universe's properties. Therefore, the properties of the universe are random.
The assertion of God as the answer does not solve the problem of the universe's properties being random. Furthermore, it is the assertion of something as fact which is both unfalsifiable and unnecessary. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that God more likely exists than doesn't, and it is irrational to suggest that theism is more reasonable than atheism.
If you want to say that we cannot logically dissect God, or that we cannot even discuss matters of the divine, then you refuse to subject your own worldview to the same level of logical scrutiny to which you subject the atheist worldview. This is taken as a withdraw from debate, or in other words, an admission of defeat.
*(There can be a mixture of intelligent assigning and random assigning. For example, with sleight of hand I might give myself a better chance of drawing the ace of spades from 1 chance in 52 to, say, one chance in 10. In this case, it can be said that the card I draw is random to some degree and intelligently assigned to some degree. For the purposes of this thread, I will ignore this possibility because either there is no God, in which case there is no intelligent agent to stack the odds of a certain thing to occur, or else there is a God, in which case said God does not need to rely on chance as he is omnipotent. I assume we can agree to ignore the possibility of a God that has limited power; God is either unlimited in power or else maximally powerful, that is, he can perform any action which is not logically absurd.)
Footnote: I will refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument here so it cannot be said that I'm ignoring it.
The argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:
A system is a region of space.
A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.
Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.
"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.
Earlier, I entertained the possibility of membranes causing the universe to exist. This does not solve the problem of causality but rather pushes it back one step; the membranes cause the t=0 event in a temporal, physical sense, making the t=0 event the result of causality, but it follows here that the membranes (or the thing from which the membranes ultimately arose) must have come about without cause.
Now, it may well be true that God used some other means besides causality to create the universe, or he might have simply violated logic and caused the t=0 event to occur. In either case, we cannot reach these conclusions logically starting from premises that make sense. Hence, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.
If humans can't do it, nature surely can't do it. If we who have intellegence can't do it, it will be impossible for it to happen out of randomness.Why do you think we have to do it? Likewise, why do you think nature can't evolve it? Everything we know points to that so far.
Why do you need God to derive that principle?
I'm a software developer by profession, and have studied some AI.
I don't see how any of *my* meager programs could produce feelings in a computer, but I don't know that *all* programs (or that all computers, which would include artificial neural networks and quantum computers) wouldn't create feelings as some sort of emergent phenomenon. I can't say that it is impossible with complete assurance, given that brains evidently produce feelings, and there is still the epistemological question of how would I know if a computer had feelings or not?
Please keep in mind that having feelings and showing feelings are two different things. I agree that just adding a few "print statements" to a program, such as "I feel happy" and "I feel sad", aren't the same thing as actually feeling happy and feeling sad. But that's not really the issue. Could there be some behavior in a computer, which could be an artificial neural network, that could produce feelings whether the programmer had intended them or not? It's not so obvious.
Hi! Here I am, and I'm telling you that it's not as obvious as you are making it out to be.
Also, you can't rightly make an analogy between the human brain and microprocessors (it doesn't execute sequential programs). The human brain is not like a microprocessor, but is more of a neural net that might (if Roger Penrose is right) even resemble a quantum computer in some ways. So, it is a poor argument to say that if microprocessors don't have feelings, then the human brain must also not have feelings, that is, without some supernatural entity involved. Even if you were right that microprocessors simply can't have feelings, this is not a valid path of logic.
eudaimonia,
Mark
If humans can't do it, nature surely can't do it.
If we who have intellegence can't do it, it will be impossible for it to happen out of randomness.
We can easily simulate a neuro network with computers, that what computers do, given a model it does calculations. It will never have feelings, the program written, no matter what language, what style, will never have feelings.
Think about it, the computers we have might exceed the calculation ability of a dog, but it will never have feeling as a dog.
I am curious on your position.
But anyway here is mine:
1. If time is eternal (no start/no begining), any t=0 is meaningless, since there is always time before that.
2. If you believe that there is a time (lol) that time stands still (i.e. all matters are all in absolute stand still relative to each other so time is irrelevant), then what caused all those matters to move (I think that is your initial question, basically drawing a conclusion that there must be God?)
3. God's attribute can be clearly seen through his creations.
Scientists are amazed by how precises the universe is designed, that just turn the parameters a little bit and the whole universe will be much hostile and life will be impossible.
As I said again and again, the statement "Love your neighbor as yourself" is a clear statement about the nature of God.
However, the problem here...is that there can be no observation of the actual cause or origin.
Mark,That simply does not follow. It is not a safe conclusion.
Nature may have advantages that we don't, such as billions of years with environments that we don't currently have.
Then clearly you haven't heard of the successes of genetic algorithms.
There are computer programs that are capable, for instance, of arriving at innovative solutions to engineering problems, beating even skilled engineers, who I assume are intelligent. This involves some of the same sort of "randomness" found in nature that biological evolution depends on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
Don't underestimate nature's ability, no matter how "random" it may seem, to come up with innovative solutions.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Once again, just read the OP.
When I say "your position" I am generally referring to what you hold as a basic, foundational truth, not some "If..., then..." statement.
However, in evaluating this conditional statement you offer under the assumption that the "then..." part reflects your beliefs, I see that you are about 80 years behind the times. The whole world is aware now that there was a cosmic beginning. It is not a point in question and frankly this assertion of yours puts you in league with the flat earthers (they do still exist).
I'll address this part first:
I think that is your initial question, basically drawing a conclusion that there must be God?
I do not understand why you think I'm drawing the conclusion that there must be a deity. My stated religion is "atheist" and it has never changed on this site. I assume you must be referring to how I am faithfully rendering the theistic argument about the prime mover. I rebutted that argument in the OP. Please read it.
If you believe that there is a time (lol) that time stands still (i.e. all matters are all in absolute stand still relative to each other so time is irrelevant), then what caused all those matters to move
There was no cause for the t=0 event. I take the trouble to go into good detail on why this is the case. Please read the OP.
I do not know what this means.
OK, so now you're getting into fine tuning. I don't want to get too ad hominem here but um... don't you reject biology and cosmology? Evolution is the pillar of biology and the Big Bang is the pillar of cosmology, and you reject both of those ideas. I fail to see your motivation for citing scientists. It is dishonest to cherry pick scientists by accepting their claims that you like and rejecting the ones you don't like.
However, in the interest of acquiring knowledge, I wouldn't mind if you told me how the universe is fine-tuned... even if it is slightly off topic.
Off topic and a poor quote to use. Taken out of context. In the Bible, your neighbor is a friendly member of your own country. That is why there was no restriction on the Hebrews raping, pillaging and murdering various people such as the Ammonites, Moabites, etc. If that is the nature of God, then I not only believe that I am correct about his nonexistence but I also hope I am correct with every fiber of my being for the sake of all living things.
Well, I know about the theory of cosmic beginning, you simply think that is the t=0 event right?
Well, what's before the cosmic beginning? is time at still? Do you see where I am getting at? The only thing that can cause time to stand still is if everything is at absolute still (so there won't be a measure of time), but if that is the case what caused things to move? I hope you understand my question.
All that is just a way to search the permutations and find something that fits the criteria, nothing creative in there by the computer, it is just following an algorithm, doing its calculations, very similar to how we solve a map. The put int he word "Darwin" in there but it won't fool us engineers
Well, what's before the cosmic beginning?
is time at still?
Do you see where I am getting at? The only thing that can cause time to stand still is if everything is at absolute still (so there won't be a measure of time), but if that is the case what caused things to move? I hope you understand my question.
Well...those who say they don't know would definitely be correct. But, unless you consider that those who claim to have this knowledge, may actually have it - then you would only be guessing at their position too.So then maybe the side that says "We don't know how or why the universe exists" is correct and the side that claims to have this knowledge is incorrect?
Well...those who say they don't know would definitely be correct. But, unless you consider that those who claim to have this knowledge, may actually have it - then you would only be guessing at their position too.
I say that "I know"...because I have been outside the realm of time and had the opportunity to consider it all from that greater perspective. Some say they know, when they actually only want to believe it, or because they have faith that what they do not know is confirmed by what they do know (much as is the practice with science).
I have the word of a Higher authority - and you cannot name one fallacy in what I have told you.I know that they don't have this knowledge because their arguments contain fallacies.
If you're just going to blurt something like that out there, you ought to quickly follow it up with the explanation of how you were thoroughly examined by psychiatrists. If you never put forth that effort, I see no need to take you seriously. If you have gone through those tests, please tell me what they concluded.
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?