|
|
|
|
#1
11-04-2005, 02:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Disproved God (X-post)
[ QUOTE ]
this would violate the Church-Turing thesis (which is the backbone of computation theory) [/ QUOTE ] And so what? How can you be sure that the Church-Turing thesis can't be violated? I don't know squat about any of this, but it certainly appears completely underwhelming and lacking in authoritativeness to me. Somebody(ies) came up with some theories, and you're saying God doesn't exist because of them. I'm an atheist, but it's certainly not because of weak arguments like this. Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan) 
|
|
#2
11-04-2005, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Disproved God (X-post)
[ QUOTE ]
And so what? How can you be sure that the Church-Turing thesis can't be violated? [/ QUOTE ] this was my first thought. it also leads to the question: why does God (if he/she/it exists) care? perhaps he can solve this but just doesn't give a crap.
|
|
#3
11-04-2005, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Disproved God (X-post)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] this would violate the Church-Turing thesis (which is the backbone of computation theory) [/ QUOTE ] And so what? How can you be sure that the Church-Turing thesis can't be violated? I don't know squat about any of this, but it certainly appears completely underwhelming and lacking in authoritativeness to me. Somebody(ies) came up with some theories, and you're saying God doesn't exist because of them. I'm an atheist , but it's certainly not because of weak arguments like this. Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan) [/ QUOTE ] Greg, You were my hero before reading this (along with Barry Greenstein and Chris Ferguson) but now I am really impressed.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
