Humans are minimally capable gods (written by an atheist computer scientist)

[swansont]

(1)

God was a word in archaic science.

 

 

 

No such thing as archaic science. It was philosophy.

 

Redundant.

 

The point is, gravity was updated.

 

Please refrain from redundant sentences.

 

The model was updated. What it represented was not. Things didn't suddenly start falling when Newton developed his model. How they fell didn't change with Einstein.

[DrKrettin]

 

 

No such thing as archaic science. It was philosophy.

 

 

That of course depends on how you define science, philosophy and archaic. Aristotle was clearly involved in scientific investigation (and he certainly had a concept of force) although scientific method was not what it is today.

[Strange]

(4) There are modern probable causes established in science, but the word "god" was not kept.

 

 

Can we just clarify what you mean by "probable cause"?

 

Are you referring to the reason why the universe exists, or something else?

 

 

 

As I had said before,things are being tested for digital physics.

 

And, as I said before, could you provide some reference for this?

 

 

 

..and don't forget about Hawkins' Penrose theorems.

 

Why do you think this is relevant? The existence of singularities in GR is really an indication that the theory does not accurately describe the real world (where singularities do not exist).

If I had detected an error in the redefinition, based on any responses to my original post, I would have long acknowledged such. .

 

 

Cranks never see/admit to the flaws in their thinking.

[swansont]

That of course depends on how you define science, philosophy and archaic. Aristotle was clearly involved in scientific investigation (and he certainly had a concept of force) although scientific method was not what it is today.

Aye, there's the rub. If you don't test e.g. your idea that heavier things fall faster, you really haven't done science. Logic is a discipline of philosophy, distinct from science.

[Lord Antares]

/cut

 

I think replying to you is pointless, just like this thread. You don't listen and instead you choose to cherrypick what people say and answer just one bit which is besides the point.

The main point is that there is neither any benefit nor neccessity in accepting your definition. What's more, it's a worse definition because it would only add confusion and ambiguity. You would use the same word for what god is usually used for and for humans for some reason. It's completely senseless and useless. No one in the world is confused or bothered by this except for yourself.

 

 

PS:

If I had detected an error in the redefinition, based on any responses to my original post, I would have long acknowledged such. .

 

Hitler believed he did nothing wrong, so what's your point? Your opinion on this is completely subjective and susceptible to error so the fact that you didn't notice anything wrong with it means absolutely nothing.

 

That being said, I won't reply to you anymore unless you start making sense.

[madmac]

Religion & old gods were modern science in the oldendays. Nowadays science has new gods, new dogma.

 

Its funny that most of us atheists around here are not aetherists. But i suppose that some aetherists believe in God.

 

I thought that Newton created the word gravity, but perhaps he only invented its re-use (an earlier post said he didn't create the word).

 

An earlier post said that gravity is more sensible today (obviously referring to Einsteinian bending of space-time)(a joke).

 

An earlier post suggested that heavier things didn't fall faster. But surely a small object with the same mass as Earth would fall at 2g if next to Earth. But in a sense that post was correct -- if u drop objects they fall at the same rate, eg that-there small object & a feather would fall to Earth at the same rate (in vacuum). Technically, while falling to Earth, the feather would also fall to the small object faster than the small object falls to the feather (just thinking out loud).

 

This thread about gods (or the definition of gods)(or something) is mosty silly, yet it touches important (science) issues.

Edited February 28, 2017 by madmac

[Strange]

Religion & old gods were modern science in the oldendays.

 

 

No, they weren't science. Science is a modern invention.

 

 

Nowadays science has new gods, new dogma.

 

This is pretty rich, coming from someone who is here to promote his baseless, pseudo-scientific, quasi-religious beliefs.

 

Science doesn't have dogma. (Pseudoscience and crackpottery does though.)

 

 

 

 

Its funny that most of us atheists around here are not aetherists.

 

Not really. Most people on this forum form their opinions based on evidence, not arbitrary belief systems.

 

 

 

But i suppose that some aetherists believe in God.

 

Seems quite likely. And UFOs, chemtrails, Apollo hoaxes, ...

 

 

 

I thought that Newton created the word gravity, but perhaps he only invented its re-use (an earlier post said he didn't create the word).

 

The word has been around since at least 1500 (from the latin). It was first used for the force of gravity before Newton was born.

http://etymonline.com/index.php?search=gravity

Edited February 28, 2017 by Strange

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

No, they weren't science. Science is a modern invention.

 

 

This is pretty rich, coming from someone who is here to promote his baseless, pseudo-scientific, quasi-religious beliefs.

 

Science doesn't have dogma. (Pseudoscience and crackpottery does though.)

 

 

 

Not really. Most people on this forum form their opinions based on evidence, not arbitrary belief systems.

 

 

Seems quite likely. And UFOs, chemtrails, Apollo hoaxes, ...

 

 

The word has been around since at least 1500 (from the latin). It was first used for the force of gravity before Newton was born.

http://etymonline.com/index.php?search=gravity

//__god was an early part of science

And like others have concurred on this forum, and as is known via public data, god was an early part of science.

 

 

 

//__gravity did not always mean attractive force

The word gravity existed before newton.

It was simply hijacked and adopted.

 

Gravity did not always mean attractive force.

 

 

 

I think replying to you is pointless, just like this thread. You don't listen and instead you choose to cherrypick what people say and answer just one bit which is besides the point.

The main point is that there is neither any benefit nor neccessity in accepting your definition. What's more, it's a worse definition because it would only add confusion and ambiguity. You would use the same word for what god is usually used for and for humans for some reason. It's completely senseless and useless. No one in the world is confused or bothered by this except for yourself.

 

 

 

Hitler believed he did nothing wrong, so what's your point? Your opinion on this is completely subjective and susceptible to error so the fact that you didn't notice anything wrong with it means absolutely nothing.

 

That being said, I won't reply to you anymore unless you start making sense.

//_no cherry picking here

You are confusing cherry picking with the fact that things are ignorable.(while such ignored things don't perturb the original post to invalidation)

 

I don't to respond to every single silly non issue.

 

 

 

 

//__keep in mind

 

I am an atheist, and skeptic, so I came here to uncover errors in the process.

 

Thus far there has been failure.

 

 

No such thing as archaic science. It was philosophy.

 

 

The model was updated. What it represented was not. Things didn't suddenly start falling when Newton developed his model. How they fell didn't change with Einstein.

///__science was some nonsense in antiquity

 

Science included things like aether, alchemy together with other nonsensical components.

 

See 'age of enlightenment'.

 

 

 

///__what is represented was also updated

You are giving weak, dishonest responses, perhaps due to emotional bias betwixt the the word god.

 

Gravity did not mean attractive force in early science. See work before Newton in the history of gravitation.

Religion & old gods were modern science in the oldendays. Nowadays science has new gods, new dogma.

 

Its funny that most of us atheists around here are not aetherists. But i suppose that some aetherists believe in God.

 

I thought that Newton created the word gravity, but perhaps he only invented its re-use (an earlier post said he didn't create the word).

 

An earlier post said that gravity is more sensible today (obviously referring to Einsteinian bending of space-time)(a joke).

 

An earlier post suggested that heavier things didn't fall faster. But surely a small object with the same mass as Earth would fall at 2g if next to Earth. But in a sense that post was correct -- if u drop objects they fall at the same rate, eg that-there small object & a feather would fall to Earth at the same rate (in vacuum). Technically, while falling to Earth, the feather would also fall to the small object faster than the small object falls to the feather (just thinking out loud).

 

This thread about gods (or the definition of gods)(or something) is mosty silly, yet it touches important (science) issues.

//__simply the original post updates god

 

Science updates things.

 

Science updated "gravity" from antiquity to modern account.

 

Science "forgot" to update gods.

 

There are modern probable causes of our cosmos.

 

But, god was established as cause in early science.

 

Now science remembers to update gods, with my intervention.

 

Please read the original post.

Edited February 28, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

//__god was an early part of science

And like others have concurred on this forum, and as is known via public data, god was an early part of science.

 

 

Nonsense. Science is a recent invention and has adopted a philosophy of methodological naturalism. So your god is not part of science, however much you might wish it.

 

 

 

//__gravity did not always mean attractive force

The word gravity existed before newton.

It was simply hijacked and adopted.

 

Gravity did not always mean attractive force.

 

That is just a bizarre inversion of the etymological fallacy.

 

Gravity has always existed even if the word "gravity" has changed its meaning. So the concept of gravity was a suitable subject for science.

 

Your god has never existed (or at least never provided any evidence of its existence) and so has never been a suitable subject for science.

 

 

 

I am an atheist, and skeptic, so I came here to uncover errors in the process.

 

In what process?

 

You are strangely obsessed with god for an atheist.

 

 

 

///__science was some nonsense in antiquity

 

Science included things like aether, alchemy together with other nonsensical components.

 

Science didn't exist in antiquity.

 

Science never included any of those things. OK, the aether was briefly hypothesised but rapidly excluded from science.

 

 

 

Gravity did not mean attractive force in early science.

 

Stop repeating such idiotic and irrelevant statements.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Science didn't exist in antiquity.

 

Science never included any of those things. OK, the aether was briefly hypothesised but rapidly excluded from science.

 

 

//__you are contradicting yourself

 

Science existed in antiquity. You ironically agreed that aether existed (however briefly you claimed) and so aether (including other nonsense such as alchemy) existed.

 

So your statement science did not exist in antiquity was nonsense.

Edited February 28, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

//_you are contradicting yourself

 

 

But at least I spotted it before you did. Maybe it was deliberate to make a point. Maybe it went over your head.

 

And at least I don't keep posting the same thing with moronic colouring and random punctuation.

 

Do you think that preceding statements with "//__" makes it look arty or more intelligent?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

But at least I spotted it before you did. Maybe it was deliberate to make a point. Maybe it went over your head.

 

And at least I don't keep posting the same thing with moronic colouring and random punctuation.

 

Do you think that preceding statements with "//__" makes it look arty or more intelligent?

//__self contradictory

If you spotted the self contradiction, it is odd that you expressed those contradictory items.

 

I begin statements as headers with //, if an expression exceeds one sentence.

 

 

 

//__I can refer to the scientific process of redefining god while maintaining my athletic state

 

 

I am the inventor of a phenomenon called 'non beliefism'.

 

As such I have zero beliefs.

 

Furthermore one need not belief to observe science.

 

 

As I lack belief in all quantities, I am atheistic.

Edited February 28, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Oh, this is unacceptable. Jordan, you go somewhere else and start a blog, this is a science discussion forum. Sorry to everyone this went on for two pages. Thread closed.