I think if you were designed by a grand architect, you would struggle to comprehend the grand architect's design. I'm not a proponent of this idea, but I am an opponent of your refutation

Also, just cause I love the Dune books, the God Emperor says that boredom is sufficient cause for a God to instill self-awareness

This post was edited by Derkaderk on Dec 16 2012 06:13pm

i don't pretend to know any of this for a fact...its just based on our current understanding that ideas such as this are absurd.

if you want to go against knowledge and go with the illogical..be my guest but logic is all we will probably ever have to guide us in this universe. its not always right...but its the best we can manage for the time being.

All I said is your reasoning is faulty. I disagree that it rejects logic. If there is a functional experiment to test it, I don't see why it's invalid.

there is a functional experiment that theoretically test a theory. one you start testing theories with more theories you kind of hit a wall because any data obtained with be so uncertain it won't change anything.

its no different than trying to use an experiment to prove there is no god...you are combining two things that shouldn't be combined because it will end in stupidity every single time.

I think this thread is about a team who devised an experiment

we weren't even talking about that anymore. we were talking about whether or not you can realistically test things on a cosmic scale such as a computer controlling the universe or god.

calling god a computer program or a computer program god doesn't matter..both are beyond our reach.

Oh I thought we were still talking about the OP. never mind

The point is to go beyond your current understanding, imagine that everything you understand is actually false, but you perceive it to be truth. You even say in your second line, logic is all we will PROBABLY every have to guide us in this universe. But imagine if our concept of logic is an illogical concept for a being beyond our reality, such as an advanced being that supposedly programmed us. Logic is confined within our reality, but whats beyond that would have a different form of logic. Now you would say that it is illogical to try to even imagine what that form of logic would be because we could never be capable of understanding it, but that can not be said with positivism, because who does know? Maybe the unimagined could be conceptualized in the future? If you compare our understanding and knowledge of truth, such as understanding of the brain and how it operates, and all the technological advances of today, compared to the thought of the people of say, the Middle ages, the idea of say "sending a rocket to the moon with a person in it," would have been an illogical claim, because at that time period this is incomprehensible based on what they understand AT THE TIME. now you are basically those people, but in the present period of time, stating that it is impossible to understand things beyond our reality, but that is only because it impossible at the current time, and may be possible in the future. This historical comparison that im trying to explain basically comes from Kuhn's writings on paradigms and paradigm shifts. Sorry to ramble and write so much, but all im saying is that because its inconceivable at the present moment, it may not be in the future.

i know exactly what you mean by all that...however what logic rules outside of this universe has no bearing on us. we can only go with what we know and understand no matter what if we want to progress. maybe in 30 million years our brains will advance enough to comprehend such possibilities fully....however as we are we cannot possibly make an attempt at such understanding.

we are just the best advanced animals on our planet and at the end of the day we are stuck where we are stuck. trying to explain the unknown with stuff like this is beyond meaningless to us. its nothing more a talking point and will never be anything else for us.

thats why this experiment is stupid to me...its trying to test what we cannot possibly test because we cannot possibly understand what we are testing. our brains are just not advanced enough to comprehend such things.

How can you possibly KNOW that we cannot test it until we have at least tried? How can you possible KNOW that we cannot understand it? How can you possible KNOW that our brains are not advanced enough to comprehend such things?

e/ and as for it being just a talking point, obviously not if theyre attempting to test it. Thats not just a talking point in my opinion. And why are talking points meaningless to you? they are what innovate new ideas.

This post was edited by cletus7seven on Dec 17 2012 06:43pm