Philosophy time

[Souplex]

Similarly in programming a system cannot design a system more complicated than itself.

Speaking as an engineer and a computer scientist...
Srsly?

-- Alex

In order for a program to spew out more programs it needs to contain the code of the programs it is spewing out does it not?

 

[Alex_P]

Oh I saw the names and assumed it was from Hamlet. Fair enough

Tom Stoppard's Rosencratz and Guildenstern Are Dead. It's a play about existentialism. Kinda like Waiting for Godot, I guess. I like the way it deals with the huge gap between reality and art.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

In order for a program to spew out more programs it needs to contain the code of the programs it is spewing out does it not?

It does not.

-- Alex

 

[zimtheawesome]

That is what the programmer does...create the code for the programs.

 

[Souplex]

In order for a program to spew out more programs it needs to contain the code of the programs it is spewing out does it not?

It does not.

-- Alex

Then how does it know what to spew out?

 

[zimtheawesome]

Tom Stoppard's Rosencratz and Guildenstern Are Dead. It's a play about existentialism. Kinda like Waiting for Godot, I guess. I like the way it deals with the huge gap between reality and art.

-- Alex

sounds cool maybe i will have to check it out

 

[stone0042]

Many Atheists claim that they don't worship god because there is no argument for or against it. (In reality they all just worship Athe the incarnation of nothingness which seeks to render everything as nothingness) However, some people argue that if the premises are true then the outcome is true. Descartes came up with a fairly simple reasoning for the existence of a perfect being. "A cause cannot create an effect greater than itself therefore somewhere down the line there had to be a perfect being" I ask all you atheists and agnostics to try and find a hole in this logic.

Why should we?

You are directly challenging the beliefs of others to satisfy your own ego, thats wrong.

Also, the science behind nuclear reactions is based on the idea of a reaction producing greater energy than you put in.

Therefore that logic is flawed.

I win with science.

Um, actually that science behind nuclear reactions? Yeah, it's not based on that at all. It's based upon the breaking of chemical bonds, which releases TONS of energy. Law of Conservation of Energy, heard of it?

 

[Eldarion]

Many Atheists claim that they don't worship god because there is no argument for or against it. (In reality they all just worship Athe the incarnation of nothingness which seeks to render everything as nothingness) However, some people argue that if the premises are true then the outcome is true. Descartes came up with a fairly simple reasoning for the existence of a perfect being. "A cause cannot create an effect greater than itself therefore somewhere down the line there had to be a perfect being" I ask all you atheists and agnostics to try and find a hole in this logic.

Why should we?

You are directly challenging the beliefs of others to satisfy your own ego, thats wrong.

Also, the science behind nuclear reactions is based on the idea of a reaction producing greater energy than you put in.

Therefore that logic is flawed.

I win with science.

Um, actually that science behind nuclear reactions? Yeah, it's not based on that at all. It's based upon the breaking of chemical bonds, which releases TONS of energy. Law of Conservation of Energy, heard of it?

It produces way more energy than you use to start the reaction, therefore something creats something greater than itself.

I know that nuclear reactions aren't "based" on the idea(simple miss wording on my part, I'll give you that) but the fact still stands that nuclear science kills the logic in the aforementioned argument.

 

[Alex_P]

Then how does it know what to spew out?

It could compute it, for example, using some kind of stochastic process.

-- Alex

 

[stone0042]

Many Atheists claim that they don't worship god because there is no argument for or against it. (In reality they all just worship Athe the incarnation of nothingness which seeks to render everything as nothingness) However, some people argue that if the premises are true then the outcome is true. Descartes came up with a fairly simple reasoning for the existence of a perfect being. "A cause cannot create an effect greater than itself therefore somewhere down the line there had to be a perfect being" I ask all you atheists and agnostics to try and find a hole in this logic.

Why should we?

You are directly challenging the beliefs of others to satisfy your own ego, thats wrong.

Also, the science behind nuclear reactions is based on the idea of a reaction producing greater energy than you put in.

Therefore that logic is flawed.

I win with science.

Um, actually that science behind nuclear reactions? Yeah, it's not based on that at all. It's based upon the breaking of chemical bonds, which releases TONS of energy. Law of Conservation of Energy, heard of it?

It produces way more energy than you use to start the reaction, therefore something creats something greater than itself.

I know that nuclear reactions aren't "based" on the idea(simple miss wording on my part, I'll give you that) but the fact still stands that nuclear science kills the logic in the aforementioned argument.

Not really, a nuclear reaction isn't creating new energy, just tapping into previously stored energy. The energy in the bonds broken were already there. Otherwise, we would have a free source of energy and never have to buy foreign oil again.

 

[Eldarion]

Many Atheists claim that they don't worship god because there is no argument for or against it. (In reality they all just worship Athe the incarnation of nothingness which seeks to render everything as nothingness) However, some people argue that if the premises are true then the outcome is true. Descartes came up with a fairly simple reasoning for the existence of a perfect being. "A cause cannot create an effect greater than itself therefore somewhere down the line there had to be a perfect being" I ask all you atheists and agnostics to try and find a hole in this logic.

Why should we?

You are directly challenging the beliefs of others to satisfy your own ego, thats wrong.

Also, the science behind nuclear reactions is based on the idea of a reaction producing greater energy than you put in.

Therefore that logic is flawed.

I win with science.

Um, actually that science behind nuclear reactions? Yeah, it's not based on that at all. It's based upon the breaking of chemical bonds, which releases TONS of energy. Law of Conservation of Energy, heard of it?

It produces way more energy than you use to start the reaction, therefore something creats something greater than itself.

I know that nuclear reactions aren't "based" on the idea(simple miss wording on my part, I'll give you that) but the fact still stands that nuclear science kills the logic in the aforementioned argument.

Not really, a nuclear reaction isn't creating new energy, just tapping into previously stored energy. The energy in the bonds broken were already there. Otherwise, we would have a free source of energy and never have to buy foreign oil again.

The cause(the initial uranium being broken by a high speed atom) is nowhere near as big as the effect.

"A cause cannot create an effect greater than itself therefore somewhere down the line there had to be a perfect being"

That proves this wrong. It doesn't need to create new energy it just has to cause an effect greater than itself, which it does.

Also, we could use nuclear power ALLOT more than we do now in America. Most of France is nuclear powered. If we used only nuclear power we would have nearly unlimited cheap electricity, but stupid tree huggers and special interest groups from other power companies work to stop that from happening. Same reason we don't have a full cross country railway system for mass transit, stupid automotive lobbyists.

You know, We could have nuclear powered cars, but I don't think we can trust the average person to maintain a nuclear reactor.

 

[stone0042]

Many Atheists claim that they don't worship god because there is no argument for or against it. (In reality they all just worship Athe the incarnation of nothingness which seeks to render everything as nothingness) However, some people argue that if the premises are true then the outcome is true. Descartes came up with a fairly simple reasoning for the existence of a perfect being. "A cause cannot create an effect greater than itself therefore somewhere down the line there had to be a perfect being" I ask all you atheists and agnostics to try and find a hole in this logic.

Why should we?

You are directly challenging the beliefs of others to satisfy your own ego, thats wrong.

Also, the science behind nuclear reactions is based on the idea of a reaction producing greater energy than you put in.

Therefore that logic is flawed.

I win with science.

Um, actually that science behind nuclear reactions? Yeah, it's not based on that at all. It's based upon the breaking of chemical bonds, which releases TONS of energy. Law of Conservation of Energy, heard of it?

It produces way more energy than you use to start the reaction, therefore something creats something greater than itself.

I know that nuclear reactions aren't "based" on the idea(simple miss wording on my part, I'll give you that) but the fact still stands that nuclear science kills the logic in the aforementioned argument.

Not really, a nuclear reaction isn't creating new energy, just tapping into previously stored energy. The energy in the bonds broken were already there. Otherwise, we would have a free source of energy and never have to buy foreign oil again.

The cause(the initial uranium being broken by a high speed atom) is nowhere near as big as the effect.

"A cause cannot create an effect greater than itself therefore somewhere down the line there had to be a perfect being"

That proves this wrong. It doesn't need to create new energy it just has to cause an effect greater than itself, which it does.

Also, we could use nuclear power ALLOT more than we do now in America. Most of France is nuclear powered. If we used only nuclear power we would have nearly unlimited cheap electricity, but stupid tree huggers and special interest groups from other power companies work to stop that from happening. Same reason we don't have a full cross country railway system for mass transit, stupid automotive lobbyists.

You know, We could have nuclear powered cars, but I don't think we can trust the average person to maintain a nuclear reactor.

I think you're misunderstanding me. There is no new creation of energy, which is what I was the OP as saying in his theory.

 

[Eldarion]

Many Atheists claim that they don't worship god because there is no argument for or against it. (In reality they all just worship Athe the incarnation of nothingness which seeks to render everything as nothingness) However, some people argue that if the premises are true then the outcome is true. Descartes came up with a fairly simple reasoning for the existence of a perfect being. "A cause cannot create an effect greater than itself therefore somewhere down the line there had to be a perfect being" I ask all you atheists and agnostics to try and find a hole in this logic.

Why should we?

You are directly challenging the beliefs of others to satisfy your own ego, thats wrong.

Also, the science behind nuclear reactions is based on the idea of a reaction producing greater energy than you put in.

Therefore that logic is flawed.

I win with science.

Um, actually that science behind nuclear reactions? Yeah, it's not based on that at all. It's based upon the breaking of chemical bonds, which releases TONS of energy. Law of Conservation of Energy, heard of it?

It produces way more energy than you use to start the reaction, therefore something creats something greater than itself.

I know that nuclear reactions aren't "based" on the idea(simple miss wording on my part, I'll give you that) but the fact still stands that nuclear science kills the logic in the aforementioned argument.

Not really, a nuclear reaction isn't creating new energy, just tapping into previously stored energy. The energy in the bonds broken were already there. Otherwise, we would have a free source of energy and never have to buy foreign oil again.

The cause(the initial uranium being broken by a high speed atom) is nowhere near as big as the effect.

"A cause cannot create an effect greater than itself therefore somewhere down the line there had to be a perfect being"

That proves this wrong. It doesn't need to create new energy it just has to cause an effect greater than itself, which it does.

Also, we could use nuclear power ALLOT more than we do now in America. Most of France is nuclear powered. If we used only nuclear power we would have nearly unlimited cheap electricity, but stupid tree huggers and special interest groups from other power companies work to stop that from happening. Same reason we don't have a full cross country railway system for mass transit, stupid automotive lobbyists.

You know, We could have nuclear powered cars, but I don't think we can trust the average person to maintain a nuclear reactor.

I think you're misunderstanding me. There is no new creation of energy, which is what I was the OP as saying in his theory.

The theory just says "a cause cannot create and effect greater than itself."

The energy used a nuclear reaction is much less than the energy released. It doesn't have to "create" more energy it has to "cause" a greater release of energy than was used. Nuclear reactions do this, its just not perfect because uranium degrades over time. But it still has an effect greater than the cause in terms of energy, even if it only causes the release of the energy that release is still a greater effect than the cause.

 

[stone0042]

The theory just says "a cause cannot create and effect greater than itself."

The energy used a nuclear reaction is much less than the energy released. It doesn't have to "create" more energy it has to "cause" a greater release of energy than was used. Nuclear reactions do this, its just not perfect because uranium degrades over time. But it still has an effect greater than the cause in terms of energy, even if it only causes the release of the energy that release is still a greater effect than the cause.

Okay, I give up. It's late, I'm tired, I'm going to bed. Fun debate though. Go God!!

 

[Eldarion]

The theory just says "a cause cannot create and effect greater than itself."

The energy used a nuclear reaction is much less than the energy released. It doesn't have to "create" more energy it has to "cause" a greater release of energy than was used. Nuclear reactions do this, its just not perfect because uranium degrades over time. But it still has an effect greater than the cause in terms of energy, even if it only causes the release of the energy that release is still a greater effect than the cause.

Okay, I give up. It's late, I'm tired, I'm going to bed. Fun debate though. Go God!!

I don't remember debating weather or not god exists, I was just picking on the failed logic in the OP. Again, I am not out to prove that god doesn't exist, I am defending what I believe in from someone who IS challenging my faith. Or lack of faith.....whatever.

Nothing wrong with believing in god if you choose, I just hate it when Christians decide to attack the Atheist viewpoint with the whole bullshit "prove that god doesn't exist" argument. I realize that it is equally wrong for the atheist side to try to make the Christian side prove that god does exist but in this thread the OP is doing nothing more than attacking a belief just because he doesn't agree.

Doesn't seem like he is being genuinely hatefull but still. Challenging someone else's beliefs is wrong.

I am not attacking your faith for lack of evidence, so If I see a post attacking my choice of beliefs based on some stupid untrue argument based on halfassed logic I am going to kill it with actual logic as best I can.

Believe in what you want, Atheists don't exist just to challenge Christianity we just don't believe in god.

Sorry for the rant but I hate having to defend what I believe in every time some Church nut decides my belief is a direct threat to his.

Besides you can't prove that god exists anyway, that is the whole point of faith right?

 

[Souplex]

Then how does it know what to spew out?

It could compute it, for example, using some kind of stochastic process.

-- Alex

Is that how file compression works?

 

[Alex_P]

Is that how file compression works?

Usually no, as far as I'm aware. The logic of the self-extracting executable created during file compression is built into the compression program.

It's how genetic programming works, though.

-- Alex