How do we know that Christians are Delusional?

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
If evolutionary theory did turn mathematics and probability theory on their head then we wouldn't use techniques inspired by evolutionary theory to, quite literally, evolve certain things. We use them in artificial intelligence functions/classes to finding the quickest path to a location. We use them in code optimization routines for things like Cascading Style Sheets, actually evolving the code so it becomes more efficient.

Good stuff. Thank you

It is quite funny to hear mmx describe computer code as 'evolving' when it takes intelligence and guided effort directed toward a goal to produce computer code.

I fail to see what's funny about what I said. If hard-drives replicated themselves and made small errors during the replication process, just as DNA molecules behave, and they were subject to destruction if they weren't as successful as their replicated-competitors, as DNA molecules are, then software could evolve, without any intelligence or guide at all.

Keep flaunting your ignorance, RL.

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
If evolutionary theory did turn mathematics and probability theory on their head then we wouldn't use techniques inspired by evolutionary theory to, quite literally, evolve certain things. We use them in artificial intelligence functions/classes to finding the quickest path to a location. We use them in code optimization routines for things like Cascading Style Sheets, actually evolving the code so it becomes more efficient.

Good stuff. Thank you

It is quite funny to hear mmx describe computer code as 'evolving' when it takes intelligence and guided effort directed toward a goal to produce computer code.

I fail to see what's funny about what I said. If hard-drives replicated themselves and made small errors during the replication process, just as DNA molecules behave, and they were subject to destruction if they weren't as successful as their replicated-competitors, as DNA molecules are, then software could evolve, without any intelligence or guide at all.

Keep flaunting your ignorance, RL.

Yeah.......if.

But they don't and your assertion was that code 'evolved'.

Do the hard drives, the electricity, the motherboards, (and all that is required before a human being can sit at a station and produce computer code) all put themselves together?

If you turned on your computer, would it generate code by itself without a program (that someone sweated over for hours) to guide it?

Your assertion/analogy that code 'evolves' just like DNA is ridiculous. It does no such thing.

You use intelligence and design to produce computer code.

But keep up the humor. It's good stuff.

0 Replies

Quote:

Yeah.......if.

Yes, IF. You attempted to use sequences of computer code not evolving by themselves as an analogy for living organisms not evolving by themselves because, presumably, they both need an intelligence or guide behind them. I illustrated that your analogy is a false one because genetic sequences get replicated with miscellaneous errors which, together with an eliminative process (i.e., natural selection), allow evolution to occur but binary sequences of code on computer hard drives do NOT get replicated with miscellaneous errors. "If" they did your analogy would be accurate "ut they don't." Your analogy is a false one--no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Do the hard drives, the electricity, the motherboards, all put themselves together? What kind of question is that? You seem to be dragging your god into this debate. This is a debate about whether evolution is in conflict with probability theory and mathematics, not about whether a god was involved in the creation of life. The question is not whether god or abiogenesis brought about life, but whether evolution (the diversification of life into multitudes of species) goes against mathematics and probability theory. Quit trying to change the subject.

[quote]If you turned on your computer, would it generate code by itself without a program (that someone sweated over for hours) to guide it?[/quote]

No. Notice how you've removed the replication process from the picture? You've done this many times, Real Life. Let's look at the big picture, not the little spot you've focused on at the exclusion of all other spots. Pay attention: evolution can only occur if there's a replication process that allows minute changes and an eliminative process that removes the replicants that are less fit due to their minute changes. Quit asking me if evolution will occur in things without a replication process. The question is a silly one.

[quote]Your assertion/analogy that code 'evolves' just like DNA is ridiculous. It does no such thing.[/quote]

I didn't say code evolves just like DNA. I said that some code, when put through a function/class, which is preprogrammed to contain a specific genetic algorithm, does evolve to become more fit. The genetic algorithm replicates the code except for some minute changes and then eliminates the less-fit (less efficient) daughter codes, and does the same process to the daughter codes that are more fit, then the grand-daughter codes, and so on 'til you have a very efficient chunk of code. The software is intended to take the code and treat it just like a population of organisms where the lesser fit ones are removed (in nature it's because they don't run fast enough, don't dissipate body heat fast enough, etc. while on the computer it's because "they" don't execute or download fast enough).

My point was not that code evolves just like DNA--heck, one is a polymer of nucleotides forming a quaternal (base-4) system that starts an entire replication process with the introduction of polymerase while the other is an assortment of bumps on a hard disk platter forming a binary (base-2) numbering system that would require some kind of manufacturing system inside the hard drive to create new hard drives. I know they are different in some way. You are completely missing the point I was making.

Gungasnake commented that the theory of evolution turned mathematics and probability theory on their heads. I showed a clear-cut, real-world example of that same kind of process (replication + elimination) being used to give a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY of resulting in more efficient code. Evolution does not, in any way, turn probability theory on its head. That was my point.

0 Replies

1 and only 1 big problem with that guys video.

For the "Christian" bible their is tons of supporting non-biblical evidence to support the stories within it.

But there is no evidence to support the "Koran" or "Book of Mormon", and the parts that are supportable by evidence are direct or indirect copies of what is in the "Christian" bible.

So this person's statement that "Christians are Delusional", is without basis and is a fairy tale itself. He has become so self deluded that he is unwilling to look at the "possible" evidence for the bible.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

1 and only 1 big problem with that guys video.

For the "Christian" bible their is tons of supporting non-biblical evidence to support the stories within it.

But there is no evidence to support the "Koran" or "Book of Mormon", and the parts that are supportable by evidence are direct or indirect copies of what is in the "Christian" bible.

So this person's statement that "Christians are Delusional", is without basis and is a fairy tale itself. He has become so self deluded that he is unwilling to look at the "possible" evidence for the bible.

Actually his argument is that all these religions are based on similar fantasies (various magical elements similar to fairy tales), and that people within each delusional bubble see their particular fantasy as real, while seeing other beliefs as delusional. You have demonstrated this quite nicely by rationalizing an irrelevant defense of your particular view.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

You have demonstrated this quite nicely by rationalizing an irrelevant defense of your particular view.

rosborne979 wrote:

irrelevant defense

How is actual physical evidence of some things in the bible existing as ruins irrelevant?

rosborne979 wrote:

your particular view.

I don't believe in the bible it is not MY VIEW.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
You have demonstrated this quite nicely by rationalizing an irrelevant defense of your particular view.

rosborne979 wrote:
irrelevant defense

How is actual physical evidence of some things in the bible existing as ruins irrelevant?

Because the fact that some things in the bible may be true doesn't mean that the core belief is true. And observing that some thing in the bible may be true doesn't address the core argument of the video. That's why it's an irrelevant defense.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Because the fact that some things in the bible may be true doesn't mean that the core belief is true. And observing that some thing in the bible may be true doesn't address the core argument of the video. That's why it's an irrelevant defense.

I must disagree with you. Just the fact that some things in the bible can be backed up by evidence, gives the plausibility that it might all be true. And therefor the core of the video could be called a delusion in of itself. A delusion to ignore evidence, and call all who believe in the bible delusional.
Now to me that is someone who is totally deluded.

But I am not saying that I believe that rosborne.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

I must disagree with you. Just the fact that some things in the bible can be backed up by evidence, gives the plausibility that it might all be true.

Well, in that case, you must admit the same plausibility to the other two religions mentioned because there are also elements to those other stories which may be historically accurate. Do you give equal credence to all religions?

(I'll take you at your word that you are arguing from a logical position which does not necessarily reflect your personal beliefs, which is fine, it doesn't matter to the argument either way)

By the way, I don't agree that having some historical accuracy in the bible in any way validates the core belief structure. Just because there really was a place called Egypt doesn't mean magic happens.

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

By the way, I don't agree that having some historical accuracy in the bible in any way validates the core belief structure. Just because there really was a place called Egypt doesn't mean magic happens.

Actually having a place called Egypt provides a point of reference to cross check the historical accuracy of the Bible. That there is no supporting evidence for the enslavement of the Hebrews or the ten plagues goes against the validity of the biblical accounts.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

That there is no supporting evidence for the enslavement of the Hebrews or the ten plagues goes against the validity of the biblical accounts.

Actually there is quite a lot of evidence in the myths of the time. Most not all myths have a flood. So there has to be SOME TRUTH to that. And there are many other things like that also that are in different myths.

Now it is based on these myths that really are the foundation of what I really believe.

Most myths have a god or gods.
I believe there is one God.

To me that is the only thing that makes logical sense.
Now I am not saying that I believe that the God of the bible is God.

And the biggest reason I don't believe in Allah, is because there is testimonial evidence from a different sources that say, " the catholic church was the behind scenes cause of the rise of the Muslims. One such testimony comes from a former Catholic priest whose name is Alberto.

I mean it all comes down to only two sides.

God or no God.
Creation or Evolution.

Most of the post on this forum revole around only just those two points.

The "NO GODERS" say, PROVE THERE IS A GOD.
The "GODERS" say, PROVE THERE ISN'T A GOD.
Neither gets anywhere with the other.

The CREATIONIST say PROVE EVOLUTION.
The EVOLUTIONIST say PROVE CREATION.
And again neither gets anywhere with the other.

So the question remains in both questions, what is the TRUTH.

I think of evolution and the randoms and next to near impossibilities that involved of anything at all happening, and I just can not accept that is just randomly happened.
So I have to ask. "Where did it come from."
And I am forced by logic to give the possibility that maybe there might be a God. And if that is the truth, then everything else makes sense. But without the possibility of a God, nothing makes sense. Nothing could ever exist, without something creating the original matter that the big bang supposedly came from. But if there is a God, then I have to give that maybe from there, God let the big bang happen and helped it all along. But if he could create the original matter that the big bang came from why could he just not create the universe all at once with no bang. I am therefor dictated by logic to give that a possibility. And if that is so then is not not also possible of a creation in six days. Well that is if there is a God. I don't just not believe in evolution to be contrary and arguementive to those who do believe in it. I just go by the simple process that the most simple answer is usally the correct answer. And on that basis the most simple answer to explain everything is:

There is a God.
God created everything, all at once.

So my religion is based on logical deduction based on thought and not just blind faith.

Now with these points established is where I am currently at in my belief. I am basically examing these types of questions now in my head and heart.

So there is a God, is he active or passive?
If God were to be active how would he be active with he creation.
And other like typed questions.

That is where I am at in my beliefs.

Now as far as the bible, you will see me argue many different cases and say " according to the bible " in my post.

Like according the bible creation took place in six days.
Do I believe that?
No, I believe it took less than a blink of an eye.

According the bible.
Jesus is both "Son of God, and God"
Do I believe this.
No.

According the bible.
You must accept Jesus as your Saviour or you go to hell.
Do I believe this.
No.

Well I have rambled on enough, I hope you have a better understanding of my stances and what I believe and why now.

Peace in God to you always.

0 Replies

Scott777, Your logical sense has no logic in it. Do you understand anything about logic? Explain logic to us?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Scott777, Your logical sense has no logic in it. Do you understand anything about logic? Explain logic to us?

Actually just because you are unable to grasp what I have said, does not make it non logical.

The logic I used was simple and basic Deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises.
My premises is
" Where did it come from"

And "I think of evolution and the randoms and next to near impossibilities that involved of anything at all happening, and I just can not accept that is just randomly happened."

Which according to logic through the basic model of deductive reasoning led to
"And I am forced by logic to give the possibility that maybe there might be a God."

And so, in steps.
That is logic through Deductive reasoning.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

mesquite wrote:
That there is no supporting evidence for the enslavement of the Hebrews or the ten plagues goes against the validity of the biblical accounts.

Actually there is quite a lot of evidence in the myths of the time. Most not all myths have a flood. So there has to be SOME TRUTH to that. And there are many other things like that also that are in different myths.

Now it is based on these myths that really are the foundation of what I really believe.

Even if it is true that most myths involve some sort of great flood (or whatever), it is not logical to then conclude that such an event actually occurred.

What are the origins of these myths?
What were they intended to communicate?
Have these myths always been correctly interpreted and understood?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

What are the origins of these myths?

Does any really know?

echi wrote:

What were they intended to communicate?

I have no idea.

echi wrote:

Have these myths always been correctly interpreted and understood?

Probably not.

0 Replies

No, you are wrong. Logic must have as its foundation "valid" reasoning. Poofism is not valid reasoning. There is nothing to confirm poofism through observation and/or consistency except to rely on a one book based on myths. That's not logic by any stretch of a logical mind.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, you are wrong. Logic must have as its foundation "valid" reasoning.

Show me where my beginning reasoning is non valid.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

echi wrote:

What are the origins of these myths?

Does any really know?

echi wrote:

What were they intended to communicate?

I have no idea.

echi wrote:

Have these myths always been correctly interpreted and understood?

Probably not.

What is the basis for your stated beliefs?

0 Replies

Scott777: And "I think of evolution and the randoms and next to near impossibilities that involved of anything at all happening, and I just can not accept that is just randomly happened."

Your primary premise is wrong, so everything that follows is wrong. You still don't understand logic. Your failure to understand and accept science and its findings is your problem. Poofism has nothing to back it up. That you can compose a statement doesn't make it true. "...next to near impossibilities.." is a subjective statement.

0 Replies

How do we know that Christians are Delusional?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know