God and Science

@pettytalk said
20 years in CPU R&D. At Intel? You think you are intelligent enough to have found God's operating system reflected in a computer process/program? Would you repeat what you are asserting about the standard BARS of religion and science?

Science and God are not opposed. Religion? Well, that's another standard all of its own. Depending on the religion, the religious standard ...[text shortened]... the bar I frequent. Tell the bartender you know me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2bGMoop_k

Doesn’t take much to realize a language with syntax and symbolic meaning where information is being read and interpreted for processing. The language can be biological but information processing either in digital form, smoke signals, morse code, hand written, typed out has features that will be used across the board.

Unintentional gibberish doesn’t have the same features we can word search a language while gibberish doesn’t have consistent syntax, a 200 page book we can scan and we how many words, gibberish is one long strand of meaningless pattern. So there is mathematical features in language with a mind behind it that is not in a mindless process.

@kellyjay said
Doesn’t take much to realize a language with syntax and symbolic meaning where information is being read and interpreted for processing. The language can be biological but information processing either in digital form, smoke signals, morse code, hand written, typed out has features that will be used across the board.

Unintentional gibberish doesn’t have the same feature ...[text shortened]... there is mathematical features in language with a mind behind it that is not in a mindless process.

There are regularities in nature. For example, the diurnal cycle. However, humans tend to project patterns onto nature which aren’t really there. For example, when you look in the sky, you will think that the sun rises and sets, that the sun goes around the earth. This is an illusion. The diurnal cycle is really caused by the rotation of the planet on its axis, although we do not actually perceive this rotation ourselves. When you say that there is syntax, information processing, error checking, and so on, going on inside of cells, you are projecting a human pattern into nature which is not really there, Like the illusion of the sun going around the Earth. It looks that way to you because you are employing a metaphor and projecting the metaphor into a reality where it doesn’t really exist.

Science is concerned with regularities in nature, and there is no evidence of any transcendental mind which is directing these regularities. The claim of a transcendental causality at work in cell division is not a testable hypothesis, and therefore irrelevant to science.

Moreover, there are irregularities in nature, random events with no discernible causes. For example, electrons jumping orbits and mutations in DNA. Such random events do not speak in favor of a transcendental mind which is directing everything that happens. If one wants to claim that God is directing cell mutations, then one has to wonder why God would want some children to be born with Down Syndrome, heart defects, sickle cell anemia, half a brain (Zika disease), or why God would want some pregnancies to spontaneously miscarry. In other words, the irregularities are even harder to explain on a god-based thesis than the regularities, because one would have to suppose that a cruel and capricious God is at work.

@pettytalk said
20 years in CPU R&D. At Intel?.

Your memory is permanent Read-Only Memory.

Actually, a quite insightful analogy of how KellyJay thinks.

@divegeester said
Actually, a quite insightful analogy of how KellyJay thinks.

You can’t rewrite the boot sector on a running system !


😆

@pettytalk said
20 years in CPU R&D. At Intel?.

That explains why he projects syntax, information processing, error checking, etc. into biology. That’s the pattern he’s familiar with, and he simply projects those metaphors onto everything in nature.

If he'd been a botanist or a zoologist, he'd have projected those metaphors onto computers: he'd be claiming that computers 'evolve' and 'germinate'.

😆

@moonbus said
There are regularities in nature. For example, the diurnal cycle. However, humans tend to project patterns onto nature which aren’t really there. For example, when you look in the sky, you will think that the sun rises and sets, that the sun goes around the earth. This is an illusion. The diurnal cycle is really caused by the rotation of the planet on its axis, although we do ...[text shortened]... than the regularities, because one would have to suppose that a cruel and capricious God is at work.

Well, you say the right things from time to time, but you do not put them into practice.

What we see in nature are the things normal for nature without interference, gravity causes things to fall, the earth has its hiccups where earthquakes occur, entropy and the degrading of things common with the 2nd law of thermal dynamics have things breaking down, not coming together into functional structures with active subsystems getting integrated into a common form.

The godless claim is it must have occurred naturally without interference, construct a life, where all of these systems in biology would form a living being, this running counter to what happens in normative natural processes.

When this is brought up, statements like "Go educate yourself" and "We have facts" are said, but no "natural mechanism" is described, no "facts" are provided, just a "you simply don't understand."

You can talk about the facts of time and fossils, but time is meaningless without a means to defeat the obstacles in running counter to "REAL" natural processes, and fossils are just fossils they do not come with little tags suggesting everything we think about them are true. The descriptions/stories applied to fossils are not all facts, most simply conjecture what we think fits the story that is being made up for them. This is so bad fossils can be discovered in an area, not a single place, someone can put them all together and can call it a new find, doesn't matter if the possibility exists that several different lifeforms could have been there someone made a new one, who could dispute it?

You call the things taking place in life illusions, I'm telling you the only illusion here is seeing what is right in front of you and you are denying it. We use metaphors to describe real things in understandable terms. When levels are maintained, the only way that occurs in any world biological, or digital is if there are mechanisms in place that act on signals that look at when things get too high or low, I don't care if you are looking at something that maintains temperature, voltage levels, or sugars in the body the process will be the same, you are simply in denial here.

@moonbus said
@pettytalk said
20 years in CPU R&D. At Intel?.

That explains why he projects syntax, information processing, error checking, etc. into biology. That’s the pattern he’s familiar with, and he simply projects those metaphors onto everything in nature.

If he'd been a botanist or a zoologist, he'd have projected those metaphors onto computers: he'd be claiming that computers 'evolve' and 'germinate'.

😆

Yes at Intel, and process requirements for specific jobs are the same in any world unless you want to invoke magic, is that what you want to do? Do you want to say its magic that levels are maintained not by signal checking, start-stop mechanisms, or error checking in biology because biology doesn't need those types of things to do level checking?

@moonbus said
There are regularities in nature. For example, the diurnal cycle. However, humans tend to project patterns onto nature which aren’t really there. For example, when you look in the sky, you will think that the sun rises and sets, that the sun goes around the earth. This is an illusion. The diurnal cycle is really caused by the rotation of the planet on its axis, although we do ...[text shortened]... than the regularities, because one would have to suppose that a cruel and capricious God is at work.

Science has limitations, it can deal with the material world the immaterial world can be an utter mystery, and blinders are set because there is nothing there to measure or weigh. Therefore limiting what you think about the universal truth in the universe to science alone is purposely closing your eyes to a broad spectrum of things, as in the agency mechanism explanation for a cup of tea, science can only talk to the thermal dynamics of heat transfer, not the desire of someone wanting a cup of tea.

For those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see, please have a mind too, so you can understand what you hear and what you see. The physical world is just an illusion.

In the court of physical law, anyone who is attempting to show evidence of there being intelligence in the universe, need not go any further than presenting themselves as evidence.

Note: Divegeester is not admissible, since he's planted evidence.

@moonbus said
@pettytalk said
20 years in CPU R&D. At Intel?.

That explains why he projects syntax, information processing, error checking, etc. into biology. That’s the pattern he’s familiar with, and he simply projects those metaphors onto everything in nature.

If he'd been a botanist or a zoologist, he'd have projected those metaphors onto computers: he'd be claiming that computers 'evolve' and 'germinate'.

😆

There's strong imaginative information that the physical universe is a simulation. A computer with a very elaborate, and hard to crack, operating system on which the simulation program runs. Additionally, the program/application must have secondary and tertiary backup security programs embedded in it, to prevent unlicensed users from manipulating the program. Or, as some may call them, the absolute laws of physics.

However, we need not ever give up the hope that we can crack the code. Keeping in mind that any programmed application can be reverse-engineered. One day we may be able to reverse gravity, for instance.

@pettytalk said
There's strong imaginative information that the physical universe is a simulation. A computer with a very elaborate, and hard to crack, operating system on which the simulation program runs. Additionally, the program/application must have secondary and tertiary backup security programs embedded in it, to prevent unlicensed users from manipulating the program. Or, as some ma ...[text shortened]... mmed application can be reverse-engineered. One day we may be able to reverse gravity, for instance.

Anything is possible, but not all things are likely or reasonable. If you want to believe you are in a simulation it is possible, not reasonable.

You don't even have to go to the metaphysical to see a being do something that transcends the material world either, since each time you manipulate the material world to send information to and from other people that is what you are doing. You alter the material world in such ways in a variety of methods it is easy to spot, and sometimes difficult to hide.

We recognize these things as coming from our minds, so we can acknowledge the handy work of a mind because we also do them with ours. It is just that what is being done biologically is far more advanced than anything we can do. We can grasp bits and pieces in life, many of them are over our heads let alone the whole.

@pettytalk said

Divegeester

Hiya 👋🏼

@kellyjay said
Anything is possible, but not all things are likely or reasonable. If you want to believe you are in a simulation it is possible, not reasonable.

You don't even have to go to the metaphysical to see a being do something that transcends the material world either, since each time you manipulate the material world to send information to and from other people that is what you ...[text shortened]... e can do. We can grasp bits and pieces in life, many of them are over our heads let alone the whole.

In a more realistic way, what I would say is that God is the one who constructed the PC, and coded the simulation application. Why? He wanted/wants his children to entertain themselves without adult supervision, when he rests one day a week.

@pettytalk said
In a more realistic way, what I would say is that God is the one who constructed the PC, and coded the simulation application. Why? He wanted/wants his children to entertain themselves without adult supervision, when he rests one day a week.

No, not a more realistic way, because people constructed PCs, it is the normative way that PCs are made. All the things I have talked about when it comes to design are in play there materialistically and digitally and are all played out to do the things required.

As far as entertaining ourselves we can be satisfied with so little, while ignoring God, we look for ways to amuse ourselves instead of musing over the important things of God. If you look up the word "amuse" part of the definition is to divert the attention of to deceive. We live in a world where our amusement is celebrated and if we are not amused in this upside-down world, we find fault where that bubble bursts. Hollywood, can produce wildly entertaining films, and pornography. On top of that, our news is produced in ways to capture our minds to direct us to lean one political way or another. It has gotten so bad even church services are designed to entertain and be so tolerant of every vice scripture warns us about.

All of these things push us to conform to the image of the world, worldly entertainment, worldly greed, lusts, hatefulness, separating one group of people from others, keeping us at each other's throats in hate and unforgiveness. So that we are constantly walking in the flesh, holding on to unforgiveness, hating our fellowmen.

The ways of God have us forgiving all that was done to us, forgiving and praying for those that are our enemies, loving others the way God loves us which is doing for us to help us where we are at, not that we get recognition for our 'good deeds' but as we do them, we keep it between us and God while not allowing our right hand know what our left hand is doing.

This world likes recognition, and praise, while Christ is humble, entering into the world in a manger not as He could have come into it. Jesus grew up in a family that had a reputation for sex out of wedlock, and then even when people wanted to make Jesus a king He hid, and died between two thieves after he was stripped, had His flesh torn away by being whipped, so He could be hung naked on a cross. So through this, we could see God's love for us, God giving Himself because we need Him, not that we have to work our way into His favor. Our relationship with God Jesus prayed that it would be like the Father and Son had, it can only come about by our trust in what Jesus did.


John 17 ESV
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

@moonbus said
There are regularities in nature. For example, the diurnal cycle. However, humans tend to project patterns onto nature which aren’t really there. For example, when you look in the sky, you will think that the sun rises and sets, that the sun goes around the earth. This is an illusion. The diurnal cycle is really caused by the rotation of the planet on its axis, although we do ...[text shortened]... than the regularities, because one would have to suppose that a cruel and capricious God is at work.

Mindless evolution has things improving over time, random pieces being acted upon each other so that they can produce forms and functions, by generating subsystems integrating them into an extraordinarily complex lifeform. This is the proposal of those who champion a mindless process as the root cause of life over time.

Seeing defects in life doesn't have to come from mistakes a mindless process has made while working through issues to merge molecules into life as an explanation for them. A better explanation is there was a healthy life that is now degrading and more and more issues are showing up over time, degradation too is also change over time.

You are simply shooting at life's complexity with a gun with no bullets, you've no explanation for the systematic integration of highly functionally complex subsystems working together in life. Your denial has nothing to do with evidence, only your desire to keep the possibility that a design, requires a designer out of the picture.