EminemBase vs. Blu - God

[classthe_king]

WilyMo021, I don't know if this what you're talking about but I got really high and watched a video once and it blew my mind. It said that eventually in our future we'll have the ability to make really complex sims games where the sims have the ability of cognitive thinking and actually think that they're real. So millions of those games get sold and then eventually the sims in the games make their own sims games and it keeps going on to the point where there are billions of simulated universes and only one real universe so the odds are extremely small that we're in the real universe.

It's extremely fascinating to think about but it's still stupid to believe in as there is no real evidence for it.

[Block]

If him existing has the same effect on our lives as him not existing then he might as well not exist because it makes no difference.

That's pretty much like me saying, "I've never been to Africa so it has no affect on my life. It doesn't matter if it exists." But it does matter. It matters to a lot of people, the same way the belief in a creator matters to a lot of people.

The same logic can also be turned around: "If him not existing has the same affect on our lives as him existing, then he might as well exist because it makes no difference."

Yeah you can say well god initiated the big bang and god guided evolution and that couldn't be proven wrong but it's completely unnecessary and if problems can be solved without the need to bring in a creator then there is no reason to.

But that's just it; they can't. Nobody can explain what happened before the theories such as the big bang initiate. Given the fact the most widely accepted theory of how the universe came to be--the big bang--contradicts itself and reaches a point where it can no longer go in reverse, not to mention the fact it breaks every law of science imaginable (including the most fundamental law: nothing from something), I'd say that there is a need to explain further. There IS a need for a creator. To me, that's the only logical explanation.

[classthe_king]

That's pretty much like me saying, "I've never been to Africa so it has no affect on my life. It doesn't matter if it exists." But it does matter. It matters to a lot of people, the same way the belief in a creator matters to a lot of people.

I guess you could say Africa doesn't exist in that regard but someone could just take you there or bring something back from Africa and that could easily prove that it does exist.

The same logic can also be turned around: "If him not existing has the same affect on our lives as him existing, then he might as well exist because it makes no difference."

No because the burden of proof is on something existing. When you're deciding whether or not something exists the null hypothesis is that it doesn't exist and then you only believe in it existing if it can be proven. Russell's Teapot is a good example of this.

But that's just it; they can't. Nobody can explain what happened before the theories such as the big bang initiate. Given the fact the most widely accepted theory of how the universe came to be--the big bang--contradicts itself and reaches a point where it can no longer go in reverse, not to mention the fact it breaks every law of science imaginable (including the most fundamental law: nothing from something), I'd say that there is a need to explain further. There IS a need for a creator. To me, that's the only logical explanation.

Yeah but that doesn't mean that we won't, so to say that a creator must of done it and that we will never know stops progress and is silly. Also, the only way I can explain the big bang (I don't even really believe in the big bang that much and think that it needs more evidence before I can except it) is that the laws of physics or nature or whatever you want to call them didn't exist before the big bang so the big bang doesn't have to abide by them. The big bang created the laws of nature. I don't believe that something came from nothing though, that seems ridiculous to me. I think Hawking's theory that the universe has simply always existed is much more plausible and I think if these new theories of extra dimensions and multi-universes pan out then it will completely change how we think our universe was created.

[Willy]

WilyMo021, I don't know if this what you're talking about but I got really high and watched a video once and it blew my mind. It said that eventually in our future we'll have the ability to make really complex sims games where the sims have the ability of cognitive thinking and actually think that they're real. So millions of those games get sold and then eventually the sims in the games make their own sims games and it keeps going on to the point where there are billions of simulated universes and only one real universe so the odds are extremely small that we're in the real universe.

It's extremely fascinating to think about but it's still stupid to believe in as there is no real evidence for it.

That's pretty much it. And regardless of whether or not I believe it, I think it's an interesting topic for discussion. It is probably harder to fully understand if you aren't accepting a deterministic standpoint, did you ever look into the free will debate more?

The basic idea is that because everything can be represented mathematically in computer language (currently binary), we can create the universe and the laws that govern it. It's all explainable with mathematics, and the building blocks for everything can be represented with 1's and 0's. Because free will doesn't truly exist, it's just a set of processes inside of the brain affected by gene distributions and environmental factors that can also be represented in computer language, we can create "life". Given the points above, we can theoretically create a universe with life. Granted, I'm not trying to downplay the complexity of recreating our entire universe and consciousness in binary, but it is theoretically possible, from my understanding.

So this would explain, for our universe atleast, how something came from nothing in a sense. The computer turned on. Now we just need to explain who or what created whoever created us... but that may be an impossible task as we might not be programmed in a way that allows us to understand this.

I think the idea is pretty sweet.

[classthe_king]

WilyMo021, I don't know if this what you're talking about but I got really high and watched a video once and it blew my mind. It said that eventually in our future we'll have the ability to make really complex sims games where the sims have the ability of cognitive thinking and actually think that they're real. So millions of those games get sold and then eventually the sims in the games make their own sims games and it keeps going on to the point where there are billions of simulated universes and only one real universe so the odds are extremely small that we're in the real universe.

It's extremely fascinating to think about but it's still stupid to believe in as there is no real evidence for it.

That's pretty much it. And regardless of whether or not I believe it, I think it's an interesting topic for discussion. It is probably harder to fully understand if you aren't accepting a deterministic standpoint, did you ever look into the free will debate more?

The basic idea is that because everything can be represented mathematically in computer language (currently binary), we can create the universe and the laws that govern it. It's all explainable with mathematics, and the building blocks for everything can be represented with 1's and 0's. Because free will doesn't truly exist, it's just a set of processes inside of the brain affected by gene distributions and environmental factors that can also be represented in computer language, we can create "life". Given the points above, we can theoretically create a universe with life. Granted, I'm not trying to downplay the complexity of recreating our entire universe and consciousness in binary, but it is theoretically possible, from my understanding.

So this would explain, for our universe atleast, how something came from nothing in a sense. The computer turned on. Now we just need to explain who or what created whoever created us... but that may be an impossible task as we might not be programmed in a way that allows us to understand this.

I think the idea is pretty sweet.

Yeah I love thinking about crazy shit like this. I watched the 2010 Isaac Asimov debate and they had a physicist on there who said when looking at the deepest levels of nature that it's written in computer code. Not written like computer code, but actually written in computer code so it's very probable that we're in a computer simulation.

[CrashBand]

It is probably harder to fully understand if you aren't accepting a deterministic standpoint, did you ever look into the free will debate more?

No, class thinks he was control and influence over his intentions and what occurs to him and what doesn't.

[classthe_king]

It is probably harder to fully understand if you aren't accepting a deterministic standpoint, did you ever look into the free will debate more?

No, class thinks he was control and influence over his intentions and what occurs to him and what doesn't.

Well according to you guys I can't change the fact that I think we have free will, right

[CrashBand]

It can change though. You can't control how your brain will process the information. It'll either convince or not.

[classthe_king]

Guess it doesn't convince me. On a separate topic, have you ever read The Egg by Andy Weir?

[Willy]

Guess it doesn't convince me. On a separate topic, have you ever read The Egg by Andy Weir?

Just did, thanks for that. Kind of crazy to think of it like that. I wonder if there is any science to support a single consciousness?

[classthe_king]

I don't know, I think that would be something impossible to test.

[classthe_king]

Le Tuna has just informed me that he is now agnostic and not following any holy book

[CrashBand]

Coming out as an atheist or agnostic is pretty hard thing to do I imagine.

[Eedee]

Le Tuna has just informed me that he is now agnostic and not following any holy book

Really?

[classthe_king]

Le Tuna has just informed me that he is now agnostic and not following any holy book

Really?

I have trouble believing it myself but yes