This is the thread where Led Zeppelin provides "proof" that God exists...

[*SD*]

Holy shit! You are still here??? No one sent you the memo that Atheists are wrong and that we now have proof that god exists?

LZ, when your temp ban (for trolling, yet again) expires, in just a few hours from now, THIS is the thread where you provide the "proof" that God exists.

Here's what TO DO:-

1 - Present your "proof" that God exists. This can be your own writings, citations, arguments, it can even be with crayons.

Here's what you DON'T DO:-


A - Anything other than 1
B - Post in any other thread (save for threads not pertaining to this topic)
C - Ask anyone anything at all
D - Deviate, pivot or obfuscate
E - Persistently not answer questions asked by others
F - Project your beliefs onto others
G - Troll

That's about as short as I can keep the latter list.

So if you do anything other than 1 in the former, your bans will last progressively longer each time.

The floor is yours.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

SD is proof that God exists. His entire human experience has been based on the interpretation of codes. For those of you who don't like the word "codes", we can just call them "signals". These signals are what SD uses to acquire the information he needs in order to make an assessment of the outside world.

noun: information

1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.
"a vital piece of information"
2.
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"



Indeed, SD is a talking, walking, living information processing system.



noun: information processing

the processing of information, typically by a computer or by an organism, so as to yield new or more useful information.
"we tested their speed of information processing and memory recall"


Every information processing system requires a symbolic scheme in order for it to function. Something that says "let this thing equal a different thing". Such schemes could not have arose naturally because you have to start with a universe where there is nothing that knows what anything is. There is no intellect to assign a value to anything. Atheism does not allow for that intellect to exist. This is not a philosophical argument. This is a logical error in atheism itself. The required intellect is what we call "God". So, if anyone has ever wondered why atheists cannot explain where life came from, that's why.

THE END

 

[*SD*]

48 hour ban for trolling.

 

[*SD*]

SD is proof that God exists

Stop trolling, you've been warned not once, but twice.

His entire human experience has

Stop pretending you know what my experiences are. Stop Trolling, you've been warned not once, but twice.

been based on the interpretation of codes

Nope.

For those of you who don't like the word "codes", we can just call them "signals"

Still nope.

These signals are what SD uses

Nope again.

to acquire the information he needs in order to make an assessment of the outside world.

As opposed to the "inside" world?

Stop trolling, you've been warned not just once, but twice.

facts provided or learned about something or someone.

I learned the demonstrable fact that you're a troll and nothing more.

Indeed, SD is a talking, walking, living information processing system.

What makes you think I can walk?

the processing of information, typically by a computer or by an organism, so as to yield new or more useful information.
"we tested their speed of information processing and memory recall"

Pardon?

Every information processing system requires a symbolic scheme in order for it to function.

Again, pardon?

Something that says "let this thing equal a different thing"

What?

Such schemes could not have arose naturally

Ah, back to the assertions, that didn't take too long.

because you have to start with a universe where there is nothing that knows what anything is

Oh, DO you? Yet another lovely assertion.

here is no intellect to assign a value to anything.

Well, I agree you have no intellect.

Atheism does not allow for that intellect to exist.

This isn't worthy of an actual answer, but you already know that.

This is not a philosophical argument

No shit!
It's not an argument of any variety, but even if it were, it wouldn't matter.

This is a logical error in atheism itself.

So, "I don't believe you" is a "logical error" ?! What's the error in the logic? Don't worry, no one is expecting you to actually answer that.

The required intellect is what we call "God"

More assertions, totally shocking!

So, if anyone has ever wondered why atheists cannot explain where life came from, that's why.

Oh, well, that clears everything up in a heartbeat!
Also, we can explain where life came from, the origins thereof, including the mechanism. But again, you already knew that.

THE END

Thank fuck for that.

Listen, dopey - I meant what I said previously. If you continue to troll, I won't hesitate to make your bans progressively longer each time. You are now on a 48 hour ban. The duration will double each time you troll. I'd much rather the forum be completely inactive than have the only content be trolling. Test me, if you like.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

SD is proof that God exists. His entire human experience has been based on the interpretation of codes. For those of you who don't like the word "codes", we can just call them "signals". These signals are what SD uses to acquire the information he needs in order to make an assessment of the outside world.

Nope.

Everything you have experienced of the outside world has been based on information acquired from your Peripheral System. Your peripheral system sends signals to your brain that are processed to form a model of reality.

These signals are what SD uses to acquire the information he needs in order to make an assessment of the outside world.

As opposed to the "inside" world?

Yes. Peripheral comes from the root word "periphery" which literally means the border between the inside and outside of something.

Indeed, SD is a talking, walking, living information processing system.

What makes you think I can walk?

Can you not walk? I'm sorry if you can't.

Every information processing system requires a symbolic scheme in order for it to function. Something that says "let this thing equal a different thing".

What?

Just what I said. My above statement is correct and should convey to you the very nature of information and how information processing works. Information processing always requires a symbolic scheme that says "Let this thing equal a different thing". The word "CAR" doesnt have wheels and you can't drive it around. Likewise, when you look at, say, a tree, for example, the electro-chemical signal sent to your brain does not have leaves and isn't green.

Let's define our terms again. This will help us maintain a clear understanding of what we are talking about:

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

INFORMATION

noun

1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.
"a vital piece of information"
2.what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"


INFORMATION PROCESSSING

noun

the processing of information, typically by a computer or by an organism, so as to yield new or more useful information.
"we tested their speed of information processing and memory recall"



(The above definitions are just copied from the Oxford language dictionary, SD. I hope they are ok for you.)


This should be enough for you understand the logical flaw in atheism. Because as I said, atheism denies that required intellect exists. So you have nothing to assign a value to anything. So information processing systems can not exist. Yet they do. You are one.

It's a problem an atheist can never solve. That is the nature of a logic error.

You can't explain your own existence and you try to hide that fact by minimizing the value and the importance of your life and the lives of others. That's the real reason you think of babies as parasites and support abortion. That's how it all ties together.


SO, unless you have any other questions, I'll assume this ends our discussion. Ok?

 

[*SD*]

SO, unless you have any other questions, I'll assume this ends our discussion. Ok?

It's the end of your trolling, that much is true.

 

[Mythtaken]

Everything you have experienced of the outside world has been based on information acquired from your Peripheral System. Your peripheral system sends signals to your brain that are processed to form a model of reality.

If we grant this as true, it still does nothing to prove any point. This is nothing more than the tired old watchmaker argument. This seems like such a complex process and because you can't understand how it could have evolved over millions of years, you believe it had to be created. Therefore god did it.

 

[*SD*]

If we grant this as true, it still does nothing to prove any point. This is nothing more than the tired old watchmaker argument. This seems like such a complex process and because you can't understand how it could have evolved over millions of years, you believe it had to be created. Therefore god did it.

He knows this, because it's all been addressed on this forum, and to him directly over and over again. This is his MO. He pops up, makes a bunch of assertions with no support at all, they get addressed regardless then he disappears again. Some months later he returns, lather, rinse, repeat.

Which is why he's now taking a break by way of a temp ban. It's not because of what he's saying, it's because it's repetitive and tedious, he's doing nothing more than trying to provoke a reaction, which amounts to trolling.

 

[Mythtaken]

I get that. However, I've found that even some trolls have their uses. The same old codswallop can sometimes get you thinking about things again, and occasionally, a troll can be goaded into saying something new.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Everything you have experienced of the outside world has been based on information acquired from your Peripheral System. Your peripheral system sends signals to your brain that are processed to form a model of reality.

If we grant this as true..

If you can give an example or a reason when or where this is not true, I might agree with you.

...it still does nothing to prove any point.

My above quote which you are referring to is meant to convey a known reality of how we acquire information from the outside world. Not necessarily meant to prove any point other than "it is what it is" so to speak.

This seems like such a complex process and because you can't understand how it could have evolved over millions of years, you believe it had to be created. Therefore god did it.

No, you don't have to measure the complexity of an information processing system to know that it requires a symbolic scheme in order to function. Even a relatively simple IPS still requires such a scheme in order to function. Keep in mind that this due to nature of information processing itself and not a gap in our understanding of what it is.
If the universe once existed in a state where there was no intellect, then, simply put, there was no intellect available to assign a value to anything.
Even simple logic gates require such a scheme. See the 0s and 1s there? Those are values.

 

[Mythtaken]

No, you don't have to measure the complexity of an information processing system to know that it requires a symbolic scheme in order to function. Even a relatively simple IPS still requires such a scheme in order to function. Keep in mind that this due to nature of information processing itself and not a gap in our understanding of what it is.
If the universe once existed in a state where there was no intellect, then, simply put, there was no intellect available to assign a value to anything.
Even simple logic gates require such a scheme.

That's an interesting take on things, though I think you have it backwards. We develop symbolic schemes in order to help us understand those processes. The processes themselves work just fine without schema or our understanding. Many very simple animals take in sensory information from their environment which invoke biological responses without developing symbolic schema.

Your example of logic gates is the opposite of what you're arguing. It doesn't show how processing requires a scheme. Rather, logic gates were created to use a specific symbolic scheme we developed. We can see the same thing in computer chips or programming languages.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

That's an interesting take on things, though I think you have it backwards. We develop symbolic schemes in order to help us understand those processes. The processes themselves work just fine without schema or our understanding. Many very simple animals take in sensory information from their environment which invoke biological responses without developing symbolic schema.

Your example of logic gates is the opposite of what you're arguing. It doesn't show how processing requires a scheme. Rather, logic gates were created to use a specific symbolic scheme we developed. We can see the same thing in computer chips or programming languages.

Changes in the environment of course, causes a "response" in matter. Metal contracts when it gets cold because of the physical properties it's composition. This is not information processing. Biological organisms are also made from matter so we can expect that, in them, not every response to environmental changes will involve information processing.

Information processing always requires there being an assigned value (or "symbol" ,if you like) that represents a certain physical property or characteristic of matter. Take our visual system as 1 example of an IPS found in nature. When you look at a tree, the electro-chemical signal your eye sends to the brain does not have leaves and it isn't green.

You can always move electricity through a logic gate, without there being any reference to a truth table. Of course. But for it to be used in information processing, you are going to have to assign a value to the output.

 

[*SD*]

Great. Amazing.

Now get back to the topic and the title of the thread and prove God exists.

Pro Tip - Pretending you've already done this shall not fly.

 

[Mythtaken]

Information processing always requires there being an assigned value (or "symbol" ,if you like) that represents a certain physical property or characteristic of matter. Take our visual system as 1 example of an IPS found in nature. When you look at a tree, the electro-chemical signal your eye sends to the brain does not have leaves and it isn't green.

I'm struggling to see how this provides evidence for the existence of a god creator. We all accept that we attach values or patterns to things (be they symbolic, mnemonic, etc.) in order to assist us in organizing and remembering things. That's just how our brains have evolved to work. Many other animals have developed similar systems based on visual, auditory, or olfactory information.

If this was some built-in feature provided by a creator, surely it would be the same in all of us created humans. In reality, there are vast differences across many cultures and regions in how humans store and process what we experience. Something as simple as smiling or shaking one's head to indicate the negative have different meanings around the world. Rather than supporting the idea of a divine architect, it speaks to the amazing reality of evolution and how it can diverge within a species as a result of location and cultural differences.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm struggling to see how this provides evidence for the existence of a god creator. We all accept that we attach values or patterns to things (be they symbolic, mnemonic, etc.) in order to assist us in organizing and remembering things. That's just how our brains have evolved to work. Many other animals have developed similar systems based on visual, auditory, or olfactory information.

Then I take it you disagreed with me when I said this;

"Every information processing system requires a symbolic scheme in order for it to function. Something that says "let this thing equal a different thing". Such schemes could not have arose naturally because you would have to start with a universe where there is nothing that knows what anything is and no intellect available to assign a value to anything."

Are you able to explain which part you disagree with and why?

 

[*SD*]

I'm struggling to see how this provides evidence for the existence of a god creator

Oh! You noticed that too huh?

It's because it doesn't. He already knows this, he's just a troll.

 

[Mythtaken]

Then I take it you disagreed with me when I said this;

"Every information processing system requires a symbolic scheme in order for it to function. Something that says "let this thing equal a different thing". Such schemes could not have arose naturally because you would have to start with a universe where there is nothing that knows what anything is and no intellect available to assign a value to anything."

Are you able to explain which part you disagree with and why?

Do I disagree. Hmmm. I have to say yes and no. Here's why.

This statement has a bit of a false equivalency going on. Information processing systems are something we humans have created. So yes, they do have various organizational schemes attached, because that's how we built them (language, writing, mathematics, programming, etc.) So clearly I agree with this portion of the statement.

Then you go into the weeds by trying to equate these types of systems we've created to the natural evolution of the universe. It doesn't work. The universe began and continues to evolve. As a species, we have learned enough to understand we know only a tiny fraction of what is going on in the universe. Yes, we created mathematical and physical "laws" to help us put what we learn into a context all scientists share, which in turn aids our collective comprehension. As I said earlier, that's how our brains have evolved.

However, when you say "you would have to start with a universe where there is nothing that knows what anything is and no intellect available to assign a value to anything" you are implying that nothing can really exist unless it has been codified in some organizational scheme. This simply isn't true. All the parts of the universe we don't understand or even know about are moving along just fine without us forming committees and giving names to things. If that were not the case, we would see fundamental changes in the universe every time we discovered something new.

And finally, how exactly does a god fit into this? If, as you suggest, a god created the universe along with a "symbolic scheme" to understand it all, wouldn't that god also imbued us with that knowledge. At the very least, I would expect such a being would have baked into its creations a knowledge and understand of itself. Yet know of that is anywhere apparent. If this great universal information processing system exists, it's pretty shit, since no one seems to know about it.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Do I disagree. Hmmm. I have to say yes and no. Here's why.

This statement has a bit of a false equivalency going on. Information processing systems are something we humans have created. So yes, they do have various organizational schemes attached, because that's how we built them (language, writing, mathematics, programming, etc.) So clearly I agree with this portion of the statement.

Then you go into the weeds by trying to equate these types of systems we've created to the natural evolution of the universe. It doesn't work. The universe began and continues to evolve. As a species, we have learned enough to understand we know only a tiny fraction of what is going on in the universe. Yes, we created mathematical and physical "laws" to help us put what we learn into a context all scientists share, which in turn aids our collective comprehension. As I said earlier, that's how our brains have evolved.

However, when you say "you would have to start with a universe where there is nothing that knows what anything is and no intellect available to assign a value to anything" you are implying that nothing can really exist unless it has been codified in some organizational scheme. This simply isn't true. All the parts of the universe we don't understand or even know about are moving along just fine without us forming committees and giving names to things. If that were not the case, we would see fundamental changes in the universe every time we discovered something new.

And finally, how exactly does a god fit into this? If, as you suggest, a god created the universe along with a "symbolic scheme" to understand it all, wouldn't that god also imbued us with that knowledge. At the very least, I would expect such a being would have baked into its creations a knowledge and understand of itself. Yet know of that is anywhere apparent. If this great universal information processing system exists, it's pretty shit, since no one seems to know about it.

Information and Information processing are not just arbitrary terms we apply things in the universe we don't understand.

Consider the eye; see how it works? It detects photons and converts them into electro-chemical signals.
Consider the PC; see how it works? It detects electrical impulses and converts them into Binary.
Both the signal and the binary output are then processed to form a model of particular aspects of the physical world and its properties.
They are analogous, because they are fundamentally so. Not because of some imagined convention we use to help us better understand one or the other.

I can appreciate your point that, just because we don't have a name for something, does not mean that that something does not exist. But this does not mean that we need to have exhaustive knowledge of every single thing in the entire universe and then form a committee before we can know anything. I have not suggested anything like you say I have, as far I this much is concerned.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Information and Information processing are not just arbitrary terms we apply things in the universe we don't understand.

Consider the eye; see how it works? It detects photons and converts them into electro-chemical signals.
Consider the PC; see how it works? It detects electrical impulses and converts them into Binary.
Both the signal and the binary output are then processed to form a model of particular aspects of the physical world and its properties.
They are analogous, because they are fundamentally so. Not because of some imagined convention we use to help us better understand one or the other.

So you see they are both examples of an information processing system, yes? True, one is vastly more complex than the other. But that does not change the fact they both require a symbolic scheme that says "Let this thing equal a different thing". As does every IPS.

Let this equal 1
Let this equal 0
Let this equal true
Let this equal hard
Let this equal cold

That is the very nature of information and information processing. It requires an intellect to assign a value to something that represents a physical property of another thing. Thus an IPS could not have arose naturally in a universe where an intellect did not already exist.

 

[Mythtaken]

So you see they are both examples of an information processing system, yes? True, one is vastly more complex than the other. But that does not change the fact they both require a symbolic scheme that says "Let this thing equal a different thing". As does every IPS.

Certainly computers are information processing systems; that's what we built them to do. Eyes on their own are more correctly called information accumulators. They don't do any processing on their own, but rather pass what they take in to the brain. But I get your point and I don't disagree.

The big question, though, is how this proves the existence of a god. Your argument is that our ability to process information in the way we do could not have happened naturally. However, there is no evidence for this beyond your statement. If some god had created this system and presumably wanted us to take advantage of it, we would have found evidence of it. Perhaps it would show though our inherent, shared understanding of the world. Yet no where is this in evidence. The very fact that we have multiple different languages, and multiple different understandings of the world and the universe, as well as many different views on gods and religion, across the many peoples and cultures in the world, seems to go against that idea.

To go back to your eye example, we have observed (no pun intended) that different people see different things within the same image, and that we all see colours slightly differently to each other. This supports the accepted idea that our ability to process information and form symbolic schemata are individual and arise from our evolutionary history. For instance, our symbolic schemes are largely visually based, because we have evolved to favour vision over the rest of our senses. If indeed we had been created by a god, it would be logical for that god to develop a universal scheme that encompassed all of our sensory input. Yet, there is again no evidence to support that.

Cognitive psychology research provides a great deal of insight into just how we establish and change our information processing schemata or mental models throughout our lives. We also know there are some types of shared models (i.e., models around social interactions, laws, etc.) that we also learn through interactions with others. No one has yet discovered any hint or signs pointing to a built-in, universally shared schema that might support the idea of creation.