I Know That God Does Not Exist

We're talking to the village idiot about his mental handicaps and schizophrenic personality. We're talking to the village idiot who hears mysterious voices in his head and thinks it's god. We're talking to the village idiot who hallucinates macabre images no one else can see and thinks he is sane.We're talking to a religionist yahoo who is batshit crazy.There are treatments for BCRPS but they involve lots of drugs and long stays at the funny farm.Funny Farm. No, that's not a cathedral looking for a new alter boy but it might help you adjust if you think it is.Go ahead. Bend over and grab you ankles, alter boy.

Quite a promotion indeed, since he could not even begin to approach the IQ requirements for the job which are so much higher than his own self-professed sub-sub-basement IQ that would just barely qualify him for the job of flatworm. One of ID's principal arguments against evolution is complexity, even approaching "irreducible complexity." Ironically, one of the highly distinguishing by-products of evolutionary processes is complexity, even approaching "irreducible complexity."One example is the use of evolutionary processes to program a specific field-programmable gate array (FPGA ... in our product line (I was a software engineer before I retired a year and a half ago) we made extensive use of FPGAs) that would function as an amplifier. The design that evolved was extremely complex and also irreducibly complex in that any change in it would render it inoperative. The complexity was such that it made use of the non-digital characteristics of the underlying electronics * to create the final evolved design.There is a Scientific American article about that experiment and I do have a Xerox'd copy of that article stored away somewhere, but I cannot find it right now.The bottom line is that evolution generates complexity, so when you see complexity that is evidence of evolution.  FOOTNOTE *:
Analog electronics operate within a narrow range of parameters which has its own special sets of issues. All voltage levels are used.Digital electronics have all the components operating at either one of two extremes, completely switched on or completely switched off. All voltage levels between completely switched on and completely switched off are the relatively wide Forbidden Zone in which all intermediate voltage levels are indeterminant.In electrical engineering, there is no completely pure component. All inductors (coils of wire) also have capacitances between those coiled wires. In bundles of wires, there are also capacitances and inductances between them that are minimized in various ways (eg, twisted pairs), but still present. It has been said that biology is messy, but so is EE (albeit not as much so).The simple fact is that all digital devices also have analog properties that are not normally utilized. But these evolutionary designs don't care and they will have not compunction against using analog or digital properties whenever they can.
What we see happening in this FPGA example is that the normal digital logic

According to the Naval Terminology Jargon and Slang FAQ (https://www.hazegray.org/faq/slang1.htm), we have BOHICA:

quote:

---

BOHICA - Acronym for "Bend Over, Here It Comes Again."

---

Hoo-rah!

The measurement problem is basically that QM doesn't actually tell you what will happen in a measurement. It only gives probabilities to observe things.So before you make a measurement you have chances for various outcomes. Once you make a measurement you know the outcome and then update your probabilities. Collapse of the wavefunction isn't really a physical process. It's what I called "State Reduction" above. Updating probabilities in light of observations.So you prepare a silver oven and place a detection screen near it. QM predicts various chances for the screen to develop certain detection marks on it. When you see a mark you then update your probabilities. However things like the Kochen-Specker theorem prevent you from interpreting the mark as "the location of a silver atom". It's just a mark on the screen.

Probability theory is a bit vague on what a reasoning agent is since it just assumes it as a primitive that's unexplained.Typically it's anything that could be programmed with or understand and apply the rules of probability theory. Self driving cars would be an example or several other automata. As well as ourselves. You can't apply quantum theory. It wouldn't mean there is nothing, just that the theory is written from the perspective of an observing agent. If there is no agent the theory can't be applied.It's like Gambling theory. No gambler and it can't really be applied. It's unlike General Relativity which describes the world independent of any agent's presence.Now in many cases where there is no agent one can still apply the theory by imagining a fictional agent. For example I can still apply QM to a gas cloud in space because I can "imagine" what a little robot doing observations on the cloud might see, even if there is no robot there.However in cases where there can't be a classical agent the theory cannot be applied. An example would be the early universe. I had a friend who was advised off doing a PhD applying quantum theory to the early universe because the theory simply breaks down there because there can't be agents.

This is nothing to with preciseness. The actual arrangement of the universe appears to be non-mathematical, so it can't be encoded even approximately. That the results of quantum theory appear to be incompatible with an underlying algorithm.Now there are obscure ways out of this. However they all have to be fine tuned and ultimately become as believable as "Well what if the bones were all planted correctly in the soil which was made to have the right properties for dating to make it seem like evolution was true"

This is anticipated to a degree in my post. Once one engages in saying things like selected parts of the books if read correctly describe a "deeper" being only glimpsed partially through the texts the argument becomes much more difficult. The way you are talking about the texts isn't even how their authors or original followers viewed them, as we can see in the case of the Tanakh with early Rabbinical commentaries. Going even earlier Yahweh was probably a wind god in the Canaanite pantheon.Historically he seems to have been a wind god for Canaanites in general, before becoming the national god of one subgroup of Canaanites after the Bronze Age collapse. It's a varying mix of those two concepts one sees in the Old Testament.To say all of this is actually a veiled reference to an entity completely unlike this requires a remove from the texts and historical evidence to a more philosophical argument.What I'm saying is that the beings directly presented in the texts are not real.

Your scholarly position based on facts and what we collectively know about History makes careful, considered sense and I respect it. I believe that the pattern and theory applies but believe Jesus Christ to be an exception to the pattern. I think that I understand your position. For one thing, (and especially in the case of Jesus the Christ) human anthropomorphism became a modern scholarly concept which graduated from the ancient concepts and beliefs as humanity began to connect through the medium of the printing press, increasing tribal and cultural interaction, and smarter phones leading to dumber sheeple.(One of Buzzsaws favorite words) I agree. The modern day mythicists present a compelling case for the creation (and evolution) of such a Jesus...while the modern day apologists (a few of whom I respect, though not many) tend to further the philosophical Jesus as a living legend personified in the believers of today's time themselves.What are your personal observations and experience with such philosophies where you live? Positive or Negative, overall?Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

To further our discussion, I thought you might enjoy perusing this article:
God In Mathematics The article talks about the philosophical (and theological) beliefs of Vern Poythress. He is by any reasonable standard a deeply and widely educated man. He has six academic degrees, a B.S. from CalTech and a PhD from Harvard in mathematics. An M Div, ThM, M Litt, and a ThD in various theological disciplines from Westminster Seminary, Cambridge University and the University of Stellenbosch respectively. He now teaches New Testament (and on occasion: philosophy of science and philosophy of language) at Westminster. He publishes books, popular articles and journal articles on a broad range of topics. It is rare to find someone in your academic fields of discipline that also has such an interest in Theology. Personally, I agree with your observation about philosophy and biblical accuracy and inerrancy,(if such a concept can even be defended). One would think (or imagine) that there could be agents in that Jesus was in the beginning with His Father and thus was the original observer regarding Creation in general. Granted it is simply a philosophical belief backed (of course) by no evidence. If one limits their awareness of God to the God described in the book(s) then God is limited to the lifespan of the original authors. Ringo makes this argument as he asserts that nowhere else can I find Jesus except in the book. In contrast, my Pastor explains it this way: Keep in mind that we are still discussing this stuff philosophically. There are many counter arguments and I myself try and learn them to either defend or update my position.I plan on reading some of the books authored by Vern Poythress. I found links to a couple here:
Chance and the Sovereignty of God: A God-Centered Approach to Probability and Random Events
Chance and the Sovereignty of God: Randomness on VimeoEdited by Thugpreacha, : accurate facts

Indeed! For that reason, of course, I don't think there's any real value in discussing the question of whether or not we live in a simulation. Except that it provides an answer to those who ask why there is something rather than nothing: one can respond, "How do you know there is something rather than nothing?"

I think that Son Goku hit the nail on the head when he asserted that beliefs can really only be discussed philosophically and not historically accurately due to the fact that there is such controversy between the apologists and the mythicists. Out of curiosity, what did you study and major in when you attended school? You seem to be well read and mathematically inclined.(I was never really good at math, but as a cashier, I add and subtract in my head every day ) Also...what is your opinion on the belief that Jesus was the original and initial observer which allowed the possibility of early quantum mechanics in the creation of the known universe? All I can say is I think therefore I am. (I think!)Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

When you write, "beliefs can really only be discussed philosophically and not historically accurately due to the fact that there is such controversy between the apologists and the mythicists" what do you mean? Does that mean your question about Jesus could be answered, "We do not even really know for sure if Jesus existed or is only a mythical figure in the writings of second-century Christians"?

I really cannot even say "we" since there is no consensus between believers and non believers. It has been my observation that there is a concerted effort in both camps (mythicists and apologists) to frame an argument. All that I can conclude at this point is that the jury is out. (Tangle is rolling his eyes) I am biased, of course. You cant really tell me that someone is a myth when I have already met them.And of course I judge the integrity of the authors making the claims rather than the raw facts presented in the arguments. There are many many charlatans in organized religion--Christianity in particular. That much I know. What I also suspect, however, is there are charlatans seeking to discredit the belief. As PT Barnum was quoted, There is a sucker born every minute.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

And what evidence is available to support your claim to have met them or that they even exist? And when the author or authors are totally unknown what model, method, mechanism, process or procedure is used to determine the integrity of the author(s)? That refers to the believers Phat.

We won't find any objective evidence. If we did, everyone would know. The Bible makes it quite clear that not everyone will in fact know or believe. There will always be more unbelievers than there are believers. Besides, I dont need to make a case in order to satisfy your requirments. You are aware of the same Creator of all seen and unseen that I am. Integrity is like a virus. We catch it from knowing others. What makes you believe the claimed facts in any book? One answer, of course, is that the math can be replicated and thus objective. When it comes to belief (especially personal belief) there is no method which is objective. Belief was arguably never intended to be objective.As to the gullibility of believers, I cant really argue against your assertion.My only question to you is this:In regards to your understanding of God, are you still forever asking questions or have you arrived at some tentative answers?