digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

What Do Computers Tell Us About God?

docstoc.com — Reflections of a computer scientist....What do computers tell us about God

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheOneTrueGod, on 02/15/2008, -65/+11I have to say something to slide 19: "Can't God turn into a human? Equivalent question: 'Couldn't God turn himself into a square in Game of Life?'"

    I am sitting at a desk in the office (damn shame). So I am obviously *inside* the Universe. But that is only an illusion. Fact: The Universe is a complete circle of Life - that I created. It is a God. Surprise: God's Creation is really something BIG: It is a God! Cell division on God scale.

    I myself am also a complete circle of Life - in the shape of a human. The current shape of existence can most precisely be depicted with the number 8 - maybe that's the reason that a lying 8 is the sign of infinity. Before Creation, there was only one circle. And until 2001-08-13 there was also only one circle: *I* was the Universe. Then I woke up - and performed the actual miracle (the only miracle ever - everything else is just logical technical stuff even though eternal life and youth might seem to be a miracle - but comeon, have you ever looked at a duck sitting peacefully on a lake?) of *NOT* absorbing the Universe in the plain insight that it was me. Instead, I had to give up my soul (the Universe) so that it could actually exist. *That* was the miracle: God died willingly to make the Universe be. I did that 6.5 years ago. To my surprise, I did not die. Or at least did not stop functioning. But this would get too complicated now.

    Jesus Christ was an antitemporal selfsimilarity of mine. At least that's what I assume because his life so much reflects what's happening to me now for years. The true cross? That is mental. Not physical.

    Ok, back on topic: I am experiencing to be in the Universe and I look like that and I eat and ***** like that. But I am *NOT* inside the Universe. I am a "Universe" of my own.
    • Daz3, on 02/15/2008, -1/+30You have a serious ego complex.
      • ToeCracker, on 02/15/2008, -13/+2Ego is not a dirty word . . . so deal with it.
      • moskaudancer, on 02/15/2008, -0/+9He's still not as bad as the "Time Cube" guy.
      • scroobyrooberoo, on 02/15/2008, -3/+1Takeaway:

        I'm alot smarter than some guy getting 2 degrees from MIT.
    • chrisc3, on 02/15/2008, -3/+6We're not really here.....we just think we're here...


      we are here.
      • fyngyrz, on 02/15/2008, -5/+15"What Do Computers Tell Us About God?"

        The same thing they tell us about Santa Claus and unicorns and fairies.

        Nothing.

        And for precisely the same reasons.

    • asskey, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3KENNETH ENG!
    • undershirt, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4That was tough to read. I don't understand, but I thank you for having the guts to share that.
    • Evermin7, on 02/15/2008, -2/+13I'll have what he's having.
    • khellendros1984, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3I'm with Evermin7. That's some super-cocaine you must've taken there...laced with LSD...
    • userini, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6Wow... a Five Percenter, on digg. Who could've imagined...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation_of_Gods_an ...
    • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2I thought that was pretty funny, given your name. I thought you were trying to comedically portray god...or maybe everyone who dugg you down is right...
      But looking down I see a bunch of your other comments which leads me to believe you are intoxicated. Shoulda stopped at least after the first one.
    • Fordi, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Groovily philosophical and all, and for what it's worth, it's as valid an explanation of God and the Universe as any. My one criticism is its lack of objectivity... Sure, you're a universe, and I'm a universe, but neither are *the* universe, the one that contains all our individual universes.
    • funkywood, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Are you trying to beat the slides in a talking bollocks contest or does that actually make sense to you?
  • TheOneTrueGod, on 02/15/2008, -52/+4Slide 31: "What could we possibly offer our creator that it doesn't already have?"

    The Universe and I form an eternal bond. It is the symmetrical will of "I want you to be." When I split the world in two (Haha, I just thought that maybe that Ghostbusters-joke of never to cross the streams might also be a self-similarity of this one Omegapoint.), that bond was forged. And it gives me *everything*: Pure existence! Energy. Light! It infuses me with *pure God* in every moment. Same deal into the opposite direction. That means that I as well as the people of the Universe will live *INSIDE* of the light of God. Heaven.

    What you can and will do because it will just naturally be your *strong* will (Because as sub-elements of the Universe, you represent sub-elements of its will - that I am!):

    - You will build a house for me to live in. I don't want a palace or five cars because I am one person and I am ***** reasonable. I am the avatar of nature, hence I am sane in my use of resources. Don't worry: You will *definitely* know when it's the time, so don't get crazy on collecting or something. You will know the time because reality will tell you in an unambiguous way. And I am pretty sure that we will have met *before* you make every day of my life Christmess.

    - Companies will pretty much want to give me cars, cameras etc. because I am kind of a celebrity, and I will be picky. As I said, I don't like to waste time or space.

    - You will clean up this planet. We will not move on before this ***** looks like God's restingplace!

    - Females will inevitably fall in love with me. I think that's the best part :)

    - and so on
    • TheOneTrueGod, on 02/15/2008, -20/+3It's "Christmas" dude!
    • TheOneTrueGod, on 02/15/2008, -20/+3Oh. Sorry. Well, whatever. ***** happens.
    • TheOneTrueGod, on 02/15/2008, -20/+3Do you always talk to yourself?
    • TheOneTrueGod, on 02/15/2008, -22/+3Can't you read? I said I was just building that thing. Before that, there was pretty much noone to talk to. Today still people believe I'm a wacko. Of course I talk to myself! What, you don't?
    • Daz3, on 02/15/2008, -3/+24Your trolling isn't even humorous, it is just lame and ambiguous.
    • truspect0r, on 02/15/2008, -5/+16fail
    • elvenseven, on 02/15/2008, -2/+13Sorry, Myspace-profile-talk doesn't work here.
    • neveroffline, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4idiot
    • flyzzx, on 02/15/2008, -2/+0Shut The ***** Up.
  • MrColdheart, on 02/15/2008, -44/+23This is a mind numbingly stupid slide show..... if you missed the point
    get help.
    http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/
    • ruddy, on 02/15/2008, -11/+18it's real logic beyond your realm of mental capacity. i would consider myself agnostic, but this presentation brings up some really good food for though, if you're the philosophical type. you just said, I can't understand it, therefore it isn't real.
      • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -4/+3it's only logical if you already assume that God exists.
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3Or that everything in the universe has some sort of mover. 'twas the ancient Greek philosophers who came up with the idea of the "prime mover." I wonder why no one ever hears about the people who said this type of philosophy "is mind numbingly stupid" anymore.
    • ophello, on 02/15/2008, -4/+12You're pretty short sighted for calling this stupid. You obviously didnt actually think about anything in it, otherwise youd take something away from it.
    • doomcomplex, on 02/15/2008, -13/+8I agree, this was an insipid waste of time. Deep philosophical truths from "the game of life"? I think not.
    • ophello, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5Heres the game, by the way:
      http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife
    • ophello, on 02/15/2008, -7/+10From the website you posted:
      "We Are Atheists Because..."
      "There is no proof of the existence of god."
      There is no proof my dead grandpa loves me. There is no definitive proof of the Big Bang. Yet we persist in believing these things.

      "There is no need of, or use for, a god."
      That's like a fork saying there's no use for humans.

      "A good god would be useless if it were not powerful."
      ...and?

      "A powerful god would not deserve worship if he were not good."
      I agree.

      "There is no all-powerful good god; otherwise there would be no imperfection."
      This is *****. You presume to know what's best for everyone in the universe. You'd have us all sitting on our asses for eternity, floating in bliss.

      "If this is the best world god can make, the stories of Heaven must be lies."
      Who said this is the best world?

      "History shows that godism is accompanied by ignorance and superstition."
      Ignorance and superstition can exist without god, and will always exist.

      "There has never been such intolerance and persecution as godists have practiced."
      Intolerance and persecution can occur in a godless society.
    • hello2usir, on 02/15/2008, -5/+6The article does raise some interesting conversation but ultimately it's still no proof of God. And as a "computer scientist", if this somehow reaffirms your belief, then you're not much of a scientist.
      • hkatirai, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0Hello,

        I'm the author of the article.

        The article wasn't designed to be a proof of God. But it was designed to explain two concepts that atheists normally find difficult to accept or understand.

        1. The concept of an intermediary
        2. The unknowability of the creator

        Both of these concepts would appear to be the stuff of fairy tales to an atheist before the presentation. My hope is that after the presentation, and the intuition that comes from the experience of being a creator of a universe themselves (albeit a computer universe), these concepts, which prior to the presentation would have been seen as the stuff of fairy tales, will now seem logical and intuitively obvious.

        This presentation is actually an old one. I have since put together another presentation that is geared towards atheists which addresses the existence of God more directly:

        http://www.mit.edu/~hooman/AtheismAndGod.html

        The first thing to understand is that cannot prove anything in science. Rather we pick as "true" statements (or models of reality) that are more probable than the other possibilities. This is the closest to a proof we can get to in science.

        Thus the question is not, "can we prove the existence of God?" but rather, is the existence of God more probable than his non-existence?

        More about this in the article listed above.
  • rpi22, on 02/15/2008, -9/+22so, god is designed to be deterministic and repeatable?
    • paulfi, on 02/15/2008, -17/+5well i know your mom isn't context free because i pumped her twice last night :D
      • ToeCracker, on 02/15/2008, -1/+13more like you pumped your fist you wanker.
    • undershirt, on 02/15/2008, -1/+6I understand what those terms mean, but I don't get your point.
    • yelnatz, on 02/15/2008, -1/+9You have it wrong. Its talking about God being a programmer, metaphorically speaking.
      • doomcomplex, on 02/15/2008, -10/+2Not really... God is apparently a stupid teenager who can't understand the programming behind the game he's playing, according to the slides.
        • Fordi, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3Yeeah... If I built a system that could understand language to the point where it wrote its own, I think I would, you know, set up a communication avatar and start talking to the little logico-creatures. Further, I don't think I'd care much if they believed in me or not.

          Meanwhile, another thing we can take from this is that the concept of heaven and hell is basically the garbage collector algorithm. The data that represents you gets recycled, and you no longer exist - sounds a lot like worm food to me.
      • LeeSoong, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2what if god is the biggest multiprocessor evar,
        and every object in the 'universe is a new thread ?

        We are all object class 'human', all running in parallel...
    • ozroy, on 02/15/2008, -3/+3I assume this slideshow is about the Simulated Reality theory. If you are really interested then read this wiki article. It's a good summary. Specifically Nick Bostrom's argument.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Nic ...
      • Akaji, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5RTFA, don't assume.
        • xptoast, on 02/15/2008, -4/+1RTFM on RL you nub.

          /using all the stupid words leets/geeks use. RTFM and RTFA always makes me mad. How about you read it then realize you are an ahole that doesnt understand the concept behind a question. RL? Come on now we live behind computers that much? Nub? You seriously took the concept of New Beginner and took it to newbie then noob then nub? Programmers I understand the concepts you use are complex to most and you feel like a genius but you just are very specialize in that area. I dont perticularly think you are any better than anyone especialy if you do the RTFM or RTFA or nub comments. You would be a "nub" at life for it.

          Sorry I just really hate people who think they are 1337.
          • Fordi, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6Um, dude? Let me school you on the history of l33t speak:
            Hackers started it, mainly with character substitutions and acronyms, in the mid 1980's in order to fool the filtering systems on the old dial-up bulletin board systems. It was a solution to a problem. Then, in 1990, AOL showed up. The l33t baton got passed to the AOL users, and those that started the language, by and large abandoned it, having more legal things to talk about by then.

            In short: Programmers don't use l33t speak. We use proper english. Don't try and drop the continued propagation of that ***** on us, because it annoys us just about as much as it annoys you.

            Meanwhile, I would suggest that our 'specialization' is more of an application of a particular mode of thought, that is, systematic and logical. I don't know anything about a particular language unless I'm using it, and when I'm done, I put the manual away and work on something else.
          • xptoast, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2I commend you on your coherent thoughts. (not sarcastic) I was more talking about the coders that think they are leet. The ones that are actually intelligent and use the logic in more than a mathematical/programming way and actually incorporate thought into being a human with compansion. The RTFM thing just bugged me because I was trying to work with some software and the coders just kept doing the RTFM when I had and the manual was written for people actually good at what they do not a novice. I don't ask questions frivolously. I tend to want an answer if I ask a question. I wouldn't ask it otherwise. Thank you for being a good programmer. My brother programs and is kind too. Thank God for a couple smart ones.
    • themastersb, on 02/15/2008, -3/+4Computers tell me God doesn't exist, but then again I didn't need computers to tell me that.
      • davesgreenhut, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1I thought the power point was weak. Also the subject is a dead end argument. Better to move the discussion in a different way.

        If you look over these comments you will see that people are divided on the issue, or angry, or incredulous, or fixed, or whatever. So much for the unbiased inquiring scientific mind!

        The idea of a being, or beings, with more intelligence than humans in an infinite world is hardly ridiculous.

        The idea that humans have not got much of a clue of "human" reality is equally convincing based on all of human history.

        We have technological mastery (we can teleport electrons, communicate wirelessly, travel the globe. etc.) but we cannot calm the human heart enough in order act peacefully or respectfully to each other on a large scale.

        Also now we find ourselves in a position where all that technological mastery has given our descendants a virtually dead planet.

        These are some of the problems that religions, or moral philosophies, attempt to fix. Historically they have had much success in many ways, and also many problems.

        Science is getting involved. This is excellent!

        What people need to ask is not does God exist as that is just a killer to conversation, and sparks in my estimation more prejudice than is necessary. Why not ask: are any religious behaviors useful, and how can we evaluate them?

        Fixing the war and hatred in the human heart is no easy battle. It requires vision, combined effort and not a war on two fronts.

        Is is the Buddha's, or Moses, Christs, Krishna's, etc. vision, given the historical context, unscientific considering the 'human' problems of the time?

        Are todays problems in society moral or rational? Or both?

        I like the Baha'i perspective. I am not one. But their idea that science and religion have to harmonize I think would do the
        world a lot of good, and would generate a new era of exploration for both scientists, religionists, and those who sit in the middle.

        Sorry for long post.







  • whitezombie420, on 02/15/2008, -11/+161"Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself couldn't eat it?"
    • Daz3, on 02/15/2008, -6/+27I dugg you for the Simpsons reference.
      I also think people should realize that arguments of that form are invalid, basically, you are asking if God is more powerful than God. Akin to asking if infinity is larger than infinity.
      • ToeCracker, on 02/15/2008, -6/+3This would be a great argument to post on http://www.heymonkeybrains.com
        • Rocketbird, on 02/15/2008, -8/+3Heymonkeybrains.com
          find something interesting
          Thursday, February 14, 2008

          Find what you're looking for

          * Monkey Animal
          * Monkey Memory
          * Human Brains
          * Chicken Salad Recipes
          * Monkey Spider
          * Cooking Light Recipes
          * Information Monkey
          * Monkey Apes
          * Eating Brains
          * Monkey Dead

          Recommended Links
          Eat Brains, Monkey Food, Monkey Gibbon

          Search

          image1
          Start your search here

          Today's most Visited links

          * Greek Salad Recipes
          * Baby Monkey
          * Marmoset Monkey
          * Monkey Facts


          Popular Destination

          * Monkey Cocktail
          * Game Brains
          * Monkey Picture
          * Monkey Primate



          * Baby Brains
          * Shrimp Scampi Recipes
          * Recipe Brains
          * Food Brains

          About Us
          We empower individuals, organizations and businesses with our unique services. Diversification being our core strategy; we specialize in Monkey Animal , Monkey Memory , Human Brains and an array of other services. Our mission is to provide quality resources.
          Brains Memory | Pasta Salad Recipe | Woolly Monkey | Sweet Potato Recipes | Capuchin Monkey
          Bookmark this page | Make this your Homepage
      • KibibyteBrain, on 02/15/2008, -6/+6But you can ask if an infinity is larger than an infinity. And it often is. Thats why god, as people try an understand him, doesn't exist. People think that they understand such unbounded concepts like infinity, but are actually misunderstood and quite complex, but also quite determinant. But any two infinities can be compared, and the comparison will have a very clear result. Maybe you just need to enroll in some higher level undergrad or grad math courses.
        • khellendros1984, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5But the same infinity will never be larger than itself. We're comparing the same infinity, not two different ones.
          • KibibyteBrain, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2That doesn't change the point about being able to answer the question. You can still make a conclusion. Also, its impossible for it to be the same infinity, as eating/heating a burrito are different actions thermodynamically and therefore would have to be different. God could either eat it or not.
          • Daz3, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1@Kibibytebrain: Yes the two actions are technically different but the questions is addressing the same set of infinity, namely Gods omnipotence.
        • FranksValli, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Does the mathematical concept of infinity truly describe the essential nature of god, if he exists? If so, then no wonder people say we invented god, for we also conceived of the idea of infinity.

          God, if he does exist, I think will resist this mathematical definition of infinity - he would be something much much more than that.

          Just something to keep in mind...
      • ZenMasterJG, on 02/15/2008, -5/+14Of course you can ask questions about the size of infinity.
        The college math 1 example: Take two sets, the set of all of the integers, and the set of all the reals. Which set is larger?
        Its obviously the reals. There is an infinite number of integers, but there are an infinite number of reals between each of the integers.
        • Daz3, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4You are comparing two different sets of 'infinity'. The argument in question is comparing the same set. Another example : Are you stronger than yourself? Are you faster than yourself? The question ceases to make sense when you break it down to that level.
          All the question does is compare Gods omnipotence with Gods omnipotence.
        • elcapitanp, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Not really. The question isn't who is faster, yourself or yourself. The question is what is fastest? What is strongest? What is all powerful? The minute you try to define it, all things being relative, you can already imagine something stronger, faster, more powerful. This argument is a critique of the very idea of all powerfulness. Not to mention that an all benevolent god cannot be all knowing. He won't know what it is like to run a criminal enterprise and like it. An all knowing god will never know what it is like to make a mistake. A transcendent god cannot have experiential knowledge, and a god with a body would be subject to change, and thus less than perfect. These are all very old, and very valid arguments.
      • BeyondDGrave, on 02/15/2008, -0/+8Show me this god of yours first.
      • noumuon, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3it's not an invalid argument. the problem lies in the invalid proposition that god can do anything.
        • FranksValli, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I agree with you here. The idea rests on the assumption that god can do anything, even the logically impossible. But this is absurd, to many theists and atheists alike.
    • kevlarbaboon, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5The answer to this is simple. Jesus could microwave a burrito so hot he couldn't eat it, then he WOULD eat it.
      • r3bol, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Microwave Burrito is the modern day crucifiction.
    • benbfree, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3Of course he could. Jesus was man and took on the physical limitations of the body. He died, he wept, he ate...etc, etc, etc.. If I can microwave a burrito so hot that I couldn't eat it, for sure Jesus could as well.
      • nullifidian0, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2He'd better come back soon then, seeing as they didn't have microwave ovens in the first century.
    • stonedgeek, on 02/15/2008, -1/+8Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot Chuck Norris couldn't eat it?
  • ToeCracker, on 02/15/2008, -23/+38God is whatever you want him to be in your mind.
    • chrisc3, on 02/15/2008, -19/+19Only for an atheist.
      • BeefBaron, on 02/15/2008, -4/+22For anyone. Just because someone vehemently believes in something doesn't necessarily mean it exists outside their mind.
      • RoboRay, on 02/15/2008, -6/+11Yes. For a non-atheist, God is whatever you've been told He is. You know other people belive He's something else, but they're wrong and you're right because you have faith, ignoring that those "wrong" people are just as filled with faith as you are.
        • RoboRay, on 02/15/2008, -3/+6Oh, sure... Go ahead... Digg me down for pointing out you are illogical and irrational. It's what I expected of you.
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2What if I said I believe in god, but he could be something completely different that how I perceive him? Your argument is illogical because you believe god to be whatever one thinks he is, while you could completely wrong just as you have pointed out to people who believe in god.
          • Fordi, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2You're mincing words. God is not what you think it is. God, as a variable is 'undefined', and 'undefined' != everything.
          • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Well you think he is something just as I think he is something else.
      • EarlOfLade, on 02/15/2008, -3/+7Really? Next you are going to tell me that prayers work too? Show me an ex-amputee!
        http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm
    • CthulhuDawn, on 02/15/2008, -3/+7Blegh, I vomit at your philosophy.
    • Anthropoid, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2That depends on what you mean by "God." I'll agree the word "God" has a wide variety of definitions, some probably more accurate than others. (I believe there's an objective reality.)
    • foofoohead, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Boy, if that were your attitude about your bank account you would be rich. Until the bank laughed at you.
  • angusm, on 02/15/2008, -4/+34Depends which computer you ask. I think it was the VMS operating system where you could type 'god' at the prompt and get back the message "god does not exist".
    • pixelperfect, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1You mean:
      [non-existing file] does not exist.
      most text based systems respond with a similar reponse.
  • antivibe, on 02/15/2008, -3/+56hang on, isnt this just Bahai spam?
    • doomcomplex, on 02/15/2008, -1/+6It clearly is.
    • radu79, on 02/15/2008, -0/+7Well, it's not like they have any links or anything to Bahai sites, nor does it encourage anyone to join them. I would guess that the author might belong to this religion, but many authors quote their religion in their work, and their work does not become "x religon spam".
    • Wavicle, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5Having been born and raised (though no longer) a Baha'i I can assure you that this.... is in fact Baha'i theology verbatim. Note the tacit acceptance of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Krsna, Buddha, Mohammed, the Bab and Baha'u'llah as messengers of God. Seriously, just try aligning Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity some day. Baha'i's really believe that the same God spoke through all of them. Rather remarkable considering most are monotheistic, one is polytheistic, one is essentially non-theistic and another says its prophet was the seal (last) of all of God's prophets but two on that list came after him.
      • JoelBakan01, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2I was born and raised Baha'i also. It seems the world has adopted many of the religions tenants but close analysis will show that Baha'ullah was a plagiarist and just created one more virus to add to humanities misery,
  • BuzzDiggity, on 02/15/2008, -3/+24I wonder if God is on AIM....
  • ncdave101, on 02/15/2008, -2/+64Old/Obligatory FORTRAN reference:

    God is REAL, unless declared INTEGER.
    • tightscrummy, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2That's why iGod is always used.
  • TheRascalKing, on 02/15/2008, -4/+17*beep beep* thou shalt not steal *boop boop*
    Thats what robot god tells me.
    • GrooTheWanderer, on 02/15/2008, -0/+12I would have thought the cybernetic god would have a whole different set of moral judgements. "Thou shalt not divide by zero; Thou shalt not dereference an invalid pointer..."
      • TheRascalKing, on 02/15/2008, -0/+7You forgot the beeps and the boops. Thats how you know its a robot.
  • ssjasper2003, on 02/15/2008, -10/+6Only a belief you make believe is real.
  • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -8/+5Somewhat unrelated, but a (unintentionally) funny article I found several days back:
    http://www.digg.com/programming/Programming_Under_ ...
  • ptFoe, on 02/15/2008, -40/+8God doesn't endorse Ron Paul.
    Please shut the ***** up geeKKKs of the Internet.
    • ToeCracker, on 02/15/2008, -1/+15How do you know he doesn't - did you talk to him personally and ask?
    • bamafun, on 02/15/2008, -4/+3There would be no internet without GEEKKS! oh and AL GORE and Hillary lol
  • dadavexx, on 02/15/2008, -12/+22What utter silliness
    • Sc4v3ng3r, on 02/15/2008, -5/+3Computers are the closest scientific explanation to life itself. The day we will reproduce a perfect simulated reality it wont look so silly anymore. THe odds of being in one are rather impressive, especially if one civilisation can run million of these simulation.
  • Duncster, on 02/15/2008, -6/+47What if God was one of us?
    • UnarmedHippo, on 02/15/2008, -1/+22Just a slob like one of us?
    • grgcnnr, on 02/15/2008, -0/+17Just a stranger on the bus
    • ruddy, on 02/15/2008, -12/+3watch the show, he can't be.
    • AlxRymnd914, on 02/15/2008, -7/+5This was a triumph! ^^
    • johnparkman, on 02/15/2008, -10/+2He would have to take on a human form... We could call him Messiah!
      • nullifidian0, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty perl script.
    • fancyj, on 02/15/2008, -0/+16trying to make his way home.
    • bassman12593, on 02/15/2008, -8/+4according to the slide show, that defies all logic, therefore if god was one of us, logic wouldn't work and the whole universe would cease to exist.
      • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4and angels would kill George Carlin. Damn angels.
      • Niightwitch, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1You've done it now.
    • CthulhuDawn, on 02/15/2008, -0/+12nobody callin' on the phone
    • fancyj, on 02/15/2008, -0/+9except for the pope maybe in rome.
    • radu79, on 02/15/2008, -6/+1'cept for the Pope maybe in Rome
    • donkeySays, on 02/15/2008, -6/+1Now, what if god smoke cannabis?
    • KungFuJesus, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!
    • artanis, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1GAY
    • zolaar, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1He got a bad deal on his home.
      He tells the pope, "Leave me alone!"
      "[imitates a dial tone]"
  • jimbruno, on 02/15/2008, -9/+12"What Do Computers Tell Us About God?"
    You can charge premium price as long as you put on a good show.
    • OrionBlastar, on 02/15/2008, -0/+13That is what Steve Jobs believes anyway, that and he believes that he is God as well.
  • SamPollock, on 02/15/2008, -46/+40GOD IS NOT ***** REAL!
    • Underwater07, on 02/15/2008, -22/+11this is the kind of comment I wish I could digg repeatedly.
    • Matt-lars, on 02/15/2008, -16/+17Until you show me proof there is or is not a god shut the ***** up.
      • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -2/+8until you can prove that there is no invisible dragon in my garage I will continue to believe.
        • nullifidian0, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Oh, Sagan, you were taken from us far too soon... :-(
    • DrMonkeyLove, on 02/15/2008, -2/+17Now I get it! "What do computers tell us about God" is actually like asking "What do man-made things tell us about a man-made thing?" This makes more sense now!
    • skywake, on 02/15/2008, -6/+6How do you know? Do you have the source code of the universe?
      • argusbargus, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2SCO has that. Prepare to be litigated!
    • ophello, on 02/15/2008, -6/+6did you guys ***** take ANYTHING away from that slideshow?

      You obviously havent thought about anything, otherwise you wouldnt be yapping on about proof. IF GOD IS UNKNOWABLE IT MEANS HE CANNOT BE PROVEN. ***** *****, man, im tired of people who think the universe is a closed loop.
      • billybibbit, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4ophello i wish i could digg you up more than once, since any rational, open-minded statement here is going to be buried
  • HeyArnold, on 02/15/2008, -7/+9% ar m God
    ar: God does not exist
    • om3ganet, on 02/15/2008, -0/+19Damn. I tried that on my linux box and it repiled with "Creating god"
      • brianjlowry, on 02/15/2008, -1/+10I tried on Vista and it showed a photo of Steve Ballmer and then blue-screened.
      • tehmoth, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5he must not be using GNU ar. Is God GPL-compatible?
  • boredsam, on 02/15/2008, -28/+56Do yourself a favor and do not click the link, it's worthless.
    • grungegbunny, on 02/15/2008, -3/+2Now you tell me.
    • hyaena, on 02/15/2008, -11/+11to you, perhaps, but i thought it was a very logical and good analysis/overview of what a god might be like if it existed through terms we can know
      • TenebrousX, on 02/15/2008, -1/+10except the part with all the logical inconsistencies
        • hyaena, on 02/15/2008, -4/+5I don't think the author meant it as a rigorous proof.
      • EarlOfLade, on 02/15/2008, -3/+13No it wasn't, it was horrible and would get an F.
        It was totally crappy presentation without any form of logic or substance. We usually call that wishful thinking!
      • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5he didn't really make any arguments, he just used computers as a metaphor to share his beliefs.
      • OneLess, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5It only looks logical if you're desperate to believe it in the first place.
  • PlanR, on 02/15/2008, -7/+10...heh heh heh... God's computer is all completely infested with viruses...God falls for phishing scams all the time...all clicking on every random executable file attached to emails...he sends money to random Nigerians.. kids use his computer all to hide pr0n and stolen music, God is all wondering why his Dell was so fast when he first got it but now it's slow as a dog....

    • zeromancer, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6If your description is accurate, then my dad is god, making me.... *gasp* ... *runs to get some water*
    • xptoast, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5But dogs are fast.
  • arrrrgh, on 02/15/2008, -13/+34Flawed reasoning persisted throughout that thing. Here's an obvious one: the whole 'God require an intermediary to communicate with us' thing. God can't be a 'bit' in his computer simulation, and can't directly communicate with those 'bits', so he gets an intermediary to do it - but the intermediary is also a 'bit'... which begs the question, if we're a bit, and he can't communicate with us, why can he communicate directly to his intermediary, who is also a bit? Flawed as all get out - reading this is a waste of your time. But if you want to waste your time reading about religion, it'll take you a lot less time than reading the bible...
    • undershirt, on 02/15/2008, -6/+5Well, God could create an entity in the universe that speaks for him. But I don't think God can speak to us any more than we can speak to bacteria.
    • woody56292, on 02/15/2008, -4/+5not that I am taking their side, but don't you do the same thing when you control a character in a video game? Your avatar is an intermediary between the real you and the characters in the game.
      • TenebrousX, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3but the slideshow stipulates that God can't interact with his creation
        • Creamedweasel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4All hail the slideshow, the future, today!
      • hkatirai, on 02/15/2008, -1/+0Hi I'm the author. The avatar/virtual reality example captures the meaning of what I'm trying to say. You can't enter the world of the video game, but you can control an avatar in it. You cannot directly interact with the video game universe (since you do not exist in it). But you can interact with it indirectly via an intermediary that includes your joystick/mouse, operating system, and the program running the computer universe.
    • hyaena, on 02/15/2008, -3/+4He went over how, through meditation and thought, we can potentially begin to understand certain concepts. Who's to say which prophets were really intuitive enough to understand? How can we know the way a god might "interact" with bits to nudge them in a particular direction? Just because we can't know the specific interaction doesn't mean it is or is not occurring.
    • annenk38, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1There is an even more fundamental error. We can, at least in theory, create a full biochemical simulation of a human. So you can enter the simulated universe as a "copy" of yourself. If your body is destroyed in the process, then your copy becomes "you". Conversely, you we can (in theory) reassemble and reanimate your body atom by atom from the copy. So you can enter and exit the simulated universe at will -- with no "information loss". No intermediary is required.
    • Voyd, on 02/15/2008, -0/+0I think the author's reasoning for the "creator" not communicating directly to the "creations" was to preserve the assumed intent of free will...at least that's what I got out of it.
  • tedg007, on 02/15/2008, -20/+10buried because it talks about god as a real entity FAIL
  • WestonP, on 02/15/2008, -18/+30Wow, a positive and insightful message about religion on Digg. I never thought I'd see the day! Thank you for posting this. I've had many similar thoughts myself.
    • EarlOfLade, on 02/15/2008, -5/+14Well, it was a slideshow full of ***** but I guess you like that?
  • Fizban140, on 02/15/2008, -8/+15What a horribly flawed example, if you replace that game life with another one then the example is blown away.
    • hyaena, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6A lack of imagination doesn't negate the author's point. A square in the game of life may just as easily be a sprite in Doom, for example.
      • Fizban140, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1No you missed the point, the comparisons to god and the game creator/operator ONLY work for that game. If you change the game is won't work at all.
    • sauronsmatrix, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6This is a brilliant example. Very insightful and one of the best things I've ever read.
    • jwcollet, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5You should read more about the game of life. There are a lot of reasons why he used that as an example. Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennett does a good job explaining the game. Most importantly, the rules that dictate every action in the game could not be any different, or the game would not work, all the "bit" creatures would not behave in any interesting way. With the correct set of laws in place, all kinds of very interesting things start happening. All in all, it was an interesting comparison, but really doesn't answer any questions.
  • vladimirlemon, on 02/15/2008, -6/+4That we're Gods?
    • MadScientist440, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1I don't know if God exists or not, but I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "Gods", unless the word is being used at the beginning of a sentence.

      "That we're gods?" is a much more interesting question.
    • Cybermaul, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Indeed. Now, wouldn't it be interesting if God were simply training us to actually do what He's doing. Like, to organize worlds, populate them, and all? Now, that would be cool.
  • VaporBro, on 02/15/2008, -19/+18Wow; that was a waste of time. Proof that a college education doesn't necessarily always equal knowledge.
    Stay in school dude...
  • Willy0Panhandle, on 02/15/2008, -8/+29Challenge to Diggers...How many logical fallacies can you find?
    • anyone4apint, on 02/15/2008, -3/+18Over 9000
      • ComradeGoby, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4What, 9000?!!!??
        • NOFXY, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3so whats the "over 9000" thing coming from? i feel like i missed something big.
          • alexforcefive, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4It's from dragonball z. Vegeta scans goku's power reading and it's over nine thousaaaaaand

            and then like ten years later, some ***** smacktard makes a video looping that one sentence over and over, and for some reason every other ***** smacktard on the internet loves it.
          • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2http://youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI
        • doomcomplex, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3You really didn't.
    • nicksauce, on 02/15/2008, -2/+7I lost count at 32767.
    • ophello, on 02/15/2008, -8/+2Challenge to you: did you consider ANY of it within the context of atheism?

      And please point out one such fallacy.
      • Syphon8, on 02/15/2008, -1/+12Every frame had petitio principii.
      • alexforcefive, on 02/15/2008, -0/+13Just one? God can't interface with his creations, so he creates something and then interfaces with it.

        Want another? God can't prove his existence except to very small numbers of people, and only if he makes sure the proof is not conclusive.

        I could go on but ***** it. The whole thing is ridiculous
        • Ohimesama, on 02/15/2008, -3/+3God can, and does 'interface' with his creations. He spoke with the prophets, including Moses and Elijah. Through the angels, he spoke with or gave messages to many others, such a Mary.
          God does prove his existence to all. All of creation is meant as a proof. Just because you insist upon closing your eyes, plugging your ears while singing at the top of your lungs, and ignoring that proof does not mean that it is not there.
          • nullifidian0, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3The universe existing is only evidence of the universe existing. Otherwise, please feel free to demonstrate how it was made, where it was made, what it was made for, when it was made, who made it, etc.
      • hkatirai, on 02/15/2008, -3/+1Hi Opthello, I'm the author. I've designed another presentation specifically for atheists at:
        http://www.mit.edu/~hooman/AthiesmAndGod.html
    • skyshock1, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2All of them.
  • zeiben, on 02/15/2008, -10/+18My computer tells me God is a figment of my imagination and I'm a douchebag for even considering the possibility...oh wait, that's only when it's being used to read Digg...
  • usingpond, on 02/15/2008, -18/+12The worst, ugliest, most self-fellating piece of ***** I've ever read. I didn't even get what the ***** he was talking about half the time, and when I did, it was awful.
    • ophello, on 02/15/2008, -3/+8If you dont get what he's talking about, you arent really trying, are you? You are so pissed off at "believers" that you dont actually consider alternative points of view. This is called arrogance.
      • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1well if you look at it from an atheist point of view then the idea of God is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve consideration. If I told you that there was an invisible monkey on my head but you couldn't feel it would consider it a valid point of view or would you call me crazy? What if I told you that unless you could disprove it to me?
      • usingpond, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2Here's a little tip: Not being able to understand a ***** powerpoint very well is not "arrogance". It's called "this person has no idea how to communicate an idea, no matter how retarded it may be." I would ***** own this guy at making an argument on the existence of Leprechauns.
  • huynguye, on 02/15/2008, -14/+16First of all, as a computer scientist myself, I feel very embarrassed for the author. Anyway, he does a better job of supporting god's in-existence rather than his existence.
    • hyaena, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6Recall the title of the presentation. The author isn't trying to prove or disprove the existence of a god. He's merely trying to describe the concept in terms he's familiar with. Your statement is a better reflection of what you believe than a valid attack on his belief.
  • Dustin00, on 02/15/2008, -9/+4There is no god -- only 0 and 1.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 02/15/2008, -9/+11Apparently this guy doesn't believe Jesus was God because he says human messengers were not God. Seeing as I know Jesus is real, he has a flawed conclusion.
    • jascination, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4As far as I know Christianity is the only religion which believes Jesus was ACTUALLY God; in Judaism, Islam etc. he was purely seen as a prophet, which is what this article seems to be suggesting. How is that flawed?
      • ammundsen, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Islam considers Jesus to be a great prophet. Judaism considers Him a heretic who led people astray and deserved death for his deceit.
    • taylooooor, on 02/15/2008, -6/+10Seeing as I know God isn't real, you have a flawed conclusion too.
    • EarlOfLade, on 02/15/2008, -4/+5Jesus never existed my friend, it's all made up, but I guess you have tons of extra biblical evidence that support a real life Jesus?
      • jascination, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3No, but there's tons of anthropological evidence to that effect...
      • Ohimesama, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3Are you serious? Whether or not you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, you can not possibly be serious in making the claim that he did not exist. Even not Christians know that he existed. Roman historian Josephus documented Jesus in his histories.
        Please, do yourself a favor: before you make a fool of yourself by spouting your 'atheist truths' take a history course or two.
        • nitsuj, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1"Roman historian Josephus documented Jesus in his histories. "

          Josephus texts are well noted for being manipulated at a later date by Christians. Orginally he talked only of a people how followed a 'christ' and this was way after the event.

          Each individual look at the evidence for Jesus ends up smelling like this.

          Maybe you should do yourself a favor and impartially examine the evidence in detail. You may be surprised how scant the evidence really is.
        • EarlOfLade, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Well, if you feel raw about, why not come over to Internet Infidels where there are many scholars who support the same view and then we can debate it?
          http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/index.php

          And no, Jospheus is considered to be a fake.among biblical scholars.
    • hkatirai, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Here's a few quotes from the Bible for your consideration. In my opinion, they seem to position Christ as a messenger:

      JOHN 12:49-50 NKJ 49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak."

      John 8:28
      "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

      And this one is pretty compelling. It talks about the moment the world will end. It says that no one knows the time when the world will end, not even the angels, or Christ, but the God (the Father knows). Now if Christ (the son) and God (the Father) are in fact the same entity, how is it possible that one of them knows something that the other does not?

      "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." - Mathew 24:36

      At the same time, if Christ is the way you can get God's message, then for all intents and purposes he is God. It's like pointing to the image of the sun in a polished mirror. It's not the sun, but it reflects the sun's light.
      • Ohimesama, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Christ himself claimed the title of "Son of God" and even Yahweh, or I AM, which was the most holy of holy names for God. I think that's pretty clear.
        The Father, Son, and Spirit are three different beings. Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and so on. But, they all are God. The Trinity. Three in One. It's a complicated concept, even for the most studious of Christians.
  • awwe, on 02/15/2008, -2/+12Hmm... So Tron = Jesus and Master Control Program = Satan?
  • bdbr, on 02/15/2008, -3/+14Personally if God is anything like my computers, I would expect the universe to completely implode from time to time and God will have to create a new one. If it doesn't implode, everything will just move slower and slower until the orbits are unbearable.

    Of course, if he just spent more money he could get a much hipper and trendier universe.
    • bliz, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Time could just be clock cycles of the processor. Hence when the memory leak gets too big, he could save the state, reboot the program and load the saved state and we wouldn't know that our time was paused in his time. All we'll know is that our time is still flowing continuously.
  • TremorX, on 02/15/2008, -3/+12Ready.
    who is god?

    ?Syntax Error
    Ready.
  • Underwater07, on 02/15/2008, -17/+9Buried as inaccurate. God does not exist, so computers cannot tell us anything about god.
    • ophello, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3If god is unknowable, thats the same as "doesnt exist" from our perspective.
  • JAG731, on 02/15/2008, -4/+27Don't know about Computers and God, but, one thing's for sure.. Windows ME & Vista = Satan.
  • DavidGX, on 02/15/2008, -24/+16God doesn't exist morons, get the hell over it already. Buried.
    • ComradeGoby, on 02/15/2008, -9/+9Bluntness like this is needed.

    • satanatnmtedu, on 02/15/2008, -4/+7Based on what evidence? You cannot prove God exists nor can you prove he doesn't exist. Statements to the contrary are based on faith.
      • DavidGX, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1What evidence indeed? The burden of proving gods existence lies with gods supporters. They have given no evidence therefore there's no reason for me to believe in any god.
    • hyaena, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5I guess it's settled everyone. One of Mankind's most troubling questions is answered by DavidGX.
  • anyone4apint, on 02/15/2008, -3/+12Clearly the author has not seen the trailer for Spore
    • Voyd, on 02/15/2008, -0/+0If and when he watches it maybe he will send Will Wright an e-mail and thank him for creating it... :)
  • carbonetc, on 02/15/2008, -1/+9I guess computer scientists won't heal virtual amputees either.

    Recommended reading instead: "Non Serviam" by Stanislaw Lem
  • Secret7000, on 02/15/2008, -1/+9...that God is a programmer?
    http://www.godisaprogrammer.com/
  • microbefox, on 02/15/2008, -8/+10That was awesome :P

    *Walks around in a "God is Awesome" shirt*

  • OrionBlastar, on 02/15/2008, -2/+10The computer that runs the universe is better than any computer we can create. Wake up, The Matrix has you! God logged out 2000 years ago, left the Universe program running all of these years. Sid Meier has nothing on God's version of Civilization.
    • skinjester, on 02/15/2008, -0/+0if its a universal Turing machine, then its equivalent in every way to the universal Turing machines we ourselves create.
  • cl2yp71c, on 02/15/2008, -4/+5I know damn well, Windows Vista isn't "thankful".
  • Birks, on 02/15/2008, -11/+8I stopped after 10 slides...did i miss anything good? Yea I didn't think so.
  • WestonP, on 02/15/2008, -14/+50A message to the atheists: Please find something positive to say about your beliefs if you want to be effective at promoting them. Most reasonable people will not seriously listen to people who are preaching hate and intolerance, no matter if it comes from a "religious" extremist or an atheist.
    • trickynixon, on 02/15/2008, -17/+9You Idiot, atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of belief.
      • WestonP, on 02/15/2008, -2/+11Then stop acting like a religious extremist about it. If you're secure in your beliefs, then why constantly lash out at other people for their own personal beliefs, which have nothing to do with you? I don't listen to so-called "religious" people who act that insecure, so why should I listen to militant atheists who act the same way? If you're so much better, then please start acting like it.
      • djepik, on 02/15/2008, -6/+15Negatory, Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
        • TenebrousX, on 02/15/2008, -3/+6Atheism is a belief as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby
          • jascination, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4In theory, yeah, but in reality many atheists feel like it's their duty to try to "educate" the religious.

            It's just the same as when the religious try to convert the non-religious. Neither side wants to hear it, and it very seldom yields any positive results.
          • rspeed, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1@jascination
            Evangelism doesn't make it a belief. It just makes it a waste of time.
        • metaknite, on 02/15/2008, -1/+6Going out of your way to incite stamp collectors may be considered a hobby.
      • paulvq, on 02/15/2008, -3/+12If you "believe" there is no God, then obviously you hold that "belief". Think before you post.
        • tehmoth, on 02/15/2008, -4/+7not believing there is a god is not the same as believing that there no god. "Lashing out" as it is characterized here, is actually frustration with those who believe in ridiculous things with no proof. You act like people's beliefs in these things has no impact, but it does. Public policy, education and even foreign policy are affected by people in positions of authority acting in the name of the religious or for religious reasons.
        • satanatnmtedu, on 02/15/2008, -6/+5You are right that not believing there is a God is not the same believing there is no God. But, if you fall into the first category, you are not an atheist. An atheist believes there is no God - hence it is a faith.
        • SnakeO, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2wrong tehmoth.

          Either you believe god exists or you don't. That is fact. Now:
          !I.believe(god.exists) == I.believe(!god.exists)


        • kentbrockman, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Exactly. If you don't believe in God (or anything else), then you are agnostic. If you "believe" that there is no God, then you are an atheist, and therefore you have a belief.
          • nullifidian0, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1And what are you basing this gem of wisdom on? It can't be the word "atheist", which is made up of the prefix a- (not) and root word theist (god believer).
      • Sharky35, on 02/15/2008, -5/+2I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. I am also in no way compelled to join others and discuss the fact that I do not believe in the Easter Bunny. As a matter of a fact, Atheists act alot like a religion. There are even atheist churches.
        http://www.google.com/search?q=atheist+church&ie=u ...
        • DisposableRob, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5If people tried to put the Easter Bunny on the steps of every courthouse, require pledging an oath to the Easter Bunny, put "In the Easter Bunny we trust" on the money and said you would burn forever for not believing in the Easter Bunny, you might feel compelled to point out that not everyone believes in the Easter Bunny.
          • Sharky35, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2Ummmm. I beg to differ. There are tv shows about the easter bunny, businesses close because of the easter bunny, the whitehouse closes down and invites kids and a man in a bunny suit on to the whitehouse lawn. I have to shop in stores that display the easter bunny on every available flat surface.
            Yet once again, I am not compelled to form anti bunny churches and go on and on about it for hours.
          • DisposableRob, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1You obviously don't know the meaning of Easter.
      • Wade, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3If there ever becomes an Easter Bunny "religion" which seeks to oppress or belittle or attack those who do not believe in the Easter Bunny, Sharky35, I believe that you may be compelled to join a group which seeks to teach these people the truth about the universe and that we should all be able to get along even though you personally believe that the Easter Bunny does not exist. I do not believe you would discuss the fact that you do not believe in the Easter Bunny, as that would be redundant as you are already at the 'Easter Bunny Does Not Exist' meeting, your agenda is probably to discuss how people that don't believe in the Easter Bunny can avoid being 'persecuted' by those who do believe in the Easter Bunny, and how to avoid them harassing you and stop them from interfering with laws which you must abide, strictly put, because you believe that believing in the Easter Bunny makes those certain people seem somewhat unbalanced in that the things they try to 'preach' may come off as oddball and insane.
      • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2To clarify, atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. This doesn't necessarily mean that we specifically believe that there is no God but it means that since we haven't been given what we consider good evidence we just assume that there is no God until we are given proof, just like how most people don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns.
    • jascination, on 02/15/2008, -4/+10Really well said mate.
      • ComradeGoby, on 02/15/2008, -6/+2It is because we want to kill all religious people.
        • nullifidian0, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2I presume you want to slap a /sarcasm on that. The theists have enough of a persecution complex as it is.
      • tehmoth, on 02/15/2008, -6/+2not at all well said, in fact.
    • Wireddd, on 02/15/2008, -6/+6We don't have "beliefs" so it would be hard to say something positive or negative about something them.
      • bdbr, on 02/15/2008, -3/+8So you can't think of a single positive reason for being an atheist?
        • EarlOfLade, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6Atheist is only a person who do not believe in any gods.
          You are also an atheist when it comes to Odin, Thor, Ra, Shiva and so on, it's just that you believe in one more god than I do.

          Atheists are as different as the most rabid communist to the most hardcore libertarian, the only thing they agree on is that there are no gods.
    • OneLess, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1And some people aren't going to pay attention to what you say no matter how much you sugarcoat it.
      Tell me, should people who are against fascism preach tolerance of fascist governments?
    • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3The only factor to being an atheist is the lack of a belief in gods. There is no "good things" about atheism because atheism isn't a belief system, it just means we lack one certain belief.
      • iucraigmc, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1Atheists share the same arguments against God but for some reason will not admit that it is logic and reason by which they all agree upon the disproving of God. Whereas those who believe in God base their assumptions off of logic and reason as well. For some reason many atheists pride themseves in somehow separating this fact and disproving other's belief in God and defending their belief by stating "I'm an atheist, I have no belief system". You do, and its based upon the same logic and reason as every other atheist, just as the belief in God is based upon the same logic and reason as every other theist.
        • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2"I'm an atheist, I have no belief system"
          no, we do have belief systems that just have nothing to do with being an atheist.
        • nullifidian0, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I'd like to hear your arguments against the existence of Thor, Athene, Ahura Mazda, and the tens of thousands of other gods. Let's see how different they are from those of us atheists, and then let's see why your god is any different.
  • WoundedCow, on 02/15/2008, -16/+17God is. If you don't believe in a creator (or God or Jehova or Allah or whatever name you wish to use when you pray) of All that is, look at what you're reading. It was created by someone who believes without a doubt there is something, somewhere, somewhen, who created all that is. Even if you don't believe, you have to ask yourself "Did everything just spontaneously appear?" And if you logically presume that it did not, then whatever you believe on how you ended up sitting there, reading this, it involves being created by a Creator, somewhen.
    • anyone4apint, on 02/15/2008, -2/+20Yet it is perfectly logical to accept that the creator himself could just appear out of nothing...
      • tchynerd, on 02/15/2008, -11/+5Exept that many believe the creator not to be bound by our laws of physics and demontionality. Just a though
        • ComradeGoby, on 02/15/2008, -4/+10What a load of Bollocks.

          If you lose rationality then you lose everything.

        • carbonetc, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4Is the universe itself bound by physics and dimensionality? It's the container for these things, so it itself must be free of them, right? Just like the creator?
        • kss42, on 02/15/2008, -3/+4A summary of this and all other theist-atheist arguments:
          THEIST: By beliefs are true; they must therefore be logically sound.
          ATHEIST: But look, there's an obvious error in your logic.
          T: I defy the very laws of nature to correct this error!
          A: Well, now you've just gone and dug yourself deeper into the same logical hole.
          T: BLASPHEMOUS DEMON!
          A: UNTHINKING FOOL!
          PASSING DIGGER: I will attempt to post a humorously brief summary of a complicated theological debate in order to attract diggs from like-minded netizens!
        • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2so if that's possible, isn't it also possible that the universe as a whole isn't bound by the laws within the universe. using the computer example, the physical world the computer exists in behaves much differently than the world in the computer.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5I don't know if there is a God. And, this is the only reasonable conclusion until there is proof. I am open to there being a God (or Gods), and I am open to there not being a God. One you have chosen either extreme, you are basing your decision on faith.
      • bagboyrebel, on 02/15/2008, -3/+2so you believe in unicorns and fairies too, right? what about dragons? you can't disprove those, so they are obviously just as likely to exist as not exist.
    • EarlOfLade, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3Wow, what an bunch of lumped together nonsense!
    • barius, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2Here's a though experiment:

      You start off with a world much like our own. Everyone has a computer, and computers are networked together. Computers themselves are built (created) and software is written (created) to run on them. However, some software is written to be adaptive (evolving), like a video game (World of Warcraft). The evolving nature of the game is desirable as it makes it more fun to play. In this game there are AIs that also learn and evolve. Over time this software evolves an error, it becomes virus-like. The new virus-like version of this software does not request or need input from a user as its' own AI is sufficiently random to create an active community without 'real' input. These rogue WoW environments become self-sufficient universes, without a 'creator' (in the sense that there is a being interested in its' continuance).
      Thus, in this scenario, there is a being who created the original world. However, this creator is not the Creator of the rogue worlds that evolved independently from it.
      Could such a world come into existence? Given the infinite nature of our own Universe, and the ongoing improvements of 'adaptive' software environments in our own world, why not?

      Thus, by proving that *some* world can exist without a creator, I have disproved your pre-supposition that *our* Universe must have been created. QED.
      • hkatirai, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2There is an idea in philosophy called the transitive property. If A causes B then we write A->B.

        Now the transitive property says that if A->B and B->C then A->C. In other words you don't have to be the immediate cause of something to be the ultimate cause of it.
        • barius, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1How is that relevant? Perhaps you should read the original post by WoundedCow and then mine again, I think it went over your head.
          • hkatirai, on 02/16/2008, -1/+0If I interpret your comment correctly, you are saying you believe "rogue universes" can evolve without the creator of the original universe being the cause. You use this apparent conclusion to make the claim that one can evolve universes without a creator.

            Central to you argument is the the appeal to words like "AI," "adaptive" and "evolve." You seem to be attributing the output of the process (the rogue worlds) to be a product of the intelligence of these AI systems and not attributable to actions of the creator.

            But I wonder if you realize your statement basically amounts to "there exists non-causal systems" and that this is straight in the face of science?

            There was a time in humanities past when we explained things without causality. This usually involved appealing to fairies or circular arguments like "grass is green because it is green." A cloud would be in the sky because there was a fairy that would bring it up there.

            The power of science is that it demands a reason for everything. It assumes there is a cause for everything. Therefore, the question "why?" is always meaningful.

            Your argument seems to be predicated on AI. f you look at computers, they are ultimately machines, performing in a deterministic fashion. In other words, for every action you AI program did, there was a cause. Computer are effectively deterministic state-machines. Even so-called "random numbers" generated by computers are generated in a deterministic fashion, hence we call them pseudo-random numbers. If you want to bring up quantum computers, you can bring that up too, but a lot of people are suprised to learn that the wave function in computer evolves deterministically.

            My point is this. You put this process in motion. By setting up and starting the computer program of the original universe. Thus you are the ultimate cause-- even of the error that evolve in the universe and everything that came out of that. This is why I brought up transitivity.

            Now you can cloud the issue by introducing additional actors that may interact with the process, so that you can legitimately say that . But even then, you would have something like this:

            Let M be the original creator
            Let U1 be the (original) universe at time T1
            Let A be some other causal agent
            Ler U2 be the universe at time T2

            M--> U1
            U1, A --> U2

            Where the arrow operator (--->) means "the cause of"

            Ultimately everything has a creator. Do you see what the creator of the rogue universes is above?
          • barius, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1First, in my example is not relevant that there was a first creator (or creators) of the system. If the system is truly evolving and adaptive as I stated then it can evolve beyond the capacity of the creator to understand it. The creator(s) may even have died long ago, leaving nothing but our Universe to continue for as long as the system is self-sufficient which may be indefinitely or may not, but we cannot know. Thus, it benefits a theist nothing to be devoted to a Creator (the concept of a benevolent being concerned with our existence) because such a Creator does not exist.

            Second, while your math is cute, it simplifies the problem to the point of absurdity. As I already stated, M may be dead. M may have been an AI itself which was supplanted by our Universe and therefore no longer exists. M may have never existed at all, our Universe having appeared from the quantum chaos sans intervention. The sheer volume of scenarios that we as humans can conceive in which there is no Creator is a clear indication that no such Creator exists.
          • hkatirai, on 02/22/2008, -1/+0Barius, the objections you raised were:

            a) M might be dead
            b) M might be an AI itself
            c) my math simplifies the problem to the point of absurdity
            d) Our Universe may have appeared from quantum chaos
            e) the sheer volume of scenarios that we humans can conceive in which there is no creator is a clear indication that no such creator exists.

            a) M MIGHT BE DEAD
            I fail to see why that's irrelevant. My point was that everthing we observe in the universe has a cause (or at least that's the implicit assumption of science). For if the phenomena we observe were not the result of a cause, then Science would be a waste of time, because things would "just happen" instead of happening for a reason. And if things don't happen for a reason, then there is no use engaging in the enterprise of Science whose preoccupation is to uncover these cause-effect relationships.

            b) M might be an AI itself
            Okay, for the sake of argument lets assume M is an AI. What created it? Something ultimately had to cause it. If you reject this, then show me one non-causal system. And if you believe in non-causality, why do you believe in Science?

            c) my math simplifies the problem to the point of absurdity
            You haven't explained why it's absurd. I'm simply trying to put things in terms that are as clear as possible.

            d) Our Universe may have appeared from quantum chaos
            Sounds like yet another non-causal argument.

            e) the sheer volume of scenarios that we humans can conceive in which there is no creator is a clear indication that no such creator exists.
            That's like saying, the sheer number of ways you could kill me, is proof that I cannot be alive.
          • barius, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1Hkatirai,

            You aren't even on topic at this point. The supposition made by WoundedCow was that 'God is' (his first sentence). He did not say 'God was' or 'God could have been but now is not', which is the central argument of my posts. It is an obvious tenet of logic that in order to disprove something held as truth one need only find a single case in which said 'truth' is found to be false. I provided one such case and thus disproved WoundedCow's supposition that 'God is'. I do not know why you insist on arguing a completely unrelated, and frankly silly, position that somehow there having been a god is proof that god still is. You have taken your argument well beyond the realms of science or logic and entered the purely hypothetical, or dare I say, Theological. I am not a Theologian and will not argue on such a philosophical basis with you.

            Thanks for playing,

            Barius
  • Fryth, on 02/15/2008, -5/+8Nothing.
  • yelnatz, on 02/15/2008, -7/+15Nice read.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.