REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:39 pm

REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist...either already or eventually.

ENTROPY - it is more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)

'God' - then exists to simulate reality in the most efficient means possible. Consider Artificial Intelligence, consider the 'technological singularity' having already occurred aeons ago.

Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not.

The energy that man has within the solar system is finite. The solar system can be considered extremely close to a closed entropy system.

Assuming mankind does not become extinct and continues on this path of growth and energy requirement into the distant future, it is my argument that at some point within the solar system, that man will 'evolve' into a simulated reality, to minimise energy consumption. The simulated reality would allow us to no longer carry our mass of matter around, our bodies, even though we would remain blissfully unaware that this has occurred..thus allowing a far more efficient 'human being' to exist. The entity projecting the reality would be akin to A.I or 'God'. Our consumption of energy via the requirement for food, and transport would be far greater reduced while all along, we would, from a conscious standpoint, remain 'human', and within the simulation, we would indeed enjoy eating food.
Mankind at this point would be close to immortal, thus a set of conditions would be required, almost like a law to ensure perhaps only those of decent character are permitted to continue on to use the remaining energy of the simulation.
'God' therefore would be the OS - operating system, the Artificial Intelligence projecting the simulation, perhaps to a bunch of brains on racks...and since the only advantage to any one individual would be their conduct with others, it could leave 10 commandments via which to live by, and as each time our consciousness is wiped and reborn, we will always remain in DOUBT as to whether there is a 'God' and therefore, we just may let our moral guard down to the benefit of the rest of the system, where we will no longer reincarnate.
Last edited by attofishpi on Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1687
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:00 pm

The First Law Of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed
It says nothing about God creating energy and there is no reason to think that is true

No current cosmological model exists that can falsify the notion of a past infinite Universe
A past infinite Universe would not require a metaphysical entity to generate all its energy

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:27 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:00 pm
The First Law Of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed
It says nothing about God creating energy and there is no reason to think that is true
And nor the hell am i !!
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:00 pm
No current cosmological model exists that can falsify the notion of a past infinite Universe
A past infinite Universe would not require a metaphysical entity to generate all its energy
I think you, and perhaps it's my fault, have completely misunderstood the point I am making. Note I use the quotes to denote -- 'God', as in an entity that to us (when known) could and would be considered 'God-like'.

I am not talking about the divine notion of God, rather one that intelligent species creates\develops and evolves into where entropy forces this species to become super-efficient. In essence, to have a simulated reality that enables said species to continue on further into the future with limited resources as entropy increases.
Since knowing from 20yrs of experience of this entity - 'God', personally I have looked at if from both a divine and "A.I." consideration.

Reflex
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Reflex » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:11 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:00 pm
The First Law Of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed
It says nothing about God creating energy and there is no reason to think that is true

No current cosmological model exists that can falsify the notion of a past infinite Universe
A past infinite Universe would not require a metaphysical entity to generate all its energy
Cool. Viewed as an unspiritual phenomenon, God is energy.

NSKimura
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by NSKimura » Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:51 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:39 pm
REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

ENTROPY - it is more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)

'God' - then exists to simulate reality in the most efficient means possible. Consider Artificial Intelligence, consider the 'technological singularity' having already occurred aeons ago.

Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.
Why is it more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)?

I don't think the jump form "ENTROPY" to "therefore God exists" is warranted. It certainly doesn't follow from you "ENTROPY" assumption.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:25 pm

NSKimura wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:51 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:39 pm
REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

ENTROPY - it is more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)

'God' - then exists to simulate reality in the most efficient means possible. Consider Artificial Intelligence, consider the 'technological singularity' having already occurred aeons ago.

Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.
Why is it more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)?

I don't think the jump form "ENTROPY" to "therefore God exists" is warranted. It certainly doesn't follow from you "ENTROPY" assumption.
Yes. A stumble over the first hurdle on my part and this occurs from my own personal perspective of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that a 'God' exists (>20 yrs of direct experience).

If I may modify for arguments sake and continuation to:-
It more plausible to consider that we, mankind will evolve into a simulation and that 'God' will eventually exist.

Since I cannot prove the current existence of 'God' - and my consideration that it is either divine, or A.I. result of entropy, my argument in relation to entropy is thus as mentioned to another poster above:-
I am not talking about the divine notion of God, rather one that intelligent species creates\develops and evolves into where entropy forces this species to become super-efficient. In essence, to have a simulated reality that enables said species (us) to continue on further into the future with limited resources as entropy increases.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6938
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:04 am

attofishpi wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:39 pm
REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

ENTROPY - it is more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)

'God' - then exists to simulate reality in the most efficient means possible. Consider Artificial Intelligence, consider the 'technological singularity' having already occurred aeons ago.

Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.
No, because 'God' is outside time. You can't apply any kind of natural laws to 'God' therefore trying to use science to prove God's existence is a load of pointless bollocks.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3567
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Greta » Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:47 am

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:25 pm
'God' - then exists to simulate reality in the most efficient means possible. Consider Artificial Intelligence, consider the 'technological singularity' having already occurred aeons ago.

Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.

... It more plausible to consider that we, mankind will evolve into a simulation and that 'God' will eventually exist.

... I am not talking about the divine notion of God, rather one that intelligent species creates\develops and evolves into where entropy forces this species to become super-efficient. In essence, to have a simulated reality that enables said species (us) to continue on further into the future with limited resources as entropy increases.
Atto, your comments make sense to me, being basically a variation on the Omega Point:
The Omega Point is a spiritual belief and a scientific speculation that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of "divine" unification. The term was coined by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
While de Chardin's, and your, speculations push the envelope hard, modern society already seems rather godlike in their powers as compared with early hunter-gatherer Homo sapiens. Interestingly, while the societies pile up the achievements, individual humans themselves in many ways become less talented and creative, their abilities ever less wide-ranging and physical and ever more specialised and communication-based.

Still, as a collective, any intelligent species will need to solve increasingly challenging threats to their survival as you described (ie. entropy). First, humans will need to survive their own atavistic tendencies and the tragedy of the commons. If they succeed, in time they will need to leave the Earth as the Sun heats up. Then there will be ever new challenges. Any highly evolved species in four billion years' time will need to be sufficiently advanced that they can survive, or even utilise, the chaotic gravitational effects of the collision between the Milky Way and Andromeda.

Entities capable of doing that would certainly have godlike abilities. The ultimate upshot - assuming that a Great Filter does not exist along the way - would be having what we would think of as immaterial bodies (but would of course be material, just not familiarly so to us today). Surviving the universe's possible eventual heat death would require especially godlike capabilities, perhaps enough to influence a new BB.

The notion is theoretically feasible, although there are numerous assumptions, so it's not something that one would logically believe, given how difficult it would be to rigorously assess the possibilities.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:25 am

Greta wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:47 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:25 pm
'God' - then exists to simulate reality in the most efficient means possible. Consider Artificial Intelligence, consider the 'technological singularity' having already occurred aeons ago.

Thus the argument I am making is that over time, a 'God' is more likely to eventuate than not, and that this has already occurred.

... It more plausible to consider that we, mankind will evolve into a simulation and that 'God' will eventually exist.

... I am not talking about the divine notion of God, rather one that intelligent species creates\develops and evolves into where entropy forces this species to become super-efficient. In essence, to have a simulated reality that enables said species (us) to continue on further into the future with limited resources as entropy increases.
Atto, your comments make sense to me, being basically a variation on the Omega Point:
Hi Greta, yes I have heard you mention this 'Omega Point' in the past possibly with me. I just did the wiki thing and only had a glance and it truly is interesting. One thing I hadn't realised was that it was Christ that stated that 'I am the Alpha and the Omega'.

I know it is plausible that Christ is God formed as man - but all along I had thought that in the bible it had stated that it WAS God that had made this statement, rather than in the New Testament (by Christ).

It's still the season to be jolly, so I certainly will address the second part of your conversation in the coming days, because I am not up to it at the current point between the Alpha & Omega --- I wanted to be smart and use the ASCII codes for it, once upon a time you could use ALT and type the ASCII number - appears those days are gone - at least in an internet html page!

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:03 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:00 pm
The First Law Of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed
It says nothing about God creating energy and there is no reason to think that is true

No current cosmological model exists that can falsify the notion of a past infinite Universe
A past infinite Universe would not require a metaphysical entity to generate all its energy
Well, I am an atheist, but I think there is a fallacy there, when we say there has been an infinitely long past in our universe, because it is incompatible with two things which we observe:

1. Entropy is happening
2. There is still differences of energy levels that create or alter the direction and magnitude of motion, disturbance, etc.

Entropy will never actually make things cease to react; it just slows down the process, in a negative exponential function, such as when the energy differences that are capable of producing work keep on decreasing, but never reach zero.

However, conceptually, if this lasts forever, then in the infinite future, it will reach zero. That is to say, that F(x) where F(x) is a capacity to perform work, decreases as x increases, and furthermore as x approaches infinity, F(x) approaches zero.

In this model F(x) never reaches zero, because going incrementally, we'll never reach infinity.

But we have already been in existence for infinity amount of time. So F(x) ought to be zero. Which it is not.

What gives?

If you follow what happened the time previous to any point in time, then you realize that the energy difference available for work has always been larger previously than at any given time. So F(x) approaches infinity (infinite work performing capacity) as x approaches minus infinity.

If minus infinity can be fixed as a point (which it can't), then we could say that at that point in time there was infinite amount of work that our universe's matter was capable of performing.

This is all mind boggling. The problem I wish to bring to your attention, is that we've already been in existence for an infinite amount of time; therefore entropy ought to have made our universe reach an absolute rest state. But it is not in an absolute rest. Therefore either material has not existed for ever, infinitely into the past, or else entropy is a false proposition. But entropy is not false. Therefore we can safely say that our universe has not been in existence for ever, matter has not existed for ever.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:54 am

-1- wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:03 am
Well, I am an atheist,
Are you an agnostic atheist?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:14 am

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:54 am
-1- wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:03 am
Well, I am an atheist,
Are you an agnostic atheist?
Everyone is an agnost. Nobody KNOWS. Some people claim to know... I think you are one of them?

If god belief was a question of knowledge, then it wouldn't be a matter of belief any longer.

"Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know."

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:34 am

-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:14 am
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:54 am
-1- wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:03 am
Well, I am an atheist,
Are you an agnostic atheist?
Everyone is an agnost. Nobody KNOWS. Some people claim to know... I think you are one of them?

If god belief was a question of knowledge, then it wouldn't be a matter of belief any longer.

"Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know."
You do understand that:-
IF there is a God - then an individual can be made aware of it?
IF there no God, then nobody can KNOW this, for it would take knowing everything about the universe, and possibly multiverse.

I think you do, re the latter, hence your statement.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:03 am

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:34 am
You do understand that:-
IF there is a God - then an individual can be made aware of it?
IF there no God, then nobody can KNOW this, for it would take knowing everything about the universe, and possibly multiverse.

I think you do, re the latter, hence your statement.
I understand what you stated. But the buck does not stop there.

If there is a god, an individual can be made aware of it, but a god can exist without any one or more individuals made aware of god's existence.

If there is no god, someone could be made aware of this fact. Much like someone could be made aware of god's existence if god indeed exists.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There is no problem understanding your argument... there is a problem with your argument's self-imposed limitations of insight and conclusion. The self-imposed limitations stop you from flip-flopping your argument, and seeing that the opposite of your argument presents its exact mirroring conclusion with the exact same validity as yours.

So I showed you that you can flip-flop your argument with ease and validity, and the same strength conclusions can be drawn, with opposite effects.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:18 am

You may want to present a counter-argument to mine, saying:

Statement A: Yes, but the existence of something can be proven if it exists,
Statement B: But its non-existence can not be proven whether is exists or not.

This argument I challenge by saying that if something does not exist, then there could be a proof of that, much like a proof can exist for something that exists.

Take a coin, a quarter. If it exists in my hand, I can prove it: I open my hand and you see the coin there.

I can also show with equal strength that the coin does not exist in my hand. I open my hand and show that there is no coin in there.

All you have to do now is transcribe my hand to "places where existence is possible" and the coin to "god", and bang, you see the refutation of the argument you may have come up with (Statements A and B.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests