Jump to content

Sam Harris (an atheist) says that God is possible/inevitable


Recommended Posts

I wanted to quickly share how an atheist such as Sam Harris, could validly express that a form of God is possible, and likely inevitable, all while still being an atheist.

Consider the following; especially item (3):

(1) I am an atheist.
 
(2) Beyond atheism, I lack belief in all things, and so I had come to invent a paradigm called 'non-beliefism'; so not surprisingly, I lack belief in all things, including God or Gods, as Sam Harris likewise demonstrates.
 
(3) God is observable in a scientific context, see source.  As such, "God" as observable in the scientific context presented, is compatible with atheism.

 

See minute 14:11 in the following video:

 

See minute 1:13  in the following video:

 

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Listen, please. You tried many times to defend this dumb non-beliefism garbage and couldn't do it. You've been told to stop bringing it up. It's plainly impossible not to believe in anything (sin

No, he didn't. He's quite obviously talking about AI and ML (machine learning). He's discussing the importance of setting their parameters correctly up front, of getting this right the first time

He does - you, however appear not to.

Listen, please. You tried many times to defend this dumb non-beliefism garbage and couldn't do it. You've been told to stop bringing it up.

It's plainly impossible not to believe in anything (since you have to believe these words are actually being read by you). You need to stop applying this broken, misinformed, incorrect assumption to everything you think about. Your ideas regarding this subject are baseless, undefendable, and meaningless. You need to stop bringing it up here or you're just going to get banned. I'm not saying this as a moderator, I'm saying this as a long time poster here. 

You don't just get to claim things are true here. You have to support your claims with evidence, which you have NEVER done to anyone's satisfaction. I'm telling you this because you seem sincere, but you also seem to have fixated on some bad, bad, wrong ideas that are driving you off a cliff in terms of your science education. We can't steer for you, you have to learn to turn the wheel and get back on track. You're obviously smart, I know you can do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Listen, please. You tried many times to defend this dumb non-beliefism garbage and couldn't do it. You've been told to stop bringing it up.

It's plainly impossible not to believe in anything (since you have to believe these words are actually being read by you). You need to stop applying this broken, misinformed, incorrect assumption to everything you think about. Your ideas regarding this subject are baseless, undefendable, and meaningless. You need to stop bringing it up here or you're just going to get banned. I'm not saying this as a moderator, I'm saying this as a long time poster here. 

You don't just get to claim things are true here. You have to support your claims with evidence, which you have NEVER done to anyone's satisfaction. I'm telling you this because you seem sincere, but you also seem to have fixated on some bad, bad, wrong ideas that are driving you off a cliff in terms of your science education. We can't steer for you, you have to learn to turn the wheel and get back on track. You're obviously smart, I know you can do this.

Contrary to your claim above:

(1) Science is true whether or not one chooses to believe in it.

(2) Scientific evidence (See cognitive paper on belief) shows that belief is contrary to science; belief typically enables beings to act absent evidence. (Fortunately, scientists tend to highly consider evidence... but the same can't be said for the remainder of humanity, as you will see in the paper)

(3) As such, (2) is true whether or not it satisfies your requirements; scientific evidence shows (2) is true regardless of your feelings.

(4) There is no event for which one must act in a manner that especially ignores evidence (i.e. believe) instead of applying scientific thinking, and thus one need not believe in anything.

 

 

FOOTNOTE:

Do you have anything to contribute to the original post, with respect to Sam Harris?

Note also, that non-beliefism is not the central topic at hand, but Sam's remarks instead.

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Listen, please. You tried many times to defend this dumb non-beliefism garbage and couldn't do it. You've been told to stop bringing it up.

It's plainly impossible not to believe in anything (since you have to believe these words are actually being read by you). You need to stop applying this broken, misinformed, incorrect assumption to everything you think about. Your ideas regarding this subject are baseless, undefendable, and meaningless. You need to stop bringing it up here or you're just going to get banned. I'm not saying this as a moderator, I'm saying this as a long time poster here. 

You don't just get to claim things are true here. You have to support your claims with evidence, which you have NEVER done to anyone's satisfaction. I'm telling you this because you seem sincere, but you also seem to have fixated on some bad, bad, wrong ideas that are driving you off a cliff in terms of your science education. We can't steer for you, you have to learn to turn the wheel and get back on track. You're obviously smart, I know you can do this.

Can we set up an automated thing that posts this in response to anything written by PGJ and then locks the thread. It would save everyone a lot of time in the long run. 

Or just ban him for being an obsessive monomaniac, which is indistinguishable from trolling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Can we set up an automated thing that posts this in response to anything written by PGJ and then locks the thread. It would save everyone a lot of time in the long run. 

Or just ban him for being an obsessive monomaniac, which is indistinguishable from trolling. 

My prior quote applies: 

Quote

Contrary to your claim above:

(1) Science is true whether or not one chooses to believe in it.

(2) Scientific evidence (See cognitive paper on belief) shows that belief is contrary to science; belief typically enables beings to act absent evidence. (Fortunately, scientists tend to highly consider evidence... but the same can't be said for the remainder of humanity, as you will see in the paper)

(3) As such, (2) is true whether or not it satisfies your requirements; scientific evidence shows (2) is true regardless of your feelings.

(4) There is no event for which one must act in a manner that especially ignores evidence (i.e. believe) instead of applying scientific thinking, and thus one need not believe in anything.

 

 

FOOTNOTE:

Do you have anything to contribute to the original post, with respect to Sam Harris?

Note also, that non-beliefism is not the central topic at hand, but Sam's remarks instead.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Do you have anything to contribute to the original post, with respect to Sam Harris?

No. Atheists don't all believe the same thing. And many don't discount a god, but embrace the null hypothesis of "We don't know". I fail to see why your cherry-picking of an atheist saying there is a non-zero chance of god(s) is meaningful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

No. Atheists don't all believe the same thing. And many don't discount a god, but embrace the null hypothesis of "We don't know". I fail to see why your cherry-picking of an atheist saying there is a non-zero chance of god(s) is meaningful. 

How did I supposedly cherry pick anything? 

Did you miss the links to the full videos (that I had presented) containing all of what Sam mentioned?

 

 

FOOTNOTE:

In particular it is notable that Sam, expressed that God is not only likely, but likely inevitable.

The above is beyond merely "not discounting God".

It is also notable that the God Sam refers to, is quite disparate from theistic description.

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Sam, expressed that God is not only likely, but likely inevitable.

No, he didn't.

He's quite obviously talking about AI and ML (machine learning). He's discussing the importance of setting their parameters correctly up front, of getting this right the first time (Max Tegmark is sharing similar warnings). Harris is saying that the work we're doing in AI must also cause us to rethink our current definitions of intelligence, especially since we're building systems that are so advanced and which are evolving so rapidly in competence that they could soon be described as god(s) in a poetic sense. 

Your assertions are rooted in a flawed premise, a misunderstanding of the evidence you yourself posted. Once you stop stripping the context from your video and review the message as intended, it says something very different than what you're claiming it says. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, iNow said:

I remain unconvinced. Is there evidence in support of this assertion?

My square wheel idea was brilliant, and proved how obviously smart I am. Square wheels solve so many pesky shipping problems for the tire industry, and when you drive it's like getting a shiatsu massage for free! Round wheels are responsible for people falling asleep at the wheel, and that will never happen with my square ones. It's an idea that makes a lot of sense, and I've spent years focused on trying to sell it. If only the hidebound round wheel users would just listen to my brilliance, instead of yammering on about how flawed the idea was to start with! All these years wouldn't have been wasted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, he didn't.

He's quite obviously talking about AI and ML (machine learning). He's discussing the importance of setting their parameters correctly up front, of getting this right the first time (Max Tegmark is sharing similar warnings). Harris is saying that the work we're doing in AI must also cause us to rethink our current definitions of intelligence, especially since we're building systems that are so advanced and which are evolving so rapidly in competence that they could soon be described as god(s) in a poetic sense. 

Your assertions are rooted in a flawed premise, a misunderstanding of the evidence you yourself posted. Once you stop stripping the context from your video and review the message as intended, it says something very different than what you're claiming it says. 

On the contrary, Sam unavoidably did mention that Gods are likely.

 

Also, recall:

(1) The source paper in the original post had long expressed of God, as it relates to Artificial Intelligence.

(2) The original post's source paper describes a possible way how Sam, an atheist, could assert that Gods are likely. (Pertinently, while still being atheistic to all Gods)

Quote

Sam Harris quote from videos: "We are building gods".

See minute 14:11 in the following video:

 

See minute 1:13  in the following video:

 

 

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your assertions are rooted in a flawed premise, a misunderstanding of the evidence you yourself posted. Once you stop stripping the context from your video and review the message as intended, it says something very different than what you're claiming it says. 

The problem is, when you are a monomaniac you interpret everything in terms of your own beliefs. As PGJ so reliably demonstrates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

The problem is, when you are a monomaniac you interpret everything in terms of your own beliefs. As PGJ so reliably demonstrates. 

How does a being (i.e. myself) that disregards the very concept of belief, supposedly engage in belief (given that belief is optional, and scientifically shown to contrast science?)

 

 

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

How does a being that disregards the very concept of belief, supposedly engage in belief (given that belief is optional, and scientifically shown to contrast science?)

 

You only believe you have no beliefs. But you are wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

On the contrary, Sam unavoidably did mention that Gods are likely.

He does not. He says he thinks "we're in the process of building some kind of god". That is FAR, FAR from saying "Gods are likely". 

You are exhibiting very poor critical thinking skills. You jump on semantics and redefine terms to suit your obsession. It's painful to watch, and I think I speak for most here when I say you have lost a key part of your perspective, and your idea will never help you build anything useful, because its foundation is seriously cracked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

He does not. He says he thinks "we're in the process of building some kind of god". That is FAR, FAR from saying "Gods are likely". 

You are exhibiting very poor critical thinking skills. You jump on semantics and redefine terms to suit your obsession. It's painful to watch, and I think I speak for most here when I say you have lost a key part of your perspective here, and your idea will never help you build anything useful, because its foundation is seriously cracked.

On the contrary:

(1) The source paper in the original post had long expressed of God, as it relates to Artificial Intelligence.

(2) The original post's source paper describes a possible way how Sam, an atheist, could assert that Gods are likely. (Pertinently, while still being atheistic to all Gods)

(3) Although Sam clearly mentions that "we will build Gods in boxes" (See minute 1:13, in video) I had long expressed that the type of God Sam refers to, is disparate from theistic description.

(4) The redefinition's foundation is not "cracked". Rather it is as science typically permits. Consider that astronomy was redefined such that astrology/mythology was purged. The God redefinition in the original post occurred in a similar manner.

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

On the contrary:

(1) The source paper in the original post had long expressed of God, as it relates to Artificial Intelligence.

So to support your idea, you're quoting your own writing about it as a source?! Isn't that like saying the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible?

This is just more of you claiming you're right just because you wrote it. Meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So to support your idea, you're quoting your own writing about it as a source?! Isn't that like saying the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible?

This is just more of you claiming you're right just because you wrote it. Meaningless.

The source consists of a novel redefinition of God, on the horizon of science.

Regardless of its author, the science in it persists.

 

FOOTNOTE:

Unfortunately, I can't continue this exchange now, for I shall depart for work.

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
Link to post
Share on other sites

@PGJ

Excuse me for going off-topic, but I wanted to briefly address what some have called your monomania.

It occurred to me that you are actually saying something very simple that many members would have no trouble agreeing with. Now I may be misinterpreting your intent, or the position of those members, but I think it's worth a punt.

All you are saying is that belief is faith based and therefore unsupportable. Acceptance of "reality" has to be based on evidence, which is the scientific approach. You don't believe anything, but you accept many things, when there is evidence to justify the acceptance. Is that it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Area54 said:

@PGJ

Excuse me for going off-topic, but I wanted to briefly address what some have called your monomania.

It occurred to me that you are actually saying something very simple that many members would have no trouble agreeing with. Now I may be misinterpreting your intent, or the position of those members, but I think it's worth a punt.

All you are saying is that belief is faith based and therefore unsupportable. Acceptance of "reality" has to be based on evidence, which is the scientific approach. You don't believe anything, but you accept many things, when there is evidence to justify the acceptance. Is that it?

Yes, it is as simple as the the website in my signature presents; non-beliefism disregards belief (and anything else that disregards science), because belief is a model that generally facilitates that beings especially ignore evidence. (as evidence shows)

We can employ scientific thinking, instead of belief, and thereafter, we may highly concern evidence.

I thank you for clearly observing my expressions, with respect to the evidence presented. 

 

FOOTNOTE:

Sam Harris is quite the atheist, as am I. What have you to say in relation to his expressions on "God"?

 

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder PGJ, if some of the difficulty and the hostility may lie in your phrasing. It is sometimes difficult to follow and this may have misled some members to misintrepret your words. If I may give an example:

2 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

We can employ scientific thinking, instead of belief, and thereafter, we may highly concern evidence

I this sentence, the phrase "we may highly concern evidence" is not grammatical. It is therefore difficult to understand. I think you have used it before and on those occassions I did not know what you meant by it. Now, because you have confirmed my overall understanding of your straightforward idea I believe you mean by it "we focus on evidence", or "we may make use of evidence [not belief]".

Just something for you to consider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My square wheel idea was brilliant, and proved how obviously smart I am.

Square wheels that work actually exist: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=SQUARE+SHARK+WHEELS

They're a kind of skateboard wheel. The link above links to some youtube search results. Check it out, I'm not joking.

Edited by Thorham
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.