It doesn’t matter whether it is a triangle or not. What is important is what comes on your mind when you look at this picture. This is how object recognition works - you look at some object and then some abstract terms pop up in your head. In this case this term is a triangle, even if in reality it’s not it. You need some additional data to classify it as something else, for example you can use a ruler on sides or calculate tangents of the small triangles. When you have those additional data you can classify it as a quadrangle. This example shows that you not always have enough information to tell something with 100% certainty. The same rule can be applied to God’s existence.
No, it won’t, because artificial neural networks don’t solve problems using algorithms, so a neural network doesn’t know the definition of a triangle. This quadrangle would definitely be classified as triangle, because it’s more similar to triangles than to other quadrangles.
And did I say otherwise?
Oh, and if I didn’t give you a hint that it might not be a triangle would you believe it is a triangle? Scientists cannot just believe in things. This is what critical rationalism is about. It’s all about searching for alternative explanations and not rejecting totally any possibility.
I’m quite sorry to say this, but it does NOT. You’re trying to mathematically argue God but you can’t do that. Let me explain:
Stand on one side of your room, back against the wall. Now, walk halfway across the room. You’re in the center, right? Now, continue walking in a straight line halfway again. You’re now 3/4 of the way through the room. Now walk halfway again. 7/8s. Keep repeating the process. 15/16. 31/32. 63/64. 127/128… you’ll never reach the opposite wall, right?
Try again. Walk from one end of the room to the other, ignoring the half-way stuff. What’s that? You reached the opposite wall?
Mathematically, you didn’t. Even if you can feel the wall, mathematically, you haven’t reached the wall yet. Infinite recursion says that there is empty space between the atoms in your hand and the atoms of the wall (and empty space inside the atoms).
Mathematically proving or disproving God is a fool’s errand.
“God” has a precise definition, according to the Bible. A triangle has a precise definition, according to mathematics. Something that “looks like God” or “looks like a triangle”, aren’t…until all the conditions are met.
Your “triangle” doesn’t meet the conditions.
If the neural network doesn’t know the definition of things it’s looking at, why not just call it a space shuttle or a flibbertigibbet or former New Hampshire Senator John Sununu? How does it know what a “quadrangle” is unless you program it to know?
I didn’t believe it was a triangle at all at first because of the extra hole. If I didn’t get the second image, then yes, I’d believe it was a triangle at first. However, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong. I thought the top image was a triangle at first. I was wrong. It’s a four-sided figure–a quadrangle. It’s 100% quadrangle. It’s 0% triangle.
I’m not trying to prove that God exist, I’m just saying than you can never be 100% sure that God doesn’t exist. This even wasn’t a mathematical prove, rather logical.
How is this relevant to our discussion? Anyway, this has nothing to do with math, rather with physics. Besides, you haven’t even defined what does it mean to “reach the wall”.
The question is not whether you can prove or disprove God mathematically, but whether you can disprove God in any way at all. I’m just saying that we just might not have enough information to totally deny God’s existence. I can deny Bible though.
Again, you missed my point. The “triangle” was just to show you that believing or disbelieving in things can lead you to false conclusions. That’s why you shouldn’t take things as just true or false and rather use fuzzy logic (and BTW, according to Bible God is beyond human understanding and cannot be defined)
Because you train it. For example, you show it a triangle and say “this is a triangle” (well, not literally). Next time you show it a tetragon and say “this is a tetragon”. Then you repeat this a lot of times with different triangles and tetragons. After it is trained, even if you show it a triangle that it has never seen before, it should recognize it as a triangle. Neural Networks are beautiful things .
So the conclusion is that believing in things can lead you away from the truth. You should always question your beliefs.
No. Believing is simply the acceptance of something as being true. It doesn’t make it the truth. I was mistaken when I thought you were trying to mathematically prove God’s existence and I apologize.
Let’s get back to the “you can’t be 100% sure God doesn’t exist” claim. First, I’ve never claimed that I’m 100% sure God doesn’t exist. Secondly, define “God”. The deity described in the Bible has an internal and fundamental contradiction. Therefore, it cannot exist.
As for a supreme creator being that created the entire universe? I don’t know. I also don’t believe in one unless I see SOME evidence; unless I’m shown a triangle and am told “this is a triangle”.
If you showed your neural network thing a thousand triangles and called them all triangles, then you showed the thing a bowl of soup and called it a triangle, what would the neural network do?
I know this was a few pages back, but, too gay is when your attraction is so great it gets in the road of normal duties. It’s completely necessary- for the same reason it’s necessary to in some ways separate men and women.
One cannot prove God does or does not exist. I can not prove that fairies do not exist, because I can not be everywhere all at once, and observe everything. However, I can look at what eveidence ther is, and then make a good case as to why I should or should not believe. I can prove Gravity by using simple, repeatable (By other people as well) tests. How does one do that for fairies?
The Epicurean model shows proof that God does not exist. An all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing deity could not allow evil to exist. Evil exists. Therefore, God does not.
Yes. We certainly need to define what version of God we are discussing. In order to have a frame to draw from, and look at.
I merely point out that there are different veiws as to what God is. (As you know)
We could discuss the merits and failing of pantheism just as easily - or Poly-theism.
With monotheisim, (Which is where we seem to be at) if we stick to a singlar religion’s view of God, we are bound by that frame. Just because one frame does not make sense, does it mean there are no others that do?
I suppose I should ask point blank, as to going through the garden. (sorry for that)
You obviously do not believe in a monotheistic veiw of God, and that seems to be your main argument point. But if the veiw of what God is changes (as in poly, or pan) then how does your Athiesm opinion stack up? (And I only asks for entertainment, not as a challenge.)
Poly theisim, I will not even attempt to defend or argue for - that one to me is at best, goofy.
What about pantheism? If God is all, and is NOT the monotheistic veiw, then what about that?
I don’t really know how to answer this question because I haven’t heard the definition of said god(s).
Mono = 1. If God is all, God is necessarily 1. Therefore, it’s a monotheistic view.
As for pantheism, I don’t really know why this all-encompassing God would care if I believe in it or not.
I’m sorry I can’t be more specific. I’m grasping at straws here because I don’t have a firm footing on what you’re asking. You’re giving me this broad overview and then asking my opinion on something specific.
But Sersoft; Define evil? Sin? The problem is, that evil may well be a part of the duality of a pantheistic god… evil may simply be a human explaination of a bigger mechanism at play.
You say “If he exists” but how do we prove that? How do we prove evil? Rape, murder… ? We veiw those things through a human perspective… what’s to say we have it right. When we see those things, our empathy kicks in and we react to those things. Murder is costly to our survival, so… are we merely reacting from an evolutionary stance? A religious one? A civil one?
Rape is socially wrong, (And I am not even arguing that it IS ethically wrong) Still, in nature, it happens all the time. (Koala bears or horrid little rape artists. The males could be considered so, because they do not care if they are invited or not. They will simply overpower the female) So because we are higher developed socially than most animals, do we say that rape is wrong because we are human? Because someone said that God said it was wrong? Or because is is damaging to the individual. What is the proper perspective?
Golden rule. Treat others as you’d like to be treated. Do unto others. Whatever you want to call it. To do otherwise (hurting others non-consensually) is evil.
Yes… the problem is, I am not sure how to define it myself. But you did answer the pantheism thing very well, and I had not thought of that to be honest. It does seem stupid for God to believe in him/her self.
I could be wrong, but it is hard to get into a frame of mind that is anything but mono-theistic really, because the others, as you stated, have their obvious self-evident problems as well.
Curious.
So, for you… You are looking atyour perspective puely from an evidence perspective? What would you accept then? (I am not trying to trap you, but this is an interesting question. - I am not sure what to belive to be honest - or not as the case may be.)
“Golden rule. Treat others as you’d like to be treated. Do unto others. Whatever you want to call it. To do otherwise (hurting others non-consensually) is evil.”
Hmmmm… Evil. Interesting… Remove God, and it is a social evil, not so much a universal evil. (Not sure that it matters much really)
I don’t know what I’d accept as evidence, to be honest. Possibly something extensive, like announcing precisely when you’re going to cause all amputee’s limbs to grow back and then doing so simultaneously.
Even then, I doubt that this entity is “God”…because it’s possible that its technology has so far surpassed our own that it’s indistinguishable from magic.
A man rapes and kills someone in Philadelphia. This man then appears on the streets of London about 8 hours later. Today, we’d just say that he hopped on a plane. 500 years ago, it would be pure magic and something that only God could accomplish. Go back even further, and you had Chinese troops placing lanterns in paper bags and floating them into the sky (hot air balloons), to scare the opposing troops into thinking there was some divine force helping.
I don’t know what evidence I’d accept. But, an all-knowing, all-powerful God should know what I need.
Just to throw in my two cents: you can’t really argue G-d as evil, or good, or wrong, or anything, because all words (including G-d, Evil, Good, etc.) are human-made, and every person has a slightly different understanding of it.
For example: Would you consider a policeman who saves his partner from a bad guy a hero? Some would say yes (must I explain why?), and others would say no. Those who would say no would back it up by saying that their definition of a hero is somebody who does something that few others could do. And, if they were to extend their definition to the case of a cop saving his partner, they might argue that there is a substantial amount of cops that, if put under that same situation, would also save their partner, hence making it good, but not heroic.
Am I making sense? You can’t say G-d is good or evil because your definition of G-d, Good, and Evil is most definitely different than somebody else’s, and in addition to that your definition of those words probably changes as time progresses.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.
.