Agrees with what? That God exists? Sorry to burst your bubble, but this thread is to account for models and empirical tools to prove God exists. Regardless if you believe in God or not, the tools exists, therefor your silly claim that there are no means or empirical tools or observations to measure or try and measure the existence of God. That's where you failed. Your mockery of arguments are trying to debate the existence of God, which is why I am laughing at you. This thread was not meant to proof that God exists, rather to prove there are tools in place to prove God exists.
Agrees with you on much of anything. Nobody's said you are right about much. The tool is not a good one. Nice try, but it failed.
Axiom is a term without conspiracy, just as you quoted. I refute your concept, therefor it is a false axiom. You haven't given a shred of proof that supports your theory.
And boom goes the dynamite! Your admission that it's a tool ends the debate. Because you claimed there are zero. Thanks for playing. I don't need you to believe it's a good or bad one. Just that there are tools in place.
Weird how you use this debating tactic, then start name calling when it's turned back at you. How contradictory?!?! Go figure
Sweet! You can move along now... Being in over your head is a hard pill for you to swallow, but you should get used to it by now
i really believe you are too caught up in winning an argument to stop and analyze what you say. I have tried to break it down, sorry I failed.
Here is the problem with Denny's axiom "multiple processors". The original argument was using the entire atoms of the universe. Denny is talking about a small closed system "the earth"; which doesn't take a genius to understand how it is dwarfed by the entire universe. Another account that further supports life on Earth is the age of Earth as compared to the universe. As Marazul's posted argument; it accounts for the age of the universe, not earth. So for Denny to get that little motor in his head to cranking; let's assume his "multiprocessor theory" does work. He would need to know the entire atom availability on Earth, take account for the actual time that the proposed "first self replicating molecule" on Earth came into being; then run his multi-processor concept. Even then it wouldn't work.
It's not about winning the argument. I am using Godel's theorem with an entirely new set of parameters. This is science right? As I said a few pages back; "Is darwin's model now the same from conception?" So changing the parameters "or axioms" void the model?
I can tell you didn't read. But you do know computer or cores do not create time. Only God exists outside our time relative to us. The time required since the singularity we perceive is insufficient to create any life without the assistance of something beyond time. No number of cores create more time. Perhaps this is why no man knows how to get it done even with all the cores we possess. You see the power we have, but it is completely inadequate.
The proof you offered was that all chemical reactions must happen in a serial manner. But they don't. If you put salt in water and I put salt in water at the same time, my salt doesn't wait for yours to dissolve. Ya dig? I tried to put it in terms you might understand.
Well that and "these cores" would mean every molecule in the universe has a predisposed information bank for every living being or inorganic thing in this universe. The cores do no good unless there is a program to those computers to run the algorithms. It would be useless without it.
Okay, but your simplified concept is wrong. In chemistry there are series of events that need to take place for one reaction. Your example is "putting salt in water" what chemical composition comes from that? How does that now effect, let's say the combination of sulfur? And what environmental conditions will effect it in another way? Then how about the bank of atoms available to make it happen? Your simplifications are actually wrong. Chemistry, organic chemistry, biology and cosmology are more detailed than this simply analogy
I read the article, you obviously have not. Ha! It is funny when you think of it. I practice using science and math. and I know God put me here to do just that, so I believe in God. You sir believe in science and random chance with out doing the math. Forget Godel, Galileo told you that is foolish. You really should start take some axioms to heart, it will improve your performance.
I actually did read it and I've seen it before. The number of planck times from the beginning of time until now is enough time. The argument you cite is simply wrong because it assumes that only one thing can happen per planck time. But salt in my water and salt in your water can dissolve in the same planck time. You can literally have a billion people dissolving salt in water at the exact same planck time. Your argument assumes only one thing can happen.
