Who do you propose is lying? What are the lies.
Jesus myth is fringe
Roman authorities and Jewish authorities were in a far better position at demonstrating Jesus myth and never managed it or attempted it .
Research on conspiracy theory shows that such a conspiracy has a low survival rate.
I need a date for a lie Gordon or several lies if you are saying it's all lies.
You are exceedingly amateur if you require an investigation and can't specify who or what to investigate.
However if we even suggest lies we are also suggesting a truth. Can you give that?
Yep. 2 hours this time Floo.
Of course however I have encounteredJesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.
So, are you saying your personal experience means that the writers of the NT didn't make mistakes of lie?
Do you think that your personal experience might have been influenced by your prior interaction with the NT?
What would be the implications for you be if you were to consider that you might have made a mistake regarding how you assessed this experience?
Gordon,And you can prove that can you or is that your belief?
You give the Lieutenant too much credit with the term "experience". What he actually has is a narrative that he finds convincing -
I assume you have interacted with the NT Gordon? Therefore what do you think is particularly significant with my interaction?
And you can prove that can you or is that your belief?
In which Lieutenant Pigeon plants the land mine of "prove" and hopes no-one notices. Can he prove to the six-year-old that the Tooth Fairy didn't take his tooth?Repetition of a phrase in this case ''Lieutenant Pigeon'' usually is a sign of an attempt at hypnosis, Hillside......note the word attempt.
Repetition of a phrase in this case ''Lieutenant Pigeon'' usually is a sign of an attempt at hypnosis, Hillside......note the word attempt.
I wonder who the first fuckwit will be who starts repeating it (Lieutenant Parrot?).
Could be lieutenant Kije.Eh,
Regards ippy
Confirmation bias. "Experiences" of deities are almost invariably with the deities to which the subject happens to be most enculturated, the Lieutenant's included.Sounds like this is something you were bursting to express and eventually let out, Guff works like that.
Funny that.
That misinterprets what is in Matthew.The only significant difference i see is that Luke doesn't mention the flight to Egypt. They both mention Bethlehem as place of birth and Nazareth as place where he grew up, so they are consistent. Notably, Matthews focus is on Joseph and Luke's is on Mary, so they are simply reporting different aspects of the story.
The implication of Matthew was that at the time of Jesus' birth Mary and Joseph were permanent residents in Bethlehem, negating the need for a census and and/or a journey from Nazareth to place them in Bethlehem at the time of the birth. Matthew suggests that they only moved to Nazareth well after Jesus' birth.
So we have a major discrepancy between the two with Luke claiming they were residents of Nazareth during Mary's pregnancy, while Matthew suggests they weren't.
Of course however I have encounteredJesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.
Explain what you mean by encountering Jesus?First becoming aware that God is rather than isn't.
First becoming aware that God is rather than isn't.
Reading more about religion
Reading more about Christ
Affected by CS Lewis statement about other religions not having Christ
Realising the question ''why should christ be affecting me?''
After reading Revelations 3.20 realised that christ was there and it meant me.
After a period of resistance to christ I invited Him in.
.As opposed to assuming there isn't.
Translation: Assume that the question has a correct or meaningful answer.
As opposed to assuming there isn't.
.Screwtape
Translation: Add a log to the confirmation bias fire.
In which Lieutenant Pigeon continues to demonstrate his failure to grasp even the basic concept of burden of proof.So something affects me.....We mustn't investigate why?
That would then include reading The God Delusion, Hitchens, anything on antitheist, Antitheist rant sites, turdpolisher, and finally joining the Posse on religionethics.........
Firstly and those that remember my earlier testimony on the forum will be aware of there is the question of my road to God in the first place.
I have to say it was Carl Sagan culmintating in his episode where he discusses his universal community. There are two responses to this either one experiences a rising crescendo of wonder of the greater than oneself at this point or sitting there thinking ''I suppose life on proximity centauri is a bit like Bromley being near to Hayes. Put the cocao on dear''.
One then has to ask what is the wonder of and where is it coming from. It can't be the science since one can be neutral and so we are into what Lewis refers to as the numinous.
And that's it Screwtape, there is affective knowledge and there are neutral facts. To not investigate what it is that affects you that is shutting stuff off at the get go.
...your claim that you can find no reasons for belief or even consideration of God...
And of course your God avoidance in refusing to recognise that the central aspects of N D G Tyson's theory are traditional theology.
So something affects me.....We mustn't investigate why?
The trouble with someone like yourself claiming you don't have a burden of proof. You do for your scientism, humanism, physicalism, agnosticism, your poor use of the concept of unknown unknown you retreat into to end debate new atheism and the arrogance that seems to attract, your claim that you can find no reasons for belief or even consideration of God,............ and we know that because you have declared all these philosophies explicitly or implicitly.
I find that none of them are what they are cracked up to be the mystery for me is how you support all of them.
However God actually is affecting you in someway because of your continued presence here.
And of course your God avoidance in refusing to recognise that the central aspects of N D G Tyson's theory are traditional theology.
First becoming aware that God is rather than isn't.
Reading more about religion
Reading more about Christ
Affected by CS Lewis statement about other religions not having christ
Realising the question ''why should christ be affecting me?''
After reading Revelations 3.20 realised that christ was there and it meant me.
After a period of resistance to christ I invited Him in.
First becoming aware that God is rather than isn't.
Reading more about religion
Reading more about Christ
Affected by CS Lewis statement about other religions not having christ
Realising the question ''why should christ be affecting me?''
After reading Revelations 3.20 realised that christ was there and it meant me.
After a period of resistance to christ I invited Him in.
In which Lieutenant Pigeon:Caricature of theological books and Dawkins, Hitchens, antitheist wankfodder etc.
Fails to grasp the difference between books containing reasoning and argument and books containing assertions of religious truths.
Fails even to attempt to find a logical path from a connected universe to "God".Rich coming from someone who cannot avoid the leap of faith in any of his own positions.
Essays yet another non sequitur (there is no “then”), moves to gibberish (“what is the wonder of”), tries an unqualified assertion (“It can’t be the science”) while failing to grasp that science provides explanatory models but isn’t itself the phenomena it describes, and finishes with another non sequitur (there’s no reason for the "numimous" not to be explicable with the tools of science, at least in principle).
Can you name one? I have never come across a sensible, rational argument nor have I been presented with any credible evidence.Not being funny would you unfailingly know a rational argument if you came across one?
Tyson's speculation (it isn't a theory or even a hypothesis) is explicitly naturalistic. Attempting to link it to theology is either extremely stupid or extremely dishonest.
This is just an admission of gullibility, and poor reasoning ability.And scientism, humanism, physicalism, agnosticism, the poor use of the concept of unknown unknown you retreat into to end debate new atheism and the arrogance that seems to attract, The claim that you can find no reasons for belief or even consideration of God are all good reasons then?
Caricature of theological books and Dawkins, Hitchens, antitheist wankfodder etc.
Rich coming from someone who cannot avoid the leap of faith in any of his own positions.
In which Hillside's forgets about Prof Cox and wonder and Douglas Adams enjoyment of the garden.
Ignorance of Lewis's showing that the numinous is just proto religion.
The scientific method does not require wonder or enjoyment
And scientism, humanism, physicalism, agnosticism, the poor use of the concept of unknown unknown you retreat into to end debate new atheism and the arrogance that seems to attract, The claim that you can find no reasons for belief or even consideration of God are all good reasons then?
Not being funny would you unfailingly know a rational argument if you came across one?
vis. To call an argument whose central tenets have been the central tenets of theology for centuries explicit naturalism calls that into question.
Nobody's perfect - however I have good reason (exam results and other independent tests) to regard my abilities in that respect to be more than adequate.Exactly one? tailored to your argument. It still fails the explicitly naturalistic test on the strength of that.
There is exactly one similarity: the concept of the intelligent creation of a universe. Everything else is contradictory.
Tyson's speculation is explicitly naturalistic - it is based on the way our technology (computational ability) has advanced and speculates that more advanced technology still might well enable, ordinary, mortal beings to create full simulations of a (not the) universe.
Suggesting a link to theology is one of the most ridiculous religiously motivated claims I have ever heard.
I think it is probably even more absurd than literal, six day creationism...
ETA: And once again, this demonstrates that you are prepared to grasp any straw that might lead to any sort of 'god' at all. You seem to have no commitment to a single notion of god. The 'god' of the Tyson speculation (ordinary mortal beings) could not be more different from the 'god' of Feser's 'argument' discussed on the other thread.
Look I don't mind lending the intellectual property of the church to others.
Exactly one? tailored to your argument. It still fails the explicitly naturalistic test on the strength of that.
In which the Lieutenant tries to be funny - and fails.Look HIllside, the ideal cheap assertions that comprise the new atheism are done.
Are you really stupid enough to think that because people first thought of universe creation as a ('supernatural') miracle,They may have first thought that although the appearence of the term and notion of the supernatural comes much later, but the idea of an intelligent creator of a universe has been around for centuries. Nice try and certainly encouraging for the tremendous spin new atheism has to desperately apply to the problem it faces.
Are you really stupid enough to think that because people first thought of universe creation as a ('supernatural') miracle, that means that now we can think of a fully natural way in which it might be done, that natural way automatically becomes not natural?Or it means the definitions and concepts of natural and supernatural have been flawed. Atheism has got to justify why for centuries it was against the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe, why it now accepts it and then publicly acknowledge and offer apologies for it's past.
Really, seriously?
By that 'logic' most of modern medicine is not naturalistic either...
Look HIllside, the ideal cheap assertions that comprise the new atheism are done.
NDG Tyson has seen to that.
What is needed to salvage what can be salvaged…
…is that somehow history can be revised. That is going to take turdpolishing of a magnitude several powers of ten greater than we have yet seen.
Don' be so sad.......Cometh the hour cometh the man.
Are you really stupid enough to think that because people first thought of universe creation as a ('supernatural') miracle,They may have first thought that although the appearence of the term and notion of the supernatural comes much later, but the idea of an intelligent creator of a universe has been around for centuries.
Are you really stupid enough to think that because people first thought of universe creation as a ('supernatural') miracle, that means that now we can think of a fully natural way in which it might be done, that natural way automatically becomes not natural?
...
By that 'logic' most of modern medicine is not naturalistic either...
Nice try and certainly encouraging for the tremendous spin new atheism has to desperately apply to the problem it faces.
Or it means the definitions and concepts of natural and supernatural have been flawed. Atheism has got to justify why for centuries it was against the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe, why it now accepts it and then publicly acknowledge and offer apologies for it's past.
Or it means the definitions and concepts of natural and supernatural have been flawed.
Atheism has got to justify why for centuries it was against the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe, why it now accepts it and then publicly acknowledge and offer apologies for it's past.
Why and in what way?Atheism has rejected the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe for, well, forever having bundled it with 'The supernatural.
Atheism (rightly) rejected the stories about 'gods' creating the universe because they came without evidence or reasoned argument.
Tyson's speculation (which is very far from universally accepted), about ordinary mortal beings using technology to create universes, has a reasoned basis (it follows from certain assumptions).
nothing to apologize for - the propositions and supporting arguments are different.
Tyson if he is proposing it cannot guarantee either ordinariness or mortality if the intelligent creator is not of this universe.
Tyson's speculation (which is very far from universally accepted), about ordinary mortal beings using technology to create universes, has a reasoned basis (it follows from certain assumptions).
Atheism has rejected the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe for, well, forever having bundled it with 'The supernatural.
Theism has postulated intelligent creation for centuries
I think you need to study the definitions of naturalism and supernaturalism.
To pass this off as a minor tweek is the height of delusion.
Not all atheism realise the ramifications of the idea. PZ Myers does.
Atheism has rejected the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe for, well, forever having bundled it with 'The supernatural.
Theism has postulated intelligent creation for centuries
I think you need to study the definitions of naturalism and supernaturalism.
To pass this off as a minor tweek is the height of delusion.
Not all atheism realise the ramifications of the idea. PZ Myers does.
For New atheism to survive now is the time for Turdpolishers and Tophatted linguistic breakdancers bustin' their funky moves.
Tyson if he is proposing it cannot guarantee either ordinariness or mortality if the intelligent creator is not of this universe.
Tyson if he is proposing it cannot guarantee either ordinariness or mortality if the intelligent creator is not of this universe.
His reasoned basis is no different from people who have said we can build and make things here what if the whole show was built? theology is replete in its history with reference to artists, makers, builders, creators, intelligent etc.
Atheism has put away these ideas in the past because they know where they logically lead and what happens when the genie is out of the bottle. PZ Myers and all that.
It really is a mark of the utter desperation of theist straw clutching.
Atheism has rejected the stories of gods creating the universe for the very good reason that they came without supporting evidence and without reasoned arguments.No atheism also rejected God, the intelligent creator of the universe and not just the stories about him.
In which the Lieutenant…Hillside doesn't properly understand the NPF fallacy since my statement is correct, nowhere does the statement suggest that therefore god is immortal.
Yet again tries a negative proof fallacy.
Its whole basis is technology. I really can't believe I'm having to argue about a speculation, based on a set of (arguable) assumptions and an extrapolation of our technology, being compared with supernatural fairy tales.Technology is just another word for technique. And there's no guarantee that it was done by our technology, whatever that means. Super natural fairy tales is just Horses laugh fallacy.
It really is a mark of the utter desperation of theist straw clutching.
No atheism also rejected God, the intelligent creator of the universe and not just the stories about him.
There is strong evidence that atheists did not understand the purpose of the stories and caricatured religion ignoring ANY argument.
Tyson is not a modern treatment. More the same treatment out of a different bottle. Poor and desperate analogy on your part.
I think you misunderstand PZ Myers has argued that this is a form of intelligent design theory.....which I don't think we can deny.
An intelligent creator of the universe has been a feature of theology for centuries.
A creator not dependent on the universe it creates is part of the definition of the supernatural
It is not part of the definition of natural.
Therefore we cannot assume ordinaryness or mortality in the intelligent creator.
As per Stranger above, yes, I think it is desperate, that speculation about aliens is connected with God. But then Christianity has never been shy of refurbishing the idea - there is the classic view, rather austere, the causeless Cause, 'without body, parts or passions', then the despotic tribal god of the Hebrew bible (OT), then something more loving in the NT, but still with a thuggish ability. In modern times, the ground of all being, which came from Tillich, then the God of 'weak theology', who is not omnipotent. Maybe Vlad's intelligent alien shows the final collapse of theism.Is there an intelligent alien or God? We may never know scientifically because God is in his heaven and the intelligent alien is in his alternative universe. Hardly the end of theism.
The straw clutching is all yours since many of the arguments of atheism, and yeh, a central one is being washed down the Riviera including the ''no good'' reason bollocks.
If you apply the term 'god' to the creators of universe simulations, as in the speculation, then it is theism that is flying the white flag. Monotheism is dead, god can die or may actually be dead, god may be a corporation, and so on, and so on...But we cannot guarantee God's necessary death can we Stranger, We cannot guarantee that it isn't monotheism after all. God may be a corporation, how does that constitute the surrender of theism and the triumph of atheism.
'Theism flying the white flag' - surely this is true if you look at this forum, when you consider AB's bizarre ruminations about free will, and now Vlad's citing of intelligent aliens as gods. Intellectual suicide?Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Delusion, as if this forum is representative of anything resembling reality, intellectual acumen or anything not decidedly odd.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Delusion, as if this forum is representative of anything resembling reality, intellectual acumen or anything not decidedly odd.
No atheism also rejected God, the intelligent creator of the universe and not just the stories about him.
There is strong evidence that atheists did not understand the purpose of the stories and caricatured religion ignoring ANY argument.
Tyson is not a modern treatment. More the same treatment out of a different bottle. Poor and desperate analogy on your part.
I think you misunderstand PZ Myers has argued that this is a form of intelligent design theory.....which I don't think we can deny.
The state of play is this.
An intelligent creator of the universe has been a feature of theology for centuries.
A creator not dependent on the universe it creates is part of the definition of the supernatural
It is not part of the definition of natural.
Therefore we cannot assume ordinaryness or mortality in the intelligent creator.
But we cannot guarantee God's necessary death can we Stranger, We cannot guarantee that it isn't monotheism after all. God may be a corporation, how does that constitute the surrender of theism and the triumph of atheism.
In which Lieutenant Pigeon weighs in with the fallacy of the irrelevant truth: we cannot guarantee anything -Nurse! Hillsides gone nuclear.
Nurse! Hillsides gone nuclear.
(orchestra strike up with ''Stop weigh hey Mr Postman'')
As per Stranger above, yes, I think it is desperate, that speculation about aliens is connected with God. But then Christianity has never been shy of refurbishing the idea - there is the classic view, rather austere, the causeless Cause, 'without body, parts or passions', then the despotic tribal god of the Hebrew bible (OT), then something more loving in the NT, but still with a thuggish ability. In modern times, the ground of all being, which came from Tillich, then the God of 'weak theology', who is not omnipotent. Maybe Vlad's intelligent alien shows the final collapse of theism.
In which Lieutenant Pigeon...Actually Hillside I was responding to someone suggesting Gods mortality and that God might be a committee. So your accusation is misplaced.Again you demonstrate that you dont understand the NPF fallacy.
Fails to grasp that, "But we cannot guarantee God's necessary death can we Stranger, We cannot guarantee that it isn't monotheism after all" is no more helpful to him than, "we cannot guarantee that there isn't an orbiting teapot" is helpful to the orbiting teapotist. Then again, he always was a big fan of the negative proof fallacy. Not being able to demonstrate that something isn't tells you nothing at all about whether that thing is.
How many times does this have to be explained? Why, one might almost think he was deliberately...
Wiggs,Meeeiouwww!
Nice post. Has theism collapsed? Should we take the inability of those here to mount an argument for it worthy of the name as indicative of a larger truth, or are there intelligent and nuanced theists about who do have something of substance to say? You'd have to think that the hopeless ones here would have heard of them and brought them to the table if there were such arguments, but then again maybe not.
Actually Hillside I was responding to someone suggesting Gods mortality and that God might be a committee. So your accusation is misplaced.Again you demonstrate that you dont understand the NPF fallacy.
But we cannot guarantee God's necessary death can we Stranger...
...We cannot guarantee that it isn't monotheism after all.
In which Lieutenant Pigeon…Well I would have to claim something and I didn't Hillside. It's no good just thinking something. How do you know he's thinking. He has to do it.
Still fails to grasp the NPF. When someone says, “You can’t guarantee that X isn’t what I say it is” and thinks he’s making a point about truth of the claim “X”, then he’s committing the NPF.
Example 1: “I think there’s an orbiting teapot. You can’t prove me wrong, therefore…”
Example 2: “I think there’s a monotheistic god. You can't prove me wrong, therefore…”
What part of "...god can die or may actually be dead..." is confusing you?None i'm just confused at why you missed of ''or might be immortal.............''
None i'm just confused at why you missed of ''or might be immortal.............''
What part of "...god can die or may actually be dead..." is confusing you?Ah, so now I see the reason for the Dawkinsian drive and new atheist article of faith that you don't have to understand theology......so the wee wizards of antitheism can operate from a position of invincible ignorance.......of course.
Yes we can, for the simple reason that the speculation isn't any sort of theism.
Well would have to claim something and I didn't Hillside. It's no good just thinking something. How do you know he's thinking. He has to do it.
Your examples have bugger all to do with a mere observation of non guarantee in somebody's argument.
Suspecting someone of doing it is not the same as them actually doing it. It's a wonder no one comes in and puts you straight on this.That's a bad sign for the forum.
Ah, so now I see the reason for the Dawkinsian drive and new atheist article of faith that you don't have to understand theology......so the wee wizards of antitheism can operate from a position of invincible ignorance.......of course.
Before you can appeal to theology,.I think, thanks to De Grasse Tyson, you guys are condemned to reinvent the wheel.
I think, thanks to De Grasse Tyson, you guys are condemned to reinvent the wheel.
Trying to co-opt his speculation for theism changes nothing except the incredible depths of absurdity to which theists are prepared to sink.His speculation was co opted centuries ago.
His speculation was co opted centuries ago.
Lieutenant Pigeon,The idea of an intelligent creator of the universe has been around in theology and general belief for centuries.
What do you get out of telling lies here?
The idea of an intelligent creator of the universe has been around in theology and general belief for centuries.
Lieutenant Pigeon,I'm sorry you'll have to talk to my agent.......Dr PZ Myers.
You've had the fundamental qualitative differences between the claims of theism and DeGrasse's speculation explained to you many times now. What do you get out of continuing to lie about it?
I'm sorry you'll have to talk to my agent.......Dr PZ Myers.
In which Lieutenant Pigeon…Wow is this an atheist on agnostic or a biologist on Physicist thing? Is there mud involved?
...fails to notice that “his agent” actually argues that NdGT’s mistake is to risk looking as stupid as theology. Here in fact:
“I also have to wonder if this is a general property of physicists, that they think they know so much that the only people they can imagine having a conversation about unverifiable, untestable, undetectable, hypothetical, imaginary foundational properties of the universe is a group of their fellow physicists (with one token philosopher).
Wow is this an atheist on agnostic or a biologist on Physicist thing? Is there mud involved?
I think Myers is saying they should have checked this out with New Atheist Central aka himself presumably.
Your trying to propose that PZ Myers is not equating NDG's with theology?
I've just read this blog post, it really is rather amusing and no, it is not equating the two. He's actually saying that NdGT's speculation is just as bad as theology - bluehillside provided the quote in his last post (and you ignored it).Firstly There is the title of the piece
So very far from saying that NdGT has provided a reason to take the idea of a god seriously, he's saying that NdGT's arguments (for something different to god) are similarly bad arguments to those used for theism.
None of which changes the fact that NdGT is not talking about god(s).
Your trying to propose that PZ Myers is not equating NDG's with theology?
…and yet the title of the very blog you quote from is:
''We have a term for that, Neil deGrasse Tyson: Intelligent Design''.
Later on he refers to the De grasse Tyson speculationism as ''creationism''.
Also I think you think I should be bothered with what PZ Myers reckons on theology. Why start now>
Firstly There is the title of the piece
''We have a term for that, Neil deGrasse Tyson: Intelligent Design''.
It strains credibility that he is not using that in the usual sense it is used in Myer's circle.
Vladastrophe,Hmmm The old ploy ''I'm not talking about that intelligent design''
Just to note too that, if you insist on trying to fool people into thinking that the use of "Intelligent Design" here is significant then you shoot yourself in the foot (again). Your (ludicrous) claim is that NdGT's speculation leads to the assertions of theologians. If you now want to insinuate that it also leads to the assertions of creationism, then you have to paint NdGT as an evolution denier too.
Is that really what you want to say?
Perhaps is you stuck to what Myers actually says rather than your misrepresentation of it you'd be on safer ground, albeit that your basic nonsense (that NdGT is a theist) collapses.
Hmmm The old ploy ''I'm not talking about that intelligent design''
You don.t have to be an evolution denier to suggest interventionist design Hillside, I think we've all read the literature.....or do have I the advantage over you here?
Bravely you did give the reference so it can be read albeit on this forum by people like yourself.
Vladastrophe,I have already introduced where Myers talks about creationism and Tyson's speculation and people can read that for themselves.
But you do to be a creationist. Look, of course it's "that intelligent design" but Myers limits himself to the fact of poor reasoning on which creationists (and theologians generally) rely to draw his analogy with the poor reasoning on which NdGT relies. He makes no reference whatever to the conclusions of any of them being the same, however much you might want to lie about that.
So having been caught out in another lie and refused to apologise for it, again - what exactly do you get from telling lies on a message board?
I have already introduced where Myers talks about creationism and Tyson's speculation and people can read that for themselves.
Here it is again:
Then comes this after a quote of what Tyson said
''That really is an intelligent design creationism argument:''
And then of course Myers quotes Chalmers as saying that the Tyson speculation is ''the God hypothesis.''
And then of course Myers quotes Chalmers as saying that the Tyson speculation is ''the God hypothesis.''
No, he does not. What he says is that "the simulation hypothesis is a naturalistic version of the god hypothesis" [my emphasis] However, the term 'hypothesis' is obviously not being used in the scientific sense, since neither can be tested or falsified.
The whole point of the blog post is to point out that the arguments for the simulated universe speculation are just as bad (in many respects) as the arguments for god.
I have no idea why you are pretending it is anything else; anybody can read it and see you are wrong.
Vladastrophe,The naturalistic version of what though Hillside......
At which time they’ll see where you’ve gone wrong (or just lied) again.
Which part of “argument” rather than “conclusion” is confusing you?
Your problem with being a flat out liar is that you’re not very good at it – not least because your lies are so readily discoverable.
Here’s what Myers actually says when he cites Chalmers:
“David Chalmers, the philosopher, also points out that the simulation hypothesis is a naturalistic version of the god hypothesis, that claiming the universe is a simulation implies that there is a great Simulator, “someone” who built this code with some intent.”
( https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz562oFiPVH )
Can you see that “naturalistic version of” there? Can you?
The naturalistic version of what though Hillside......
Oh. ''The God hypothesis.''
Chalmers thinks it is the naturalistic version of The God hypothesis.....We can use the internet to see how long The God hypothesis has been going around Hillside. I seem to remember it being used in 'Priestland's progress' Gerald Priestland in the early eighties.
Never the less Chalmers points to it being abroad outside your religionethics forum bubble. This isn't a whizzo new idea by Elon Musk NDG and whoever else after all. It is a version of the God hypothesis.
I suppose you will be replying with a version of ''we're not talking about that God hypothesis''.
you remind me of Rene artois in allo allo who when caught by his wife goes ''You stupid woman'' Ha Ha.
Stranger,It's good to see you guys acknowledging that Chalmers did talk about a God hypothesis that Tyson is a recent version.
What's particularly scummy about Vlad's behaviour here is that it must be deliberate. If he'd copied and pasted the extract verbatim it would have retained the "naturalistic version of" that undoes him, but to get from that to his misquote of "is the God hypothesis" (ie, "is (important bit missing here) the God hypothesis") he had to exclude it so as to corrupt the quote to his own ends.
But why did you leave those words out of a supposed quote?Non relevance to the argument that Chalmers uses the term ''The God Hypothesis'' which is part of the main argument that Tyson's suggestion is a rehash of century's old theological thought.
Stranger,It is not important for whether there was a God hypothesis previous to Tyson which is the thrust of our argument. In other words it looks like a red herring opportunity which you took.
What's particularly scummy about Vlad's behaviour here is that it must be deliberate. If he'd copied and pasted the extract verbatim it would have retained the "naturalistic version of" that undoes him, but to get from that to his misquote of "is the God hypothesis" (ie, "is (important bit missing here) the God hypothesis") he had to exclude it so as to corrupt the quote to his own ends.
But why did you leave those words out of a supposed quote?Supposed quote? have you not read the article?
Stranger,It doesn't undo my claim that Chalmers thinks it's a version of the God hypothesis which is what is important in an argument on er, whether it's a version of the God hypothesis that predates Tyson
If he'd copied and pasted the extract verbatim it would have retained the "naturalistic version of" that undoes him
Why are you emphasising the term naturalistic version?
The naturalistic version of what though Hillside......
Oh. ''The God hypothesis.''
Chalmers thinks it is the naturalistic version of The God hypothesis.....We can use the internet to see how long The God hypothesis has been going around Hillside. I seem to remember it being used in 'Priestland's progress' Gerald Priestland in the early eighties.
Never the less Chalmers points to it being abroad outside your religionethics forum bubble. This isn't a whizzo new idea by Elon Musk NDG and whoever else after all. It is a version of the God hypothesis.
I suppose you will be replying with a version of ''we're not talking about that God hypothesis''.
you remind me of Rene artois in allo allo who when caught by his wife goes ''You stupid woman'' Ha Ha.
It doesn't undo my claim that Chalmers thinks it's a version of the God hypothesis...
...of the God hypothesis that predates Tyson
FFS, he said it was a naturalistic version - that is to say, it is not an argument for a supernatural god.
Vlad,I think you've overdone the police procedurals Hillside and have already answered.
Cut the crap. Why did you doctor the quote?
I think you've overdone the police procedurals Hillside and have already answered.
I am not afraid to say that Chalmers thinks it is a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis. There I have said it.
can you bring yourself to say the that without emphasis on the naturalistic since you seem to think that undoes my argument that Tyson's speculation is exactly the same as that of Centuries old theology?
Even if Chalmers did not agree with that it is fairly obvious that he is saying the God Hypothesis predates Tyson.
But let us not get away from his statement that this is a version of the God Hypothesis.
... my argument that Tyson's speculation is exactly the same as that of Centuries old theology?
Non relevance to the argument that Chalmers uses the term ''The God Hypothesis'' which is part of the main argument that Tyson's suggestion is a rehash of century's old theological thought.
Why do I detect minimising the gravity of the term ''The God Hypothesis?''.
Vlad,Oh dear, since you have gone down the playing the man not the ball route. I feel I have to bring up the question of why you didn't bring up Chalmers at all and I would also suggest a revisiting to your take on Myer's accusation of creationism.
Why did you doctor the quote?
Because you always try to read things into what people say which isn't there to try to deflect questions you have been asked.I believe I answered you. It was unnecessary for the main argument. That happens, after all Hillside had omitted any mention of Chalmer's contribution. Which is unusual since he now seems to think my argument is undone by Chalmers.
You left the words naturalistic version out and I am just asking why. A simple question.
Except that it is absolutely, blindingly obvious that it isn't the same at all...Not to Chalmer's also.
Oh dear, since you have gone down the playing the man not the ball route. I feel I have to bring up the question of why you didn't bring up Chalmers at all and I would also suggest a revisiting to your take on Myer's accusation of creationism.
How do you think the full quote undoes any argument I've made since what I have claimed is that this is a version of the God Hypothesis which has been around for ages.
Since you are pussyfooting around it. I do think the naturalistic claim of chalmers is problematic, for Chalmers, since there is the question ''Can you have a version of the God hypothesis which is naturalistic? I would argue you can't because the moment you have suggested an intelligent creator of the universe you have something which is transcendent of it.........and that was never been part and parcel of naturalism but absolutely part of theism.
I believe I answered you. It was unnecessary for the main argument. That happens, after all Hillside had omitted any mention of Chalmer's contribution. Which is unusual since he now seems to think my argument is undone by Chalmers.
I have since acknowledged it.
Not to Chalmer's also.
No, your post didn't answer the question, even when I managed to decipher it and put in some punctuation to help with the meaning. You think it isn't relevant, but why?It is relevant to the issue of whether Tyson's theory is a version of the God hypothesis.
It is relevant to the issue of whether Tyson's theory is a version of the God hypothesis.
Whether it is a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis is IMHO another debate albeit one I am quite happy to have.
Utter drivel. It's a naturalistic argument (as Chalmers points out) rather than a magical one, from different premises, arriving at a different conclusion (aside from one, single solitary feature).In what way then can he justifiably even refer to ''the God Hypothesis'' unless it had previously been a feature of claims for God?
To claim they are "exactly the same" is simply untrue - as anybody (who isn't dishonest, stupid, or blinded by faith) can see.
Lying for Jesus, eh?What lie do you think I have made?
Lying for Jesus, eh?
What lie do you think I have made?
In what way then can he justifiably even refer to ''the God Hypothesis'' unless it had previously been a feature of claims for God?
Why don't you actually read the blog post? The whole point of which (that you keep ignoring) is to point out that the arguments for the SU speculation are as just as hopeless as the arguments for god. SU takes a different starting point and ends at a different conclusion (naturalistic in both cases) but shares some of the absurdity, circular reasoning, and is similarly untestable and unfalsifiable.
It stands in flat contradiction to your silly claim that SU provides a reason to take the idea of god seriously - both because it isn't an argument for god (it's naturalistic) and because the argument is just as hopeless as other arguments for god.
You can make an arse of yourself by attempting to distort the details all you want - but the whole point of the article will still be in flat contradiction of your main claims about SU.
It is relevant to the issue of whether Tyson's theory is a version of the God hypothesis.
Whether it is a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis is IMHO another debate albeit one I am quite happy to have.
Okay, so why not include the whole phrase and then say taht rather than showing an incomplete quote which gave a false impression of what was being said? Just because you think it is irrelevant doesn't mean you should leave it out.
Utter drivel. It's a naturalistic argument (as Chalmers points out) rather than a magical one, from different premises, arriving at a different conclusion (aside from one, single solitary feature).This post doesn't even mention Chalmer's use of the term ''The God hypothesis'' preferring to eliminate that, as was always the danger, so that we could focus his use of the term naturalistic.
To claim they are "exactly the same" is simply untrue - as anybody (who isn't dishonest, stupid, or blinded by faith) can see.
This post doesn't even mention Chalmer's use of the term ''The God hypothesis'' preferring to eliminate that, as was always the danger, so that we could focus his use of the term naturalistic.
Its absence from earlier posts would of course have had the same effect, the elimination of the idea that there ever was a god hypothesis.
I think Chalmer's is guilty of a contradiction in terms. I don't know what was on his mind.
It doesn't matter. His use of the term The God hypothesis belies the idea that this has never been a theological idea and anysuggestion it is is linguistic piracy and Historical revisionism.
Have a nice day.
Vlad,How does that show he didn't use the term ''the god hypothesis''?
What he actually said was, "a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis".
How does that show he didn't use the term ''the god hypothesis''?
Vlad,If he didn't use the words ''The God hypothesis'' which is a term in its own right, how could you then argue that he used the term ''naturalistic version?''
Because that wasn't the term he used - he used a different term ("a naturalistic version of..."), then you doctored it so it meant something else.
Leaving out the 'naturalistic version of' gives it a different meaning don't you think?It is then not a contradiction in terms is what I immediately think.
It is then not a contradiction in terms is what I immediately think.
Do you think the naturalistic version part negates the god hypothesis part?
So does it give a different meaning?Ive answered that, As it stands it is a contradiction in terms. What more can be claimed for it.
Do you think it changes the meaning?
Ive answered that,
As it stands it is a contradiction in terms. What more can be claimed for it.
I think Chalmer's is guilty of a contradiction in terms.
I don't know what was on his mind.
It doesn't matter. His use of the term The God hypothesis belies the idea that this has never been a theological idea and anysuggestion it is is linguistic piracy and Historical revisionism.
However your post does demonstrate that the naturalistic bit was a separate debate.
The silliness just gets worse and worse...An intelligent creator of the universe is not a minor detail, but central to the Tyson speculation and centuries old theology.
I think you're in a minority of one.
Back to the infantile and completely irrelevant "theists thought of universe creation first".
Grow up!
Drivel.
Your posts are still totally ignoring the point of the blog post, which was to say that SU was just as bad as arguments for god. PZ Myers is flatly contradicting your claim that SU is a reason to take the idea of god seriously.
An intelligent creator of the universe is not a minor detail, but central to the Tyson speculation and centuries old theology.
There is no backing for those who deny that the God hypothesis has anything to do with the Tyson speculation from Chalmers description of Tyson as a ''naturalistic version of the God hypothesis.''
There is nothing to back up the idea that Myers is only saying the Tyson speculation is just as bad as theology in his terms
''We have a term for that Neil de Grasse Tyson:intelligent design''
And
''That really is an intelligent design creationism argument''
Note not just is but really is.
Your case is blown.
Yes Vlad, but (once again for the very, very hard of thinking) they are not the same sort of creator at all. One is a magical invention and the other is a naturalistic speculation.Your problems are
Different premises, different type of creation, different type of creator.
It's fantasy (god) vers. science fiction (SU).
The rest of the quote explains exactly what is meant by the comparison: "...the simulation hypothesis is a naturalistic version of the god hypothesis, that claiming the universe is a simulation implies that there is a great Simulator, “someone” who built this code with some intent."
In that respect the ideas are similar but it does not negate the aforementioned fundamental differences.
Different premises, different type of creation, different type of creator.
I suggest you brush up on your reading for comprehension skills.
Yes, with different premises, different type of creation, different type of creator. And there is still bugger all evidence for intelligent design in this universe.
In your bizarre fantasies, perhaps.
I dunno, this is getting boring and it's such an utterly laughable 'argument for god' I'm almost tempted to encouge you to use it. I wonder, have you mentioned it to any of your fellow theists?
In addition to all that, you continue to completely ignore several points that have been made. You claimed elsewhere that this forum can be 'nasty' but you are a very frustrating person to try to have a sensible debate with. You ignore significant counterarguments and then go on making the same claims that have been dealt with before - often then claiming a fictional victory over your opponents.
Amongst the arguments you've totally ignored on this thread recently:
- The improbability that this speculation would lead to just one creator (mono-silly-pretend-theism): #676 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14901.msg716463#msg716463)
- Your promiscuous approach to the kind of god you argue for. Feser's argument would lead to nothing at all like the sort of silly-pretend-god that NdGT's speculation would.
- The fact that neither Feser's nor NdGT's speculation would be anything like the Christian god.
- The argument that it is a reasonable assumption (given that the whole speculations is based on assumptions) that partial universe simulations, for specific purposes, would be more common than full universe simulations. Hence, if we are in a simulation, it's unlikely that the whole universe (in both time and space) is actually being simulated. In that instance, are you still going to insist on calling its creator a 'god' because it created a part of a universe?
Your problems are
A lack of knowledge of theology.
A lack of knowledge of the word technology
The problems surrounding use of the term extrapolated technology
Substitution of the term supernatural with the term magical
Ignorance of Clarkes law of technology
Personal incredulity
Dimunition of Chalmers and Myers criticisms of the Tyson speculation
Dimunition of Chalmers mentioning The God hypothesis
Exaggeration of the presence of the word naturalistic after all the speculation is a version of the God hypothesis.
Your post contains other issues imho better dealt with separately.
But in conclusion I maintain that Chalmers and Myers give no comfort to those arguing this is.not centrally the same ground covered by theology which Chalmers terms the God hypothesis.
An intelligent creator of the universe is not a minor detail, but central to the Tyson speculation and centuries old theology.
Until you've established a reason to take the idea of the god, to which the theology refers, seriously, it's irrelevant.The excusing /celebration of ignorance of theology is a lousy basis for any sensible debate on what theology has argued and how long it has been arguing it.
That appears to be your problem, not mine.
What problems would those be?
What do you think the difference is and how does it affect the argument?
That would only apply from the point of view of people who don't understand the technology. It is not a claim that technology is magic (or supernatural) and in no way impacts the fundamental differences between technological simulations and supernatural/magic creation.
About what?
Eh? It's me who said that the main point of the article was to say how hopeless the Tyson speculation was by comparing it to arguments for god.
The problem here is that you are trying to make a big deal of individual phrases and ignoring the overall message of the article. Then again, I guess that's to be expected from a Christian - ignoring the work as a whole and trying to read a lot into individual passages is, after all, the only way you can extract a meaningful message from the bible...
Why? They are very relevant to this discussion.
In conclusion from what? You've answered none of the counterarguments and this post was all bluster and no substance.
The excusing /celebration of ignorance of theology is a lousy basis for any sensible debate on what theology has argued and how long it has been arguing it.
Vlad,Sorry Hillside are you saying that NDG doesn't apply these speculations to this universe?
Then try educating yourself on what it does entail. Theology makes assertions of fact that require the supernatural about the creator (or creators) of the universe that's the actual one.
That's about as far away from NdGT's speculation about a creator (or creators) of a universe that's a simulated one with no necessity at all for supernaturalism.
So, again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?
Sorry Hillside are you saying that NDG doesn't apply these speculations to this universe?
Note to Vlad,Entertainingly paranoid.
Translation: If the Mods would be so kind as to hive off being called on my lying into a different thread that would leave me free to keep doing it here.
Note to Vlad: stop lying for your own ends about what people have actually said by misquoting them and stop pretending that "naturalistic" (and "a" (twice) and "simulation") doesn't make all the difference in the world from the assertions of theology.
So, (yet) again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?
The excusing /celebration of ignorance of theology is a lousy basis for any sensible debate on what theology has argued and how long it has been arguing it.
Vladastrophe,Diversionary Hillside I'm asking whether you are saying that NDGT doesn't apply his Idea to this universe.
Cut the crap. You've just had your ludicrous claim comprehensively dismantled by having the qualitative differences between what NdGT (actually) said and the assertions of theology explained to you - deal with that.
Oh, and while you're at it: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?
Entertainingly paranoid.
The Chalmers quote in its entirety doesn't help your case.
Your own saunter through the statement was a bit like the town band.
At the word naturalistic you are in full strike drum going cymbals clashing trumpets blazing.
By the time you reach the word version the drum stops the march step breaks discordant toots and by the time you get to the main movement ....the term God hypothesis the band is behind the town hall, hats off , having a smoke.
Diversionary Hillside I'm asking whether you are saying that NDGT doesn't apply his Idea to this universe.
I never mentioned theology but somehow it appears in your answer.
Vladastrophe,Great
You're asking me precisely as a diversionary tactic. Your case was dismantled point-by-point a few posts ago (Reply 753) - deal with it or don't.
Oh, and yet again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?
Moderator:Thanks Gordon.
This thread contains posts removed from the 'fine details in the gospels' thread where this discussion developed, but on a wholly separate topic.
The relevant posts, with a couple of off-topic exceptions, have been move to here so that those involved can continue their discussion.
Gordon
An intelligent creator of the universe has never been a staple of naturalism...
...and is positively ruled out of some forms e.g. Stenger who used the term ten years ago having apparently failed God.
I think many atheists don't like it because they think it is religion.
An intelligent creator of the universe has never been a staple of naturalism and is positively ruled out of some forms e.g. Stenger who used the term ten years ago...
Here we must be clear that we are not talking about evidence against any and all conceivable gods. For example, a deist god that creates the universe and then just leaves it alone would be very hard to falsify.
So what?
Reference? Link?
It's not a question of liking anything - it's a question of evidence and/or reasoning. NdGT has put forward a proposal that has bugger all to to with the supernatural or religion. Unfortunately for his speculation, his arguments aren't all that much better than those for religion and god (as PZM pointed out).
Now, how about you stop running away from all the points you've totally failed to address?
Not aware of Stenger, the author of "God, the failed hypothesis?" That's an encouraging sign that New Atheism hasn't had as big an impact.
Reference? Link?
Stenger says there is no evidence for a creator.(article by Stegner for huffpost to follow)
Tyson is just a modern version of Paley's watchmaker who's idea Dawkins poo pooed.
See above (#158).Both rely on your notion of extrapolated technology.
Utter drivel. It's a totally different argument.
Now, all these point that you keep running away from...
Both rely on your notion of extrapolated technology.
So Paleys argument is built on the sophistication of 19th century technology, Tysons on the sophistication of 21st century technology.
For goodness sake Stranger, throw the towel in.
An intelligent creator of the universe has never been a staple of naturalism and is positively ruled out of some forms...
I take it you are withdrawing the "positively ruled out" claim, in the light of #158 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15140.msg716731#msg716731)?I don't suppose Stegner seriously entertained the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe.
I don't suppose Stegner seriously entertained the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe.
I fail to see how you can miss that.
I didn't - and you didn't claim that he didn't take it seriously, you claimed he had "positively ruled out" the idea. For once in your life, why not just admit you were wrong?I already said that I excised the naturalistic version part of natural version of the God hypothesis out because it was not relevant to Chalmers saying that there was a God hypothesis.
I don't take the idea seriously either. God(s) seem no more than fantasy and NdGT's speculation, nothing more than science fiction. Now, all these points you've been running away from...
I now realise that such a move does not prevent antitheists focusing on the natural version of part but that the whole does not offer any succour to those thinking that there isn't a God hypothesis or those thinking that the Tyson speculation is not connected with it.
I don't think it is naturalistic because it concludes with a transcendent intelligent creator.
Vladastrophe,
You're asking me precisely as a diversionary tactic. Your case was dismantled point-by-point a few posts ago (Reply 753) - deal with it or don't.
Oh, and yet again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?
I'm not aware that anybody has ever claimed that there isn't a god hypothesis or, more accurately, god hypotheses, many of which don't really qualify as hypotheses in the scientific sense because they are not testable or falsifiable.A transcendent Intelligent creator outside the universe has been termed supernatural by naturalists.
Tyson's speculation (once again) is similar only insofar as it shares some of daft features of the 'arguments' for god.
Once again: it is explicitly naturalistic; based on naturalistic assumptions and without any reference to the supernatural whatsoever. Its intelligent simulators are natural beings in a natural universe (or another simulation).
Your claim is absurd.
What is more, you are still ignoring many of the points raised (#141 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15140.msg716639#msg716639)). Instead, you have responded to detailed posts with bland accusations that you have then failed to back up or clarify (#143 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15140.msg716648#msg716648)).
As I have said so often before, if or when science discovers what actually brought the universe into being it will be a natural cause with no god/intelligent designer involved. But of course I could be wrong.I'm sure you are not the only one who would put it that way.
A transcendent Intelligent creator outside the universe has been termed supernatural by naturalists.
What you are proposing is a definition change. A linguistic fiddle...
That is the mother and father of strawman and goodness knows what else.
That aside you have a transcendent intelligent creator of the universe? Are you now going to ban all discussion? Must we like the caricature Christians of antitheist imagination accept that as bald brute fact or can we speculate reasonably further.
If the latter then I must warn that there may be material upsetting for those of a Goddodging disposition.
My own opinion is that as soon as you accept a transcendent intelligent creator of the universe you have put up the white flag to theism.
As an aside on Paley
Myers declares Tysons speculation as Intelligent design the judge in the Dover trial declared intelligent design as Paley's argument.
Further to my previous post I would add that if you say an intelligent creator of a transcendent intelligent creator of the universe is a reasonable speculation then you have to accept at least deism is too.
Vlad, your posts are getting more and more absurd.God was never proposed as being transcendent of his own universe or himself.
Silly word games. It really is a stretch to call the universe simulators "transcendent" - there is no suggestion that they are not subject to physical laws in their own universe.
Which "naturalists" have said that anything like a technological universe simulator is supernatural?
Pot, kettle, black.
Once again you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of fallacies and logic.
You can speculate all you want Vlad, but speculation is not, per se, a reason to take anything seriously. For that, we need logic or evidence.
Who is dodging god? In order to dodge something, you have to think that it is more than a fantasy - which I don't.
And I should value this opinion, why?
I really don't see what you think you can gain by putting forward such utter nonsense. As I have already pointed out, the arguments that lead to "intelligent design" are completely different - as are the intelligent designers that they conclude. Your attempts to connect concepts through the isolation of individual words and phrases is bizarre - is it some sort of joke?
Firstly, I don't accept NdGT as 'reasonable' speculation. It just about makes it into the category of science fiction.
Secondly, even if I did, I wouldn't have to accept that a (supernatural) deist god would be reasonable. The reasonableness of each has to be entirely based on the arguments put forward (assuming no actual evidence). There is no speculation about a deist god (that I'm ware of) that has any logical connection with the NdGT speculation.
God was never proposed as being transcendent of his own universe or himself.
He is transcendent of this universe. And that too is the condition of Tysons intelligent Creator.
Not only are you God dodging you are transcendence dodging too.
At the Dover trial the judge ruled that I D was Paleys argument.
God was never proposed as being transcendent of his own universe or himself.
He is transcendent of this universe. And that too is the condition of Tysons intelligent Creator.
At the Dover trial the judge ruled that I D was Paleys argument.
Once again you respond to a lot of detail, within a few minutes (without thought) and totally ignore most of it. What you have posted is just a continuation of your silly word games.I'm sorry but their is no evidence that NDGT was specifically only talking about a universe other than ours and plenty that he was talking about THE universe. This universe.
The technological simulation of a universe is a different concept from a supernatural god creating the universe. No amount of silly nonsense about the meaning of "transcendent" or any other word games are going to change the fact that they are fundamentally different.
I think then we have to call in two definitions from you to check since it seems you are saying that an intelligent creator not contingent on the universe it creates is a natural thing.
The technological simulation of a universe is a different concept from a supernatural god creating the universe. No amount of silly nonsense about the meaning of "transcendent" or any other word games are going to change the fact that they are fundamentally different.
I'm sorry but their is no evidence that NDGT was specifically only talking about a universe other than ours and plenty that he was talking about THE universe. This universe.
The intelligent creator is not contingent on any universe it creates. But it's universe is contingent on it. The IC is therefore the necessary being for that universe.
I think then we have to call in two definitions from you to check since it seems you are saying that an intelligent creator not contingent on the universe it creates is a natural thing.
Define what you mean by technology and define what you mean by supernatural.
It is central to his argument that there are multiple (simulated) universes, of which ours is only one.1 : what definitions are you using
So what? It is still a natural being in a natural (or simulated) universe, just as we are.
See above - of course it's a natural thing.
technology (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/technology) - The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
Which applies directly to how universe simulation would work.
supernatural (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supernatural) - (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Clearly a universe simulator would be using technology, not the supernatural.
I really don't know why I'm extending to you the courtesy you so rarely extend to others, and answering your questions directly. You argument is STUPID to its core; ridiculous, bizarre, contrived, silly, nonsensical, laughable, risible...
You are making a total arse of yourself.
And the absurdity just keeps on growing and goes on and on and on and on...
Intelligent design isn't, of itself, an argument, it's a process. The intelligent design of the universe (in this case) is the conclusion of a (bad) argument.
You really should stop digging.
1 : what definitions are you using
2: Can you tell me how science can demonstrate the multiverse
3: you cannot guarantee that another universe follows the same laws of nature.
E.g. What if that universe is infinite in all respects and this one isn't ?
I share the view that others have that when you ask Vlad something, anything that he can't answer he changes the subject, and it doesn't matter how much you try to get him back to the things you were trying to discuss with him, he somehow manages to bury you in gobbledegook, it then makes you think to yourself "is it me"? Then you might find yourself walking off muttering to yourself and perhaps start to think it's time I took up train spotting, no I'll enter that local marbles championship, now how's my stamp collection going or shall I take up collecting old tea bags; their coming to take me away Ha Ha!!
Gaslighting?
Very insightful. If you read ippy's post above, it's an almost perfect account of being gaslighted, except not in a romantic relationship, where it is truly deadly. I think you can see the deliberate confusion, and the reversal of roles, thus, asking you to define the thing that I started talking about. Shudder.
Indeed. Know it first hand.
Well put. I'm just off to fish my last teabag out of the bin....
Gaslighting?
In which Lieutenant Pigeon fails to grasp that his claim to have "encountered Jesus" has no more epistemic value than my claim to have met Elvis down the chip shop - and that personal beliefs and facts are not the same thing.I don't think so...
I don't think so...Why do you think bhs is lying here? Indeed what do you think he is lying about?
Lieutenant Pigeon may be correct or he may be mistaken. You, on the other hand are lying!
Eh,
I suspected you were unmusical. Maybe your starved aesthetic component may be relevant in certain of your epistemic claims.Eh?
Not claiming anything.
After reading Revelations 3.20 realised that christ was there and it meant me.
After a period of resistance to christ I invited Him in.
Bit sad that the fantasies of a drug-fuelled fanatic (which only got into the canon by the skin of its teeth) were significant in your conversion.Meeeeoww. Was he working for Czech intelligence as well?
Eh?
Meeeeoww. Was he working for Czech intelligence as well?