• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Eleven Year Old Genius Sets Out to Prove Existence of God

I have yet to find a wunderkind video which is not cringe-worthy as far as science is concerned. It is just complete gibberish with occasional obvious misunderstanding such as his apparent belief that there is outside of universe into which it expands. I mean this is the first thing explained in any astrophysics course using air balloon. Someone must have tried to put into his head something which he was not ready for, and result is a complete mess.
 
Last edited:
Um, yeah. Have you ever spent time around the brighter home-schooled kids, the ones who have doubled down on their parents' craziness because they have no filters or alternative views? They end up voluble, well-spoken in a totally distorted & extremist way, and crazy as hell. Crazier than their parents. Jesus Christ.
 
Well, the father said he was not home schooled, just an ordinary classes at school and some college.
I wonder if there are any studies which follow these kids and count how many of them actually end up as public expect them to.
My suspicion is that not many. Of course the problem here is that not many of them are actually that remarkable to begin with. It's just some kids have weird interests and motivations at that age which make them pursue studies for which they have yet to acquire prerequisites.
I mean you can try and inject quantum mechanics into 11 year old brain but this is gonna be waste of time 100% of time I am afraid.
 
Last edited:
barbos said:
I mean you can try and inject quantum mechanics into 11 year old brain but this is gonna be waste of time 100% of time I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Well, 99.999% of the time at best. There's always going to be a set of universes where it wasn't a waste of time.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
barbos said:
I mean you can try and inject quantum mechanics into 11 year old brain but this is gonna be waste of time 100% of time I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Well, 99.999% of the time at best. There's always going to be a set of universes where it wasn't a waste of time.
Click to expand...
100-0.1^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^9)))))))))))) at best.
 
ideologyhunter said:
Room temperature superconductor? I just want him to invent a coat zipper that will STAY ZIPPED. That won't start to come unzipped from the bottom up. If I could find one of those on a new coat, I just might start to believe in intelligent design.
Click to expand...

My suggestion is to use safety pins. A true genius might actually solve your problem without them, but then you might have a new problem--unzipping the coat when you no longer wish to wear it.
 
barbos said:
Tom Sawyer said:
barbos said:
I mean you can try and inject quantum mechanics into 11 year old brain but this is gonna be waste of time 100% of time I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Well, 99.999% of the time at best. There's always going to be a set of universes where it wasn't a waste of time.
Click to expand...
100-0.1^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^9)))))))))))) at best.
Click to expand...

Still works out to an infinite number of universes where it's the case, so it's a bit of moot point.
 
Bright kid. He says he already knows that the cosmic gord-elf created science. My money is on a heck of a lot of prior brainwashing. Still, there are advantages to having your conclusion sorted before you start investigating. You can tie a piece of intellectual string to it so that it's easy to find your way back to it.
 
Poppa Popobawa said:
My observations of how "God" is in fact defined, is that the definition may vary tremendously or less
so, from one person to the next, and/or one religion to the next.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've often said that every single believer has their own version of God; no two exactly alike. It's because there is no real, observable being that all observers can agree is 'God'; thus believers have nothing for their beliefs to converge upon, no reality to hone away the imprecisions of their terms.

Certainly there is a vague social reality that people all call 'God'. But that social reality changes with time, and according to the society one is part of.

Let's encourage this young man to come up with a decent definition of 'God', and if he can manage one that all religions would accept as accurate, then I'll gladly agree that he is indeed a genius!
 
Why would all religions agree on the exact definition/nature of God(s)?
And what's wrong with God having unique individual relationships such that He isn't described identically by everyone?
You expect too much.
 
Lion IRC said:
Why would all religions agree on the exact definition/nature of God(s)?
And what's wrong with God having unique individual relationships such that He isn't described identically by everyone?
You expect too much.
Click to expand...

Agreement on the exact definition is not the issue. Just that the definitions need not be mutually exclusive.

According to many Muslims, God hates the Jews. According to the Jews, God loves the Jews above all others. They can't both be the same God, unless he has some kind of psychiatric disorder; or at he very least is a two-faced hypocrite.

Are you saying that you believe God to be insane? Or just a bitchy manipulative cunt who is trying to suck up to various groups of people by claiming to dislike their enemies?
 
I agree that two mutually exclusive, opposite beliefs about God would render at least one of them invalid. But that principle doesn't stand in the way of this...

the-blind-men-and-the-elephant-6-638.jpg
 
Lion IRC said:
I agree that two mutually exclusive, opposite beliefs about God would render at least one of them invalid. But that principle doesn't stand in the way of this...

View attachment 15589
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. As I just pointed out. :rolleyes:

I know you really like this particular parable. But it's intellectual garbage for a number of reasons. It's also unbearably and unjustifiably arrogant.

https://www.str.org/articles/the-trouble-with-the-elephant#.Wu5Cu0GubYU

... It's as if one said, "Each of us is blind," and then added, "but I'll tell you what the world really looks like." This is a clear contradiction.

The problem becomes obvious by offering this challenge. Ask, "Where would you be in the illustration? When you apply this parable to the issue of truth, are you like one of the blind men or are you like the king?"

This dilemma is unsolvable. If the story-teller is like one of the six who can't see--if he is one of the blind men groping around--how does he know everyone else is blind and has only a portion of the truth? On the other hand, if he fancies himself in the position of the king, how is it that he alone escapes the illusion that blinds the rest of us?

At best, this parable--if it were accurate--might justify agnosticism, not religious pluralism. All one could really say is that it may be the case we're all groping about with no one in full possession of the truth--but this can't be known for sure.
Click to expand...
 
Greg Koukl has never liked the blind men / elephant concept because he views it through the prism of a fundamental Christian particularism apologetics. He thinks it affords an unacceptable amount of tolerance - not only to other religions - but even other denominations. (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics)

Note that he disqualifies the 'kings' perspective as an onlooker. But if that's the case
non-Christian religions, and even atheists, can rightfully ask what right Jesus has to assert that He is The Way. If there really IS an 'elephant' in the room, as I'm sure Greg Koukl would agree, then the parable is justified.

ETA - and I say this as a big fan of the STR ministry.
 
Lion IRC said:
Greg Koukl has never liked the blind men / elephant concept because he views it through the prism of a fundamental Christian particularism apologetics. He thinks it affords an unacceptable amount of tolerance - not only to other religions - but even other denominations. (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics)
Click to expand...
The argument either stands or falls based on its content. Your opinion of the person making the argument, or of other arguments he makes, is irrelevant. Even his motives are irrelevant.

If his argument is flawed, you need to expose the flaw; Nothing else qualifies as a rebuttal.
Note that he disqualifies the 'king's' perspective as an onlooker. But if that's the case non-Christian religions, and even atheists, can rightfully ask what right Jesus has to assert that He is The Way.
Click to expand...
Indeed they can.

You don't have to like it in order for it to be true.
 
Send STR an email and ask Mr Koukl if any human knows everything there is to know about the 'elephant'. The scriptural answer is no. We do not.
We ARE all blind to the totality of God.
 
Lion IRC said:
Send STR an email and ask Mr Koukl if any human knows everything there is to know about the 'elephant'. The scriptural answer is no. We do not.
We ARE all blind to the totality of God.
Click to expand...

Then how do you know that the parable is saying anything useful at all about reality?

(And why do you think I give a shit what the 'scriptural answer' is to anything?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom