Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

You never did answer my question about…

I admire your optimism, but Vlad doesn’t answer questions. Never, ever ever. I’ve chased him all over his mb in the past to try to get him to answer a question but to avail – not only will he not answer questions, he won’t tell you why he won’t answer questions either. He’ll also though demand that you answer his questions (and will then straw man the answers when he receives them). ‘twas ever thus.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And yet we find respectedscientists some atheist making the same formulations as classical theism e.g. a personal creator...

Which "respected scientists and atheists" do that, or is that something else you've just made up?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Which "respected scientists and atheists" do that, or is that something else you've just made up?

Bostrom
Brian Greene
De grasse Tyson

They are scientists who propose this.
How is the Guy you like to quote on Emergence who has a degree in Communication?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Bostrom
Brian Greene
De grasse Tyson

They are scientists who propose this.
How is the Guy you like to quote on Emergence who has a degree in Communication?

Ah, so you’ve resiled now from “making the same formulations” to “propose”? Funny that.

Re deGrasse Tyson, this lie was nailed at length here some time ago when it was explained to you that he made perfectly clear that he wasn’t proposing a theistic model at all. You were given his direct quotes to this effect, though my recollection is that you kept twisting in the wind rather than acknowledge the correction and then disappeared.

I don’t know what the other two have (supposedly) said about their theistic claims (you haven’t told us), though given your track record it seems unlikely they any more proposed a theistic model that deGrasse Tyson did.   

Clearly drawing an analogy between “possible simulation” type conjectures and a theistic model in which a god or gods have various characteristics is utter bollocks. If I was in generous mood at most you could I suppose point to some vague similarities with deism, though again those who would assert god(s) also tend to place them outside the constraints and logic and physics, so that collapses pretty quickly too.

Apart from that though…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, so you’ve resiled now from “making the same formulations” to “propose”? Funny that.

They lroposed the thery by making the same formulations as some classic theistic arguments.

Any attempts to get out of that involve special pleading
Argumentum ad ridiculum and irrelevant argument.

All I can do is point it out.

One or two have worked on this from the theological angle and attempted to point out that as well as classic arguments leading to a personal creator more sophisticated versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments can be derived from simulated universe. But that would just be an added bonus.

[Stranger]

And yet we find respectedscientists some atheist making the same formulations as classical theism...

Still drivel. It's nothing like classical theism. Characters in science fiction that simulate universes (to some unspecified level of complexity and extent) are simply not anything like classical monotheism. Having one similar characteristic does not make two concepts the same.

The sun and my phone both produce light, so my phone is the sun, according to Vlad-logic.

Some try to blind us to this by ad hominem the personal creator they have generated by suggesting its Kevin the nerd.

As the created we have imho a better argument to say from thiis universe that it was closer to the metametaphysical God of philosophy rather than a Kevin which is almost obviously an argumentum ad ridiculum.

The point is that, because you've only tied down one aspect of this pseudo-god, it literally could be any being or beings at all that use technology to do simulation (it could be Kevin, it might be an evil mega-corporation or the criminal underworld). It's closer to a reductio ad absurdum (which is a valid argument) than an attempt to ridicule. It emphasises the basic logical mistake you've made in thinking that one characteristic in common can be used to make concepts equal. Specifically the your "argument" for "god" could lead to something very unlike any classical god of monotheism.

[Stranger]

They lroposed the thery by making the same formulations as some classic theistic arguments.

Any attempts to get out of that involve special pleading
Argumentum ad ridiculum and irrelevant argument.

All I can do is point it out.

One or two have worked on this from the theological angle and attempted to point out that as well as classic arguments leading to a personal creator more sophisticated versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments can be derived from simulated universe. But that would just be an added bonus.

Are you trying to help Alan out by out-stupiding him?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just because De Grasse Tyson said these weren't theistic formulations does not mean they are not.

I cannot recall you presenting any evidence for his failre to see the implications.

I recall PZ Myers spotting the obvious teleological argument here.

Is DGTs reasoning and yours just prejudiced by naturalism ?

[Gordon]

Bostrom
Brian Greene
De grasse Tyson

They are scientists who propose this.
How is the Guy you like to quote on Emergence who has a degree in Communication?

As regards Greene, Wiki notes;

Greene has stated that he sees science as incompatible with literalist interpretations of religion and that there is much in the New Atheism movement which resonates with him because he personally does not feel the need for religious explanation. However, he is uncertain of its efficacy as a strategy for spreading a scientific worldview.[26] In an interview with the Guardian he says "When I’m looking to understand myself as a human, and how I fit in to the long chain of human culture that reaches back thousands of years, religion is a deeply valuable part of that story."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene

So, someone who recognises the social and cultural aspects of religion over time but seems not to see theism as being explanatory beyond that. Not sure citing him helps your case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They lroposed the thery by making the same formulations as some classic theistic arguments.

No they didn’t. Theistic arguments (such as they are) posit a god or gods with behaviours and attributes – they answer prayers, act benevolently, know everything, can do anything etc. Theists also tend to assert their claims to be facts. Conjectures about a possible simulation model on the other hand begin and end with “maybe we’re living in a simulated universe”. They make no claims about the attributes or behaviours of a possible simulator as theism does, and nor do they reify their conjectures as facts. That’s why at best – at the very best – you could maybe find some similarities at least with deism (ie, a god about whom nothing could be said except that he created a universe and then left the scene), but not with theism.     

Any attempts to get out of that involve special pleading

No, they involve correcting your misrepresentations.

Argumentum ad ridiculum and irrelevant argument.

Where?

All I can do is point it out.

Lying about something isn’t “pointing it out”.

One or two have worked on this from the theological angle and attempted to point out that as well as classic arguments leading to a personal creator more sophisticated versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments can be derived from simulated universe. But that would just be an added bonus.

Actually added bollocks – see above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As regards Greene, Wiki notes;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene

So, someone who recognises the social and cultural aspects of religion over time but seems not to see theism as being explanatory beyond that. Not sure citing him helps your case.

Inconclusive for your argument which you have read into it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No they didn’t. Theistic arguments (such as they are) posit a god or gods with behaviours and attributes – they answer prayers, act benevolently, know everything, can do anything etc. Theists also tend to assert their claims to be facts. Conjectures about a possible simulation model on the other hand begin and end with “maybe we’re living in a simulated universe”. They make no claims about the attributes or behaviours of a possible simulator as theism does, and nor do they reify their conjectures as facts. That’s why at best – at the very best – you could maybe find some similarities at least with deism (ie, a god about whom nothing could be said except that he created a universe and then left the scene), but not with theism.     

No, they involve correcting your misrepresentations.

Where?

Lying about something isn’t “pointing it out”.

Actually added bollocks – see above.

If you claim that it is reasonable to say we may live in a simulated universe then you have to own a personal creator. Personal creators just gives a polytheism but not an atheism. An option which is shut down by the implication of a personal agency.

The cat is basically out of the bag at thre utterance and the sagacious nodding which follows.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Are you trying to help Alan out by out-stupiding him?

Why can’t I shake the image of two limbo dancers each trying to set the bar of honesty, logic, engagement etc lower than the other?

[Gordon]

Inconclusive for your argument which you have read into it.

I'm not making an argument, but merely noting something that the the chap you cited said, where my summation of the quote seems to me to reflect what he said (as quoted in the link I provided).

So, in what way do you think I have misread or misunderstood the quote?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No they didn’t. Theistic arguments (such as they are) posit a god or gods with behaviours and attributes – they answer prayers, act benevolently, know everything, can do anything etc. Theists also tend to assert their claims to be facts. Conjectures about a possible simulation model on the other hand begin and end with “maybe we’re living in a simulated universe”. They make no claims about the attributes or behaviours of a possible simulator as theism does, and nor do they reify their conjectures as facts. That’s why at best – at the very best – you could maybe find some similarities at least with deism

Well that isn't atheism either.
Bostrom cites many purposes.
At its most basic  a personal creator creates for its own reasons and the universe created has a purpose for the creator.......but there we go. Back into theism again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not making an argument, but merely noting something that the the chap you cited said, where my summation of the quote seems to me to reflect what he said (as quoted in the link I provided).

So, in what way do you think I have misread or misunderstood the quote?

Whether Brian Greene thinks theism necessary for a possible explanitory or not he's made one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As ever, I see that you’ve just ignored the arguments that undid you. Why is that?

If you claim that it is reasonable to say we may live in a simulated universe then you have to own a personal creator.

Fails on two counts:

1. “May have” doesn’t mean “have”. It’s reasonable to conjecture the possibility of anything (Kevin the nerd, invisible orbiting teapots, whatever), but that doesn’t mean you’ve acknowledged the probability of any of these things.   

2. A “creator” could just have simulated the big bang and the laws of physics with no knowledge of or interest in me whatsoever.   

Personal creators just gives a polytheism but not an atheism.

No, “personal creators” as a possibility equals neither theism nor deism because both require gods – and gods have the attributes and behaviours attributed to them that the conjecture “maybe we live in a simulation” does not require.

An option which is shut down by the implication of a personal agency.

White noise.

The cat is basically out of the bag at thre utterance and the sagacious nodding which follows.

Not even close. I’ve explained why to you twice now, but I have no expectation that you’ll bother to deal with your errors.

[Gordon]

Whether Brian Greene thinks theism necessary for a possible explanitory or not he's made one.

How so?

He says he doesn't feel the personal need for a religious explanation, he doesn't feel that 'New Atheism' is effective as a means of disseminating science but recognises the social and cultural aspects of religion throughout human history.

I'm struggling to see why you think his position is any sort of acknowledgement of theism having some explanatory value beyond the social and cultural. I've no idea where you're going with this, and I don't think you do either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As ever, I see that you’ve just ignored the arguments that undid you. Why is that?

Fails on two counts:

1. “May have” doesn’t mean “have”. It’s reasonable to conjecture the possibility of anything (Kevin the nerd, invisible orbiting teapots, whatever), but that doesn’t mean you’ve acknowledged the probability of any of these things.   

2. A “creator” could just have simulated the big bang and the laws of physics with no knowledge of or interest in me whatsoever.   

No, “personal creators” as a possibility equals neither theism nor deism because both require gods – and gods have the attributes and behaviours attributed to them that the conjecture “maybe we live in a simulation” does not require.

White noise.

Not even close. I’ve explained why to you twice now, but I have no expectation that you’ll bother to deal with your errors.

The claim has been made.
The denial that personal creation is not a staple of classic theism and a central feature classically denied Atheism is completely erronious. As any level of thought would demonstrate.

You can deny it. You can seek to minimise the status of that personal creator. You can then try to argue by specially pleading that it lacks certain potential.....how would you know that I wonder but If you have considered it reasonable then you have proposed a personal creator of the universe independent of it. A classic theist cosmological argument.

You're a cyclist....start backpeddling from it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well that isn't atheism either.

Yes it is. Atheism is the non-belief in gods; the conjecture “maybe we live in a simulated universe” does not necessitate god(s). QED. 

Bostrom cites many purposes.

None of which so far as I’m aware necessitate gods.

At its most basic  a personal creator creates for its own reasons and the universe created has a purpose for the creator.......but there we go. Back into theism again.

Not even close. If you want to try to create a logical path from “maybe a simulator” to “therefore theistic god(s)” knock yourself out, but so far you haven’t even bothered to try.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The claim has been made.
The denial that personal creation is not a staple of classic theism and a central feature classically denied Atheism is completely erronious. As any level of thought would demonstrate.

You can deny it. You can seek to minimise the status of that personal creator. You can then try to argue by specially pleading that it lacks certain potential.....how would you know that I wonder but If you have considered it reasonable then you have proposed a personal creator of the universe independent of it. A classic theist cosmological argument.

Congratulations – you’ve just outstupied AB. The creation of the observable universe might well be “a staple of classic theism” but that’s all it is – one part of the ontology. Theism though goes way beyond a speculation about a possible simulator to the assertion of fact about one or more gods acting outside logic and physics and with all sorts of supposed behaviours and characteristics tacked on. If you want to retrench from what theism actually entails to just “maybe there was a simulator” then do so, but that’s not what theists would recognise as sufficient for theism.       

You're a cyclist....start backpeddling from it

You’re a time waster…stop time wasting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

Congratulations – you’ve just outstupied AB. The creation of the observable universe might well be “a staple of classic theism” but that’s all it is – one part of the ontology. Theism though goes way beyond a speculation about a possible simulator to the assertion of fact about one or more gods acting outside logic and physics and with all sorts of supposed behaviours and characteristics tacked on. If you want to retrench from what theism actually entails to just “maybe there was a simulator” then do so, but that’s not what theists would recognise as sufficient for theism.       

You’re a time waster…stop time wasting.

You seemed to have ducked the term personal
Creator here.

But a simulated universe implies necessarily a personal simulator,designer or creator.

If you review your counterargument you start  with special pleading that it's purposes are this or that and your implication is that it could not be other than what you have suggested. As I have said you can derive more from the initial proposal were you not bound to hide behind what is special pleading.

[Stranger]

You seemed to have ducked the term personal
Creator here.

But a simulated universe implies necessarily a personal simulator,designer or creator.

What difference do you think the "personal" makes?

No, forget it, it simply doesn't matter. You're still making the silly mistake of trying to make one idea the same as a totally different one simply because they share the one characteristic.

That's just stupid.

A candle isn't the sun because they are both light sources.
Tables aren't the same as elephants because they both have four legs.
Idiocy isn't the same as logical reasoning because they both use words.
Technological universe simulators are not the same as gods because they both "make" "universes".

Technically, you are making a fundamental mistake in categorical logic. Look: G - Gods, U - "universe makers", S - "technological universe simulators".

All G are U
All S are U
Therefore, all S are G

Is an undistributed middle fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You seemed to have ducked the term personal
Creator here.

Because it’s another of your lies. I explained why a few posts back, but you just ignored that.

But a simulated universe implies necessarily a personal simulator,designer or creator.

It does no such thing. All it implies is a “something” (which need not be a god at all) to create the simulation. That something need not have any knowledge of or care about my personal existence billions of yeas later at all.

If you review your counterargument…

Perhaps you should rather than just ignore it?

…you start  with special pleading that it's purposes are this or that and your implication is that it could not be other than what you have suggested.

Repeating the lie doesn’t help you. It starts with no such thing – it starts and ends by explaining that a “simulator” is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the speculation “maybe this is a simulation”; it’s necessary for theism, but it’s by no means sufficient.

That’s your problem remember – finding a path from the former to the latter? 

As I have said you can derive more from the initial proposal were you not bound to hide behind what is special pleading.

There’s no special pleading. Try reading what’s actually been said and responding to that…

…oh hang on, it’s Vlad. What on earth am I thinking?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Because it’s another of your lies. I explained why a few posts back, but you just ignored that.

It does no such thing. All it implies is a “something” (which need not be a god at all) to create the simulation. That something need not have any knowledge of or care about my personal existence billions of yeas later at all.

Perhaps you should rather than just ignore it?

Repeating the lie doesn’t help you. It starts with no such thing – it starts and ends by explaining that a “simulator” is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the speculation “maybe this is a simulation”; it’s necessary for theism, but it’s by no means sufficient.

That’s your problem remember – finding a path from the former to the latter? 

There’s no special pleading. Try reading what’s actually been said and responding to that…

…oh hang on, it’s Vlad. What on earth am I thinking?

Great you seem to accuse me of lying which is wrong because the personal creator implied by a simulated universe was missing. Read your post.

You then go to explain what you take to be the definition of the implication.

A personal creator is not obliged to take any interest in you personally. It is itself personal in that it has its purposes and design. In many of the arguments it has a name Kevin and a status Kevin. Not important in themselves but recognition of personal desires,will,goalsaims,intent and purpose.