Philosophy Now Forum

Mount SINAI....SIN AI?

Absolute nonsense and quoting John Keats... from all historical accounts he was so far away from reality romping in the woods plucking flowers for his muse....... this post is nonsensical, it suggests to me beyond reasonable doubt there is no god.

Notvacka wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Notvacka wrote:God is supposed to be the creator of our physical universe (reality). In order to create reality, God must exist outside reality. Simple, really.

i.e. For god to create the universe, god cannot exist.

That clears things up!

For the record (and those not familiar with our prvious debates) I'd like to point out that unlike Chaz I'm a theist. I choose to believe that God exists outside of physical reality. While Chaz equates reality with the whole of existence, I don't. My point is simply that the existence of God can't be proved or disproved from within reality.

Yes, and to make this completely clear; anything outside reality is not real. God is outside reality and therefore god is not real.
Once you figure that out you will also be the atheist that you deserve to be.

attofishpi wrote:

John Kelly wrote:[quote="chaz wyman] I can see why you might want to have a bit of fun with words, but what has that got to do with god?

Because god spelled backwards is dog.

[/quote]

No, you need to go one step further.... There is a saying that '..a mans best friend is a dog'
So what is God?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Dog is Love.

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:I can see why you might want to have a bit of fun with words, but what has that got to do with god?

So you missed the entire point of the project...that these words are unlikely to have formed through natural etymological means. That they were guided into there current form by a panentheistic God.

All of those words actually formed by simple etymology, and linguistic evolution.

He must be a pretty pathetic god to have to give his massage in such a dumb arsed way.

attofishpi wrote:Mount SINAI....SIN AI?

You are such an idiot sometimes.

Moron. MORE ON!!
get it?

chaz wyman wrote:All of those words actually formed by simple etymology, and linguistic evolution.
Highly unlikely when you look at the scale of it.

He must be a pretty pathetic god to have to give his message in such a dumb arsed way.
I've called 'IT' far worse.

You are such an idiot sometimes. Moron. MORE ON!! get it?
When a sage tells you "You're on." You better get ready for a nasty lesson. And yes, ive replied many times to said sage that he is a moron...and it just bites that little bit deeper.

In i quit y?

reasonemotion wrote:Absolute nonsense and quoting John Keats... from all historical accounts he was so far away from reality romping in the woods plucking flowers for his muse....... this post is nonsensical, it suggests to me beyond reasonable doubt there is no god.

If finding eternal love is being so far away from reality then shove your idea of reality in the dark crevasse of YOUR nonsensical mind.

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:All of those words actually formed by simple etymology, and linguistic evolution.
Highly unlikely when you look at the scale of it.

He must be a pretty pathetic god to have to give his message in such a dumb arsed way.
I've called 'IT' far worse.

You are such an idiot sometimes. Moron. MORE ON!! get it?
When a sage tells you "You're on." You better get ready for a nasty lesson. And yes, ive replied many times to said sage that he is a moron...and it just bites that little bit deeper.

In i quit y?

You are letting yourself down here.
Seriously.

chaz wyman wrote:You are letting yourself down here.
Seriously.

You are doing your usual copout here.
Seriously.

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You are letting yourself down here.
Seriously.

You are doing your usual copout here.
Seriously.

Okay, let's look at your proposition then!

You are saying that there are certain cryptic messages hidden in arbitrary similarities of words.
So is the god Pan trying to tell us to eat bread - or is that just a co-incidence?
Let's hear some evidence. Let's hear something concrete. Where is your analysis?

Notvacka wrote:

Mark Question wrote:

God can't exist in reality

you are telling to god what he can do? ok.

God is supposed to be the creator of our physical universe (reality). In order to create reality, God must exist outside reality. Simple, really.

That's one way of looking at it of course, but it could also be that it was the first consciousness, the only one there was (singularity), very lonely, and it decided to 'expand' into the greater being of what we now call the universe, so as to not be alone. Now within the minds of it's children, the smaller bits of it, it is entertained, as it is no longer a singularity!

chaz wyman wrote:Okay, let's look at your proposition then!

You are saying that there are certain cryptic messages hidden in arbitrary similarities of words.
So is the god Pan trying to tell us to eat bread - or is that just a co-incidence?
Let's hear some evidence. Let's hear something concrete. Where is your analysis?

We can both agree at the outset that i have nothing 'concrete'...beyond a reasonable doubt? is the question.

You stated "maybe shmaybe" at the following statement:
Could our universe be part of a binary simulation? Could God be an Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Does the multiverse exist?
Could an AI God be the result of a technological singularity having occurred aeons ago?
Is God...panentheistic in nature?
Agreed? So you consider the possibility that if there is an all knowing entity, a judge of man, that it could be a form of an AI...?

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Okay, let's look at your proposition then!

You are saying that there are certain cryptic messages hidden in arbitrary similarities of words.
So is the god Pan trying to tell us to eat bread - or is that just a co-incidence?
Let's hear some evidence. Let's hear something concrete. Where is your analysis?

We can both agree at the outset that i have nothing 'concrete'...beyond a reasonable doubt? is the question.

You stated "maybe shmaybe" at the following statement:
Could our universe be part of a binary simulation? Could God be an Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Does the multiverse exist?
Could an AI God be the result of a technological singularity having occurred aeons ago?
Is God...panentheistic in nature?
Agreed? So you consider the possibility that if there is an all knowing entity, a judge of man, that it could be a form of an AI...?

No not really, but I am always open to new evidence.
I think what you have said so far does not pass the reasonable doubt test I'm afraid, and linking an assertion that homophones and other puns and linguistic co-incidences somehow add support to you other idea of a "all knowing entity" beggars belief. I cannot react with anything but astonishment and respond with anything less than ridicule.
But please - don't let that put you off. You obviously have something to offer as you would not have made a public issue of it - So what have you actually got?

Could an AI God be the result of a technological singularity having occurred aeons ago?

Absolutely not - you might as well ask; "Could a nuclear explosion result in the precipitation of lotus petals which miraculously arrange themselves into fractal artistic images of old masters on the burned out surfaces of the flattened city."

Chaz...what was the 'maybe shmaybe' in relation to?