LordReed:


I am not equating the Von Neumann machine to god.

My question again, how are you convinced it is a who as opposed to a what.

A Von Neumann machine is an example of a what.

Besides it doesn't even matter if it is created, the question still stands.

DrLiveLogic:

You know for something as important as your existence, the bolded is quite a risky speculation. We have been provided with reason on earth for a guide, so you should be willing to establish this by reason. What if you are required by god to find out your purpose by deeper introspection and careful contemplation beyond what is readily available on the surface and all you've done now is look on the surface and blame god for leaving no trail. Afterall, the greatest resources in nature are formed under the earth and not on its surface.

jamesid29:

No sir, you placed it as another good speculation of a god.

And I've pointed you to our previous conversation on why God is personal(that conversation is a good place to start) and I believe DrLiveLogic has also given his views from a logic and philosophical standpoint.
The question now is why do you believe it's a what? How are you parsing the data? And what are your likely candidates for a what?

Has our previous discussion, Von Neumann machine is not a good example of a what. Can you give another type of what that can fit the bill.

It does matter sir, if not this won't be a hot topic in the sciences.

LordReed:


You conflating 2 different types of scenarios. In the gravity case, it is well evidenced what the effects of gravity are on a falling body. On the other hand the conservation of matter has no evidence linking it to any sort of intelligence or God being. The 2 are not the same. Your speculation carries no evidence so it remains a speculation.

DrLiveLogic:


Well, would we say you're coming home now though still contradicting yourself somewhat, perhaps why you think I'm conflating, which is actually the other way round.
Now, If as you have agreed, we can project with the law of gravity and ascertain our thought experiments simply because gravity is 'well evidenced', we can as well project with the CoE which also is a well evidenced law and even an axiom.
You have heard the saying, you can't give what you don't have. Well the truism of such statements is never questionable and it is simply a derivative/adaptation of CoE.
If so, then it should be undeniable that a being cannot create intelligence or any property at all it doesn't already possess. If a robot possesses intelligence and communication property, it is by all means, because the human that created possesses such intelligence and communication else it couldn't give it such. A sitting rock, contrarily, can never create a robot. It has not such advanced intelligence in itself and can't give what it doesn't have.
Therefore, projecting with CoE the thought conception of god, we can ascertain this god possesses all human ability and maybe more. So a who or what god depends on what you call a human created by god.
If you cannot be convinced by CoE and it's logic that god must have intelligence and every human ability in himself, though anyone at all who would go for logic should already have accepted the logicality, then I would take it that logic and the scientific method wouldn't do for you and maybe would prefer some other method which you are also free to demand and if I have any other, I might offer.
Also remember that this thread is tailored for any questions about god and his creation that might not be clearly understood.

LordReed:

I used a Von Neumann machine as a possibility because it is just as speculative as a god.

I am not interested in giving examples of a what because that is not what the question is about.

What I think it is is irrelevant right now because the question is focused on why you think it is a personal being.

Neither you or DrLiveLogic have answered the question instead you both are dancing around it. The answer I expect would be in the form: I am convinced it's a personal being because of evidence A, B and C and it's not a what because of evidence D, E and F. You guys are just coming up with stuff that completely misses the point.

Only scientists who believe in a god argue that only an uncreated being can originate the universe, other scientists know that investigation beyond Planck time during the big bang at this point is merely speculative/hypothetical. How you are certain it is a personal being is the bone of contention.

LordReed:


In other words you believe man was created 6,000 years ago?

Acehart:


The doesn’t sound like an engineer’s question. Are you an artisan (the type people call engineer because of a hand tool) or a real engineer?

LordReed:


What you don't seem to grasp is you are already assuming the god before you've provided evidence that the god is there. Its like a detective coming on a murder scene in a kitchen, a bloody knife on the floor. He then says if the cook did it the cook will use a kitchen knife, here is a kitchen knife therefore the cook did it. He has not tested the knife for the cook's fingerprint, he has not established that the cook was in the vicinity, he has not even established that the owners of the kitchen even employ a cook. He is speculating and very heavily so. You are in similar position, you've assumed an answer already and are plugging in the data to fit your answer.

Conservation of Energy only works in a closed system how have established that the system you are referring to is closed? Conservation of Energy refers to energy, how have you established that energy is analogous to a disembodied being? You can't just assume your answer and tell me you proved it.

OtemAtum:
Speculation as how? Can what is made do what it is not made for? Can a computer program made to calculate 2+2 be used for driving a car at the same time? I am made with a specific code and specific instructions and I can't do anything that is not within the codes and instructions. I am performing God in my own way, same as you do and same as everything in Existence does. So where is the speculations coming from?

DrLiveLogic:

Then I suggest you change your definition of speculation.
Something isn't a speculation if it has the words "if...then" as long as there is a law upholding it. It's only speculation if there isn't such law.
If I pushed you off a high cliff without any impediments surrounding it and any external influence, then you would free fall to the ground at the acceleration of gravity and not float in the air. This is no speculation because law of gravity supports it and we don't need to act it out to know, it is a fact even as a thought experiment that will never happen.
Once again, I have given you by the law of conservation of matter, proof of god's innate ability of communication and intelligence. We should move on then to how he expects us to relate with him, if you wish to know or whatever else you would rather know about him. The latter is more the purpose of this thread you know.


I think I have done jamesid29 the honor.


@ the bolded is what I called speculation because you have provided no proof to ascertain this. How can we know for sure and by reason, that you indeed are doing this already and not deceived, remembering also my analogy of the underground resources of nature.

jamesid29:

No sir, a Von Neumann machine is not as speculative as a god because it doesn't fit the bill.

Then it's no longer conversation. In my experience, to hold a meaningful conversation both sides have to hold certain positions they are willing to share and grapple with.


Actually what you think is very relevant for this to be a real conversation. Hence why I was asking what your goal was? It's only at a trial one side has to proof something and the other side has to just present doubt.


Well so far sir, it seems to me you are the one making the conversation circular. I've told you to read our previous conversation on why I believe what I believe and I believe you've done that.
https://www.nairaland.com/5908237/story-gods-great-lonliness#90493221

So far you've made only two comments on it. 1) You gave an example of a possible "what", but I think we are both in agreement that wouldn't suffice, and I'm waiting for you to give another possible "what" that can suffice as a self existent thing that is capable of creating a universe with similar constraints as ours. That way we can evaluate both positions and see if this "what" can suffice as creator for our constrained universe just as a "who".
2)You made comments about the initial constraints that I attribute to a mind in my other post, and I mentioned that you were parsing the information incorrectly by your comments. Here also I would like to know how you parse this physical constants and the other versions of the antropic principle from your viewpoint so we can evaluate how it stacks up against what I posited.
So far sir,From my vantage point,it seems to me you've been the one making this conversation circular by either backtracking on things you've said or by side stepping certain aspects of this conversation. I could be wrong but that's how it appears to me.


Well that is not true sir. Our inability to precisely know what happened beyond the Planck time does not negate whether the universe is created or not. Hence why many in the sciences are trying to come up with different theorems of how the universe came to be as it is like the many-world theorems, the bubble universe, different iterations of the cyclic universe and so on. The bone of contention in the sciences is to have a theory of everything, that unifies gravity with the other fundamentally forces at a quantum level and have better understanding of what would have been when all the fundamental forces where one. It's hypothesized that the inflationary period was triggered by the separation of gravity from the other fundamental forces. This are things that become clearer as scientists continue to study black holes.
Like I said in the other thread where we had these conversation,as long as we have an inflationary big bang model as our theory of how the universe got started then the implication is that, this universe, this particular one we are part of has a beginning and is not eternal. Even with the inflationary big bang model ,it's still anybody's best guess what exactly happened at some of the earliest moments of the universe around the10^-36 seconds(that's like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds) and 10^-32 seconds, i.e like what started the inflation? Is it still ongoing today, constantly spitting out pocket universes with ours being on of those universes? what stopped it at the 10^-32 secs when normal expansion took over? Or if the universe started out as pure space? But what we do know is this particular universe didn't exist in a steady state.
Now what can never be detected by scientific means not even with a million years,thus can never know through scientific means is anything that has no causal relationship with our universe. This is where we use logic, philosophy and basic rational as intelligent beings to parse the information we have within our universe and about ourselves to make inference about whether it's a who or a what that started this whole shabang. That is the bone of contention.
Like I said in the other thread where we had this conversation, The whole point of gathering evidence is to narrow down our assumptions.

So there are a couple of things we know at moment with a moderate dose of certainty.
This particular universe we are part of has a beginning, This universe has fixed laws, This universe appears to be fine-tuned for intelligent life and The initial cause has to be outside space-time itself from our perspective.

I've shared a bit on how I parse this data from a Christain point of view on the previous thread we had, I would like to know how you parse this same data from your perspective. We might not agree but atleast I get to see where you are coming from and we can pick up from there.

DrLiveLogic:


You really need to read slowly what I'm giving to you. You seem to be shooting stray bullets and deviating totally from the logic on ground. This sometimes can be as a result of our lens reflective of an assumed bias.
Have you realised yet that your detective illustration is way off our method although it can be reordered to model it.
You see, only a foolish and unskilled detective can think that the cook must use a knife to kill when there are a million ways to murder. Surely such a person could never have made it to such a stately office. Let us now remodel your Illustration realistically and logically.
What you are playing now is that detective who sees the bloodied knife and still cannot assert that a being having blood must have come in contact with this knife but maintains that unless we saw with our eyes that very being, we have to remain unassertive (in this case taking blood as intelligence and the knife "having" blood as a human should help you see)
It is also as good as going into the forest, seeing an abandoned, well designed and furnished cottage and not being able to tell that a human must have been here at some point, speculating rather it could have as well been just the elements or some forest wildlife that put together such a design. You can also apply this to a dilapidated factory found in the woods.
You wouldn't do that in real life, I trust. Because we inherently know that every design is reflective of the designer's intelligence and a design can in no way be of greater intelligence than the designer.
Back @OP, to see a robot is to immediately assert that a human or a being as intelligent or more than a robot exists and is responsible for it. To also see intergalactic systems designed intelligently as well as human anatomy laden with intelligence, even the humans themselves being given intelligence is to immediately assert that a being of greater or equal intelligence to the humans and intergalactic systems is responsible. This is consistent with CoE and only a newborn or retarded will be unable to assert this. I know from our convo that you do not fall into either of these categories.
That the designer of humans possesses at least equal or greater than human intelligence is an axiom we must begin from and begin to question what follows, this is what I am hoping to give answers to. And as I said before, you do not have to accept logic if it wouldn't satisfy you, there are other ways to assert the existence of a creator.



Following your logic then, a computer infected with a virus that damaged it's OS is doing what the manufacturer intended?

LordReed:

...

https://www.nairaland.com/1412636/non-christian-chatbox-sticky/214#91759275...

OtemAtum:
Speculation as how? Can what is made do what it is not made for? Can a computer program made to calculate 2+2 be used for driving a car at the same time? I am made with a specific code and specific instructions and I can't do anything that is not within the codes and instructions. I am performing God in my own way, same as you do and same as everything in Existence does. So where is the speculations coming from?

DrLiveLogic:

Following your logic then, a computer infected with a virus that damaged it's OS is doing what the manufacturer intended?

OtemAtum:
God the creator does not have a parallel or an equal, so nobody can infect the codes of God with virus. The computer programmers of the earth have equals who can infect their codes with viruses, not God.

Bacteriologist:
Hugh the numerously debunked watchmaker arguement again. *eye roll*

DrLiveLogic:

Not circumspect enough. God as omnipotent can definitely create beings of less status than himself and if he creates these beings by strata, then the ones in a higher strata can influence those in the lower strata. If all these beings are given freewill by God to choose to serve him or not, then the higher ranks that choose not to serve him may create a virus that affects the lower ranks that choose not to serve him and there would go your logic that all creatures are secure from infection? So how can you prove you're not already infected?

OtemAtum:
This your god that needs servitude is not what I know to be God Almighty. You're actually talking about religious gods. I'm talking about God Almighty, being the Totality of Existence. There's nothing like servitude as regards this God Almighty, which is the TOTALITY OF EXISTENCE.

DrLiveLogic:

First off, I didn't say that was my god but I'm proposing possibilities to be considered. Second, let's give definitions so we're on the same page.
We can eliminate the word servitude and say "doing what you were programmed to do" is what I mean. Also a god that never gave freewill is obviously the one that believes in servitude. So if we're eliminating servitude, we must include freewill.
So tell me, isn't it possible you're no longer doing what you're programmed to do if you got infected?

OtemAtum:
What brings the infections? For anything to bring the infection, then such a thing is an equivalent of God the programmer. Since God has no equal and everything is made by God, how then is it possible for something to infect and change the way a being is programmed by God? Except maybe God has an exact opposite with same power and capabilities as itself. But there's no such things.

gensteejay:

All your logic on issues on this thread is not beyond the content of the Bible, a so-called perfect book that's filled with errors and contradictions.

I'm sure you've found a way to apply this same warped logic to justify the several acts of genocide, violence, destruction, and slavery that your god, Jehovah, a so-called merciful god committed against millions of humans, according to the Bible.

Gross deceit and manipulation.

DrLiveLogic:

(1Timothy 1: 5,19, 1 Timothy 3:9, Romans 2: 11, 14-15) I promise you, doing this will lead you along the line, if you never give up to a real undeniable encounter with whichever god is true and will bring his love to your soul saving you from all pains and burdens. Should you ever have any more questions, I'll be willing to offer my help.
Best wishes.

DrLiveLogic:


Again, this logic seems flawed. Only an infection equally or more powerful than god would amount to the creature responsible being equal to god. If the creator is greater than the creature, then god can undo the infection.
Ultimately what brings the infection is freedom in the freewill which was given to eliminate bondage of servitude. With freewill, there is then a choice to do according to program or choose an alternative which may cause an infection. So we can say rather, if anything can truly create an infection, it is truly free but if anything cannot possibly do, then it is truly bound in servitude. This is the more plausible definition of servitude.
So maybe god has an "alternative" but surely not an equal since he can always undo it.

OtemAtum:
That a first cause exists isn't the problem, but that the first cause is Jehovah, Allah, Moloch or any of these other puny gods out there is the crux of the matter. God Almighty is the totality of existence and it is an insult to the totality of existence when you handpick any of these riffraff creatures like Jehovah and Allah and call him God Almighty. It's a big slap on the face of nature to call dull religious gods God Almighty.
Science is an offshot of God Almighty (Totality of Existence) and the knowledge of science is far far greater than the knowledge of Jehovah, Allah and all other religious gods combined.

VLTA:


"For by Him(Jesus, the Son of God Almighty who came to die for our sins) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things CONSIST.


" For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

gensteejay:

All your logic on issues on this thread is not beyond the content of the Bible, a so-called perfect book that's filled with errors and contradictions.

I'm sure you've found a way to apply this same warped logic to justify the several acts of genocide, violence, destruction, and slavery that your god, Jehovah, a so-called merciful god committed against millions of humans, according to the Bible.

Gross deceit and manipulation.

OtemAtum:
As earlier stated, the program of God cannot be undone. Freewill or no freewill, a being is still expressing the things within its source codes and cannot do out of it. All beings are parts of God Almighty and we express God Almighty in our own capacities. There's nothing like infection from any external thing, since what is called God is the TOTALITY of Existence.

DrLiveLogic:


Welcome aboard.
Please note that the OP is not about the bible which you have now introduced but focused rather on creation, a universal contact point with the creator. I am of the opinion that creation alone without any aid can testify about the creator. So let's get back to logic, what exactly is your view and challenge on the creation and the creator. You could read through my posts in the thread and critique too. We would base all here on simple reason and logic.





Are you saying I cannot choose to jump down a cliff all by myself? Are you also saying if I do, the only possible outcome is what is in the mind of god?
Again, when you say "freewill or not", are you recognizing the existence of freewill but its impotence to effect against the will of the creator or are you denying the existence of freewill?

Again, will you then say that if god is behind all actions taken, then it is his will to cause all consequent mayhem as in our experience?

OtemAtum:
You can jump down a cliff at will, but if you did, then it is part of the grand scheme. It is already within the Code of your existence right from the origin. As I earlier emphasized, every being and everything is a part of God Almighty, so whatever you do is not out of the scheme.

DrLiveLogic:


What will you say about the following?
a.) Going by your proposition, your will then is passive and nonexistent. It cannot be a force but is only acted on by god's source codes. The only existing will is that behind all source codes.
b.) You therefore have no freewill and not free but only a slave.
c.) Your god then believes only in servitude, not freedom and yet you just said you don't. You did not will to jump off the cliff but were only programmed to.
d.) I tell you your belief is wrong and that must be god acting through me. You say you're right and it is the same god acting through you. Your god obviously exists in the principle of contradictions. Hence every single effect and it's contradiction should exist in your god, if he is the totality of existence.
e.) But he only manifests servitude in you and I but has never manifested freedom. He has failed here in his active principle of contradiction.
f.) Is this because freedom, the opposite of servitude, is too great for your god that he cannot manifest it in his existing principle of contradiction? He therefore is not the totality of existence.
g.) As a perfect balance of contradictions, your god himself is therefore non-existent as opposing forces/principles must cancel themselves out.
h.)Every effect in the universe based on a passive creation is therefore directly due to god. The idea of creation was then pointless. You and I exist for nothing. your god was silly to create us in the first place if we can effect nothing.
i.) Do not forget that you have yet to show the impossibility of my initial proposition thus far about god's granting of freewill with all the consequences but only suggested yours which now cancels itself out

OtemAtum:


The problem with your understanding is that you don't know what God Almighty is. Okay let me tell you in this way, God Almighty is the TOTALITY of Existence. More like saying God Almighty is the whole of a being, while we are the bodyparts. For example, if God Almighty is you while you are the right hand, I am the left hand, Jehovah is the anus while Allah is the beards. Do the hands, the legs, etc bother about not having freewill when we all function together as God Almighty? We function as the bodyparts of God Almighty. We ARE THE GOD ALMIGHTY ITSELF.

Now again, everything in existence sums up as God Almighty and this summation is a great energy source that can change from one form to another.

DrLiveLogic:


This isn't coherent. If we are all part of God, can you show what part then is responsible for the source code?
This part then will be the only intelligence and no other part will have any intelligence?
Also this universe as we know it is not a constant state but is always morphing into changing states. This would then make god not a constant but ever changing himself. How then can we define god - as a variable?
Also the models we've developed of the universe show a starting point for it and a possible end point. Does this god then have an endpoint/self destruct and a starting point?