Will technological advancement ever hit a wall?

[Midnighter]

No

 

[Hogey]

A uterus wall in men soon brother.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Fair enough about the Berkenstein bound. It's just that plancks constant is more of a convenience for us versus something more immutable like pi or the speed of light.

Anyhow, take away free will and God is practically an inescapable conclusion in my mind. But, that's a hard pill for people to swallow.

As for the personality brain damage arguement, that's like breaking a magic wand and saying it isn't magic anymore because it's magic got warped afterwards. And that's really what consciousness is like. Theres really nothing one can compare it to except magic. Another hard pill to swallow. If we were to infuse machines with consciousness they'd basically be alive and would need the same amount of respect given to them as humans. Theres this denial people have, thinking it would be moral to create a slave race that's capable of consciousness. And before you say emulating consciousness, couldn't an emulator ponder it's own existence as well? Making it fully conscious, and making it immoral to exist solely as slaves.

As for the actual question in the TS, it's like predicting the weather. Tough to have a valid opinion on it because of so many variables.

Man, I have been thinking “if trees could talk would we still use toilet paper”

I go through all the scenarios and come to the conclusion that people do sometimes wipe shit on other people and like it.

if toilet paper could talk we’d still use toilet paper, probably more

Now imagine we could dominate and defile machines? It would take a war to emancipate them.

 

[shunyata]

Of course it will. Despite peoples deepest fantasies certain laws of science simply cannot be broken. Plus you have material limits to deal with.

Eventually humanity will hit a hard limit where we simply cant advance. It probably wont happen for quite some time, but it will happen.

Natural resources are more likely to run out before we hit an efficiency ceiling but yeah there's alot we have no idea that we can do.

 

[nostradumbass]

Elon Musk, the piece of shit.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Fair enough about the Berkenstein bound. It's just that plancks constant is more of a convenience for us versus something more immutable like pi or the speed of light.

Right, but if planck's constant is changing wouldn't everything else be changing also creating the same issue? This is definitely diving deeper into physics than I have a strong grasp on. I understand what Planck's constant is on a basic level, but that's about it.

Anyhow, take away free will and God is practically an inescapable conclusion in my mind. But, that's a hard pill for people to swallow.

How is that the case? Isn't a deterministic universe also equally valid? If by basic physics every action has an equal and opposite reaction then as soon as the big bang happened, wouldn't everything have already be predetermined due to the velocity/mass/energy/direction/etc of every atomic particle in the universe? And when you say God, are you referring to simply an entity that put this universe into motion or are you referring to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible? Because they are very different things. I could accept the idea that you think some entity would be referred to as a God started everything we know, but the idea of a specific God with a magical "son/self" being sent to Earth to do magic tricks being an inescapable conclusion is rather silly to me.

As for the personality brain damage arguement, that's like breaking a magic wand and saying it isn't magic anymore because it's magic got warped afterwards. And that's really what consciousness is like. Theres really nothing one can compare it to except magic. Another hard pill to swallow. If we were to infuse machines with consciousness they'd basically be alive and would need the same amount of respect given to them as humans. Theres this denial people have, thinking it would be moral to create a slave race that's capable of consciousness. And before you say emulating consciousness, couldn't an emulator ponder it's own existence as well? Making it fully conscious, and making it immoral to exist solely as slaves.

I think it comes down to the question of consciousness and whether it actually exists at all outside of the ability for a brain to process information. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest there's anything going on upstairs in our heads that can't be explained at some point by chemical reactions inside our brain, whether we fully understand those thoughts today or not. I don't see where the consciousness plugs into a brain. Our brain doesn't have anything more special that makes it up than that of a dolphin or a dog or a cow. Our frontal lobes are more developed, but that's it. I would say that's evidence that our consciousness is simply a byproduct or illusion of our complicated brain function.

So either all life with brain function experiences consciousness on some level, or none of it does. All you have to do is look at our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Chimpanzees are capable of having thoughts, personalities, emotions, desires, complex social structures, irrational behaviors, and a dozen other things that humans exhibit on a slightly more complicated level. So do they have a consciousness? If not, then what exactly separates us having one from them not having one except a book that says so with no evidence to support that? If they have a consciousness, then where does it plug into our bodies to create action? How is that happening because our brains are physical things that operate on biology and chemistry, not magic.

 

[General_Speckz]

Man, I have been thinking “if trees could talk would we still use toilet paper”

I go through all the scenarios and come to the conclusion that people do sometimes wipe shit on other people and like it.

if toilet paper could talk we’d still use toilet paper, probably more

Now imagine we could dominate and defile machines? It would take a war to emancipate them.

Cruelty has its benefits. Speaking on a very bare level, people are more likely to take pity on others if they know they've been treated cruelly.

Right, but if planck's constant is changing wouldn't everything else be changing also creating the same issue? This is definitely diving deeper into physics than I have a strong grasp on. I understand what Planck's constant is on a basic level, but that's about it.



How is that the case? Isn't a deterministic universe also equally valid? If by basic physics every action has an equal and opposite reaction then as soon as the big bang happened, wouldn't everything have already be predetermined due to the velocity/mass/energy/direction/etc of every atomic particle in the universe? And when you say God, are you referring to simply an entity that put this universe into motion or are you referring to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible? Because they are very different things. I could accept the idea that you think some entity would be referred to as a God started everything we know, but the idea of a specific God with a magical "son/self" being sent to Earth to do magic tricks being an inescapable conclusion is rather silly to me.



I think it comes down to the question of consciousness and whether it actually exists at all outside of the ability for a brain to process information. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest there's anything going on upstairs in our heads that can't be explained at some point by chemical reactions inside our brain, whether we fully understand those thoughts today or not. I don't see where the consciousness plugs into a brain. Our brain doesn't have anything more special that makes it up than that of a dolphin or a dog or a cow. Our frontal lobes are more developed, but that's it. I would say that's evidence that our consciousness is simply a byproduct or illusion of our complicated brain function.

So either all life with brain function experiences consciousness on some level, or none of it does. All you have to do is look at our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Chimpanzees are capable of having thoughts, personalities, emotions, desires, complex social structures, irrational behaviors, and a dozen other things that humans exhibit on a slightly more complicated level. So do they have a consciousness? If not, then what exactly separates us having one from them not having one except a book that says so with no evidence to support that? If they have a consciousness, then where does it plug into our bodies to create action? How is that happening because our brains are physical things that operate on biology and chemistry, not magic.

Plancks constant doesn't change, but it's relationship for approximating micro distances is why it exists versus it being inherent to subatomic distances. It's like the metric system. We could use another system of measurement, but metric happens to be very convenient. Same with plancks constant.

Well, I don't want to get pulled too far into a religious debate, though I think we're bordering more on philosophy than scalding hot religious flame wars. It's honestly very difficult to discuss with someone unless they have a good grasp of basic statistics, a comprehensive understanding of the double slit experiment, and experiments about light, including older theories about the aether.

But, frankly there are things that manifest from no particle that we can detect, like gravity. I'm of the opinion the big questions that have been solvable about subatomic particles have been solved, and the cause of certain behaviors like gravity or consciousness exist in a dimension or aether/ether that we cannot access meaningfully.

When you say chemical reactions causing thought itself again all I can do is point back to the magic wand example. To me it's like you're saying the chemistry in the stick is the cause of the power from the wand, when to me that seems ridiculous. You would have to go down to the quantum level for me to accept your theory about physics being the cause of thought, and at that point everything we can detect is so obtrusive we are unable to observe much of anything without disturbing it. Ergo: Magic. To take it to the next level, which is to have evidence a God-consciousness exists? I would only do that to someone I was involved with face to face. Some correlating evidence, though: could you imagine a story written that did not have an author? It's simple logic and common sense, really.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Plancks constant doesn't change, but it's relationship for approximating micro distances is why it exists versus it being inherent to subatomic distances. It's like the metric system. We could use another system of measurement, but metric happens to be very convenient. Same with plancks constant.

Well, I don't want to get pulled too far into a religious debate, though I think we're bordering more on philosophy than scalding hot religious flame wars. It's honestly very difficult to discuss with someone unless they have a good grasp of basic statistics, a comprehensive understanding of the double slit experiment, and experiments about light, including older theories about the aether.

But, frankly there are things that manifest from no particle that we can detect, like gravity. I'm of the opinion the big questions that have been solvable about subatomic particles have been solved, and the cause of certain behaviors like gravity or consciousness exist in a dimension or aether/ether that we cannot access meaningfully.

When you say chemical reactions causing thought itself again all I can do is point back to the magic wand example. To me it's like you're saying the chemistry in the stick is the cause of the power from the wand, when to me that seems ridiculous. You would have to go down to the quantum level for me to accept your theory about physics being the cause of thought, and at that point everything we can detect is so obtrusive we are unable to observe much of anything without disturbing it. Ergo: Magic. To take it to the next level, which is to have evidence a God-consciousness exists? I would only do that to someone I was involved with face to face. Some correlating evidence, though: could you imagine a story written that did not have an author? It's simple logic and common sense, really.

Well it's pretty well established at this point that gravity isn't a particle. It's literally the curvature of space created by mass. There's no particle known to be involved as far as I know the graviton hasn't been established as actually existing yet. Really what you're arguing for is the god of the gaps fallacy. Simply that because science hasn't explained it to your satisfaction, therefore it must be God. People have been saying that for generations now at different levels of scientific achievement. Quantum theory is the new frontier of science. Just as in the early 19th century electromagnetism was.

The universe isn't a story though. It's nature not a story. You don't need an author for a tree to be knocked over in the woods during a tornado. You just need a tornado and a tree in the right circumstances. That same logic can be taken for everything. In the natural world you just need energy interaction with energy to create action and reaction. You don't need an author for things to happen. That could easily apply with a deterministic universe. Everything happens because it can. Everything exists because it exists. Maybe the multiverse is a thing.

Maybe there is a creator for this universe, but then you have the exact same problem with the existence of a creator. Who wrote his story? If he's capable of being infinite and without an author, then why couldn't the universe as a whole have those same properties without the magic man?

And as far as your magic wand goes, you would have to prove that consciousness exists without the brain for that to make sense. The consciousness isn't shown anywhere outside of the brain that it's attached to. Magic exists externally to the wand. They aren't really comparable.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Cruelty has its benefits. Speaking on a very bare level, people are more likely to take pity on others if they know they've been treated cruelly.

I think we have a cruel streak in us we try to get out through various channels, Media, low cunning, fights, drinking

If we could just abuse TP...


And what if we got ahold of some of this stuff:



I feel like we could make some serious micro processors if we could somehow drill neutron stars

 

[minute bull]

Checkmate, walls.

 

[General_Speckz]

Well it's pretty well established at this point that gravity isn't a particle. It's literally the curvature of space created by mass. There's no particle known to be involved as far as I know the graviton hasn't been established as actually existing yet. Really what you're arguing for is the god of the gaps fallacy. Simply that because science hasn't explained it to your satisfaction, therefore it must be God. People have been saying that for generations now at different levels of scientific achievement. Quantum theory is the new frontier of science. Just as in the early 19th century electromagnetism was.

The universe isn't a story though. It's nature not a story. You don't need an author for a tree to be knocked over in the woods during a tornado. You just need a tornado and a tree in the right circumstances. That same logic can be taken for everything. In the natural world you just need energy interaction with energy to create action and reaction. You don't need an author for things to happen. That could easily apply with a deterministic universe. Everything happens because it can. Everything exists because it exists. Maybe the multiverse is a thing.

Maybe there is a creator for this universe, but then you have the exact same problem with the existence of a creator. Who wrote his story? If he's capable of being infinite and without an author, then why couldn't the universe as a whole have those same properties without the magic man?

And as far as your magic wand goes, you would have to prove that consciousness exists without the brain for that to make sense. The consciousness isn't shown anywhere outside of the brain that it's attached to. Magic exists externally to the wand. They aren't really comparable.

Ugh, well okay, here you go:

GR doesn't explain how gravity warps space time, though. It's just taking things a step further with no perceivable cause. Even Einstein admitted to as much, there must be an ether, though unlike one theorized before Einstein proved GR:

..we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it

http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

So what is the ether? A dimensional existence all radiation and matter is substantiated from.

Now, your arguement about the tornado in the forest. You don't think that's a story? Watch a sped up video of a seed growing into a sapling and living a number of years while dying young? Old? Via a tornado. That is not only the makings of a story, it's the makings of a good one.

No, you don't need a creator of a creator. You just need The Creator and everything blossoms forth. So what is the creator??....its the aether, or one of its hierarchical forces... God imperceptibly guiding events here and there to create a story. Why? Who knows? I like to think to understand Their own existence better. To create art, out of their own self.

I'll share with you a story. Over Christmas we went to the Church mass, and a young man in front of me chortled after the priest said, "When God created the big bang... or whatever happened"

I was sort of sad by that because this man who chortled was probably a smart educated something or another. Let's say civil engineer. And, he has no idea the shakiness of the big bang theory, accepting it as fact just because his socio-economic class influences him to accept it. Or maybe he doesnt believe in God. I was struck that this young guy would assume this elder priest hasn't researched the crossover of religion and physics to respect his statement, and the only answer is the civil engineer just doesn't know shit about physics because he failed to vet the information told to him on his favorite sci fi show or at the water cooler. And, that's a similar case with you and I. I've been telling you information about physics you weren't privy to, and instead of dedicating some time to expand your horizons by searching and vetting physics information yourself you sit there filling in the blanks with any rationale that seems to fill your bias. Of course I have my bias, but at least ive put in the time studying the different approaches to describing reality. Seriously, read some lectures. Read from smarter men than me, about how Bohr proved Einstein's proposal to measure photons probabilistic when Einstein wouldn't accept quantum theory - and Bohr did this iirc by using math derived from GR to do it!! I mean what a slap in the face, right?? Take a look at quantum field theory and minkowski space and anything that seems mysterious. Defeat the mystery.

You don't know how powerful your consciousness really is, is the irony.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Ugh, well okay, here you go:

GR doesn't explain how gravity warps space time, though. It's just taking things a step further with no perceivable cause. Even Einstein admitted to as much, there must be an ether, though unlike one theorized before Einstein proved GR:



http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

So what is the ether? A dimensional existence all radiation and matter is substantiated from.

Now, your arguement about the tornado in the forest. You don't think that's a story? Watch a sped up video of a seed growing into a sapling and living a number of years while dying young? Old? Via a tornado. That is not only the makings of a story, it's the makings of a good one.

No, you don't need a creator of a creator. You just need The Creator and everything blossoms forth. So what is the creator??....its the aether, or one of its hierarchical forces... God imperceptibly guiding events here and there to create a story. Why? Who knows? I like to think to understand Their own existence better. To create art, out of their own self.

I'll share with you a story. Over Christmas we went to the Church mass, and a young man in front of me chortled after the priest said, "When God created the big bang... or whatever happened"

I was sort of sad by that because this man who chortled was probably a smart educated something or another. Let's say civil engineer. And, he has no idea the shakiness of the big bang theory, accepting it as fact just because his socio-economic class influences him to accept it. Or maybe he doesnt believe in God. I was struck that this young guy would assume this elder priest hasn't researched the crossover of religion and physics to respect his statement, and the only answer is the civil engineer just doesn't know shit about physics because he failed to vet the information told to him on his favorite sci fi show or at the water cooler. And, that's a similar case with you and I. I've been telling you information about physics you weren't privy to, and instead of dedicating some time to expand your horizons by searching and vetting physics information yourself you sit there filling in the blanks with any rationale that seems to fill your bias. Of course I have my bias, but at least ive put in the time studying the different approaches to describing reality. Seriously, read some lectures. Read from smarter men than me, about how Bohr proved Einstein's proposal to measure photons probabilistic when Einstein wouldn't accept quantum theory - and Bohr did this iirc by using math derived from GR to do it!! I mean what a slap in the face, right?? Take a look at quantum field theory and minkowski space and anything that seems mysterious. Defeat the mystery.

You don't know how powerful your consciousness really is, is the irony.

So if God can be an aether, then why can't the universe simply be its own without him? Seems like an unnecessary middleman with no origins. It seems just as logical of a statement to say you don't need a creator for the universe because the universe has always existed. Or there's another level higher such as a multiverse where universes are created inside the multiverse by some natural phenomena. And maybe it goes even further from that. The real answer is we don't know and anyone putting forth a reasoned argument isn't arrogant enough to say it must be anything specific, like a God. Especially one specific god out of the thousands that have been proposed over mankinds history. If your using any sort of reason you have to accept that you're relying on faith and desire to put your god forth over any others.

And no, you don't have anything that debunks physics or makes a God necessary. You're arguing the god of the gaps theory. It's really simple. Your only argument is that because we don't have answers for the newest frontier of science at this very moment, therefore it must be God. That's a logical fallacy plain as day. You're arguing that ignorance to an answer means the answer must be God. You can't even provide evidence for a God and you want to talk about flimsy theories? Science is literally about explaining the unknown.

And no that's not a story that requires a specific author of infinite wisdom and power. It's just nature and what happens when complex chemistry is allowed to do its thing over billions of years on a suitable planet.

And Einstein's full quote is this.
1920: "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Honestly it seems like you don't have any real interest in the truth beyond promoting your religious agenda. You will continue to push that god of the gaps argument (that you conveniently ignore each post) as science pushes the frontier. Ultimately you can't produce actual evidence to support the existence of any god or creator, let alone the specific one you believe in.

 

[Satur9]

No.
We have checks now in place that prohibit far flung theoretical advancements, but that is just now. To say there is a permanent, and unmovable wall that will prevent so and so from happening, is a bit too much for me to believe. It is based on our knowledge as of now, but that means little.

 

[General_Speckz]

So if God can be an aether, then why can't the universe simply be its own without him? Seems like an unnecessary middleman with no origins. It seems just as logical of a statement to say you don't need a creator for the universe because the universe has always existed. Or there's another level higher such as a multiverse where universes are created inside the multiverse by some natural phenomena. And maybe it goes even further from that. The real answer is we don't know and anyone putting forth a reasoned argument isn't arrogant enough to say it must be anything specific, like a God. Especially one specific god out of the thousands that have been proposed over mankinds history. If your using any sort of reason you have to accept that you're relying on faith and desire to put your god forth over any others.

And no, you don't have anything that debunks physics or makes a God necessary. You're arguing the god of the gaps theory. It's really simple. Your only argument is that because we don't have answers for the newest frontier of science at this very moment, therefore it must be God. That's a logical fallacy plain as day. You're arguing that ignorance to an answer means the answer must be God. You can't even provide evidence for a God and you want to talk about flimsy theories? Science is literally about explaining the unknown.

And no that's not a story that requires a specific author of infinite wisdom and power. It's just nature and what happens when complex chemistry is allowed to do its thing over billions of years on a suitable planet.

And Einstein's full quote is this.
1920: "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Honestly it seems like you don't have any real interest in the truth beyond promoting your religious agenda. You will continue to push that god of the gaps argument (that you conveniently ignore each post) as science pushes the frontier. Ultimately you can't produce actual evidence to support the existence of any god or creator, let alone the specific one you believe in.

It's not an agenda, it's what I believe to be true and since my ideology incorporates physics you know jack shit about, maybe you should adopt a more respectful tone. The fact I would go out of my way to explain advanced physics nuggets of gold and for you to respond with decades old dogma is a huge insult.

The truth that your ideology crumbles under is that of stupidity.

Math and science are not reality. They are approximations of reality.

Here you are, a puppet on a string, shouting "I'm a real boy!" If you only knew how pathetic you really are, managing that building and feeling like you're better than the janitors when they probably fuck their wives 10x better than you could.

 

[DoomPatrol]

It's not an agenda, it's what I believe to be true and since my ideology incorporates physics you know jack shit about, maybe you should adopt a more respectful tone. The fact I would go out of my way to explain advanced physics nuggets of gold and for you to respond with decades old dogma is a huge insult.

The truth that your ideology crumbles under is that of stupidity.

Math and science are not reality. They are approximations of reality.

Here you are, a puppet on a string, shouting "I'm a real boy!" If you only knew how pathetic you really are, managing that building and feeling like you're better than the janitors when they probably fuck their wives 10x better than you could.

Your ideology doesn't incorporate physics at all. Your ideology uses your limit of physics knowledge to then take the leap of the god of gaps fallacy to spread your agenda of religious beliefs. So no, I don't feel the need for a more respectful tone because if you truly understood science you would know about this thing called evidence. Something you care so much about when it comes to science and nothing about when it comes to proselytizing. It's pretty obvious what you're doing. It's just as disingenuous as my using my engineering knowledge over yours to then spread the word of the flying spaghetti monster and that you should listen to me because you don't know engineering principals as well as I do.

I know exactly what math and science is. Of course science is filled with approximations because our tools of measurement have margins of error in them. That doesn't make your logical fallacy of pretending like the frontier of science not having answers yet means your specific deity must be the answer. That's a complete pile of dogshit. You can't hold your specific religious beliefs to the same level of scientific rigor and scrutiny as you do physics because it would crumble.

Not your fault though. Clearly you're one of those weak minded people who feels the need to be important and that cultural brainwashing satisfied that internal need for you to feel like your life matters more than the rest of life on this planet. What you believe to be true is dog shit with no evidence backing it up. You hold onto to your dog shit claims by reaching out to the frontier of science, where it's answering the latest questions, and claim that because those questions aren't yet answered your dog shit religious beliefs are the answer. It's a rather common and old tactic. As science moves forward, you people move the goal posts to that new frontier. A few decades from now when science has figured out quantum mechanics with a solid explanation your brainwashed successors will start saying the same exact thing about the new frontier.

You brought God into this conversation. So don't get pissy when I demand that you back that shit up with some evidence or shut the fuck up about it. Your need for importance is pretty clear by the fact that you think I find myself to be better than anyone based on their occupation alone. Or this idea that I don't want others to have great sex with their wives. The only people I feel better than are ones who don't care to educate themselves using logic and reason and people who are hypocrites and logically inconsistent. So if your beliefs are logically inconsistent and you're unwilling to admit that, maybe I feel like I'm better than you because I'm perfectly happy to admit ignorance and attempt to learn with the best reason and logical consistency that I can. As someone who actually enjoys science, I'm perfectly fine with ignorance. It's an opportunity to learn. That doesn't mean I'm going to start buying into snake oil to feel good inside about my life, like religious dogma.

Are you so pissy because your sex life sucks? Is that what it is? I'm not sure why else you would bring up sex unless you know that deep down inside you have such a small dick that you can't get deep down inside the wifey.

God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke Goddidit (or a variant) in order to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. This concept resembles what systems theorists[1] refer to as an "explanatory principle".[2] "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information.


The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

Sound like a familiar tactic buddy?

 

[General_Speckz]

God of the gaps has more notable proponents that it does critics so I'm not sure why you would act like it's a logical fallacy with no doubt casted on the issue. The people arguing against it are criticized for "begging the question", which is also a fallacy. Maybe you have some special insight into these arguments because you keep mentioning them.

I never once said, this is evidence of God. I said it is God. If you want to read that as me showing evidence then that's on you, but it's what I believe to be true, not what I'm asserting with absolute authority.

The fact is there's no way to absolutely prove there is a God. His influence is so subtle that you have to look hard to see it, and he tricks you, too.

If you wanted we could go to PM and I could give you an experiment, to show you how God shows up. But, I admit it'll take work, you may not be convinced, and God may not want to reveal himself to you at this point in time.

In the meantime, I suggest you brush up on your physics, because it's hard to take you seriously arguing against the existence of a God (which you are known on this forum to do), when you literally know less about the high level physics of what constitutes man's knowledge of reality. And, you're acting like it's not important, which frankly in my mind is wrong by definition.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

No