Though Experiement: A computer in a lab

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: coomba98

The intent is to help us think about an appropriate standard of evidence required for God, but in a way that is disguised from religion so that it can be approached without bias.

You are not locked in a room, needing to explain a computer to get out.

You are a religious adherent with hundreds of generations before you, believing what you do, with full capability and access to science... Yet you still can't prove it.

a reply to: Abysha

Your response is a perfect example of why its context to religion needs to be hidden in this form.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So it IS just like the clockmaker example. Just rehashed as a computer and a locked room.

Coomba98

Edit....

The best evidence is the same as science. That which is demonstrable

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: coomba98

The intent is to help us think about an appropriate standard of evidence required for God, but in a way that is disguised from religion so that it can be approached without bias.

Frankly with the all the talk of rape, middle fingers, psychos and making your own movie out of this your doing a lousy job.

a reply to: SolAquarius

You were joking so I was joking.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I suspected as much when I responded the below to your other post. You need an intervention or exorcism

Who is being goofy - your other self?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: ChipForBrains

Is the computer itself not evidence of its creator? It didn't create itself.

The scientist is demanding you give him empirical evidence of the creator by preforming experiments on the computer, and deducing evidence of the creator from what you learn about how the computer works. My question was is it possible to provide the proper evidence to get out of the room? That is to say can you prove the creator exist by appealing to the inner workings of the computer?

No the computer can not prove that it's creator exist's but it is itself proof that by it's existance that it was created, the form, nature and ability's of it's creator can only be postulated by the form of the computer IF the computer has been created for the creator to use but if it was not created by the Creator to be used by the creator's self but by other creation's/creature's then those obvious user structure's if they do not correspond to the creator tell nothing but that the creator produced a system designed to be interacted with by other creation's and so the computer in the small room is far too small an amount of data in itself to provide any evidence other than the obvious which is that IT IS, how did it come into being, can a complex system perfectly balanced simply arise and is the statistical probability against that happening proof enough that it had to be created and therefore there IS a creator behind the computer.

The Scientist would then have to use his rational and arrive at the obvious statistical probability that the computer does indeed have a creator and therefore it's existance alone is suggestive and statistical probability balanced proof that it was created by a creator.

Of course he would then have to postulate if the universe is infinite and time is endless then statistically all possibility must become probability's at some point and in infinite time an infinite number of repetition's of such random chance become possible BUT if this same scientist is then arguing that the Universe itself is limited, has a begining and an end then he can not realistically deny that it also must have a creator and therefore if time, space and energy are all limited factor's it is no longer a probability factor but an absolute that to exist the computer must have a creator but once again defining that creator is probably something that would require an even greater data set than is available either to the scientist or to his lab rat's, a creator exist's, who, how and what that creator is though is beyond any reasonable ability with the limited data available to provide a definitive respone to him, the computer's very existence alone is response enough and if the scientist fail's to understand that then he is a rather dull razor.

Unfortunately the scientist may be one of those rather less intelligent and fake scientist's whom is more intent upon pushing the perpetual motion of argument over genuine scientific rational and therefore he may then keep his lab rat's trapped because to let them out would be an admission of defeat on his part and we all know many scientist have far too much ego.

Great idea you had here, I like it.

a reply to: coomba98

No.

Paley:

here must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

He is arguing for the existence of a creator. My thought experiment has nothing to do with the creator's existence. I get you think that I am working towards that or trying to trap you some how because computers are created but i promise you that is not the point. It deals with a creator indirectly, but it has nothing to do with it existing.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Probably the former

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: ChipForBrains

Is the computer itself not evidence of its creator? It didn't create itself.

The scientist is demanding you give him empirical evidence of the creator by preforming experiments on the computer, and deducing evidence of the creator from what you learn about how the computer works. My question was is it possible to provide the proper evidence to get out of the room? That is to say can you prove the creator exist by appealing to the inner workings of the computer?

Now I'm interested, yes I think you could find traits of the creator in the computer even if the creator wasn't named outright.

For example, if you were allowed to turn it on and read some code, you would be able to determine what language (both programming language (for example, C++) and written language (for example, English) the creators used. There are many other traits about the creator you could pick up through the cultural footprint they left in the computer's code. From these traits, you could generate an idea of what the creator was like.

If there were some Microsoft Word files or something similar on the computer with fiction on it, you could analyze the language to determine how the creator would think.

Look up microscopic art inside computer chips


www.wired.com...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Abysha

Precisely. And it says Trump on it.

Then Trump made it. Evidence right there.

He puts his name in everything he claims to build, doesn't he? He made the computer and apparently Jesus, too. Riddle solved.

But what if it has charles mansons browsing history a reply to: darkbake

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It sounds like you are trying to trick someone into making an argument supporting intelligent design. Compared to reality, computers are very simple and work according to a clockwork Universe. The get-fetch-execute cycle of the Von Neumann architecture is perfect science.

Reality on the other hand is not perfect science. There is no clock with reality. There is no evidence to suggest time is real. And there is no evidence to support our arbitrary identification of particles is not just delusion created by our measurement devices. Reality seems to be continuous, non-discrete, everything is connected to everything else by a wave of energy, and everything is massively parallel in its execution of the laws of physics.

To answer question, "proper evidence" is purely a subjective judgement. You could argue the computer had a creator because it appears to be "man made". Again, this is all purely subjective. All objective evidence is determined to be "proper" by using a subjective judgement. You can't prove what is "good" science and what is "bad" science. We just know it when we see it.

Now in comparing computers to human beings, human beings are millions of time more complicated and full of errors and inconsistencies in the their design. As far as I can tell there is nothing intelligent about the design of human anatomy. Otherwise, people would not live with so much pain and sickness. Millions of years of evolution have given us special powers needed for our survival. There is nothing intelligent or "man made" about our design.

a reply to: coomba98

Best post of the thread!

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: coomba98

The intent is to help us think about an appropriate standard of evidence required for God, but in a way that is disguised from religion so that it can be approached without bias.

There is absolutely no evidence that would ever qualify as "good" evidence for the existence of God. This is why faith exists precisely because there is not a shred of credible evidence.

You said the computer is empty. Without a basic program the user can't even type a command. Basically you have a paper weight.
Why is who made it important?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you trying to prove some religious point?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you trying to prove some religious point?

I think he's trying to get people to make an argument that will ultimately be used for supporting the idea of Intelligent Design. I was working at Merrill Lynch many years ago and someone gave a presentation on Intelligent Design under the umbrella of UI design. It was really cheap and crafty. They had a book and everything. When you first here the argument for Intelligent Design you think there's something to this way of thinking. But it takes a much deeper more sophisticated view to understand ID is really BS. It's nothing more than God exists because I think so.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Abysha

t's not a question, though. The psycho holding you in the room is specifically asking you for evidence. So you need to find evidence. Even if you pick the right answer by guessing, you need to find evidence. Because guessing the creator is useless. Just as useless as Christians guessing their gods as the creators.

That was a good response

Because it's the response you wanted to hear.

Every computer has a model number. I suspect our Universe is also branded in some way, but scientists haven't discovered how to see it yet.

If they ever did, I think a lot of people on Earth who formerly claimed to believe in the scientific method would suddenly become reactionary religious zealots for rejecting provable scientific truth and believing in their own version of reality.