jamesid29:

I'll much rather point you to conversations between people who are PhD level scientific and hold this difference in viewpoint and you can watch them trash it out if you don't mind. The first one is an actual conversation between the two differing viewpoints with questions from other scientists, the other is more of a talk on why the creator is a personal being.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZPDIkTpezg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3do_Pp-dQ4

While it is good to consider what they have to say I am much more interested in knowing why you think so. What convinces you there is a who and not a what behind all of this.

LordReed:


While it is good to consider what they have to say I am much more interested in knowing why you think so. What convinces you there is a who and not a what behind all of this.

Well I hold similar viewpoint to the person arguring for a personal creator and I believe we've had a bit of this conversation on another thread. https://www.nairaland.com/5908237/story-gods-great-lonliness#90493221 and you can find other of my conversations with other people on my page.

Besides it's makes whole lot of difference when you can you can see two people with very deep understanding of the subject matter parsing it from two very distinct viewpoints. Atleast it does for me.

Incase you are wondering if it's some religious propaganda. One of the speakers is coming from an atheistic viewpoint and the conversation was held by the atheist society

jamesid29:

Well I hold similar viewpoint to the person arguring for a personal creator and I believe we've had a bit of this conversation on another thread. https://www.nairaland.com/5908237/story-gods-great-lonliness#90493221 and you can find other of my conversations with other people on my page.

Besides it's makes whole lot of difference when you can you can see two people with very deep understanding of the subject matter parsing it from two very distinct viewpoints. Atleast it does for me.

Incase you are wondering if it's some religious propaganda. One of the speakers is coming from an atheistic viewpoint and the conversation was held by the atheist society

The premise of that conversation is different.

LordReed:


The premise of that conversation is different.

But the science and the rationale are still the same. If you continue to read down, I believe I touched on one or two of the reasons why I believe the creator is personal.

Besides, the best way of grappling with complex concepts that can be viewed from different angles is to listen to conversations of people with deep understanding of the subject parsing it out from opposite sides. You might not agree with either of them but atleast you are not getting an asymmetric information.

LordReed:


One I am willing to have.

The question is would such discussion lead you to a change of action? If not, then what would be the point? Your answer to that will determine if we should engage. Also, are you gonna want to find out how to relate with this god practically afterwards? if not, why not?

LordReed:


How do you its a who and not a what?

thanks jamesid29 for your link though I'm yet to watch. But I think many really tend to deviate from the essentials when it comes to discussions on god. The question on whether it's a who or what really falls in the non-essentials. I think it's all relative to the speaker's lingo but is nevertheless an objective fact.
Take the human-robot creation chain for instance. Many would call a human a "who" and a robot a "what" while some might still call the robot a "who".
All that doesn't really matter as much as the fact that the created intelligence by law of energy conservation can be no more a personality or intelligence than the creator of that created else something has been added to the initial material constant.
So also, if you call yourself a who, what created you must be either at least a who or greater than a who, if he left something of himself out of your makeup. And whatever you're capable of must only be equal or less than what your creator is capable of.
So if you can reason and communicate, then your creator must do at least that much and possibly more.

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.

So do you know who this God Almighty is then or how to arrive at this knowledge? Do you also know how to ascertain that you're doing what this God requires of you in your fleeting time on earth.

Judybash93:


My point is, the writer seems to be very sure that it is God who created everything, what if that's not the case? Do you see evidence of design in a rock?
Moreover, choosing to believe that God designed everything is like saying oh yes, humans survive by breathing in carbon dioxide without proof and trying so hard to defend the claim without really coming to a conclusion as to how he/she came to that conclusion. We scrutinize everything except religion. Do you believe that paracetamol can cure HIV? Do you believe that the earth is flat? If your answers are no, then why?

This is a diversion yet it does nothing to dispel the fact of a god. The rock is simply a lower intelligence. Yet the fact that rock formation as well as for all other relief comes under defined constant principles and not haphazardly still shows there is intelligence behind its existence.
Then again, why digress to these lower intelligences when the OP focuses on higher intelligences like your own self. Can you say you are a random existence with all your meticulously designed genetic coding or even with the brain you were given for reasoning indicating that your creator obviously has such brain.
And then to the popular question of which is the true god. I think that's why we were given intelligence and I believe that in the intelligence he gave us, he must have left his trail even without any religious books. The real question is will you dutifully follow the trail or are you just here to wish away his existence?

DrLiveLogic:

So do you know who this God Almighty is then or how to arrive at this knowledge? Do you also know how to ascertain that you're doing what this God requires of you in your fleeting time on earth.

Yes I know what God Almighty is. It is the Totality of Existence.
What I do and what I won't do are already ingrained in me by default. What I am doing already and what I will do after is what I'm here to do. There's no general assignment given to anyone by God(the Totality of Existence).

DrLiveLogic:


The question is would such discussion lead you to a change of action? If not, then what would be the point? Your answer to that will determine if we should engage. Also, are you gonna want to find out how to relate with this god practically afterwards? if not, why not?

If the only reason you want to have a conversation is to win then you are not ready.

thanks jamesid29 for your link though I'm yet to watch. But I think many really tend to deviate from the essentials when it comes to discussions on god. The question on whether it's a who or what really falls in the non-essentials. I think it's all relative to the speaker's lingo but is nevertheless an objective fact.
Take the human-robot creation chain for instance. Many would call a human a "who" and a robot a "what" while some might still call the robot a "who".
All that doesn't really matter as much as the fact that the created intelligence by law of energy conservation can be no more a personality or intelligence than the creator of that created else something has been added to the initial material constant.
So also, if you call yourself a who, what created you must be either at least a who or greater than a who, if he left something of himself out of your makeup. And whatever you're capable of must only be equal or less than what your creator is capable of.
So if you can reason and communicate, then your creator must do at least that much and possibly more.

So basically you are speculating.

LordReed:


If the only reason you want to have a conversation is to win then you are not ready.



So basically you are speculating.

I'm actually more disposed to avoiding the convo if we would arrive at a logical conclusion that would not lead to a derived action because logically that would be a waste of time. If you can convince me of the irrationality of my OP, then I am willing to change my course of action but are you for vice-versa.
Are scientists speculating when they follow universal laws? If not there is no speculation in what I wrote up there as it is clearly derived from the law of conservation of energy.

OtemAtum:

Yes I know what God Almighty is. It is the Totality of Existence.
What I do and what I won't do are already ingrained in me by default. What I am doing already and what I will do after is what I'm here to do. There's no general assignment given to anyone by God(the Totality of Existence).

Can you prove either of this or is it just another speculation of yours you tell yourself to keep happy.

DrLiveLogic:


I'm actually more disposed to avoiding the convo if we would arrive at a logical conclusion that would not lead to a derived action because logically that would be a waste of time. If you can convince me of the irrationality of my OP, then I am willing to change my course of action but are you for vice-versa.
Are scientists speculating when they follow universal laws? If not there is no speculation in what I wrote up there as it is clearly derived from the law of conservation of energy.


Can you prove either of this or is it just another speculation of yours you tell yourself to keep happy.

Have you heard of Energy as neither being created nor can be destroyed before? The summation of all energies in existence is GOD ALMIGHTY. If God Almighty needs me to do other things different from what I'm doing and what I'll do in the future, then it means that it probably forgot to ingrain it in my source code originally, then God is flawed.

DrLiveLogic:


I'm actually more disposed to avoiding the convo if we would arrive at a logical conclusion that would not lead to a derived action because logically that would be a waste of time. If you can convince me of the irrationality of my OP, then I am willing to change my course of action but are you for vice-versa.
Are scientists speculating when they follow universal laws? If not there is no speculation in what I wrote up there as it is clearly derived from the law of conservation of energy.

My mission is not to convince you of anything. I asked why you are convinced so what I want is for you to tell me what it is that convinces you.

Scientists are following observable phenomenon, you are projecting from observed phenomenon to yet to be evidenced conclusions. What you are doing is speculation.

jamesid29:

But the science and the rationale are still the same. If you continue to read down, I believe I touched on one or two of the reasons why I believe the creator is personal.

Besides, the best way of grappling with complex concepts that can be viewed from different angles is to listen to conversations of people with deep understanding of the subject parsing it out from opposite sides. You might not agree with either of them but atleast you are not getting an asymmetric information.

From what I can see in that thread you believe its a who because of things like the physical constants. You do realise that those constants are relationships of observed phenomenon though, its not like someone looked and saw it written somewhere in the sky that g=9.8m/s², these are things men figured out. How you now derive a personal god out of it is what I am inquiring about. As far as been observed no person is formulating them, they are occurrances of nature. Also why do you think its a person as opposed to a Von Neumann machine for example?

festwiz:
There must be a great euphoria living bereft of logic.

Fascinating I must say.

Entertaining to be honest

Judybash93:


i don't have a problem with it whatsoever, I'm just really tired of people coming up with lazy conclusions when they can dig in order to find answers. There's water coming out a rock behind my house. Oh!! It's God... With that kind of mentality, anything can be God, i am God, the radioactive elements that are buried deep in the earth's crust is God. it's disturbing to see intelligent people come to a conclusion that someone who lived 3 thousand years ago came to.

Yes, it is foolish when most people see something that can’t be explained within the sphere of their limitations and they attribute such occurrences to “God”.

I assume that the ones whom you refer to as ‘intelligent people’ are people who have lived in the last century; and those who made conclusions thousands of years ago as ‘foolish’ ones.

Eskimos have lived in the attic for centuries and can differentiate snowflakes ❄️ with their bare eyes even before the microscopic was invented. Do you know that snowflakes have existed for millions of years and each snowflake of the billions that have fallen to the earth is symmetrical (almost perfectly) and each individual snowflake is unique (no two snowflake are alike and Eskimos can tell with their bare eyes)? Who carried out this perfect calculation for this six-sided phenomenon?

In March 2020, scientists found evidence that Earth was covered by a global ocean that turned the planet into a “water world” more than 3bn years ago. But we were told by someone from a ‘primitive race’ that this was so; did you believe? That ‘unintelligent’ one from a time long gone said a ‘super being’ gave him knowledge of this. Hasn’t science proved this in 2020, billions of years later? now, who then is unintelligent?

You may say that the world the Bible speaks of is not up to 3 billion years; the seven “days“ in the Book of Genesis is translated as “seven time-periods”. If you are familiar with programming of complex energy equations on Matlab or Mathematica, you would understand that term - it is a term used to define an array of time cycles or it is the duration of one cycle in a repeating event e.g one time-period (T1) may be set at 0s to 5000s; another time-period (T2) maybe set at 60000 min to 12exp60 min. However, in a programmers presentation, he never speaks of the length of the time period to his audience but he speaks about specific occurrences at certain times within time period. If God is a programmer, the summary we see in the creation picture is perfectly not out of place.

Yes, people may be lazy to find out the source of certain strange occurrences. The problem isn’t God’s but the people’s; laziness is never encouraged by God - He abhors it. Didn’t the Centurion at Jesus’ Cross attribute the strange occurrences of the darkness from noon to 3 o’clock - when the sun stopped shining; and the great earthquake that emanated from the Cross immediately Jesus stopped speaking, to God? But he was a pragmatic man, one whose qualities made him rise to such a position in Caesar’s army.

If you read the eleventh chapter of the Book of Hebrews in the Christian Bible, you would see that God doesn’t want people to acknowledge Him by figures and objects, but by reasoning -retrospective and introspective reasoning.

Please don’t blame God when people fail to reason. He is God all by Himself; and He needs no one to validate Him.

LordReed:


From what I can see in that thread you believe its a who because of things like the physical constants. You do realise that those constants are relationships of observed phenomenon though, its not like someone looked and saw it written somewhere in the sky that g=9.8m/s², these are things men figured out. How you now derive a personal god out of it is what I am inquiring about. As far as been observed no person is formulating them, they are occurrances of nature. Also why do you think its a person as opposed to a Von Neumann machine for example?

Well sir,I'm not sure you understand what these constants truly are and how they relate to our physical universe, because it seems you are parsing the information incorrectly. I believe there are some videos on the Fermilab institute's channel that are short but we'll articulated that dive into the topic.
There's a reason why the current ways of explaining them from a secular standpoint is mainly either to have an infinite number of universes or some iteration of a cyclic universe.


Secondly, I'm not sure why you would use a Von Neumann machine as a possible example, maybe because its sci-fi but at the very best it would only get us into circular reasoning and at worst it shouldn't even be in the conversation.

Thirdly sir, quick question. Are you more concerned about what the science actually says and how one can parse the data or you are more concerned about having a gotcha moment?

jamesid29:

Well sir,I'm not sure you understand what these constants truly are and how they relate to our physical universe, because it seems you are parsing the information incorrectly. I believe there are some videos on the Fermilab institute's channel that are short but we'll articulated that dive into the topic.
There's a reason why the current ways of explaining them from a secular standpoint is mainly either to have an infinite number of universes or some iteration of a cyclic universe.


Secondly, I'm not sure why you would use a Von Neumann machine as a possible example, maybe because its sci-fi but at the very best it would only get us into circular reasoning and at worst it shouldn't even be in the conversation.

Thirdly sir, quick question. Are you more concerned about what the science actually says and how one can parse the data or you are more concerned about having a gotcha moment?

Did you even watch video you linked, it was one of the objections raised.

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

I already stated it before so I don't know why you are asking again. I what to know why you think its a who and not a what. If you think I am looking to trip you up then you need to deal with your paranoia.

Acehart:



In March 2020, scientists found evidence that Earth was covered by a global ocean that turned the planet into a “water world” more than 3bn years ago. But we were told by someone from a ‘primitive race’ that this was so; did you believe? That ‘unintelligent’ one from a time long gone said a ‘super being’ gave him knowledge of this. Hasn’t science proved this in 2020, billions of years later? now, who then is unintelligent?

So the biblical flood was 3billion years ago? You have evidence that men existed on earth 3billion years ago?

LordReed:


So the biblical flood was 3billion years ago? You have evidence that men existed on earth 3billion years ago?

Sorry dude. I was referring to Genesis 1:1-2, not the Noah’s flood.

OtemAtum:
Have you heard of Energy as neither being created nor can be destroyed before? The summation of all energies in existence is GOD ALMIGHTY. If God Almighty needs me to do other things different from what I'm doing and what I'll do in the future, then it means that it probably forgot to ingrain it in my source code originally, then God is flawed

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.

LordReed:

My mission is not to convince you of anything. I asked why you are convinced so what I want is for you to tell me what it is that convinces you.
Scientists are following observable phenomenon, you are projecting from observed phenomenon to yet to be evidenced conclusions. What you are doing is speculation.

I would assume you understand the scientific method. The scientific method involves trying to establish reliable laws from observable phenomena. The aim is to establish laws upon which scientific systems are built. These laws once discovered are taken as constants within their operating environments. They don't change with time and to build on/project using these laws is never speculation but always certainty.
So once again, I have answered your question using the law of conservation of matter and it is no speculation then.
Sufficient as that is, I can actually tell you how I myself know apart from physical logic, if you accept that. But it is only mystical and you may not accept it as much as you may not accept what is written in a bible.

StrikeBack:
Entertaining to be honest

You could have critiqued the OP if there was any falsehood in it but I take there isn't, logically speaking.

LordReed:


Did you even watch video you linked, it was one of the objections raised.

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

I actually haven't watched the video in a long time but I chose it because I wasn't up for a long drawn out conversation but wanted to point you to something that was somewhat neutral at a high level.

I'm not sure what the other person's reply was but I'm pretty sure he must have been taken aback because like I said at the very best you get a circular reasoning. A Von Neumann machine by definition is a created thing and needs a mind or atleast something outside of itself to create it. So the next question is who/what created it and the possible reply would be another Von Neumann created it, then another who/what created it and a possible reply would be another Von Neumann machine etc so effectively you have to get to a who/what created the first Von Neumann machine which cannot be a Von Neumann machine and you are back to the question of God or worst case scenario an infinite regression and if you have an infinite regression of causes then nothing can actually begin in the first place. Hence why its really not a good argument to start with.

I already stated it before so I don't know why you are asking again. I what to know why you think its a who and not a what. If you think I am looking to trip you up then you need to deal with your paranoia

Well, that escalated quickly.

Acehart:


Sorry dude. I was referring to Genesis 1:1-2, not the Noah’s flood.

Ok so men were created 3billion years ago?

jamesid29:

I actually haven't watched the video in a long time but I chose it because I wasn't up for a long drawn out conversation but wanted to point you to something that was somewhat neutral at a high level.

I'm not sure what the other person's reply was but I'm pretty sure he must have been taken aback because like I said at the very best you get a circular reasoning. A Von Neumann machine by definition is a created thing and needs a mind or atleast something outside of itself to create it. So the next question is who/what created it and the possible reply would be another Von Neumann created it, then another who/what created it and a possible reply would be another Von Neumann machine etc so effectively you have to get to a who/what created the first Von Neumann machine which cannot be a Von Neumann machine and you are back to the question of God or worst case scenario an infinite regression and if you have an infinite regression of causes then nothing can actually begin in the first place. Hence why its really not a good argument to start with.

Maybe your should watch it again.

Is not any different from speculating a god did because the question still arises and your answer is to merely assert that your god was not created. Not a very good argument either.

Well, that escalated quickly.

You don't think constantly questioning my understanding or my motives is an escalation? You are constantly indulging in ad hominems but that's not escalation for you.

DrLiveLogic:

I would assume you understand the scientific method. The scientific method involves trying to establish reliable laws from observable phenomena. The aim is to establish laws upon which scientific systems are built. These laws once discovered are taken as constants within their operating environments. They don't change with time and to build on/project using these laws is never speculation but always certainty.
So once again, I have answered your question using the law of conservation of matter and it is no speculation then.
Sufficient as that is, I can actually tell you how I myself know apart from physical logic, if you accept that. But it is only mystical and you may not accept it as much as you may not accept what is written in a bible.

This was your answer: All that doesn't really matter as much as the fact that the created intelligence by law of energy conservation can be no more a personality or intelligence than the creator of that created else something has been added to the initial material constant. It establishes nothing, it remains a speculation. I can as well say the same of any manner of creative agents that I can dream of, doesn't make my speculations established.

LordReed:


Maybe your should watch it again.

Is not any different from speculating a god did because the question still arises and your answer id to merely assert that your god was not created. Not a very good argument either.

There are other ways of speculating about God but a Von Neumann isn't really a good one. Like I said earlier, a Von Neumann is by definition something that is at some ultimate point created by a mind so it automatically leaves the realm of speculation as a god. For something to be speculated upon as a god, then it has to be self existing ,atleast from our point of reference for what existence means. So either the universe itself is self-existing or someone/something outside of it is self-existing. A Von Neumann machine by definition needs a mind at some ultimate point to begin to exist and needs space in which to exist in, so it by definition cannot fit the bill.
As for the question of who created God , I had a brief conversation with someone else here where I pointed out my take on how to parse it
https://www.nairaland.com/5903518/christians-not-afraid-atheists/1#90374839
You might not agree with it but thats the way it's being parsed in my mind.

You don't think constantly questioning my understanding or my motives is an escalation? You are constantly indulging in ad hominems but that's not escalation for you

Well for me it was odd that you were more interested in what I think over what experts in the field have to say, because I thought the premise of the conversation is to get accurate information on how to view the same data from different points. Atleast that's how it sounded to me when you initially quoted me.

LordReed:


This was your answer: All that doesn't really matter as much as the fact that the created intelligence by law of energy conservation can be no more a personality or intelligence than the creator of that created else something has been added to the initial material constant.
It establishes nothing, it remains a speculation. I can as well say the same of any manner of creative agents that I can dream of, doesn't make my speculations established.

By the scientific method or by logic, it most certainly does. What we're saying is like this: a 1 cannot by itself create a 2 nor a 2 create a 3 but a 3 can by itself create a 1(three 1s together to be precise), a 2 and a 1 together or at most another 3 alone but of course never a 4. The 1 or 2 then, created from 3, can not possibly have more than what a 3 has.
So then, if intelligence is a 1 and matter another 1 together making up a human, then the creator of the human must be at least a 2 having both in itself or can even be greater, having another 1 to itself hence equal to a 3 itself or can be yet more ad infinitum. God then logically and not by any speculation has every human ability and prolly more and is most certainly at least a who or even a who+ if a human is a who.

LordReed:


Ok so men were created 3billion years ago?

If you're going by the bible, man was created about 6000 years ago i.e. 6 god days (2Peter 3:8,) but the earth is way older than man's existence (Gen1:1-2)

DrLiveLogic:

By the scientific method or by logic, it most certainly does. What we're saying is like this: a 1 cannot by itself create a 2 nor a 2 create a 3 but a 3 can by itself create a 1(three 1s together to be precise), a 2 and a 1 together or at most another 3 alone but of course never a 4. The 1 or 2 then, created from 3, can not possibly have more than what a 3 has.
So then, if intelligence is a 1 and matter another 1 together making up a human, then the creator of the human must be at least a 2 having both in itself or can even be greater, having another 1 to itself hence equal to a 3 itself or can be yet more ad infinitum. God then logically and not by any speculation has every human ability and prolly more and is most certainly at least a who or even a who+ if a human is a who.

This by definition is speculation. If this is that then that is this, that is speculation especially where no evidence is offered. You are not providing any evidence for what you are saying. I cannot investigate the reality of what you saying except as a thought experiment.

LordReed:


Ok so men were created 3billion years ago?

Please read the chapter following the chapter you quoted. I’d also like to know your field of study.

Acehart:


Please read the chapter following the chapter you quoted. I’d also like to know your field of study.

You mean the paragraph after? It doesn't answer my question.

I am an engineer, what does that have to do with anything?

LordReed:


This by definition is speculation. If this is that then that is this, that is speculation especially where no evidence is offered. You are not providing any evidence for what you are saying. I cannot investigate the reality of what you saying except as a thought experiment.

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.

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. Don't get stuck on the example. Besides it doesn't even matter if it is created, the question still stands.

I think I have done jamesid29 the honor.

OtemAtum:
No I don't blame God for leaving no trail. I have already told you that what God wants me to be and do is what I'm already doing and will do till I die. I am just and offshot of God Almighty and I perform my own part of God.

@ 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:

There are other ways of speculating about God but a Von Neumann isn't really a good one. Like I said earlier, a Von Neumann is by definition something that is at some ultimate point created by a mind so it automatically leaves the realm of speculation as a god. For something to be speculated upon as a god, then it has to be self existing ,atleast from our point of reference for what existence means. So either the universe itself is self-existing or someone/something outside of it is self-existing. A Von Neumann machine by definition needs a mind at some ultimate point to begin to exist and needs space in which to exist in, so it by definition cannot fit the bill.
As for the question of who created God , I had a brief conversation with someone else here where I pointed out my take on how to parse it
https://www.nairaland.com/5903518/christians-not-afraid-atheists/1#90374839
You might not agree with it but thats the way it's being parsed in my mind.

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. Don't get stuck on the example. Besides it doesn't even matter if it is created, the question still stands.

LordReed:


You mean the paragraph after? It doesn't answer my question.

I am an engineer, what does that have to do with anything?

I assume you have at least an MSc in engineering to understand the paragraph I spoke a bit on time periods in Euler Bernoulli(ish) energy equations programming. If you have a PhD, then it is piece of cake for you. You can let us speak about programming of any energy equation you are very conversant with and speak of the modeling of that equation you have ever engaged in.

There are seven time periods in Genesis chapter 1. Man was created in the sixth time period. I said in March this year, scientists has discovered that before the cycles of events leading to creation i.e. before the series of equations leading to creation were introduced, an equation already existed. To solve the previous equation, an analytical method of solution is employed - this is the case in Genesis 1:1-3 scenario. Later on, in creation, a numerical method of solution was employed in the succeeding verses, where we see six complete loops and a seventh incomplete loop.

If you are familiar with what I have said so far, you would know that the primary complex equation is greater than its divisions by a country mile. 3 billions years will fall into the purview of the analytical method of solution and man’s 6000 years will surely fall in the numerical method of solution.

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.

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.

Acehart:


I assume you have at least an MSc in engineering to understand the paragraph I spoke a bit on time periods in Euler Bernoulli(ish) energy equations programming. If you have a PhD, then it is piece of cake for you. You can let us speak about programming of any energy equation you are very conversant with and speak of the modeling of that equation you have ever engaged in.

There are seven time periods in Genesis chapter 1. Man was created in the sixth time period. I said in March this year, scientists has discovered that before the cycles of events leading to creation i.e. before the series of equations leading to creation were introduced, an equation already existed. To solve the previous equation, an analytical method of solution is employed - this is the case in Genesis 1:1-3 scenario. Later on, in creation, a numerical method of solution was employed in the succeeding verses, where we see six complete loops and a seventh incomplete loop.

If you are familiar with what I have said so far, you would know that the primary complex equation is greater than its divisions by a country mile. 3 billions years will fall into the purview of the analytical method of solution and man’s 6000 years will surely fall in the numerical method of solution.

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