If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Spiegel)   Scientists prove existence of God using a MacBook computer. Deep Thought unavailable for comment   (spiegel.de) divider line 65
    More: Interesting, MacBook, god, god exists, MacBook computer, theorems, abstracts, Fields of science, Die Welt  
•       •       •

4772 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Oct 2013 at 6:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-24 04:34:32 PM  
neat
 
2013-10-24 04:45:34 PM  
I am disappointed. God uses a MacBook?

I thought he was an Air kind of guy.
 
2013-10-24 04:51:43 PM  

brantgoose: I am disappointed. God uses a MacBook?

I thought he was an Air kind of guy.


His rig is all of creation--a vast organic computer comprised of the countless millions of universes within all realities.

/And not even he can play Crysis at the full frame rate...
 
2013-10-24 06:17:14 PM  
Oh, Anselm's ontological argument. Just another one of the "proofs for the existence of God" which turn out to be a complete load of horsecrap if you think about them critically for more than about 30 seconds.
 
2013-10-24 06:29:58 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Oh, Anselm's ontological argument. Just another one of the "proofs for the existence of God" which turn out to be a complete load of horsecrap if you think about them critically for more than about 30 seconds.


Oddly enough, if you've ever handled an actual load of horse crap, you probably found religion enough to say "Oh god, I need a new job."
 
2013-10-24 06:34:01 PM  
farm4.static.flickr.com

What does God need with Apple?
 
2013-10-24 06:43:02 PM  
So they've proven God is a theory?
 
2013-10-24 06:47:48 PM  
And lo, the electronic prophet did answer:

img.fark.net
 
2013-10-24 06:47:54 PM  
cdn.cultofmac.com

He is not here; he has risen, just as he said.
 
2013-10-24 06:50:13 PM  
But proof abrogates faith, and without faith, He is nothing.

And god promptly vanished in a poof of logic
 
2013-10-24 06:50:14 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Oh, Anselm's ontological argument. Just another one of the "proofs for the existence of God" which turn out to be a complete load of horsecrap if you think about them critically for more than about 30 seconds.


Philosophical arguments for the existence of a thing are useless unless backed up by evidence for that thing.
 
2013-10-24 06:50:53 PM  
I thought convergence theory was proven a long time ago.  But then I may have missed something by not carrying a 1 or something.
 
2013-10-24 06:52:55 PM  

They also failed to mention exactly how Godel died in his search for God, but the truth is a matter of public record.


cdn3.spiegel.demedia.filmschoolrejects.com

 
2013-10-24 06:53:30 PM  

doyner: I thought convergence theory was proven a long time ago.  But then I may have missed something by not carrying a 1 or something.


Maybe you were off by a decimal point?
 
2013-10-24 06:53:37 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Anselm's ontological argument




Sadly, this argument also proves the existence of an equally powerful yet completely evil god, thus "proving" the Manicheans were right all along.

/they seemed to have skipped that part in Catechism classes
 
2013-10-24 06:53:55 PM  
in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist.

si0.twimg.com
 
2013-10-24 06:55:59 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: And lo, the electronic prophet did answer:

[img.fark.net image 450x334]


Sergeant Grumbles: [cdn.cultofmac.com image 412x204]

He is not here; he has risen, just as he said.


I love these.

farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-10-24 06:58:26 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Philosophical arguments for the existence of a thing are useless unless backed up by evidence for that thing.


Actually, it's the opposite.

Evidence for a thing's existence are only valid if they meet the ontological prerequisites you have set for evidence.

I can give you a hunk of cheese and say it it's evidence of pre-solar stellar fusion. If you're a great fool, you will doubt me as it doesn't meet any of the requirements you set for such things. On the other hand, if you are educated or open minded you will be rightly persuaded that the cheese is in fact the evidence I claim it is as such organic molecules couldn't exist without hydrogen being fused into more cromulent atoms which necessarily must have happened before the sun collapsed into a star because otherwise said atoms would still be IN THE SUN, not here on terra firma

So the philsophical argument for proof is a prerequisite to evidence, not vice versa. You must first accept something before you can learn from it.
 
2013-10-24 07:01:49 PM  
So *that's* why the Apple logo has a bite out of it?

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-10-24 07:16:33 PM  

fusillade762: So *that's* why the Apple logo has a bite out of it?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 779x1000]


Why do they have belly buttons?
 
2013-10-24 07:23:43 PM  

doglover: Ed Grubermann: Philosophical arguments for the existence of a thing are useless unless backed up by evidence for that thing.

Actually, it's the opposite.

Evidence for a thing's existence are only valid if they meet the ontological prerequisites you have set for evidence.

I can give you a hunk of cheese and say it it's evidence of pre-solar stellar fusion. If you're a great fool, you will doubt me as it doesn't meet any of the requirements you set for such things. On the other hand, if you are educated or open minded you will be rightly persuaded that the cheese is in fact the evidence I claim it is as such organic molecules couldn't exist without hydrogen being fused into more cromulent atoms which necessarily must have happened before the sun collapsed into a star because otherwise said atoms would still be IN THE SUN, not here on terra firma

So the philsophical argument for proof is a prerequisite to evidence, not vice versa. You must first accept something before you can learn from it.


What you are talking about, is a hypothesis- argument of proof is not evidence itself.

The problem with Anshelms proof is he mearly saying thinking about god means he automatically exists.

What your example is actually evidence of a larger hypothesis.
 
2013-10-24 07:25:17 PM  

LoneVVolf: fusillade762: So *that's* why the Apple logo has a bite out of it?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 779x1000]

Why do they have belly buttons?


They were made in God's image.

So why does HE have a belly button???
 
2013-10-24 07:34:17 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: doglover: Ed Grubermann: Philosophical arguments for the existence of a thing are useless unless backed up by evidence for that thing.

Actually, it's the opposite.

Evidence for a thing's existence are only valid if they meet the ontological prerequisites you have set for evidence.

I can give you a hunk of cheese and say it it's evidence of pre-solar stellar fusion. If you're a great fool, you will doubt me as it doesn't meet any of the requirements you set for such things. On the other hand, if you are educated or open minded you will be rightly persuaded that the cheese is in fact the evidence I claim it is as such organic molecules couldn't exist without hydrogen being fused into more cromulent atoms which necessarily must have happened before the sun collapsed into a star because otherwise said atoms would still be IN THE SUN, not here on terra firma

So the philsophical argument for proof is a prerequisite to evidence, not vice versa. You must first accept something before you can learn from it.

What you are talking about, is a hypothesis- argument of proof is not evidence itself.

The problem with Anshelms proof is he mearly saying thinking about god means he automatically exists.

What your example is actually evidence of a larger hypothesis.


He's saying that information only counts as evidence toward some hypothesis if you antecedently have some philosophical basis for what would count in favor of that hypothesis. So, counter Ed Grubermann's claim, Evidence for the existence of a thing is useless unless backed up by Philosophical arguments.
 
2013-10-24 07:43:17 PM  

ZoeNekros:  information only counts as evidence toward some hypothesis if you antecedently have some philosophical basis for what would count in favor of that hypothesis.


Maybe in philosophy. Not in science.

/end thread?
//am neither scientist nor philosopher
///decided to be employed instead...burn.
 
2013-10-24 07:45:46 PM  
Math:  It works, biatches!
 
2013-10-24 07:52:32 PM  
Poof! The MacBook vanished in a puff of logic.
 
2013-10-24 07:53:15 PM  

Scrotastic Method: LoneVVolf: fusillade762: So *that's* why the Apple logo has a bite out of it?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 779x1000]

Why do they have belly buttons?

They were made in God's image.

So why does HE have a belly button???


It's turtles belly buttons, all the way down!!
 
2013-10-24 07:55:58 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: doglover: Ed Grubermann: Philosophical arguments for the existence of a thing are useless unless backed up by evidence for that thing.

Actually, it's the opposite.

Evidence for a thing's existence are only valid if they meet the ontological prerequisites you have set for evidence.

I can give you a hunk of cheese and say it it's evidence of pre-solar stellar fusion. If you're a great fool, you will doubt me as it doesn't meet any of the requirements you set for such things. On the other hand, if you are educated or open minded you will be rightly persuaded that the cheese is in fact the evidence I claim it is as such organic molecules couldn't exist without hydrogen being fused into more cromulent atoms which necessarily must have happened before the sun collapsed into a star because otherwise said atoms would still be IN THE SUN, not here on terra firma

So the philsophical argument for proof is a prerequisite to evidence, not vice versa. You must first accept something before you can learn from it.

What you are talking about, is a hypothesis- argument of proof is not evidence itself.

The problem with Anshelms proof is he mearly saying thinking about god means he automatically exists.

What your example is actually evidence of a larger hypothesis.


No, what I'm talking about is defining your damn terms.

You get evidence of a widely accepted class of existence(mental), and you deny it because it's not evidence of another class of existence(physical) to you EVEN THOUGH there is mountains of previous evidence connecting the classes.

So you slide goalposts and cover your ears and mock the very foundations of science itself as inadequate intstead of engaging in simple ontology that would in five to ten minutes zipper up both sides so they're on the same page and let everyone get back to drinkin'.

There's a reason Plato's greatest work was "The Drinking Party" not "The Fisticuffs" or "The Loud Noises"
 
2013-10-24 07:56:39 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Oh, Anselm's ontological argument. Just another one of the "proofs for the existence of God" which turn out to be a complete load of horsecrap if you think about them critically for more than about 30 seconds.


Without actually *reading* Godel's God theorem, I suspect it "proves" that there is an intelligence greater than us.  That does not mean there's some invisible sky wizard, capriciously doling out punishment and reward at a whim.

And even if Godel's theorem proved the existence of a "God," that doesn't mean we should now sit on our laurels and start contemplating our navels.  Keep digging.  Keep questioning.  Try to prove to yourself it works.  Now try to prove to yourself it doesn't.
 
2013-10-24 07:58:49 PM  

doglover: Plato's greatest work


The name of my next FARK.com alt.
 
2013-10-24 08:00:19 PM  
What a MacBook using scientist might look like:

cdn.mos.totalfilm.com
 
2013-10-24 08:22:19 PM  
If you read the actual study, they were just using using Godel as a base for using some sort of programming syntax which is analogous to spell-check for logical arguments. So while I'm not surprised that the media took "our study found that this theorem checks out with regard to its inherent logic," and turned it into "science proves God exists," it only proves God exists if you accept the axioms, definitions, and corollaries presented in the theorem.

This would check out as logical by the same computer:

My dog is a cat.
My cat is a bird.
Therefore my dog is a bird.
 
2013-10-24 08:24:32 PM  
Shalmaneser would like a word
 
2013-10-24 08:31:35 PM  
Molest me not with that pocket calculator stuff.
 
2013-10-24 08:54:12 PM  

ZoeNekros: So, counter Ed Grubermann's claim, Evidence for the existence of a thing is useless unless backed up by Philosophical arguments.


You and doglover are using "philosophical argument" to refer to our modern model of physics and, consequently, the evidence from which it was derived.  His usage of cheese as evidence is absolutely useless without all the other evidence (and their resulting models) that he is referring to.  Arguing that we need to be able to think about things (i.e. create models) in order to think about those same things is silly, as it is a simple logical necessity.

The "philosophical argument" that is the topic of this thread is the kind that attempts to generate conclusions based on self-evident premises, equivocation, or logic contorted to provide either of the former.. and usually with hilarious results.

You know, like Anselm's argument:  I can imagine a donut that is tastier than any other.  A donut that exists must be tastier than a donut that does not exist.  Therefore, God exists and he is very tasty. Let us all worship the tasty donut god!  This is essentially the argument, but with the quantified property made absurd and the equivocation made obvious.  Even if Anselm's premises and logic were solid (they aren't), his argument  doesn't even do what he says it does... itshould have died a millennium ago and been kept only as a reminder of the stupid ages.

Philosophy and theology (moreso the latter) still suffer from this crap.  Science does not.  Logic is not some divine thing that's always right.. it is a general model informed by our experience with reality.  If the two are in conflict, then reality wins and we reevaluate our rules for logic.  Evidence is how we test our logic and such testing is how valid logic is derived.
 
2013-10-24 09:17:23 PM  
Decartes reasoned we breathe to keep our bodies cool.
 
2013-10-24 09:20:34 PM  
Jesus will return to earth riding battle raptors just to piss off the atheists.
 
2013-10-24 09:23:10 PM  

Scrotastic Method: LoneVVolf: fusillade762: So *that's* why the Apple logo has a bite out of it?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 779x1000]

Why do they have belly buttons?

They were made in God's image.

So why does HE have a belly button???


That's where he keeps the universe.

(yuck)
 
2013-10-24 09:25:01 PM  

Douglas Adams already undid it.

"The Babel fish," said The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them.

The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
 
2013-10-24 09:31:11 PM  
Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque
If you read the actual study, they were just using using Godel as a base for using some sort of programming syntax which is analogous to spell-check for logical arguments. So while I'm not surprised that the media took "our study found that this theorem checks out with regard to its inherent logic," and turned it into "science proves God exists," it only proves God exists if you accept the axioms, definitions, and corollaries presented in the theorem.

This would check out as logical by the same computer:

My dog is a cat.
My cat is a bird.
Therefore my dog is a bird.


Yeah, I vaguely remember this from a few months ago.
I believe Gödel's thingee uses some rather big assumptions as axioms and they only selected that specific proof for publicity and fun.
IIRC the actual research goes into the general direction of "the next time someone plopps down a 100-page mathematical proof that only five other people can understand, follow and verify if they spend several months on it.. wouldn't it be nice to be able to formalize that proof and feed it into a computer and have the computer verify whether the logic in those 100 pages checks out".

Or as you put it so nicely "spell-check for logical arguments"
 
2013-10-24 09:39:12 PM  

ZoeNekros: Evidence for the existence of a thing is useless unless backed up by Philosophical arguments.


Ergo, the Bible is the most scientifically accurate book, ever.

Because that is what you are claiming.
 
2013-10-24 09:48:51 PM  

doglover: Ed Grubermann: Philosophical arguments for the existence of a thing are useless unless backed up by evidence for that thing.

Actually, it's the opposite.

Evidence for a thing's existence are only valid if they meet the ontological prerequisites you have set for evidence.

I can give you a hunk of cheese and say it it's evidence of pre-solar stellar fusion. If you're a great fool, you will doubt me as it doesn't meet any of the requirements you set for such things. On the other hand, if you are educated or open minded you will be rightly persuaded that the cheese is in fact the evidence I claim it is as such organic molecules couldn't exist without hydrogen being fused into more cromulent atoms which necessarily must have happened before the sun collapsed into a star because otherwise said atoms would still be IN THE SUN, not here on terra firma

So the philsophical argument for proof is a prerequisite to evidence, not vice versa. You must first accept something before you can learn from it.


I read your post in Wallace Shawns voice.

/Therefore your hair is a bird or something
 
2013-10-24 09:52:09 PM  

dionysusaur: Scrotastic Method: LoneVVolf: fusillade762: So *that's* why the Apple logo has a bite out of it?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 779x1000]

Why do they have belly buttons?

They were made in God's image.

So why does HE have a belly button???

That's where he keeps the universe.

(yuck)


So we're just lint?
 
2013-10-24 10:38:55 PM  

Scrotastic Method: LoneVVolf: fusillade762: So *that's* why the Apple logo has a bite out of it?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 779x1000]

Why do they have belly buttons?

They were made in God's image.

So why does HE have a belly button???


Wait, so why is god an evolved creature that used to walk on all fours and has back problems because he's now walking upright?
 
2013-10-24 10:48:37 PM  
old news is old.  this was already done on a hacked Gibson back in 1995.
 
2013-10-24 10:52:25 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Scrotastic Method: LoneVVolf: fusillade762: So *that's* why the Apple logo has a bite out of it?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 779x1000]

Why do they have belly buttons?

They were made in God's image.

So why does HE have a belly button???

Wait, so why is god an evolved creature that used to walk on all fours and has back problems because he's now walking upright?


It's not because he's walking upright, it's because he's spending all day in a computer chair then going home and sitting in a recliner.
 
2013-10-25 12:12:28 AM  
Didn't Abb3w prove the opposite?
 
2013-10-25 12:27:52 AM  
It seems obvious to me.

From http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526

Dana Scott's version of Godel's proof employs the following axioms (A), definitions (D), corollaries (C) and theorems (T), and it proceeds in the following order:

A1 Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both:
 ∀φ[P(¬φ) ↔ ¬P(φ)]

A2 A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive:
 ∀φ∀ψ[(P(φ) ∧∀x[φ(x) → ψ(x)]) → P(ψ)]

T1 Positive properties are possibly exemplified:
 ∀φ[P(φ) → ♦∃xφ(x)]

D1 A God-like being possesses all positive properties:
 G(x) ↔ ∀φ[P(φ) → φ(x)]

A3 The property of being God-like is positive:
 P(G)

C Possibly, God exists:
 ♦∃xG(x)

A4 Positive properties are necessarily positive:
 ∀φ[P(φ) → P(φ)]

D2 An essence of an individual is a property possessed by it and necessarily implying any of its properties:
 φ ess. x ↔ φ(x) ∧∀ψ(ψ(x) → ∀y(φ(y) → ψ(y)))

T2 Being God-like is an essence of any God-like being:
 ∀x[G(x) → G ess. x]

D3 Necessary existence of an individual is the necessary exemplification of all its essences:
 NE(x) ↔ ∀φ[φ ess. x → ∃yφ(y)]

A5 Necessary existence is a positive property:
 P(NE)

T3 Necessarily, God exists:
 ∃xG(x)
 
2013-10-25 12:42:45 AM  

Metaluna Mutant: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Anselm's ontological argument

Sadly, this argument also proves the existence of an equally powerful yet completely evil god, thus "proving" the Manicheans were right all along.

/they seemed to have skipped that part in Catechism classes


Only if you equate perfection and goodness. The opposite of perfection isn't evil, it's flaw, so it only proves the existence of a completely flawed being, the most imperfect thing imaginable must also exist. Some complete and utter waste. Take your pick of scorned celebrities to make that into a joke about.
 
2013-10-25 01:07:28 AM  
People realize Godel was so insane at the end that he starved to death rather than make himself a sandwich, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report