Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes.

Evidence for me means as close to objective evidence as you can get. I find no such evidence forthcoming to substantiate Alan's God.

Personal evidence is evidence I have no means of validating. Hence, if someone says they have had experiences of God, as I have no means of validating it, I do not count that as evidence at all. Similarly I discount any experiences that I have had that suggest that there is no God.

Secondly I do not discount the possibility that Alan's God exists because it is always possible that evidence may surface which points towards that conclusion. So, it remains a possibility.

Finally, most of the arguments that are given as evidence for a God have alternative arguments, increasingly backed by evidence, which suggest that there is no need for God at be involved at all (e.g. evolution, prayer) and those arguments that remain use the unknown as their backcloth for conjecture and surmise.

Thank you very much for answering.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hypothesis? How is simulated universe a testable hypothesis? And if it is not testable it is not science.

Well, that’s progress of a kind I suppose. Now all you have to do is to show where someone claimed it to be a scientific hypothesis rather than the less rigorous “proposed explanation for a phenomenon” type. Either way though if you want to say something like, “it’s not even a scientific hypothesis” and call it, say, a conjecture instead and then reduce theological claims to the same conjectural status for comparison purposes by all means knock yourself out.

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.

Classic Vladdism – note the “outside of the universe it has created”, which is not the “basic definition of the theistic god" at all. That definition asserts “God” to have created the universe – a very different matter.

What do you think you gain by this kind of dishonesty? 

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.

Wrong again, on both counts – see above.

And now to lunch as the waiter lays out your delicious offerings for devouring.

Do you really want to do this to yourself?

Really?

OK, on your head be it then…

1 It doesn't seem to be a scientific hypothesis and as a philosophical idea it is identical to theistic philosophical ideas

Flat wrong – see above and hitherto. A possibly localised universe creator with no attendant claims to current existence, intervention or anything else is fundamentally different from the theistic proposition.   

2 Linguistic car crash......but let's try to untangle something from the wreckage.

It’s no such thing – the terminology and structure is simple and straightforward, even for you.

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.

It doesn’t need “testing” – it’s just a qualitative difference between necessary components of the theological claim (ultimate creator) and of the simulated universe conjecture (that requires no such thing).
 

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.

Wrong again. “God” is incoherent for the same reason that “four-sided triangle” is incoherent. Neither are possibility apt because the characteristics claimed for each are internally contradictory. They're just white noise. The simulated universe conjecture on the other hand just requires there to have been a "something" with access to the technology and the intent to use it, and so is not inherently contradictory. 

4 A philosophical hypothetical God would do just as well here.

Not if you wanted to assert some characteristics for it it wouldn’t. It’d still be a huge leap, but at most the analogy would be with deism (ie, a god about whom nothing could be said except that he must once have existed) and not with theism at all.

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.

Wrong (yet) again. Theism makes specific claims about an ultimate creator – the simulated universe conjecture does not. Posit a small town, parochial god for comparison purposes if you want to but that would be a type of theology all your own.

6 Maybe......but what about Bostrom's windows?

What about it?

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.

Completely relevant – it’s a major difference between theology and the simulated universe conjecture. The former requires a god who still is; the latter requires only a technician who once was. 

8 Could be covered by Bostrom's window's or I suppose a form Deism or Floo like ''God is a bastardism''

And speaking of linguistic car crashes…

Thanks for that....Looks like you're picking up the tab.

Not only was it your shout, but the emptiness of your intellectual wallet means you’ll be washing up for the rest of the afternoon too.

[SusanDoris]

Even if AB has decided not to post on this thread, I think continued vigilance is required, in order to make sure he does not have the last word!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also, Stephen Law has a paper somewhere where he suggests an evil god, and asks, how would we be able to tell if God was evil or good.  Actually, there are ton of articles on it, see Wiki 'evil god challenge'.

I like it when someone brings up Stephen Laws cos it gives one an opportunity to go ''STOP, wey hey wait a minute mr Postman.......''' Ha Ha He He Ho Ho.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Classic Vladdism – note the “outside of the universe it has created”, which is not the “basic definition of the theistic god" at all. That definition asserts “God” to have created the universe – a very different matter.


Flat wrong – see above and hitherto. A possibly localised universe creator with no attendant claims to current existence, intervention or anything else is fundamentally different from the theistic proposition.   

Wrong again. “God” is incoherent for the same reason that “four-sided triangle” is incoherent. Neither are possibility apt because the characteristics claimed for each are internally contradictory. They're just white noise. The simulated universe conjecture on the other hand just requires there to have been a "something" with access to the technology and the intent to use it, and so is not inherently contradictory. 

Not if you wanted to assert some characteristics for it it wouldn’t. It’d still be a huge leap, but at most the analogy would be with deism (ie, a god about whom nothing could be said except that he must once have existed) and not with theism at all.

Completely relevant – it’s a major difference between theology and the simulated universe conjecture. The former requires a god who still is; the latter requires only a technician who once was. 

BHS

You never did come back to me about the points I raised in our last exchange or your examples of entrapment. Hope your work project is now finished.

I have not read all of this latest exchange but what is the theistic proposition for God and why is it white noise or a 4-sided triangle? Are you talking about an all-loving Christian concept?

By the way, I don't see a major difference between a 'technician' who once was and a 'technician' who still is. The former presumably did not stick around to tinker. If they did stick around to tinker, we would presumably have no idea what the purpose or goal of their tinkering was so it would seem random. Can you explain why you think this difference is important?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside writes

Completely relevant – it’s a major difference between theology and the simulated universe conjecture. The former requires a god who still is; the latter requires only a technician who once was.

I think your forgetting that 'technician' created a universe is independent and outside of that universe and that idea is also a theistic idea. It's also a deistic idea but not, an atheistic idea.
If you are hopping onto deism you really are giving an impression of a man on a disintegrating iceberg trying to avoid the warm ocean.

 So as the great sage and poet Shania Twain would say it don't impress me much and it don't help you out much either. Unless you really believe that ''God is dead'' in the realest sense. Theologically you are saying that God could die. Now where have I heard that before?

Also Hymns Hillside wee soundbites from theology  '' God inaccessible Hid from our eyes''  ''Technician inaccessible Hid from our eyes''.

At least it wasn't a leprechaun. What happened to Leprechauns simulating universes.......it doesn't work since an argument that works as well for simulated universe as for leprechauns is a bad argument which could explain their absence from your arguments.

All you are saying is that out of two identical descriptions you wouldn't buy the one labelled God...and that is an irrational act of avoidance.

Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.....Yes it will be wankfodder to the Shakers and others but it's just linguistic shuffling on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You never did come back to me about the points I raised in our last exchange or your examples of entrapment. Hope your work project is now finished.

You’re right. Let me see if I can find it.

I have not read all of this latest exchange but what is the theistic proposition for God and why is it white noise or a 4-sided triangle? Are you talking about an all-loving Christian concept?

Partly the variances in the claims made about “God” (there seem to be as many, often contradictory types of those as there are people to make them) and partly because the claims themselves so often contradict experience – a loving god that gives brain cancer to babies (indeed, apparently is the brain cancer) followed by endless casuistry (generally culminating in “it’s a mystery”) to try to get off the hook.

By the way, I don't see a major difference between a 'technician' who once was and a 'technician' who still is. The former presumably did not stick around to tinker. If they did stick around to tinker, we would presumably have no idea what the purpose or goal of their tinkering was so it would seem random. Can you explain why you think this difference is important?

It’s important to theists – Vlad would have been on safer (though still wobbly) ground comparing the simulated universe conjecture with deism, but theism entails a huge infrastructure of claims resting on the notion of an intelligent something that started it all off but no more.   

[Shaker]

Even if AB has decided not to post on this thread, I think continued vigilance is required, in order to make sure he does not have the last word!

He'll never have that 

[ippy]

You've got more faith than "Crashes and" if you expect that, ipples.

I'm not saying whom but I think this person should visit the Chelmsford shopping area within the City and buy himself a new calender for next year, amongst the selection of calenders there was a specialist corner for Unicorn calender lovers, I felt a bit blue, when looking for my replacement vintage British motorcycles calender and there was only a Harley, a superbike one or worse than that, the silly little things named after the two wheeled children's push with one foot things bah, can't say that word.   

ippy   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It’s important to theists – Vlad would have been on safer (though still wobbly) ground comparing the simulated universe conjecture with deism, but theism entails a huge infrastructure of claims resting on the notion of an intelligent something that started it all off but no more.

Wrong because simulated universe idea does not specifically entail a God who withdraws and whether we like it or not, the basic claim is that there is a creator who is separate from the universe it has created and independent from it is theistic theology and deistic theology with nothing in simulated hypothesis theory which requires advocating one or the other.

So no atheism here except faith atheism.....hoping that God the technician has withdrawn, died, never to return

On the other hand if Hillside has been promoted from atheism to deism that's worth an alleluia or two.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Wrong because simulated universe idea does not specifically entail a God who withdraws and whether we like it or not, the basic claim is that there is a creator who is separate from the universe it has created and independent from it is theistic theology and deistic theology with nothing in simulated hypothesis theory which requires advocating one or the other.

So no atheism here except faith atheism.....hoping that God the technician has withdrawn, died, never to return

You just betrayed your ignorance of the difference between necessary and sufficient.

Would you like me to explain it to you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You just betrayed your ignorance of the difference between necessary and sufficient.

Would you like me to explain it to you?

A creator who makes a universe and is independent of it and outside of it is necessarily the description of the simulator. It is also a theistic idea of God and a deistic idea of God.

How is atheism helped out here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A creator who makes a universe and is independent of it and outside of it is necessarily the description of the simulator. It is also a theistic idea of God and a deistic idea of God.

How is atheism helped out here?

Slooowly now…a “creator” is a necessary and a sufficient condition of the simulated universe conjecture; a “creator” is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of theism. Therefore for this (and as it happens several other) reason(s) they’re not “identical” propositions as you asserted at all.

QED. Game over. Job done. End of story. Goodnight Vienna. Hope the Marigolds are holding out etc.   

[Dicky Underpants]

A simulated universe isn't a new idea.  See for example the evil demon in Descartes' 'Meditations',  who creates a perfect image of a world, which deceives us.   I don't know whether Descartes was building on previous writers, but his notion of the evil demon has been linked to an evil god, or the brain in the vat idea, and so on.   And presumably, the Matrix.   

It's possible also that in some dualistic religions, that the evil god creates a material world, I think the gnostics used to say this, didn't they?   

Also, Stephen Law has a paper somewhere where he suggests an evil god, and asks, how would we be able to tell if God was evil or good.  Actually, there are ton of articles on it, see Wiki 'evil god challenge'.

It's interesting in terms of a proposed simulator, that we have no idea what would motivate him/her, and whether they are in fact a pimply teenager, or a mass murderer.     

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

wiggi

Just as you say. To me the whole argument about whether there is any correlation between the idea of an unidentified simulator and a transcendent deity is ultimately jejune. It might bring a flash of 'transcendent' pleasure to Vlad if he thought he'd been proved right, but what relevance would this have to humans in general? We would have no way of telling whether this ultimate 'source' was good or evil or indifferent (other than the fact that Jesus and other worthies have assured us that it is good), and no clear guide as to what is to be done to do right by said creative source. We might just as well be indifferent to it, if it seems indifferent to us.

The Gnostics of course thought that the creator (or simulator) of the material world was evil and ignorant, but they thought there was a way out to the pure pleroma beyond. But their prescriptions for living one's life are no more likely to be ultimately valid than the directives of Christianity (and those are pretty multifarious, depending on which branch you subscribe to).
Until someone comes up with a convincing theodicy (as you have noted before) we might as well just get on with living our lives as best we can. That approach might even prove to be very fulfilling.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Slooowly now…a “creator” is a necessary and a sufficient condition of the simulated universe conjecture;

Great Brillo. SU does not preclude a theistic God we can now go home........wait a minute there's more coming from the dark side

  a “creator” is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of theism.

Where is that being disputed?

Therefore for this (and as it happens several other) reason(s) they’re not “identical” propositions as you asserted at all.
 

Word diddling Pal Ive not been talking about what further constitutes the theist God.

All I've said is that the SU is a creator and is independent from the universe and is indeed outside it and God as espoused by theism is a creator and is independent from the universe.  How are they not then identical......clue.....they are.

Secondly SU makes no distinction between the creator withdrawing or the creator staying.

I'm at a loss to see how this helps your case.

I admit there will be people who for antitheistic reasons like your self will attempt to disqualify God but really there is nothing in SU which does since a universal creator separate from the universe and outside it is de facto the God you have assiduously argued against all these years.

Tell you what when you have grounds for excluding a theistic version God from being SU simulator general let me know.

[Alan Burns]

He'll never have that 

Maybe not, but God certainly will.
Good luck.

[Shaker]

Maybe not, but God certainly will.
Good luck.

Nope 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Missed this earlier

I think your forgetting that 'technician' created a universe is independent and outside of that universe and that idea is also a theistic idea. It's also a deistic idea but not, an atheistic idea.
If you are hopping onto deism you really are giving an impression of a man on a disintegrating iceberg trying to avoid the warm ocean.

No-one is “hopping onto” anything. You asserted theism (not deism) to be “identical” to the simulated universe conjecture. It’s no such thing, for the reasons I’ve explained.

So as the great sage and poet Shania Twain would say it don't impress me much and it don't help you out much either. Unless you really believe that ''God is dead'' in the realest sense. Theologically you are saying that God could die. Now where have I heard that before?

I’m saying no such thing. What I am saying though is that theism and the simulated universe conjecture are not “identical”.

Also Hymns Hillside wee soundbites from theology  '' God inaccessible Hid from our eyes''  ''Technician inaccessible Hid from our eyes''.

?

At least it wasn't a leprechaun. What happened to Leprechauns simulating universes.......it doesn't work since an argument that works as well for simulated universe as for leprechauns is a bad argument which could explain their absence from your arguments.

?

All you are saying is that out of two identical descriptions you wouldn't buy the one labelled God...and that is an irrational act of avoidance.

Flat wrong – see above.

Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.....Yes it will be wankfodder to the Shakers and others but it's just linguistic shuffling on your part.

Not even close. You crashed, you burned – deal with it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Great Brillo. SU does not preclude a theistic God we can now go home........wait a minute there's more coming from the dark side

What on earth are you talking about now? The SU conjecture doesn’t “preclude” anything, except that is the non-presence of a “creator” with access to the technology necessary to create the universe we appear to perceive and the intent to use it.

That though does not for one moment make it “identical” to theism, which makes all sorts of additional claims – far from it.   

Where is that being disputed?

Where you claim theism and the SU conjecture to be “identical”.

Word diddling Pal Ive not been talking about what further constitutes the theist God.

Simple logic expressed in plain terms is not “word diddling”.

All I've said is that the SU is a creator and is independent from the universe and is indeed outside it and God as espoused by theism is a creator and is independent from the universe.  How are they not then identical......clue.....they are.

That’s not what you’ve said. You’ve shifted between “a” universe and ”the” universe and hoped no-one would notice. The SU conjecture requires only the former; theism requires the latter – hence they’re not “identical” at all.

Secondly SU makes no distinction between the creator withdrawing or the creator staying.

No, but theism does. Very much so in fact. That (among other reasons) is why they’re not “identical” at all.   

I'm at a loss to see how this helps your case.

See above.

I admit there will be people who for antitheistic reasons like your self will attempt to disqualify God but really there is nothing in SU which does since a universal creator separate from the universe and outside it is de facto the God you have assiduously argued against all these years.

Again, you’re confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient one. “Air is required for human life” is a necessary condition, but it’s not a sufficient one. The best you could hope for is to argue that the SU conjecture is not incompatible with theism, but nor is it incompatible with Morris Dancing, unicorns or Scotch mist so that doesn't help you much. What you can’t do though is to assert them to be “identical”.       

Tell you what when you have grounds for excluding a theistic version God from being SU simulator general let me know.

That’s not your claim. Your clam is that the two are “identical” when they’re clearly no such thing.

[Outrider]

What about philosophy? can it be dismissed from philosophy? After all as a campaigning atheist do you not wish to see people saved from theism because of the harm you think it does them. I'd have thought there was enough ''outrider'' in this forum to dispel any accusations of not giving a shit about it.

Can it be dismissed from Philosophy... probably. Salvation is required to free humanity from the 'Sin' that is supposedly part of our make-up, that we have inherited from our forebears. If you're looking for a system to free people from inherited judgement for someone else's (alleged) immoral behaviour then frankly yes, you can dismiss it without justification, because it's palpable nonsense.

O.

[ippy]

Maybe not, but God certainly will.
Good luck.

'God certainly will':

Please do tell us all Alan, of how you know the above, with the accompanying explanation of where and how the necessary evidence for this assertion of yours can be acquired?  This is one of those questions you're well known/notorious for not answering, take your time Alan; you'll be needing it.

Don't forget how much we all love you Alan.

ippy

   

[floo]

'God certainly will':

Please do tell us all Alan, of how you know the above, with the accompanying explanation of where and how the necessary evidence for this assertion of yours can be acquired?  This is one of those questions you're well known/notorious for not answering, take your time Alan; you'll be needing it.

Don't forget how much we all love you Alan.

ippy

To be fair I think AB is a decent guy, even if none of us can get where he is coming from faith wise.
 

[wigginhall]

wiggi

Just as you say. To me the whole argument about whether there is any correlation between the idea of an unidentified simulator and a transcendent deity is ultimately jejune. It might bring a flash of 'transcendent' pleasure to Vlad if he thought he'd been proved right, but what relevance would this have to humans in general? We would have no way of telling whether this ultimate 'source' was good or evil or indifferent (other than the fact that Jesus and other worthies have assured us that it is good), and no clear guide as to what is to be done to do right by said creative source. We might just as well be indifferent to it, if it seems indifferent to us.

The Gnostics of course thought that the creator (or simulator) of the material world was evil and ignorant, but they thought there was a way out to the pure pleroma beyond. But their prescriptions for living one's life are no more likely to be ultimately valid than the directives of Christianity (and those are pretty multifarious, depending on which branch you subscribe to).
Until someone comes up with a convincing theodicy (as you have noted before) we might as well just get on with living our lives as best we can. That approach might even prove to be very fulfilling.

Nice post, Dicky.  I was thinking about what simulation means, and there is often a sense of unreality about it.  For example, simulations in entertainment - cartoons and video games - are not meant to be real to the inhabitants.  We don't really suppose that the Simpsons enjoyed breakfast this morning.   So 'simulate' here almost means unreal.

However, in the tradition of evil demons, our actual thoughts might be concocted by such a demon, and I suppose would seem real. 

The Truman Show dealt with this by having a main character who does see everything as genuine, although it isn't, he is surrounded by actors, and watched by mass TV audiences. 

But creation by God is different, it seems to me - there is no sense that life as created by God is an illusion.   But then in those dualistic religions, maybe it is, since the material world is demonic, for example, for the Manicheans.  There is also the tradition of illusion in various Eastern religions, that everything is maya, I know a teacher like this who says that nothing has ever happened.   Hang on a minute ...

About the proposals for computer simulation by aliens, there hasn't been much infilling of it - are they absolute bastards who are determined to get sadistic pleasure?  Or are they benevolent?  Is their simulation an illusion?

[ippy]

To be fair I think AB is a decent guy, even if none of us can get where he is coming from faith wise.

I agree with you, he is very decent within the confines of his particular implanted outlook I think his posts do reflect how powerful the usual regular R C childhood indoctrination process can be to some people, there are a few that are far more susceptible to this process than others, I don't think there is any further need for me to spell out where I'm going with this line of thought Floo.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Apart from a sensible framework of law, being locked up in prison or handicapped in some way we have free will, it's not a matter of choice, there's nothing deep to be discussed about free will, we have it, it's there for all to see, there's no option it's there and there's zero evidence that free will has been given to us by some imagined authority.

ippy

in what way can we take action that isn't determined or random?