Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Build a Computer Model of God

bootstrappingindependence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#41

Post by ryusage »

hasenj wrote: post #11

> Despite my desire to accept religious teachings, I am constantly prevented by a simple fact: no one has found any physical evidence of something like a soul, or any mechanism which might enable a persistent consciousness beyond our current brain. For a minute, forget about "persisting beyond death". Consider consciousness, is there any conceptual model at all of how it arises purely out of the known physical laws?…

It's clear to me that my own consciousness is dramatically influenced by my physical environment. After all, anything that physically interacts with my brain will affect my consciousness in some way. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that would imply it is a physical phenomenon, no?

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#42

Post by vannevar »

icebraining wrote: post #32
vannevar wrote: post #26

The author is missing a key element in his model of life, one which significantly affects the outcome of the thought experiment: his simple loops are independent, they have no shared state. Real existence is not so clean---living beings are constantly being altered by their environment, and conversely altering it. It would be impossible to simply 'save the state' of a living being without saving the state of the enti…

One can claim that humans are more like shared-nothing message passing processes, which can alter and be altered by their "surroundings" without sharing state per-se. Shared state/memory seems more like a representation of the Borg ;)

However you choose to model it, the fact remains that there is no clear boundary between the state of a living thing and its surroundings.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#43

Post by acuozzo »

wbhart wrote: post #40
acuozzo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lol, I've heard little kids ask that at church. Did you happen to overhear any of them getting an answer? I'd love to read about how some church-going parents (guardians?) explain the omnipotence paradox to youngsters. In my experience, at least, I find that Jews treat the matter gracefully while managing to `uphold the faith', if you will. > Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag. Yo…

Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. This argument is a cavil, not a sound philosophical argument. Consider the set of natural numbers. You (given enough time and patience and brainspace) may have the ability to count up to any specified natural number. That does not imply you have the ability to count al…

> Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not.

I'd like to write a well-thought-out reply, but I'm a little confused. How is `power' defined (for God, that is)?

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#44

Post by wbhart »

acuozzo wrote: post #43
wbhart wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. This argument is a cavil, not a sound philosophical argument. Consider the set of natural numbers. You (given enough time and patience and brainspace) may have the ability to count up to any specified natural number. That does not imply you have the ability to count al…

> Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. I'd like to write a well-thought-out reply, but I'm a little confused. How is `power' defined (for God, that is)?

If all that exists is God and his creation, then it is enough to state that God determines his own will (i.e. has free will) and that he has all power with relation to his creation. No force, whether moral, physical, spiritual or temporal has the ability to oppose God and ultimately prevail. Thus he has no limits on his power. It is limitless.

This all stands to reason if God created time and space and matter ex nihilo. He has all the power there is. "For from Him and to Him and through him are all things"... forever. In fact, nothing that has power has so without it being given by Him. All power derives from God.

As God is changeless, his power necessarily cannot be improved.

I'll be honest and say that I do not know of any argument which proves in a direct way that a God who created the physical universe must be able to do any thing which is possible. Of course, that does not imply that there is not such an argument, nor that I do not believe it to be so.

I think that the necessary existence of God implies that there exists no being greater than God.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#45

Post by gnaritas »

wbhart wrote: post #40
acuozzo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lol, I've heard little kids ask that at church. Did you happen to overhear any of them getting an answer? I'd love to read about how some church-going parents (guardians?) explain the omnipotence paradox to youngsters. In my experience, at least, I find that Jews treat the matter gracefully while managing to `uphold the faith', if you will. > Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag. Yo…

Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. This argument is a cavil, not a sound philosophical argument. Consider the set of natural numbers. You (given enough time and patience and brainspace) may have the ability to count up to any specified natural number. That does not imply you have the ability to count al…

> If God is the first cause of the physical universe, then his existence is necessary (in the philosophical sense) and therefore changeless (in the philosophical sense) and therefore eternal (as his existence is necessary - and he exists entirely apart from time).

What nonsense. The whole notion of a first cause itself is nonsense let alone the first cause being something as complex as an intelligent being when the very reason you'd propose a first cause to begin with would be that you couldn't accept that something always existed.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#46

Post by gnaritas »

wbhart wrote: post #44
acuozzo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. I'd like to write a well-thought-out reply, but I'm a little confused. How is `power' defined (for God, that is)?

If all that exists is God and his creation, then it is enough to state that God determines his own will (i.e. has free will) and that he has all power with relation to his creation. No force, whether moral, physical, spiritual or temporal has the ability to oppose God and ultimately prevail. Thus he has no limits on his power. It is limitless. This all stands to reason if God created time and space and matter ex nihi…

> I think that the necessary existence of God implies

There is no necessary existence of God nor can any logical argument establish it so.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#47

Post by wbhart »

gnaritas wrote: post #46
wbhart wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all that exists is God and his creation, then it is enough to state that God determines his own will (i.e. has free will) and that he has all power with relation to his creation. No force, whether moral, physical, spiritual or temporal has the ability to oppose God and ultimately prevail. Thus he has no limits on his power. It is limitless. This all stands to reason if God created time and space and matter ex nihi…

> I think that the necessary existence of God implies There is no necessary existence of God nor can any logical argument establish it so.

Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#48

Post by gnaritas »

wbhart wrote: post #47
gnaritas wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that the necessary existence of God implies There is no necessary existence of God nor can any logical argument establish it so.

Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?

As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it.

If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't.

If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God.

If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the universe requires a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#49

Post by wbhart »

gnaritas wrote: post #48
wbhart wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?

As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe…

Do you believe the universe came from nothing? I find that absurd.

I do not see what is absurd about the statement "nothing begets nothing".

By the way, you attacked the premise, not the logic of the argument, which is not what you claimed in the first instance.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#50

Post by gnaritas »

wbhart wrote: post #49
gnaritas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe…

Do you believe the universe came from nothing? I find that absurd. I do not see what is absurd about the statement "nothing begets nothing". By the way, you attacked the premise, not the logic of the argument, which is not what you claimed in the first instance.

You find it absurd, but then believe God came from nothing. I find that irrational.

The universe didn't come from anywhere, the universe is.

Ok, the premise of your argument is flawed in that the very question is not logical.

Post reply on HN