DannyBloem

Joined

• started 78 topics
• posted 1,398 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DannyBloem

• 
  7

  A new form of Artificial Intelligence?

  by Elsewhere in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some researchers say that the best test of artificial intelligence is to have a human interact with the program and other living humans, then have the first person try to guess which one is real and which one is not.

  i happened across this article and it made me wonder if automated bots on the internet are getting intelligent enough to pass this test.

  ironically, these bots were designed to play games and not to pass the aforementioned test.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4165880.stmstudent held over online mugging .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  nice article, thanks.

  I do not think the AI is a big point here, because the interface is probably small, which makes it hard to betect the bots.
• 
  24

  Is Clairvoyance evil or a human trait?

  by Amazing1914 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the society taught that psychic ability and clairvoyance were of satan and the demons.

  they equated these characteristics as unchristian and to be avoided.

  therefore, they are linked to ouiji board, wiccan activities, and even the seer that saul visited to conjure up samuel in a vision.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  To add:

  There is scientific work going on that connect quantum theory with these capabilities. There are tests being done to try and determine if there is scientific evidence for such capabilities. In one case over 100,000 tests demonstrated such a basis.

  Can you tell me what the link between Quantum Physics and these capabilities are?
  Can you give some more info about this evidence?

  I think it is good to study the possibility of clearvoyance, etc etc. on a scientific base.
  However why he wrote this book? He did not have enough evidence to proof his theories for the scientific community and then he tries to convince non scientists? Or is it just plain: $$$$$$

  Danny
• 
  24

  Is Clairvoyance evil or a human trait?

  by Amazing1914 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the society taught that psychic ability and clairvoyance were of satan and the demons.

  they equated these characteristics as unchristian and to be avoided.

  therefore, they are linked to ouiji board, wiccan activities, and even the seer that saul visited to conjure up samuel in a vision.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  Dr. Pearsall's speculations open the door for readers to consider afresh the importance of cellular memory, loving connections, prayer, laughter, and healing.

  In my opinion nothing more then speculations. (but I haven't read the book)
• 
  122

  Very good apologetics for honest seekers

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

  here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

  http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  For Danny (part two),
  
  Here is a brief cut and paste from a link I am providing:
  
  "Burbidge does say something that is true, however. He favors the steady-state hypothesis and claims his view supports Hinduism and not Christianity. That is correct, because a steady-state theory of the universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the endless cycles taught by Hinduism. The big bang theory is significant evidence against Hinduism."

  I really do not know enough about Hinduism to know if Hinduism can be in agreement with a big bang or not. It isn't very important for me...

  Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,
  
  "Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

  "These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe (another popular view). There are a lot of assumptions here:

  1) the current theories of space-time are correct.
  2) there is a sort of time dimension outside of the universe. Why? Where does this come from?
  3) the universe has a cause 4) There is a God. (was this not what we are trying to prove?, here it is an assumption)
  5) God has caused the universe
  If you make this assumtions, then it is valid to say that God is not the universe itself nor contained to it. I agree. However why make all those assumtions. (The written has placed a lot of if's in the text)
  
  Assumption is the mother of all errors.

  Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."

  I agree with this. Unexplained.
  Unexplained is not the same as God, however. All things that were once unexplained and are explained now, turned out not to be God. So, we should not make any conclusion that unexplained means that it is God or something like it.
  
  
  

  "The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Bell Telephone laboratories convinced most scientists of the validity of the big bang theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the big bang theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe approximately 15 billion years ago."

  True, we had an interesting thread about the big bang on this board. (nothing to do with atheism or God, so save to take a look)
  

  Please continue the investigation with Hawking's work, "A Brief History of Time" and the other works recommended by the article's author. I pray that the realization that Deism is valid will lead to the further realization that Christianity is the sole faith that is built upon solid evidence! Also, feel free to e-mail me at any time.

  Thank you
  Danny
• 
  122

  Very good apologetics for honest seekers

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

  here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

  http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  Shining one,

  The reasoning given was this one (written in short).

  a) law of thermodynamics

  b) --> universe is not infinite old

  c) --> universe is not infinite in size

  d) assumption: all events have causes

  e) --> there is no infinite regress of events

  f) --> there is a first cause

  g) --> this first cause event must be greater then what it causes

  h) --> this first cause is God

  i) --> this God is the God of the Bible.

  I showed you that b) was not a fact, it is certainly possible, not 100% sure.
  I showed you that c) was also not a fact, not 100% sure also.
  I showed you that d) was not true
  I showed you that e) does not have to be true
  I showed you that g) is only an assumption
  I showed you that h) if not definied that way, is not a valid argument
  I showed you that i) is just an assumption, based on nothing.
  
  So, a reasoning like this is as weak as it's weakest link. Most links are weak, some are totally invalid. So we really can not accept this as a proof of Gods existence.
  I hope you would be willing to agree with this. I think there is NO proof that there is a God. If you know any can you please show it to me?
  I could have a same argument with the proof that there is no God. However that would also not be a very good proof with very weak links. I agree herefore that I can NOT proof that there is No God.

  One more remarkt about c) the causes.
  Scientists have discovered that in the small scale things happen that have no cause. For example energie (a photon) can be transformed into one or more particles of matter. This happens spontaniously, without cause. There are many examples of this on the small scale.
  It is surely thinkable that the small universe, at the beginning, had also no cause.

  Danny
• 
  23

  $2.79 Per Gallon!

  by Outaservice in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has gas prices affected your service time any?.

  outaservice (who had to quit altogether ) .

  seriously, do you think it will affect the good ole society?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  That's only because Europe taxes the hell out of gas.

  Of course that is it, what else could it be.....
  Well, we get a lot of good things in return ....

  Anyway it does not affect the society at all. It will affect only the wallet of the individual brothers and sisters.
  But it is better to do the FS with the biclycle of course. It takes more time (and this is one of the only things in life where this is actually good), and it is cheaper. Using a bike is also easier, and you can easier witness people walking on the street

  Danny
• 
  12

  mmMMMmmmm Laulaus

  by BrendaCloutier in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so you're either saying "what the heck are laulaus" or "omg!

  laulaus!

  laulaus are classic luau food.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  Looks very delicious.

  Never been in Hawaii, but they eat something very similar in other polynesian islands. (and in some parts of asia as well).

  Thanks for sharing (well at least the pictures, not the food )

  Danny
• 
  122

  Very good apologetics for honest seekers

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

  here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

  http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  Hi, Shining One,
  
  I do have some honest questions about one of the articles (it is proof of Gods existence). I would accept God if you can prove it of cause. However I find many things and arguments in this article not valid, or I do not understand....

  Ignoring Atheists' Questions If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go away. ; If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the objection.

  Shining one, as I quoted from your links also, you should answer these questions. Here is teh article with my remarks in bold....

  Entropy and Causality used as
  a proof for God's existence

  Definition: The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.

  It is a bit more complicated then this. it is only valid for a closed system, and then there is also the law of conservation of energie, which means that energie can not be lost. For the sake of the following argument, it is dealing with an expanding universe, I will not continue on this.
  (Note: this argument can not be used against evolution, because that is not a closed system)

  1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
  2. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
  3. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

  There are valid ways around this. There could be somethings as continious creation for instance. This argument is not full prove. However most scientists indeed believe that the universe had a beginning around 14 biljion years ago.

  Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.

  2. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.

  You assume here that the universe is expanding. Most scientist do indeed think it is. (not all though)
  Also this argument is not full prove. Can an infinite universe not expand? But I can agree. Sciensists believe that the universe has no borders but is limited in size.

  1. All events have causes.
  2. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
  3. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.
  4. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.

  Why do all events need to have a cause? Scientists have found a lot of evidence that this is not the case.
  A lot of things happen, that have no cause.
  This argument is not valid, it is not true!
  
  The next point also, why can't there be an infinite regess of events?
  Imagine for example an universe collapsing, which gives cause to a new universe with a big bang. This can be an infinite regress of events.....

  Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

  2. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
  3. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
• Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
• An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.
• Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
• An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
• An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

I do not understand why an uncause cause must be greater then what it causes. Why? I do not understand.
This does not apply for caused causes. A very small thing, can casue a big thing.

The point by c). I think it would be better to say: Would not have any time or space, since time and space are properties of the universe that it caused to exist.

1. This uncaused cause is supernatural.
2. By supernatural I mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it.
3. This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.
4. This uncaused cause is God.

If you devine the uncaused cause to be God, and only so, I could maybe agree with this reasoning. But with God people have much more thoughts.
Every cause would satisfy here, because everycause is outside the universe, it is supernatural in definition, it is not part of space-time. So if every cause would satisfy here, why jump to God?

At this point I admit to making a leap of logic and assert that the supernatural, uncaused cause is the God of the Bible.

1. The Bible teaches that God infinite in time and scope and is wholly other than the universe of which He created.
2. God is defined as being infinite in size, duration, and power.
3. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe .

Hmm, indeed a far jump champion. With this logic you can just as easily conclude that it is the God of the Qu'oran. Or Zeus, or any other God.
There is totally no logic in this last statements. it is something like, proving that the alphabeth exists, and then concluding that the exact contence of the works of Shakespear follow from this conclusion.

Can you tell me where I am wrong, what better arguments are?

Danny