Is this a reasonable synopsis?
- The guy found that he could simulate logical human thought using the program although limited to a proof of concept demonstration and that the method was constrained only by the hardware on which it could run, which in the future might include parallel processing.
- Since his original idea was to prove the existence of God by presenting all arguments for and against existence to such a program in its fully realized and capable form, he went on to other matters.
- Then one day while revisiting he realized his goal of proving the existence of God had already been reached, which was by definition that only the entity we call God could reduce an infinite number of equations having an infinite number of variables with and infinite number of states, to minimum form instantaneously and to have done it first.
- Having realized this the guy went on to explain that what made God real was the realization that this definition of God is valid and understandable and by what means one can realize this and on those grounds then incorporate God into their life.
Yes. --imho 14:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Begging the question
Without considering if his proof of the existence of God is faulty or not, he begs the question about God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and Jesus). From the thesis "God exists" it does not follow the thesis "The Bible is the word of God", nor "Jesus is the Lord". God, if he exists, could be completely different from the God imagined by Christians, Jews and Muslims, e.g. he could be Spinoza's God, i.e. Nature. Or he could be a malevolent and incompetent Demiurge. Tgeorgescu 16:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Comment erroneously posted to "Logic, God, Computers and Man" topic on main page from IP: 14.97.131.29. - moved to the talk page - --imho (talk) 07:33, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
- "Our knowledge or image in our mind about universe/environment is not exact. Across individuals also the image will differ. For example, a particular word may invoke differ emotions in different persons. There are three category of people on bases on which how people understand- Kinestics, Audio, Visual. Even for the objects or phenonmena we can see, hear or touch we cannot make exact model in our mind by which we can predict all possible consequences. Our memory is merely permutations and combinations of emotions. So it would be foolish thing to define an imaginary thing ("God") and assuming it to be a root cause of every thing. For me concept of creator God is just a hyposthesis which had got a wide acceptance. If something is true, everyone can believe, but believing doesn't make things true. We have to adapt to our environment, not that environment will adjust for our convenience. What I mean is that we should have to make use of our abilities for a practical purpose. Even if we are having a vague idea of some thing/object it should help us to make appropriate predictions that could positively influence our way of living. There is no meaning is carrying with us something which is useless."