Vlad,
Wrong again, for reasons that I explained to you at the time.
Simulated universe:
1.– Hypothesis only – an idea that's coherent and could be true, but awaiting investigation and verification.
2–Requires something to have set in place the technology, but says nothing about whether that “something” was itself part of another simulated universe, nothing about whether it had any knowledge of or interest in what may emerge from its technology (eg, us), nothing about whether it then died or is still around, nothing about anything at all other than that it would have existed.
Theology:
3– "God" as a term is incoherent, so not possibility apt.
4– “God” is asserted as a fact.
5– “God” is asserted as the ultimate cause, so cannot be a sub-set of something else.
6– No method if investigating and validating even in principle.
7– “God” is asserted to be still around.
8– “God” is asserted to care and to intervenes, albeit in “mysterious” ways.
Frankly it’d be hard to imagine two more qualitatively opposing conjectures.
Quite.
Hypothesis? How is simulated universe a testable hypothesis? And if it is not testable it is not science.
Even if we are to take it that it is a philosophical idea. It proposes a creator independent of the universe it has created and outside of that universe, that is also basic definition of the theistic god and you have argued against God on the basis of those very claims since I've known you.
So not only are you rejecting something identical due to the mere label of the word God.
You are now arguing against your own position. i.e. intellectual confusion.
And now to lunch as the waiter lays out your delicious offerings for devouring.
1 It doesn't seem to be a scientific hypothesis and as a philosophical idea it is identical to theistic philosophical ideas
2 Linguistic car crash......but let's try to untangle something from the wreckage. You seem to suggest that there could be nested simulations. How do you propose to establish that is the case? In the end it matters not since the properties suggested by DGT are classic theistic properties. All your theory does is proposes an infinite pantheon of gods all of whom are independent of the universe etc. If you wish to infinitize the problems with your argument go ahead.
3 God is incoherent is a pre simulated universe luxury i'm afraid. Since in comparison with each other, the theistic idea of a creator independent of the universe, outside the universe is as coherent as the simulated universe idea of a creator independent of the universe, outside the universe and it is so because both ideas are identical. Whatever else is proposed then death of simulator, multiple, single, nested simulators is irrelevant to that and that is from our perspective all you can say.
4 A philosophical hypothetical God would do just as well here.
5 God or the simulator is the cause of this universe, theism of the polytheism variety could cover any claims of nested simulations, nothing to forbid the ultimate cause being the cause of this universe as the first generation simulation on the grounds that if you propose a set of attributes like those in SU creator you then cannot deny those attributes.
6 Maybe......but what about Bostrom's windows?
7 Irrelevent to a simulated universe. I think here you are arguing a form of deism but with faith that God has died. I don't know how that helps atheism.
8 Could be covered by Bostrom's window's or I suppose a form Deism or Floo like ''God is a bastardism''
Thanks for that....Looks like you're picking up the tab.
