E

Simon Paynton wrote:
The thing is, it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, by logic or any other means, in this world we have. Evidence would be nice; failing that, it’s unprovable either way.

It’s not an atheists’ task to disprove a claimed god, but when contradictory claims are made about a god, that particular version of tha…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I am going to called this “Rube Goldberg” theology. Finding a pattern after the fact doesn’t explain anything. Your post-hoc pattern mining can make any number appear special if you look long enough.

Exactly. Here this pattern is supposed to teach us that circular logic proves itself, LOL. That’s so fucking brill…[Read more]

I am going to called this “Rube Goldberg” theology. Finding a pattern after the fact doesn’t explain anything. Your post-hoc pattern mining can make any number appear special if you look long enough.

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

DeepMind has spoken. The answer’s 42.

In the mid 2020’s we find theists doing all sorts of backflips to find evidence for their magic cults. Typically, it’s the “something had to c…[Read more]

Have you published this rehashed nonsense in a real physics journal for peer review by secular scientists? Your god(s) are not supposed to be a math model or logical construct. They are claimed to interact in physical ways. Causing plagues, killing babies, you know all the fun stuff.

Not impressed with your silly AI. You can get AI to say…[Read more]

According to Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried out….

King IYK conveniently left out what “Mathew” (whomever that was, who wasn’t there) supposedly said as he cried out.

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Well, so much for the unity of the so-called “Holy Trinity”.

Of course, none of the storytellers can get the perfect word of god…[Read more]

I was just talking about Rosalind Franklin yesterday to someone! Her data was shared with Watson and Crick without her consent, via Wilkins and indirectly through Max Perutz. Her intellectual contribution was not recognized in 1953 the way it should have been, so by 1962 the Nobel committee did not see her as a third discoverer. Crick later said…[Read more]

Proof for Dracula.

The Nobel is about the invention, not the person. Shockley won his Nobel Prize for his role in the invention of the transistor. Late in life he spiralled into racist pseudoscience, eugenics, and intellectual self-destruction.

Pauling won his first on chemical bonding which was foundational. His work underpins everything from protein structure to…[Read more]

Yes, Telly on the telly had the lollipoppy, to be Frank.

I wonder which university this boy will attend?

Yes Jake, I agree with “it depends on how we view the proximate cause of its ruination.” 

The proximate cause depends on which lens you pick up. AI isn’t the culprit here, it’s the accelerant. It exposes the cracks and widens them, but it also widens the horizons for anyone who does think. The tragedy is that the number who engage critically has…[Read more]

Jake – Barney Fife? We are all caught in this circus together….

Many universities have become revenue-maximizing businesses, visa mills and research output farms. They have become corporations and this has diluted standards. They are no longer hostile to sacred cows and are willing to deplatform anyone who might upset them emotionally. Dissenting views are punished and a student’s “lived experience” trump…[Read more]

Yikes, I remember watching Mannix……and Frank Cannon too. That’s his name and he is a private investigator. Now I want a lollipop!