Why is God scientifically redefinable? (A short atheist article)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Keep in mind that I am atheistic. (One need not believe in science)

 

Furthermore, I have zero beliefs, especially as the inventor of a phenomenon called "non-beliefism".

 

 

 

NOTE: In my prior post, I had introduced that humans were "minimally capable gods" (not the religious omniscient type), using science, without actually first stating why gods were scientifically redefinable.

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~

HEADING A

~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Why is the archaic mythical god concept scientifically redefinable?

 

In segment A, here, I list a few steps describing why the archaic mythical god concept is scientifically redefinable:

 

(1) One shall recall that humanity had not always had rigorous modern science.

 

(2) One shall recall that the root guess that the universe perhaps began/had an origin-source (the typical archaic claimed God, See Sumerian cosmology; via the creator god An) had been established prior to modern science. (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawking singularity theorems ...)

 

(3.i) One shall recall that science updates itself. It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms.

 

(3.ii) Recall 'gravity'. We are aware that science updated from archaic gravity (De Caelo), to Newtonian gravity, then to Einsteinian description. The word 'gravity' maintained regardless.

 

Thusly, betwixt my accord, science shall remember to update the archaic concept "God", similar to how components from antiquity were purged from "astronomy" or "gravity".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~

HEADING B

~~~~~~~~~~~

 

How had the 'minimally capable god' classification occurred?

 

 

(1)

 

Observing the theories/materials referenced (in original post source) in one context, one may observe a compatible sequence of theories/materials (eg: where adinkra representations [adinkras reveal computer like codes in the theoretic fundamental descriptions of the cosmos] etc and big bang are compatible)

 

In simpler words, our cosmos may be computable.

 

 

 

 

(2)

 

As time passed, we better created informational, computational representations of our own cosmos. (See illustris)

 

There is no reason to ignore the above capacity/time progression.

 

 

 

 

 

(3)

 

Combining (1) and (2), our cosmos is perhaps creatable, rather than not, by some form of creator (perhaps like ourselves, or some other form of intelligence with at least human level intelligence)

 

 

 

(4)

 

The ability to yield sufficiently detailed universe(s) (like our own) includes, the ability to yield human level intelligence. (Humans encompass the universe)

 

On that note, humans have the ability to generate human level intelligence, by learning tasks. So, humans already encompass a non trivial portion of the larger universe yielding ability, where human intelligence is observed as the universe's prominent complex machine, that may engender universe(s).

Edited March 7, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Argent]

Do you believe what you have written?

[Strange]

NOTE: In my prior post, I had introduced that humans were "minimally capable gods" (not the religious omniscient type), using science, without actually first stating why gods were scientifically redefinable.

 

 

That was the least of your problems.

 

 

 

(2) One shall recall that the root guess that the universe perhaps began/had an origin-source (the typical archaic claimed God, See Sumerian cosmology; via the creator god An) had been established prior to modern science. (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawking singularity theorems ...)

 

(3.i) One shall recall that science updates itself. It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms.

 

(3.ii) Recall 'gravity'. We are aware that science updated from archaic gravity (De Caelo), to Newtonian gravity, then to Einsteinian description. The word 'gravity' maintained regardless.

 

 

Thusly, betwixt my accord, science shall remember to update the archaic concept "God", similar to how components from antiquity were purged from "astronomy" or "gravity".

 

So you are using "god" to mean "creation myth" rather than the more general meaning?

 

You are using a small subset of the Abrahamic God (not all creation myths involve a god creating the universe, the concept of god involves much more than just a creation myth) and then using that redefine the word "god".

 

That is a bit like saying: Movies include the colour blue, so I am going to redefine the word "movie" to mean electromagnetic radiation at one end of the visible spectrum. This ignores the files that don't include blue, the fact that movies have other colours, that they tell a huge range of stories, etc. etc.

 

That is the main reason your essay is beyond ridiculous.

 

 

 

Thusly, betwixt my accord

 

1. Crackpot colours

 

2. "Betwixt my accord"? WTF?

 

 

 

Combining (1) and (2), our cosmos is perhaps creatable, rather than not, by some form of creator (perhaps like ourselves, or some other form of intelligence with at least human level intelligence)

 

Even if true, that doesn't make the creator a god.

So, if we strip out the colours, the semiliterate posturing and the pointless redefinition of words it seems that your thesis is:

 

"Humans will one day be able to simulate human consciousness and even a universe."

 

Maybe. That could be an interesting topic for discussion (there are and have been several similar threads). But you need to focus, man. Focus.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

No, we aren't going to re-hash this. Your previous discussion was closed. As was already suggested, go start a blog somewhere if all you want to do is present your manifesto.