ProgrammingGodJordan

The paper is a: (1) Falsification of theologian claim, on the horizon of a model in archaic science. (2) Presentation of results on standard scientific inquiry/notation, where a theologian claim regarding archaic God concept is falsified, while a separate operational definition is presented, given the constraints of the inquiry. ..all under those headings.

I have corrected your quote above. Are you like "Strange" that merely glanced the thread, and claim to have sufficient data to respond? Spare an hour to observe the content, lest you proceed to comment emptily. @Strange Strange, do you know any actual science? How can you present advice to me, and not recognize one of the great pillars of science? Why didn't you observe that science constitutes redefinitions? (Objectivity, falsification)

I corrected your response. Take some time to do little more than glance the content, before writing rash comments.

It is unavoidable that the scientific methodology had been used. Why don't you spare a little more than a glance, whenever you have the time? You glancing and quickly writing empty comments does not alter the fact that the scientific methodology had been employed, in the composition of this thread.

Science is such that constantly facilitates that its models are redefined. This is one of the pillars of science; given new evidence, models are subject to change, redefinition, update or what ever synonym you prefer to employ. You can select whichever words you prefer. The thread clearly shows that the terms "minimally and highly capable Gods" are not fixed, novel terms, but instead words that simply describe the incidence of gradation observed in humans, wrt to universe yielding ability. See the introduction in the original post. That diagram isn't devoid of science.

A glance is not sufficient. The updated thread consists of scientific details that were priorly left out. It now likely satisfies Science Forums requirements. It would be false to express that I am absent scientific knowledge of physics. Here is a brief mathematical description of quantum computing, of mine: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318902160_A_delicious_mathematical_expression_describing_the_basis_of_quantum_computing Once more, this updated thread constitutes some scientific rigour that had been left out, for I pondered whether the earlier thread would have gotten too large with the details. However, I have managed to condense sufficient details amidst this latest thread, unlike before.

Did you bother to read the thread? This thread also differs from prior threads (excluding the one of the same title). FOOTNOTE: What may be largely repeated, from thread to thread, is my expression of "the science is true whether or not one believes in it" sequence. This is not surprising, because that expression is now a part of my scientific thinking. Likewise, it is likely that you repeat little particular concepts/learnt behaviour from thread to thread. Note that this updated thread constitutes some scientific rigour that had been left out, for I pondered whether the earlier thread would have gotten too large with the details. However, I have managed to condense sufficient details amidst this latest thread, unlike before.

NOTE: I had posted the same thread earlier, but absent content from particular pages from an amazon book (that I won't disclose here) of mine containing relevant scientific data. UPDATED INTRODUCTION That theism generally holds that ‘God’ exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought, (i.e. outside of science) is demonstrably invalid; contrary to said claim of billions of minds (i.e. theists), God is firstly, amidst archaic science, and subsequently, God is scientifically redefinable/approachable, using - a trivial disproof of said claims, on the regime of scientific inquiry. Therein, the archaic God concept is not a non-trivial matter; there persists an unavoidable bafflement and neurological concern (especially amidst atheistic minds, such as mine); for empirically, billions of minds, of billions and billions of neurons, select faith in apparently nonsensical entities, such as said Gods. As such, as science permits that archaic concepts are updatable (i.e. the nature of science – facilitating falsifiability etc… together with the passage of time, entailed that astrology was purged from astronomy); filtered through the rigour of science, on scientific inquiry, the archaic God concept is shown to be quite a different model, contrary to theistic belief. GOD (AS SCIENTIFICALLY REDEFINED) IS COMPATIBLE WITH ATHEISM When faced with the rigour of science, on scientific inquiry, the archaic God concept occurs quite contrary to very nature of theism, when the necessitation for faith/belief is purged: Notably, one need not believe in science, as science is true regardless of belief. Crucially, one may maintain an atheistic state (be an atheist), while observing the scientific god redefinition in this thread as valid. This is because one need not belief to observe science, and so one need not believe in God (i.e one then may still lack belief in the scientific re-definition in this thread), as scientifically redefined, while still observing said redefinition as valid. SCIENTIFIC NOTATION symbols: G: Major theistic god concepts A: Science in antiquity O: Concepts that are objectively falsifiable... inquiry: i. Major theistic God concepts are science in antiquity. (GaA) ii. Concepts in science in antiquity are objectively falsifiable concepts (AaO) iii. ∴ Concepts that are objectively falsifiable may be God concepts. (OaG) (See attached figure) A POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC-REDEFINITION OF GOD Given the scientific notation prior, typical scrutiny reveals: (1) Omniscience, angels, heaven, etc is scientifically unfounded. (2) That the universe is "made", let alone by some entity encompassing (1), is scientifically unfounded. Consequently: A close approximation persists relatively to the default God model; non-omniscient humans can encode sophisticated universes, that is, simulations of universes. A possible scientific redefinition (i.e. an operational definition), that absorbs the scientific notation in the prior section faces: Redefinition: God is any non-omniscient entity with the ability to compute simulation(s) of universes (from crude universes i.e. illustris, to perhaps instance(s) that may contain sophisticated intelligence) and or to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the intellect of its creators. The redefinition sequence can be observed to yield tiers of creators including ‘minimally capable gods’ and ‘highly capable Gods’ of which humans largely already exist smally as highly capable Gods and largely as minimally capable Gods; for large numbers of humans possess human level general intelligence, and by extension, small numbers of humans are creating crude universes, by utilizing the aforesaid general level intelligence. (Note: The terms "minimally and highly capable" Gods are not fixed, novel terms, but instead words that simply describe the incidence of gradation observed in humans, wrt to universe yielding ability.)

Note that humans are Gods as scientifically redefined; non omniscient entities with the ability to model universes (such as illustris) etc. Science is a paradigm that constantly enables that its models are redefined. Such is typical of science. Archaic god concept is also observed as entities in archaic science, that had supposedly forged the cosmos. That is the relation that is underlined in the redefinition. Do you have any evidence to support your claim above? Recall: that our universe is simulated, is scientifically unfounded, and so the God redefinition does not approach that matter. It is general intelligence that humans use to simulate universes. General intelligence is a neurobiological phenomenon that occurs in humans. However, degrees of general intelligence have already been empirically observed to arise in machines, such as Deepmind's Atari q player or Alpha go, etc. General intelligence is thusly not limited to humans, and so it is included in the redefinition. Contrarily, given that you observed the paper, and topics such as scientific inquiry, you would likely come to observe that the God redefinition paper employs typical science. To begin, take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry

No, the re-definition expresses that humans are Gods (that simulate universes such as illustris). That our particular universe is simulated is scientifically unfounded, and the definition does not approach that matter. The definition also underlines the probability that humans shall, given sufficient time, create cognitive machines that exceed humans in all cognitive tasks. Both hot air ballooning, and coarse fishing are evidencable, unlike the archaic God concept.

To begin, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry Your observation of link above may then engender that you come to observe that the scientific methodology had been utilized.

What in particular, inspires that ad hominem attack of yours above?

The url you quoted was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process This is the url I presented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method They are both the same page, but yours zeroes in on a particular section. Anyway, the page above describes something called scientific inquiry. Take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry I remind you to take a look at the scientific inquiry url I provided earlier. Regardless of whatever phrases are used in the god redefinition paper, the paper entails largely empirically observed sequences, together with expressions of probability. To begin to observe how I had come to reconstitute the archaic God concept, see the scientific inquiry url priorly presented. Of course, unlike my presentation of the archaic god re-definition, the 'caricature' you provided does not align with the scientific method.

See this url (posted/edited several minutes before your response above): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method To begin, you need observe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry The scientific method was utilized to update the archaic God concept, in modern science terms, as is typical of science. The redefinition is not constrained to archaic descriptions, and so omniscience, etc is purged. How is your quote above relevant to the OP? Remember to see source 1, and source 2, to begin.

Data shows that the scientific method is not silly, and that is merely what I had employed in order to reconstitute the archaic God concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Science may be silly to you, but science is greatly important.

What lacks meaning to you in this particular scenario? Does the fact that humans simulate our cosmos (i.e. illustris) lack meaning to you? Does the fact that God persisted in archaic science lack meaning to you? (Hint?: Even if you're atheistic, God concept still has meaning in archaic science) Does the fact that science facilitates updating of its models, (such that myths are purged etc) lack meaning to you? FOOTNOTE: What do you mean by meaning? For example, it is valid to express that life has scientific meaning (See wikipedia source). (where said meaning constitutes scientific descriptions on the origin of life, ultimate fate of the universe - heat death, etc) Why did I ask you about about meaning? Prior conversations with others, have revealed that they possess some pre-conceived notions of "meaning" that may block them from immediately clearly observing facts, like the wikipedia source underlined in the sentence above.

Why do you garner that scientific expressions should be toileted? Don't you observe science's great importance?

Recall that God is yet another concept in archaic science. Like other archaic models that were updated, such that myths were removed (i,e, astronomy) God concept is yet another component that may be subject to scientific change (such that myths are also removed) So, no hyperbole is necessary.

DELICIOUS FOOD FOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT: Particularly, just as astronomy was redefined such that mythical components were purged, the archaic God concept (a part of science in antiquity) is yet another component in archaic science, that is subject to updating; it is valid to establish that the archaic concept of God, like other archaic models in science, can be subject to scientific change, such that myths are removed: Redefinition: God is any non-omniscient entity with the ability to compute simulation(s) of universes (from crude universes i.e. illustris, to perhaps instance(s) that may contain sophisticated intelligence) and or to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the intellect of its creators. ONE MAY BE STILL ATHEISTIC, WHILE OBSERVING THE GOD REDEFINITION ABOVE AS VALID: Notably, one need not believe in science, as science is true regardless of belief. Crucially, one need not believe in God as scientifically redefined, and so one may still lack belief in God as redefined scientifically, while observing such a redefinition as valid. FOOTNOTE: So, humans are Gods, however not the omniscient, omnipotent mythical things typically found in religion. Highly capable gods are those humans that simulate detailed universes (i.e. illustris) while any other human with general intelligence (i.e. not brain damaged, that possess the ability to create smarter instances of themselves, through task learning, are minimally capable Gods... that is, most humans are minimally capable Gods). So, humans are Gods creating more powerful Gods, that too, shall likely create more powerful Gods, that too shall likely create more powerful Gods...

Yes, the above is appropriate. As I mentioned before your above response, studies into religious behaviour falls under science, so a section for that would be okay, while a section that permits science opposing religious blather, would not be (is not) suitable. Not blind, but rather, I had pointed out that some of your earlier proposals were irrelevant/inapt, as they did not validate why these forums would need permit religious blather.

An irrelevant point, as unlike nonsensical religious talk, both of the scientific things you mention, not surprisingly, already fall under science.

I need not faith. Scientific investigation of religion (for example, a study into the neurological behaviours of the religious) would still fall appropriately under science). Science does not require religion. (So your other points are irrelevant)

I haven't consumed cherries in quite some time... I do consume oranges, mangoes etc though. Anyway, there are several non-science websites where the religious can unravel their worries.

There was no need, because scientific evidence exists; (1) Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias: (Cognitive paper source) (2) ‘Belief memories’ are typically false: (Neuroscience paper source) Anyway, why do you garner there is a religious section on ScienceForums.net?