Science Unspoken Axiom #1: Deities are nonsense

413 posts / 0 new
Last post
sourcecodewizard's picture
your quote. "What evidence,

your quote. "What evidence, substantial, predictive or otherwise, do we have for a the existence of a god? None..."

What evidence do you have that a computer at best buy is designed? Maybe they get them from a computer tree at the computer tree farm. Hello...WE ARE EVIDENCE. That you somehow ignore because of, da da DA, unspoken axiom # 1 where you already know the answer because it is at the basis of your thought process. Perhaps that is why you completely avoid the factual proof of the OP. SETI looks for ET signals from space. if we found one it would be evidence of intelligence. We are greater than flickering light.

"How can you be so certain about the existence of this god if our perceptions are in question to begin with? "
Because even if we are in a simulation, it must have been constructed, hence everyone besides you could be illusionary yet still we conclude a design. The logic is self evident and remains even in the simulation scenario.

Avoid reasoning all you want. Take things out of context and misrepresent arguments but the logic remains.
For the record, you said stupid not me, I said brainwashed from childhood and not for believing in science as you misrepresented (repeatedly) but for believing that fantasy IS science if enough people can believe it together and throw enough poo (a term taken from many on this sight as the knee jerk reaction to anyone using logic to attack your atheistic FAITH)

Also, the statement about "ignorant people with low moral standards" was a response to the people who commit atrocities as referenced to the post I was replying to. It also applies to your reference as those people CHOOSE to behave the way you describe.

Skeptical Kevin's picture
"What evidence do you have

"What evidence do you have that a computer at best buy is designed? Maybe they get them from a computer tree at the computer tree farm."

*headdesk*

Ow.

Randomhero1982's picture
We are greater than

We are greater than flickering light

Oh fuck me sideways...

All I'll ask is, would humans be here without a star? ("Flickering light" for simpletons)

If you say yes, please hand yourself into the nearest police station and confess to your theiving of precious oxygen.

sourcecodewizard's picture
We know the strawmen tremble

We know the strawmen tremble in fear at your presence you do not have to keep proving it.

Simple fact, signal from a distant star would be regarded as evidence of ET.

It's one sentence, stay there. Focus. We can get you through this thing called reasoning.

Randomhero1982's picture
Bloody hell,

Bloody hell,

You realise we've been receiving signals since the 60's right?

The LGM-1 pulsar? Burnell and Hewish?
You know this, right?!
And they're all natural occurring phenomena?!

SETI look for any signal less than about 300 Hz because as far as we know, they tend to be artificially produced.

I have no issue with finding life elsewhere, in fact I hope for it and welcome it!

But it will not come from a flickering light I.e. a pulsar because life could not survive on the poxy thing.

Again, if you'd have some kind of radio wave from an exoplanet then you'd have some credence, but your making yourself look more and more daft with each post.

sourcecodewizard's picture
You are not understanding the

You are not understanding the argument.

When I say a "flickering light" I am not talking about a pulsar or any other naturally caused star.

Here. Let's say you went outside on a clear evening and looked up at Alpha Centauri A through a telescope.
You noticed it that it's light intensity was changing from normal to very dim at a relatively high frequency.
You recorded this with a video camera at 2000 fps then had someone write a relatively simple image analyzing software to analyze the frames and found that they dark and light *flickers* exactly repeated over a very specific time interval. You had them write software the recoded a 1 bit for every bright timeslice and a 0 for every dark timeslice.

They wrote this to a binary file. They put a .mpg on the end. They double clicked and it opened as an mpeg movie showing Alpha Centauri A up close and personal right were it was supposed to be relative to the other stars around it. It showed a nice little planet orbiting and zoomed in to show nice little aliens just like on ET the movie. They waved at us.

Given this hypothetical scenario. Everyone would call that solid EVIDENCE of intelligent life. Everyone would conclude that the *flicker* could not have occurred through natural cases but must have **necessarily** been caused by intelligence.

That is the point.

Do you agree?

Randomhero1982's picture
So just to be straight, are

So just to be straight, are you asking us to consider the hypothetical flickering light from a star to be akin to signal lamp?

sourcecodewizard's picture
An actual star changing in

An actual star changing in light intensity just like I described it.

My logical claim is that 99% of people would regard that as solid EVIDENCE of intelligent life originating outside our solar system.
Yes or no

Randomhero1982's picture
You need to be specific, what

You need to be specific, what are we talking about?

A light flickering on and off like a signal lamp?
stellar scintillation, a natural phenomena that already takes place?

How much of a change?

Be specific.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Yes let's get specific.

Yes let's get specific.

Suppose a satellite had a 100000 fps camera recording the intensity of Alpha Centauri A zooming in on the star such that the star filled an area averaging 50,000 pixels on a CCD with a total pixel count of 4,000,000 pixels. Assuming 24 bit color with 8 bit intensity value for each of the Red, Green and Blue channels, each bit of the display was determined to be "illuminated" or "not illuminated" or "undetermined" based upon a minimum average threshold value of 180 per channel for "illuminated", a maximum average threshold value of 20 for "not illuminated" and values between 21 and 179 for "undetermined". Suppose, computer software made such a recording for 100 days and determined that each image frame over the entire recording registered no less than 30,000 "illuminated" pixels and less than 2,000 "undetermined" pixels with an error rate of of less than 1 frame in 10 Trillion.

Now suppose that, one clear evening, the recording indicated that the light from the star was abruptly transitioning such that all pixels on the CCD were falling to an intensity lower than the maximum average threshold for "non illuminated". They also found that the recording indicated that the intensity would then abruptly transition back to its previously illuminated state. They called the period of time during the lowered "dim" and the period of time of normal illumination "bright".

Upon studying this "flickering" scientists found that the each dim period would last no less than 1/10000 +/- 1/100000 of a second as would each bright period. They further found that the transition between any dim to bright or bright to dim always occurred on 1/10000 second boundaries. As such, they could conveniently analyze each 1/10000 second consisting of 10 images to determine if such a time interval was dim or bright. They encoded the dim intervals as 0 and the bright intervals as 1.

Further analysis showed this, effective binary stream, would repeat itself every 2 hours yielding 4.5 MBytes of data. Recording this 4.5 MBytes of data over 100 repetitions they found that each bit of every repetition was consistent with every bit of every other repetition with an error of less than 1%. Hence, for every bit, 99 out of 100 trials gave the same result for any given bit, kind of like how they do error correction on noisy networks using repetition.

They saved the resulting 4.5 MBytes of binary data to a file on an Intel computer running Windows 10. They named it "signal.mpg". They double clicked on the file and their favorite MPEG viewer opened and started showing a 20 second clip. In the video, there was Alpha Centauri A right where it was supposed to be in relation to all the other stars in the video. They zoomed up to a planet orbiting the star and down to a real cool surface filled with buildings and bustling vehicles up to a little house and a yard where a 6 foot tall ET looking alien waved at the camera then reached up, grabbed it and stuck it in his pocket.

Question: Would people consider that EVIDENCE of ET?

Answer: Of course we would. 99% would. the 1% would be viewed as nut jobs.
It would be all over the news and billions of dollars would be funded to contact them along with billions of dollars to build better weapons just in case.

Yet still, its just a flickering light, thereby showing that we can infer intelligent causation from a little flicker of light.

Computers do not self assemble any more than that signal could "naturally" occur. End of proof.

Randomhero1982's picture
Oh fucking hell! Pmsl

Oh fucking hell! Pmsl

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
sourcecodewizard's picture
me: OP

me: OP
you: logic based on incorrect understanding
me: corrected your misunderstanding
you: be specific
me: detailed logical argument
you: no logical argument followed by poo throwing

Notice a pattern here?
sad attempts at high fives and applause do not constitute rational argument, but they do show everyone that you don't have one.

Randomhero1982's picture
No, no, no...

No, no, no...

You - Creates a bullshit OP that claims is PROOF, EVIDENCE etc... whilst not providing logical deductive premises and conclusion.

Making multiple logical fallacies.

And yes, absolutely fuck all knowledge of astronomy, cosmology or physics.

Me - points it out, multiple times.

You - 'corrected' your assertions

Me - no you didnt, I was specifically asking about the mechanics of the star.

You - continue to believe you have a logical arguement.

Me - anyone who understands logic knows you do not and that at best, with concise structured argument with premises and conclusions that follow, you 'may' have a valid argument, but not a deductive one.

Still your scientific knowledge remains garbage.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Random

@ Random

There is a word you are looking for Random...ah, wait....wait...yes here it comes....Fuktard....it is very satisfying to use, especially after delivering a good thrashing with a fukstick.

When rationality and politeness fail I find it personally satisfying to resort to good anglo saxon epithets. There is no language except Mandarin or Cantonese that can be beaten for satisfying, munchable sentences of scatalogical and blasphemous acurate descriptives of fuktardery.

Or simply put, I love it when you call it as you see it...utter, utter, utter,utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter bollocks. I bow to the maister.

Randomhero1982's picture
Yes you are certainly right

Yes you are certainly right there old man, I've never read so much utter bollocks, completely bereft of logic or scientific knowledge... it is laughable!

Just look at the horse shit this twat tried to claim as 'logical' ...

- Children are indoctrinated
- The world is designed
- Molecules can't make computers
- Therefore designed
- Star flickers
- SETI finds code
- SETI converts code into binary language
- Hidden chatter from aliens
- Flickering light from star infers Planet with life
- Therefore intelligent life
- Therefore God

This is the ramblings of a fucking lunatic that you wouldn't trust with a rubber band.

He should be locked up in a mental institute before he starts screaming the end is coming on a street corner, dressed as Elvis Presley in a shit sodden jump suit.

Errr... thank you very much!!!!!

arakish's picture
Randomhero1982: "This is the

Randomhero1982: "This is the ramblings of a fucking lunatic that you wouldn't trust with a rubber band."

Are you kidding? With a rubber band? sourcecodemigraine is so fucking maniacal, I would not trust him in Men's Restroom alone, let alone to know how to wipe his ass, or that the toilets are pissing in and not the sinks.

sourcecodemigraine has completely lost all connections with reality. What it needs is a straitjacket, a padded room, and healthy doses of Thorazine.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
dude, and this is true, I

dude, and this is true, I actually chuckled out loud when I read that.

Don't let it go to your head.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Your humor is ironic.

Your humor is ironic.

Here I will explain that in hopes that you can understand.

You see when you are trying to be funny you are not.

And when you are not trying to be funny you are.

Ironic. Get it? Just joking.

Ok, I'll do one your speed. You pee but poo man. na na na boo boo
Can I join now?

sourcecodewizard's picture
Ok, for the benefit of

Ok, for the benefit of everyone else.
Here is what really happened.
Red eye guy read the op (after poo throwing) responded with actual reasoning.
Turns he thought I meant natural star signals when in fact I meant ET signals.
So I clarified. But now, since his arguments, that are no on record, made him look like he didn't know what he was talking about, he has to simultaneously show me that he actually (finally) understands the argument without actually making a counter argument lest he (again) looks like he does not understand what is going on.

So he came up with this 1/2 joking way of showing that he (finally) gets it but still can fall back on total vagueness with no counter and, of course, the mandatory fecal reference.

You may now go back to your regularly scheduled program and no you do not get the last 2 minutes of your life back (or last 30 minutes for 90% of you).

arakish's picture
sourcecodemigraine: "Turns he

sourcecodemigraine: "Turns he thought I meant natural star signals when in fact I meant ET signals."

OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
computers don't build

computers don't build themselves....objective
Brains in heads > computers....empirical evidence

Oh wait you don't register meanings of words that equate to concepts greater than feces. My bad.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Brains=Evidence X100

Brains=Evidence X100
Computers don't build themselves=Logic X100

Smarter not harder dude.

sourcecodewizard's picture
This is actually a good

This is actually a good teaching point, in a moment of actual seriousness.
For real, this time no joke and this really goes to the heart of it all so listen up.

I write software. That means I make a ton of mistakes. The computer tells me I am an idiot 9 times out of 10. But the only thing that matters is that I get it right when its over. The customer does not care how many screw ups I made but only that it is correct when he gets it. Being correct matters and politics operates in reverse where the only thing that matters is how many fools you can get to back you up regardless of what you say.

Jesus teaches the same thing. It doesn't matter what you have done, what matters is what you do from now forward...ALWAYS. The basis of His ideology is that He does not want jerks to ruin the party for everyone else. That's it. If Satan could put down all the poo and just be cool, he would not have to admit he was wrong or sign a waiver or anything. Just be cool. But he doesn't. Why? For the same reason that politicians can never admit they are wrong, because the other Satans would devour them. Why? Because they value association rather than reasoning.

Me, computers and Jesus, however, think the same. You can have 3 PhDs in mathematics and 100 papers to your name and your arithmetic is judged on its accuracy not your history. Similarly, someone with a 3rd grade education can write amazing work and it should be judged on the content, not their association nor history.

Unfortunately politics runs in reverse where we put people on pedestals then defend any garbage they say. The sad fact is so many people buy into rule by association rather than logic.

That's why I love computers. They could give a rounded turd about who writes the code as long as the code is correct.

Deep down, that is really what everyone wants. Fairness. Logic. Reasoning. Join any time but when you cross the line it is because you are out of line not because you said something against the God of the day.

And as to all the complaints about how bad our design is, notice that all those atoms keep on working. And you can bet people were sticking their fingers in everything above that, know it alls as always. Believe in magic magnets all you want, but somebody built this place. No doubt.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ sow

@ sow

Once again unevidenced assertions, or, utter bollocks as it is known round these parts.

Then you bring (with a farcical false equivalence) the jesus figure into your mix of wild surmise and layer cake of of wishes.

No evidence for your fanciful assertions, no evidence for your jesus character, so we are left holding an empty bowl of promises while you imagine a cake.

Do fuck off.

sourcecodewizard's picture
ok I admit it, you got me.

ok I admit it, you got me.
Obviously you like to flame but there were a couple posts with just enough hint of reasoning that I was hopeful that there was some logic behind it all.

My bad.

Diotrephes's picture
sourcecodewizard,

sourcecodewizard,

"An actual star changing in light intensity just like I described it."

That's a great idea. We should build a giant apparatus in space that can be rotated around the Sun in all directions. It will have a screen that will block its light rays for a certain period of time, like a week. So when it is in the path of a star say 40 light years from here any intelligent life around that the star won't see our sun's light for a time and start to wonder what happened to it. Then the light reappears and later it will disappear on a predictable schedule. That way we could announce our existence to intelligent life forms that may exist in our neighborhood.

That would be a great project for you to design. It would be the greatest invention of all time.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Ok, since that is the

Ok, since that is the apparatus that YOU can think up to control the blinking of a star, then that must be the only way to accomplish it. Because we know as fact, that if YOU can't think of a better way to do it then none must exist, right?

Or maybe some little alien kid is doing it as an alien science experiment with a device that fits in his pocket.
Maybe he's using a technology that YOU never thought of? hmm there is a concept

arakish's picture
@ sourcecodemigraine

@ sourcecodemigraine

Are you compensating for atmospheric Rayleigh Scattering?

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
irrelevant, all that maters

irrelevant, all that maters is how many photons reach the CCD, star or no star

arakish's picture
@ sourcecodemigraine

@ sourcecodemigraine

Irrelevant? Intelligent, indeed.

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.