(a) One shall recall that humanity had not always had rigorous modern science.
(b) One shall recall that a root guess (See any archaic cosmology, if creator typed gods) that the universe perhaps began (the typical archaic claimed God) had been established before modern science (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawkins' singularity theorems etc)
(c.i) One shall recall that science updates itself. It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms.
(c.ii) Recall 'gravity'. We are aware that science updated from archaic gravity (De Caelo), to Newtonian gravity, then to Einsteinian description. The word 'gravity' maintained regardless.
Thusly, betwixt my accord, science shall “remember” to update the archaic concept "God".
https://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_scientific_redefinition_of_God_by_an...
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Just what I needed, more gobbledygook.
I can't deny that early science was gobbledygook. (example gravity was nonsense in antiquity)
However, science's nature prescribes that things are updated. (and so the word gravity was kept)
So god is yet another concept, that is updatable.
Hi PgJ,
So all you need to do is demonstrate that god is a force and not a concept, derive an equation or two so that the force of god can be measured, and your place in history will be secure.
Maybe I accomplished that in the 'Scientific statement sequence' segment of this paper:
https://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_scientific_redefinition_of_God_by_an...
I show trivially that humans are minimally capable gods.
Albeit, "it matters not whether I secure a place in history".
Hi PgJ,
And the formulae? Surely God deserves something simple and elegant such as f = ma, or E = mcc.
@Jordan
"(c.i) One shall recall that science updates itself. It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms."
Science didn't forget, it completely dismissed it because it is a myth. There is no science of gods because there is no evidence of gods whatsoever.
It looks like you missed the point.
(1)
There is modern science regarding gravity.
NOTE: There is modern science that describes probable causes of the universe.
(2)
Like other archaic science, gravity was old, and didn't originally mean attractive force, and dealt with mythical aether.
NOTE: There is archaic science that guessed causes.
(3)
The word/concept gravity was updated from mythical construct, to modern science.
The word/concept god is updatable from mythical construct to modern science.
Science is based on evidence that is testable, no wishful thinking of a god(s).
Recall that astronomy once included mythical features...
Astronomy got updated to modern science. So what is your point about Astronomy.
Hey ProgrammingGodJordon, Buddha once supposedly said "the ox is slow, but the earth is patient." I have laughed at his quote, but compared with your gibberish the man was a genius. I'm begging you, spare us such inanities. I think I lost an IQ point just reading what you wrote.
(1)
There is modern science regarding gravity.
NOTE: There is modern science that describes probable causes of the universe.
(2)
Like other archaic science, gravity was old, and didn't originally mean attractive force, and dealt with mythical aether.
NOTE: There was archaic science that guessed that the universe perhaps began (i.e a had cause) (the root of which is 'god').
(3)
The word/concept gravity was updated from mythical construct, to modern science.
The word/concept god is updatable from mythical construct to modern science.
A problem with the Atheist Republic is that it attracts the lunatic fringe. That being said, every atheist community I've belonged to had the same problem. I wonder why that is?
The word/concept lunatic is hereby updated from archaic science to modern science.
Irrelevant.
What would be the value of updating the definition of God?
The concept has itself become redundant. Let it go to die alongside all the other Gods that have existed.
(1)
The god redefinition sequence consists of definition classes, bound in modern scientific paradigms [Penrose Hawkins' Theorems, and or Digital Physics and or Simulation Hypothesis].
As such, it includes falsifiable paradigms such as:
(a) the universe as a quantized computational mechanism
and or
(b) the universe as a initiable construct.
(2)
(a) The god redefinition sequence establishes that the quantity known as human, and or any other life form of similar neuro-computational capacity, may yield the ability to offset the creation of detailed universes, like our own, using modern science.
(b) Time-space complex optimal, exascale capable constructs (like humans), at minimum, in terms of (2.a) are analysed.
Welcome back Charvak. And yes; PGJ is a crackpot.
You are yet to disregard the validity of the original post.
You probably despise the concept of god, regardless of its scientific relevance, on the boundary of emotional bias.
In contrast, I am not bounded by such a limitation, despite my atheistic state.
You are an atheist? Or Theist? Why do you want god to be redefined? So you can stop being an atheist?
Thank you Nyarl.....its good to be back
You have already posted all of this before, so I should correct myself. It isn't gobbledygook, it's spam gobbledygook.
(1)
I am an atheist, and furthermore, I am the inventor of a phenomenon called 'nonbeliefism'.
So, I have zero beliefs.
The method used was science, and one need not belief in science, for science persists regardless of one's belief or non belief amidst science.
And so, I can maintain my atheistic state, as I have zero belief, while one would need not believe in the redefinition sequence, that occurs on the paradigm of science.
(2)
This is the first thread of mine, that discusses why God is scientifically redefinable. I had priorly introduced humans as a class of god, without including why god was scientifically redefinable.
So you do have a belief, that humans are gods.
Another lie from PGJ; that isn't a quote from me.
Sorry, correction made.
@PGJ: Still kicking a dead god eh?
This post is a giant pile of nonsense
How so?
Is there any reasonable objection?
Or are your objections nill, and instead exist as feelings of disgust betwixt the word God?
~~~~
Keep in mind that I am atheistic, but I am not bounded by disgust amidst god, or disgust for any paradigm for that matter.
I wrote it is nonsense because your post is gibberish. Take this statement:
" It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms."
There is no gods science
Pages