Home » Atheism » Question that destroys #Atheism

Question that destroys #Atheism

Sacerdotus

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,679 other followers

Twitter

Blog Stats

  • 81,451 hits
October 2012
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
I(X) = Ex 1/n E/LOG SI  S/T (G)

There is one heavy question that destroys #atheism:



A) Matter is information 
B) Matter cannot produce it on its own- needs sentient sender.  
C) Sentient Sender must be intelligent and Causal/Mover Agent in order to code matter.  

Who/What is this sentient sender?  





Advertisements

54 Comments

  1. Sacerdotus says:

    Idiot for posting Physics? Really? I think you're projecting your self assessment. Why haven't you answered the question? The idiot is one who falls for the sophistry of Sam Harris which I replied to on your Google+My reply to Harris' stupidity:Harris as usual misrepresents God and Catholicism. He is judging God based on human experience and definitions of behavior/acts. To us, the death of children and people in general is something bad – an evil. However, to God it is not as such. God created them. He takes their lives back. This is the big difference that Harris does not comprehend. Take DaVinci for example. He painted the Mona Lisa. If he were alive today and painted a mustache over her face would he be vandalizing the painting? No, of course not. Why? Because the painting was made by him – he is the owner. To him, he is just altering his work. Can God do evil? No, because everything belongs to Him – He created everything. To us who are finite creatures, loss seems permanent from our point of view. However, to God it is not. In regards to hell and others believing in "different god" the Church is clear on this. Hell is the state of the soul when separated from the love of God. Imagery of "fire and brimstone" is used to describe how horrible it is to lose the love of God. The Church also teaches that even though others might not be Christian, this does not mean they are going to hell or are damned. The belief in other deities if they promote morals are what the catechism describes as the "shadows" of God. There is only One God hearing any prayers offered, even if those prayers are offered to a Hindu, Muslim, Pagan etc god. God will not judge those people based on what designation they give Him. He will judge them on their actions. Even an Atheist who is good, helps others can go to heaven if he/she never heard of God or never had the opportunity to be evangelized. Lastly, in regards to the Eucharist. There is nothing wrong with believing in transubstantiation. Harris misrepresents this Sacrament. The Church teaches that the bread and wine remain as such but the essence of them changes. This happens in nature all the time, but in the inverse. Take a leaf for example. During the summer it is green and during Fall it changes into different colors and its texture changes. Does it cease to be a leaf when the change happens? No, the accidents changed (or the outside changed), but the essence (or what it truly is) remains the same – a leaf. Harris presents the typical ignorance atheists promote. He destroyed nothing but his ability to comprehend concepts that he applies intellectual sloth to. 

  2. quedula says:

    I don't know. Who is the "sentient sender"?

  3. Allocutus says:

    Is it your claim that all information must have a sentient sender? Information can't exist without a sentient sender? Sorry, I just need that clarified as your syllogism is somewhat sloppy.

  4. Sacerdotus says:

    There is no claim, only a question.

  5. Allocutus says:

    No. There's only one question above and that is "who/what is the sentient sender?"The question itself relies on a premise that there must be a sentient sender of information. That premise, in turn, relies on your premises A and B. I'm asking you to clarify A and B please.

  6. Sacerdotus says:

    The question reflects the predicament between ABC which seeks a resolution.

  7. Allocutus says:

    ABC only needs resolution if premises AB are true and lead to conclusion C. I'm asking you to clarify the premises so that I can validate (or otherwise) conclusion C. Thanks.

  8. Allocutus says:

    In fact, I was totally wrong. A, B and C aren't a badly constructed argument after all. They're not even an argument. They are three indepdendent BARE ASSERTIONS.Please support A B and C so that the discussion can move forward.

  9. Sacerdotus says:

    Physics is now a "bare assertion?" You will post anything to to post. 🙂 I'm surprised at the amount of Atheists who are not educated in physics.

  10. Allocutus says:

    Please support your claim that matter is information. Please start by defining "information". Please demonstrate how this is a principle known to the science of Physics. Please support your claim that matter needs a sentient sender. Please demonstrate how this is a principle known to the science of Physics. Please suppor that Sentient Sender must be intelligent and Causal/Mover Agent in order to code matter. Please demonstrate that this is a prinicple known to the science of Physics.Thank you in advance.

  11. Sacerdotus says:

    This post is not meant to be a debate but a question for Atheists to answer – or attempt to answer. The information you request can be found in any physics text and even the writings of Hawkings.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Save us all the trouble and tell me what pages In Hawkings writings support premise A and B. I think you understand that you have stated two points as fact when they are not in order to ask a question which would require A and B to be true. This pseudo science babble is meant to confuse the lay person.

  13. Sacerdotus says:

    If you posit they are not fact, then why are you asking for pages? Go make the effort to actually do research.

  14. Evidently Cliffsnotes on fallacious arguments and Wiki physics won't do the trick for the atheist. I am going to guess that you will not receive a direct answer to the question

  15. Sacerdotus says:

    Hence it is the question that destroys atheism.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Of course, the only logical answer to this is "an imaginary dude on a cloud." Of course.Silly Christians.

  17. Sacerdotus says:

    If that were true, then you and I are imaginary as well.

  18. Gareth Hsyes says:

    Your question has "destroyed" NOTHING. If your so called all powerful sky daddy didn't want there to be atheists. Then he'd have actually done something about instead of some arrogant theist doing his dirty work for him. Everyone on the planet will be so much better off when they come to the simple rational conclusion that there is NO god

  19. Allocutus says:

    Are you going to support your claims or not? You are saying that Premises A-C are scientifically correct (physics). Support that claim. Also, define information.

  20. Sacerdotus says:

    The information can be found in any physics textbook. Basically everything that exists is information. The way they are formed is called information by physicists. The material pattern and composition of YOU, your kids, the Earth is information. In physics we know that information cannot be destroyed, only transferred. Physics also informs us that matter cannot produce information on its own without an intelligent sender. The question is: who put the information there? I use the word 'who' because only a person can have intelligence. In other words: imagine there is nothing. All of a sudden a blu ray disc appears with a movie burned on it. Can that happen? Can a blu ray with burned information appear out of thin air? The answer is no. The blu ray needs an intelligent sender to create it and burn the data of the movie on it. This universe is the blu ray and what's in it is the galaxies, planets, life forms etc.

  21. Jamie says:

    The only theory that refers to the basic building block as "information" is Seth Lloyd's 2006 one whereby the universe is actually a quantum computer.Your "one heavy question" makes absolutely no sense in relation to that (or any other) theory.

  22. Sacerdotus says:

    No, actually there are older theories than the one Llloyd proposed.

  23. Faithdebate says:

    As a physicist, I can pretty conclusively say there is nowhere that says that all information requires a sentient sender.The argument that you are making (that I'm assuming is a thermodynamic argument, cf. energy/mass conservation) is a construct describing the universe as it is, not the formation of the universe itself.It should also be noted that in the writings of Stephen Hawking (no s at the end) he proposes, not only that the universe is finite but without boundary (meaning it does not necessarily need to be created in the classical sense) but he also says that he is a proponent of the theory that particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously form and annihilate in a vacuum, provided they do so within the planck time.This implies that matter spontaneously can come into being and out of being without the need for an external agent to control the process, which is in complete disagreement with your statement that the second and third points are scientific fact.That being said, I'm glad that you are trying to interact with people on the other side of the theist/atheist debate, and wish you well!

  24. Sacerdotus says:

    Any physicist would be aware of this. The question is designed to make the atheist think. See my comment on: October 13, 2012 2:16 AMHawking's conclusions are not widely accepted in the physics community. The no boundary model has many problems. For example, if the universe has no boundaries, then where is it expanding to? From where is it expanding to? Expansion begins at a certain point. Try to picture a balloon that has no boundaries but is expanding. Is that possible? Let's say the universe does not have boundaries, the question still remains regarding the laws that govern it. Where did they come from?There is no evidence that matter can spontaneously come into being without causality – whether intelligent/unconscious external or internal.

  25. At the same time, there is no evidence that matter can be created by a divine being.

  26. faithdebate says:

    I should point out that I read your earlier comment, and it is quite simply untrue or at the very tamest misleading.I am a physicist. In no physics textbook or course would anyone ever say that matter information requires an intelligent sender. That is completely false.We do refer to matter/energy conservation and information being contained in matter, but you are twisting what we are talking about to a completely unrelated point.There has been a straw-man physical argument made here, that is inaccurate and unscientific.Also, why do the laws (which are descriptive, not prescriptive) need to come from somewhere?And while I'm at it, the particle/antiparticle explanation of vacuum energy whilst not 100% verified, DOES have evidence supporting it (Hawking Radiation for instance) and calls into question your underlying assumption that matter cannot spontaneously come into being.Essentially, your point is extremely flawed on a logical and physical basis.

  27. Sacerdotus says:

    No, you are falling into a strawman fallacy. There is nothing misleading about my post or comment. As stated, the question is meant for atheists to think. It is not meant to be a lesson in physics, but a sort of thought experiment, if you will. There are some scientists who have made thesuggestion such as Lisle,Gitt, Kaku,Filippenko, etc. As a physicist you would know that matter cannot produce information or code on its own. Information/code can only be traced back to a conscious mind. This is whereyou seem to be confused. My question is a mix of physics with philosophy. Furthermore, Hawking's radition deals with blackholes, not the entire universe. Are you suggesting that the entire universe is a black hole? In regards to the laws, well let me quote from Filippenko:"The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.' The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics." – SETICon 2 conference June 2012There is nothing flawed in the post. What is flawed is the interpretation you are implying to it.Again, this is not a discussion of physics, but a philosophical question proposed using physics. Please answer the question to the best of your ability. If not, then please leave the discussion of theories of physicsfor another blog. I don't want the post to get cluttered with irrelevant comments. I'm only seeking an answer to the question from atheists.

  28. Sacerdotus says:

    Justin, what evidence do you have to make such a claim?

  29. Faithdebate says:

    From this article it looks like you misrepresented Filippenko at the very conference you referred to in your text.If you finished his quote, he said "But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer"http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.htmlOther panelists stated that quantum mechanical fluctuations lead to universes much as I hinted earlier, though you disregarded it.My mention of physics is because in the comments you flat out state on several occasions that your three axioms are scientific fact, which they are not. You did not propose it using physics but using physics-like jargon.If you want an earnest answer to the question I say "There is no sentient sender" because your axioms are not based in science and are derived from a well-understood logical fallacy Re: The Ultimate Boeing 747 argument, which Filippenko himself references in the above quoted text.

  30. Sacerdotus says:

    No I did not misrepresent him. I quoted the exact words that connected to the previous comment. You have to watch the entire conference and not rely on an article. In the link you posted, notice Filippenko does not rule out God which is what you seem to besuggesting without providing evidence for such a claim. Quantum mechanical fluctuations can lead to universesyes, – I never disregarded it- but you fail to understand the causality of them. I know of no physicist that believes thisuniverse to be eternal. It will eventually have its end. Logically it follows that if somethinghas an end, then it must have had a beginning. The rest of your comment is a strawman.I already explained to you the purpose of the question. As I stated before: "As a physicist you would know that matter cannot produce information or code on its own. Information/code can only be traced back to a conscious mind. This is whereyou seem to be confused." I do not understand why you reject this which is taught in physics. Either you are ignoring it or never learned it. It seems you are just taking a contrarian position, not a scientific one. Dr. Lisle even mentions it in a documentary I believe. Also, another physicist whose name escapes me at the moment, but he is a Mennonite if I recall correctly. Thank you for your answer, now can you provide evidence to support it? Since matter cannot produce code/information on its own, where did it (info/code) come from? Since information/code is complex and its origin has only been traced to a conscious intelligent mind, then how is it possible that matter – an unconscious unintelligent – substance can produce this complexity? An analogy that can describe your answer is the universe is a dvd that appeared burned with information unassisted by anything outside itself.

  31. Faithdebate says:

    You keep saying that I'm rejecting that which is taught in physics, but I am not. I am trying to clarify for you that which is actually taught in physics, rather than potentially the opinions of some people who happen to be physicists which is a different matter.For instance if a physicist were misogynistic or were racist then that would not be taught by physics.Also you misrepresent me and the point of my text- I never said the universe was eternal, and was trying to give evidence to show that the axioms that you are portraying as scientific fact are far from it, and there is evidence to demonstrate that matter ±(or information) can be produced spontaneously out of nothing.You say that the rest of my argument is a strawman, without justifying it or backing it up one jot- but for the sake of discussion I will humor you and assume (incorrectly) that your three axioms are sound.If matter cannot code on its own, and all matter is information, then surely anything with intelligence must be unable to code itself. All information requires a sentient sender.We humans have sentience, and need to be created by a greater intelligence.But any creator must contain more information than that which he is coding, therefore he must require a more complicated sentient sender.Who needs another sentient sender, etc.So the only way to terminate this sort of infinite chain is to invent a new type of information or matter (God for instance) which is immune to the creating itself axiom somehow.So this implies that your three axioms do not necessarily hold in all cases, and since there is evidence to support the spontaneous generation of matter in the universe (scientifically) then there is no reason why we should assume the universe is not immune to the same logic.I honestly ask that if you are going to address this point that you do not merely brush this aside as all of the last information I've given to you, but clearly explain why you think my reasoning is false.And as always, I wish you well.

  32. Sacerdotus says:

    You are rejecting it. Notice how you completely ignored my points.You seem to think that this blog posting is a lesson in physics, it is not.It is a thought experiment directed at atheists based on what we know from Information theory, "There can be no information without a sender." as Gitt stated. I do not understand where you are going with "if a physicis were misogynistic.." that is irrelevant to the question. The question is a simple question based on information theory. I do not understand why you are having difficulty with it. The axioms are all part of the laws of information, anyone can do the research – as a matter of fact, I advised those who commented to do so. Whether matter/info can be produced out of nothing has no bearing on the question because the question deals with the "programming" of the information, if you will. The only thing here that you are humoring is your own strawman and scientism. Look at the question more from a philosophical view and you will understand it better. I invite you to contact Dr. Lisle and ask for his take. Please let us know his response. I appreciate your comments and never said your reasoning is false. However, as I stated, I don't want the blog post to get cluttered with comments that do not directly address the question.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Equivocation of the word information is a common tactic of theists. This is why many have asked you to define information. It's also why this can be reduced to absurdity by asking,if god is the sender, who is the receiver? What is the message? Are we just the medium through which this message is transmitted? Do we all carry a different message? @joesw0rld

  34. Chevis Ryder says:

    Wait, are you asking this person to go and read the writings of Hawkings to find out where he DIDN'T say this? I'm not sure if its possible to be more intellectually dishonest than that.

  35. Chevis Ryder says:

    Wait a minute, are you really asking this person to go and read the writings of Hawkings to find out where he DUDN'T say this? I can't think of anything that is anymore intellectually dishonest than that proposition.

  36. Sacerdotus says:

    Just because you are not familiar with Hawking's work on information theory does not mean I am intellectually dishonest. Why would I invite all to research the matter if I was not sure it was correct? Thank about this.

  37. Sacerdotus says:

    There is no equivocation. There is actually a study of information in physics. Your comment shows a strawman. You did not understand the question because you have no prior exposure to the content. The term "sender" means the one who programs. In other words, the question is: Since we know matter is information and it cannot instill information in itself; and we know that information can enter matter only by means of someone intelligent, then who or what instilled the code of information into matter?

  38. Chevis Ryder says:

    YOU made the claim that Hawking's writings support the claim A & B. There is a rule of debate, or logic anywhere in the intellectual world that places the burden of proof anywhere except upon the person making the claim. You say this information can be found in any physics textbook, or that Hawking's writings support all of this. When asked to provide this information, you asked other people to find it themselves, even asking the person to prove it was not fact.If it you are so sure that it is correct, why don't you simply post the information instead of doing the mental gymnastics you have become so adept at in order to avoid providing any actual proof for your claim. Since I am unfamiliar with Hawking's work on information theory, why not educate me? You are right, I am not well versed in his work and would love for someone to point me to his support of "we don't know where information comes from, therefore the Catholic God did it" theory. Telling me that I should do the research in order to prove YOUR claim, is extremely intellectually dishonest.

  39. Chevis Ryder says:

    YOU made the claim that Hawking's writings support the claim A & B. There is a rule of debate, or logic anywhere in the intellectual world that places the burden of proof anywhere except upon the person making the claim. You say this information can be found in any physics textbook, or that Hawking's writings support all of this. When asked to provide this information, you asked other people to find it themselves, even asking the person to prove it was not fact.If it you are so sure that it is correct, why don't you simply post the information instead of doing the mental gymnastics you have become so adept at in order to avoid providing any actual proof for your claim. Since I am unfamiliar with Hawking's work on information theory, why not educate me? You are right, I am not well versed in his work and would love for someone to point me to his support of "we don't know where information comes from, therefore the Catholic God did it" theory. Telling me that I should do the research in order to prove YOUR claim, is extremely intellectually dishonest.

  40. Sacerdotus says:

    You seemed confused. I merely replied to allocutus that his inquiry regarding information theory can be found in Hawking's writings. He seemed to think I made this theory up. This blog is intended to start a dialog – a discussion. It does not exist as a reference source nor makes any claims as you can see from other posts where I question if God is good or not. I am not here to direct people on where to find information. A simple search on amazon for information theory will bring about thousands of book hits. The space on comments is limited and I cannot quote every journal or text out there on the issue. On my other blog, I do go more in depth by citing etc. This topic will come up in a future blog and will have the references for all to see and made up their minds. Again, this blog is what is called a "thought experiment." It proposes an idea based on the science of information theory in order to start a discussion.

  41. Chevis Ryder says:

    First of all, I do appreciate your posting differing opinions – you can delete the first of each of my last two posts if you like. I'm not sure why the second pair was double posted, the first pair was on my phone.Secondly, nice gymnastics.

  42. Sacerdotus says:

    I left them up because I did not know if both were identical or not. I just read the last one posted. Unfortunately, blogger doesn't allow an editing feature where people can edit their comments. What gymnastics? This is a debate blog. My other blog goes into details on specific views.

  43. Anonymous says:

    As someone with little interest in a "creator", and who completed an A level in Physics many moons ago and have since forgotten most of what I learned, I've approached this as an outsider. Firstly, I have never heard the term "Information" used to describe matter, Energy is the term I and most Brits use as "Information" implies that matter has been created by intelligence. Whilst Energy is unbiased on both sides of the creation argument. But your question itself, from a non-physics viewpoint is in itself a question for believers in a creator. If all Matter is "information", as you put it, then surely a "creator" who has the power to create, interact and force will upon matter must surely be made of matter or energy themselves. In that case, who is the creator of the creator, an so you end up with the "It's turtles all the way down" predicament. You can argue that I haven't answered the question, the answer is I don't know. But surely the lack of an answer from the average human being with a brief understanding of physics doesn't mean that the question is absolute proof that atheism or the belief there is no god is flawed. Just as asking the average Christian how many days did Jesus spend in Jerusalem between the ages of 12 and 25. A scholar of the bible may be able to answer the question but 99% of Christians cannot. Your question would receive ridicule in most scientific circles as is shown from the comments above because of the vague nature of the question of which their can be many separate answers depending on your belief. Whether that be as an oscillatory universe (big bang, big crunch, big bang) whereby after each big crunch the "laws" could change and so matter may be formed by nature in a completely different set-up to what is currently known. To simply use the rubber stamp of a "creator" whenever a question is difficult to answer, though not from people with more understanding of Physics it would seem (again see above comments), is like living alone in a house 100's of miles from the nearest living person, miss placing your keys frequently and believing that it was a ghost or that the keys came to life. An yet if you set up an experiment such as video cameras to actually search for the answer, you find that you keys have been falling behind the table. When you take a spirit level to the table you find that it is not flat but slopes. As such the keys fall off the table and you can't find them afterwards. Do you ignore the spirit level and the camera footage simply to save face from admitting you believed it was a ghost? Or do you accept that you were mistaken and learn to research and test something before jumping to and UNPROVEN ideal?I'd suggest if you want a proper discussion using Physics and Science to prove the existence of a creator: you don't quote Physicists out of context simply to attempt to prove your point, an you speak with specialists in the field of discussion instead of seeking the average person to try and answer the question when you know they cannot. Making idiots follow a cause because they cannot answer the questions they are asked, and are given an "answer" by the leader, are what causes religions to begin in the first place. But I'm sure you already knew that!

  44. Anonymous says:

    From what I can see, you've made an argument based on physics, but when people refute the physics, you tell them the physics isn't the point. That makes no sense. Then, when people ask you to provide a source for where you got your physics from (which I think is a fair request to make of someone offering a debate)you refuse, telling them to go find it. Surely it'd be better if you just posted your source? Anyway, in answer to your question (assuming your physics is correct) all it suggests is that there had to be a sentient being to start off the universe. I guess as that being is able to create a universe, calling it a God is fair enough. But, that only gets you as far as deism. It says nothing about whether that God is Zeus or Yahweh. A God starting the universe is as good a hypothesis as any for the start of the universe, but that doesn't explain why that same God expects us to follow certain rules which are hazy at best, without clarifying them in person.

  45. Anonymous says:

    So would it be ok to kill my children since, technically, I gave them life. Moron.

  46. Sacerdotus says:

    I understand. We have to constantly study what we have learned or the memories will become extinct. Information theory has been around since the 40s/50s. As computers started to appear, physicists and others began to wonder what information was. As they learned more regarding physics, they realized that this universe is information. Recently, some physicists such as Silas Beane say that the universe is a program or a simulation. If this is true, then it would prove philosopher's Chalmer's thought experiment. This is why I posted this to see what people thought. Since the universe is information and some physicists believe the universe is a code or program and we know that matter cannot produce information on its own, then the logical conclusion is that there is an intelligence behind it. This isn't stuff I made up. This is in the scientific community being debated. More research has to be done of course. Atheists will ridicule it because that is their nature. The ones who post here obviously are ignorant on the subject matter and give the same response a creationist would give to a statement on evolution. That is reflection on their ignorance, not on the content posted. I use the term 'creator' because that is the word appropriate for an intelligent sentient being who develops something. Developer could be another word I could have used, but it would sound too "techie." The bottom line is, who put the information there? We know it cannot put itself there. This is what physics shows. Regarding your idea, the problem is that when the "big bang" took place, the laws and everything exploded into existence. The conditions were there already in order for the universe to form. This blog is intended for discussions. I did not quote physicists out of contexts. I provided their actual words.

  47. Sacerdotus says:

    I used a blend of physics and philosophy. No one has refuted the physics, how can they? They can only attempt to refute whether the origin of information is a sentient being or not. This was not done. I tell people to go search because then if I do everything, they will not learn. They will get caught up believing the content is mine and will not bother to research it themselves. It could be deism, it could be pantheism. The universe could be god, who knows? This is what the post is about, to get a discussion going. Some theologians believe the universe are the thoughts of God. In other words, we are in God's mind – His dream or imagination

  48. Sacerdotus says:

    That is what we're discussing.

  49. Anonymous says:

    But they can refute the physics- from what I've seen of the other comments, the hypothesis you've quoted (i.e. everything is information, information has to be sent) isn't as widely accepted and proven as you seem to be insisting. I certainly have never heard of it. This means you've based an argument on a point that isn't accepted, almost as if I said "If chocolate tastes like strawberry, and strawberry is better than banana, Chocolate is better than banana." Not everyone will accept chocolate tastes like strawberry, so they can't logically carry on with the argument. I hope that makes sense, and I hope it doesn't come across as if I'm attacking you, because that is not my intention. Also, you say that the origin of information has to be sentient- does that mean that a computer is sentient? Computers regularly send information.Personally, If I wanted to discuss the idea like you say you do, I'd offer the source as readily as possible so that half the discussion isn't people saying "Show us!"I can see the logic for their being a being that created a universe, but I don't think it's possible to attribute any thing else to that being at this moment, and that instead of just accepting it, our species should do as much as possible to find out as much as possible about this being.

  50. Sacerdotus says:

    What are you talking about? This is taught in 200 level physic courses throughout the United States of America! Hawkings developed his Information paradox idea using this knowledge. The people who comment on here obviously never too physics and are aloof to the knowledge it possesses. Where is your evidence that this is not accepted?Computers send information, but can they create it on their own without assistance from a human being? Obviously, computers are not part of the equation because they lack this ability. Why isn't it possible to attribute any thing to that being?

  51. Anonymous says:

    I think where you use the word 'information' the word 'energy' is normally used. This is where I, and it seems, others are confused. My evidence it isn't accepted is mainly in the comments above due to the misinterpretation of wording. (incidently, if I told you to go find the evidence as it's easy to find, how would you feel?!) So would a computer consider a human as a God?Well because your point only says that the being exists. Until you have more data, you don't know anything else about the being.

  52. Sacerdotus says:

    Not at all. "Energy and information are related butindependent, so the dynamical restrictions for one cannot be derived from those for the other." Duncan/Semura – Portland State UniversityEnergy and information relate with each other, but are not the same. Energy is more like the organization tool for information. Don't rely on comments made here. Most atheists are contrarians and will say anything for the sake of having an opposite argument. I understand your concern, but I don't have the time to quote every textbook, journal out there when one can use Kindle, Ipad or whatever to purchase texts regarding the information; or better yet, can use the library. If I see there is a lot of confusion, then I will try my best to cite sources that are easy enough for all to understand. If a computer is sentient, it might consider human as God. If my memory serves me well, this idea is touched upon in Schneider's Sci Fiction and Philosophy. Well if this being exists, there is only but so much data we can collect. We have to rely on the data we have not in order to make conclusions. It would be nice to have a dinosaur around to experiment on, but we only have fossil records. So if there is a God or being that controls all, then we have to rely on whatever data we have even if it may not be tangible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: