This thread is for proof that God exists (page 33)

Qcmbr

Was having a think about what it would look like if this world / universe were designed by an AI. It's highly likely that we will be superseded soon by our own creations ergo seems sensible that if any Godlike being arises from biological processes it will be constructed rather than born. So what evidence would such an AI leave?

Well here goes, caveat being that we are at the root of our AI so it reflects the limits of or thinking - in particular Western thinking.

I like playing PC games which is often at the forefront of AI thinking. It struck me that the strength of AI is its overall ability to accurately gather information , weigh alternatives and consider solutions within the confines of its programming. Any game you play now has the rules 'cooked' such that the AI always produces perfect solutions - it doesn't experience an emotional response. An AI world (I'm talking about the environments it creates not its ability to learn) repetitively generates itself but without feedback variation (i.e. its not evolutionary, its repetition according to parameters) so when you see a tree it is Platonic, it is a modified representation of an ideal tree (the one in memory it is cloning) and so on. AI learning is not subject to forgetfulness though it is limited by storage and retrieval considerations. AI always has an aim, so a learning system will always be trying to learn for a specific reason (just like the current Go contest- the AI is learning to win that game not learning to understand love or some abstract concept.)

Ok so assuming such an AI was able to generate a universe using the application of some physics as yet undiscovered or conversely run a simulation that exhibited physics like rules. Would such an AI be evident and what sort of evidences might it leave? Why would an AI generate a universe filled with biological systems rather than one filled with AI robots? Why would a biological system/simulation, given enough time, end up regenerating an AI?

I think an AI would produce perfect scenarios to reach its goal (the AlphaGo AI doesn't bother generating a play or musing on the taste of coffee to better itself at Go, an AI with a purpose would generate a world closer to scripture i.e. the Garden of Eden story sounds exactly like the sort of world an AI might produce, one where a set of conditions is suggested, all other variables are held invariant and the simulation is run with limited parameters leading to a conclusion.) The messiness and pointlessness of actual reality argues against any kind of scenario / test whereas the artificiality of scriptural stories would support a perfect scenario approach.
An AI could run multiple simulations at the same time or multiple physical universes side by side. Science has branches of maths that would support this.
An AI would be likely to be based from mathematical principles. Some parts of the universe support this (that maths itself can approximate the universe suggests that there are underlying principles that govern the universe that can be abstracted to mathematics) but then some parts of the universe don't map well with maths - maths can describe impossible scenarios such as infinity.

talesin

Fish - did you belong to the debating club in HS? I don't often agree with your POV , but your debating skills are most excellent. And that's no yolk! Really, kudos.

cofty

You misrepresent what I said by taking part of my statement out of context and posting only part of what I posted. - Fishy

No.

I posted part of your statement but it means exactly the same with or without the rest of it.

but on the rules of evidence, and ultimately upon who is trying the case -who has the final say."

How can anybody judge evidence until you provide some? How can there be rules of evidence if there is no evidence on offer.

You don't have a point you just have sophistry.

Debating with you is like playing pigeon chess.

Qcmbr

I disagree talesin - Fish strikes me as a talking like a politician who says little with lots of posture to avoid being pinned to something specific and testable. Let's examine the logical flaws:

Proof that God exists does not depend upon the evidence, but on the rules of evidence, and ultimately upon who is trying the case -who has the final say.

Let's work this backwards. Let's use something to represent an essential truth - let's say a naked monarch parading down a high street under the misapprehension that they are wearing clothing that has a magical property. Can any nominated judge (be it a group or a person or a talking donkey) anywhere change one iota of the actual reality? Can such a judge actually, simply by their judgment actually create as much as a single pair of magically infused undercrackers? No of course not. It is a sleight of hand to postulate some vapourware judge to argue over the facts on the ground.

'Rules of evidence'. Once again a completely cooked notion. Are there any rules of evidence that again can change the reality? No of course not - there are only tangles twists and attempts to misdirect the gaze from the monarchs jewels.

The question about what types of evidence would be useful does have use when confusion or a lack of clarity exists. Does it here? I suspect not, this isn't a legal matter or a debate on whether Monopoly fines end up in Free Parking, and there isn't a need to pretend to some statement or list since they are implicit in our shared human existence. We are talking about the material world we exist in and the shared phenomenon we experience. You see when a child can innocently point out the truth without recourse to special rules and only the lie teller requires the magical rules of exception (only the stupid cannot see the beautiful fabric) then you know what the 'rules' are for.

Finally to claim on one hand a familiarity with the word 'proof' and then to spend the remainder of the sentence producing a new version of proof tied to an imaginary judge and a set of special rules that, let us be well aware will always favour the tailor who made the 'clothes' that the ruler now wears,it is just a politician's ruse, a con, a trick to avoid the simple statement - the King is naked.

When I fully believed I genuinely sought out opportunities to test the 'truth' I believed (and still believe) in 'the refiner's fire' the concept that testing, trying and examining a truth will leave it shorn of all untruths. As a believer I was under the mistaken impression that such things as the Book of Mormon, the global flood and the age of the earth were all accurately described by and encapsulated in the LDS version of Jehovah. It wasn't until I was about 30 that I first started to be met by serious , factual rebuttal (a lot of it here!) that I couldn't square anymore. Before that point I hadn't engaged anyone in conversation educated enough or willing to exhaustively challenge and deconstruct the truths I held dear and i hadn't done enough of my own research to know what I didn't know. This increased my belief that they were not just subjectively true but also objectively true. Only when hard facts and an unyielding discussion occurred could I see the mistakes in my position. The subjective experiences I had had were not (initially) challenged - I had to do that myself later. The key to unlocking the worldview was to look at the objective things and apply logic and the scientific method to test them.

If the only evidence brought to the table is subjective then one argues for a God who has no material impact on the universe except in the chemistry of human brains. If that really is it then that's fine - its a strange God but they are welcome to it since no one else can verify it nor claim that its the same one in everyone's mind. If however, believers are arguing for some supreme being who impacts and is the cause of pretty much everything then let's not play semantics. They can just point at the evidence and we can discuss it - shouldn't be hard ,it should be all around.

cofty

I'm so glad you had the energy to do that Qcmbr.

It's amazing how easily some people are impressed by sophistry. I think it is linked to confirmation bias.

"Somebody said something that might support my beliefs - yeah!"

Ucantnome

So please. Here is your opportunity to convince an atheist he is wrong.

i couldn't be bothered. Find your own evidence.

Twitch

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

;)

cofty

Do you feel as if your rights are being infringed Twitch?

Do you have a right to be protected from criticisms of your beliefs?

Twitch

Do you feel as if your rights are being infringed Twitch?

Do you have issue with what I posted?

If so, why?

Do you have a right to be protected from criticisms of your beliefs?

See above

Perhaps we can address the issue rather than the person, if that's agreeable to you?

cofty

Perhaps we can address the issue rather than the person, if that's agreeable to you? - Twitch

In what way did I fail to address the issue? I asked you a very specific question about the issue.

Article 18 gives you the right to believe anything you want. We all agree on that.

Article 19 gives you the freedom to hold opinions without interference

Do you think that means that other people are not allowed to challenge your beliefs? Do you think that is the intention of the Declaration?

Would that not make all religious preaching a breach of the Declaration too?

Don't you think you have misunderstood the Declaration?

This thread is for proof that God exists

Share this