Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

If it is a reasonable idea then The age of the 'No reason for god or gods'  is over.

Basically you seem to be arguing that if there is a god then it deliberately created the universe and then claiming that if the universe was deliberately created (as in the SU conjectures) then there is a god.

This is a textbook affirming the consequent fallacy - otherwise know as (as blue already pointed out) confusion of necessity and sufficiency. As the link also points out, it's the logical equivalent of

If someone owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

What's more, it is not even true that all god myths involve them creating the universe - so you are grasping at one similarity between some of the god myths and a modern conjecture in order to try and claim some increased credibility for said myths.

It's just silly.

[wigginhall]

Just an addendum, not only does Christianity argue that there is a creator of the universe, but also that he is good.   Of course, there are religions where the creator is evil, and the universe itself not particularly good, or even bad.

That's why I think the idea of the spotty teenager simulating a universe is interesting, as SU says nothing about the nature of the simulator, or reasons for simulating.  Here we can come back to Descartes, who speculated about demons creating our thoughts, and possibly whole worlds. 

As others have pointed out, the idea that SU implies divinity is ass-backwards.   It could also involve moral evil and/or teenage boredom. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Basically you seem to be arguing that if there is a god then it deliberately created the universe and then claiming that if the universe was deliberately created (as in the SU conjectures) then there is a god.

This is a textbook affirming the consequent fallacy - otherwise know as (as blue already pointed out) confusion of necessity and sufficiency. As the link also points out, it's the logical equivalent of

If someone owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Let me stop you there old chap
What I am saying
that If something intelligently creates a universe then it is God of that universe since that is the definition of the god of the universe.
The God of that universe is the God of that universe
Therefore the God of the universe intelligently created the universe.

I don't think that is the logical equivalent of your Bill Gates example but I look forward to hearing your response.

[wigginhall]

Could be a bot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just an addendum, not only does Christianity argue that there is a creator of the universe, but also that he is good.   Of course, there are religions where the creator is evil, and the universe itself not particularly good, or even bad.

That's why I think the idea of the spotty teenager simulating a universe is interesting, as SU says nothing about the nature of the simulator, or reasons for simulating.  Here we can come back to Descartes, who speculated about demons creating our thoughts, and possibly whole worlds. 

As others have pointed out, the idea that SU implies divinity is ass-backwards.   It could also involve moral evil and/or teenage boredom.

Spotty teenager is IMHO a ploy to denigrate god or gods. In a conference where Brian Greene suggested ''spotty teenager'' Richard Dawkins said that in his view this teenager would have to be in RD's view, Remarkably disciplined.

Moral evil/teenage boredom is, I move, a feature of Greek polytheism

[Stranger]

What I am saying
that If something intelligently creates a universe then it is God of that universe since that is the definition of the god of the universe.

That is just a silly assertion.

I mean, I guess that if you want to invent a new definition of 'god' (any intelligent being or beings that create a universe) then I guess there's nothing to stop you - but it remains a silly, and frankly somewhat dishonest, exercise. As has been pointed out, such a being may have no other similarity at all to any theistic idea of god whatsoever (spotty teenager, corporation, university, a being with evil intent, etc.).

If we took your re-definition and the SU conjectures seriously, then you'd have to accept that some beings in this universe may be gods (of other universes) - it would certainly be the end of any sensible notion of monotheism.

You'd also need to define 'universe' somewhat carefully, if you want to avoid conferring the status of god (of some very simple universes) to some humans.

The fact is that you've just seen some superficial similarity between some god myths and a modern conjecture and desperately grasped onto it in order to attempt to give credence to said myths.

It's a very, very silly argument - and it reeks of desperation and dishonesty.

[Stranger]

Moral evil/teenage boredom is, I move, a feature of Greek polytheism

But the Greek gods weren't all universe creators, so it all falls down again...   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is just a silly assertion.

I mean, I guess that if you want to invent a new definition of 'god' (any intelligent being or beings that create a universe) then I guess there's nothing to stop you - but it remains a silly, and frankly somewhat dishonest, exercise. As has been pointed out, such a being may have no other similarity at all to any theistic idea of god whatsoever (spotty teenager, corporation, university, a being with evil intent, etc.).

If we took your re-definition and the SU conjectures seriously, then you'd have to accept that some beings in this universe may be gods (of other universes) - it would certainly be the end of any sensible notion of monotheism.

You'd also need to define 'universe' somewhat carefully, if you want to avoid conferring the status of god (of some very simple universes) to some humans.

The fact is that you've just seen some superficial similarity between some god myths and a modern conjecture and desperately grasped onto it in order to attempt to give credence to said myths.

It's a very, very silly argument - and it reeks of desperation and dishonesty.

It's not a new definition of god. The problem here is your knowledge of Theology and you are in that position specifically because you swallowed the Dawkinsian guff about not having to know any Leprechology.

You are trying the Hillside Gambit of demanding that recognising the conjectures of SU as theology means that they are also the limits of theology. SU therefore does not affect theology at all.
It says something of which theology has talked of for centuries and is silent on the rest.

Your argument reeks of desperation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the Greek gods weren't all universe creators, so it all falls down again...   

But they were divine and Wigginhall was contrasting divinity with moral evil/teenage boredom.
Your post is irrelevant.
Also you cannot give a whole list of preferred options for the deliberate creator and then specially plead that something morally Good, loving etc MUST not be considered. That is special pleading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As interesting in parts as all this is the argument for simulated universe/s has long been articulated as part of theology and belief in God or gods.

Leaving aside for now your category error of conflating “articulated” with “speculated”, you’ve just run up again against your necessary/sufficient problem: whether or not “a creator” has long been part of theism does not by any stretch make it identical to theism, which was your claim.   

The Oxford History of Christianity identifies two possible starting points in any exploration of Christianity. One is identical to that of SU conjecture ( The creator approach) and the other is the salvation approach.

It might be a “starting point”, but it sure as anything isn’t the finishing point too – which is why your “identical” claim fails so abjectly.

To argue that the former is not part or even an insignificant claim in Christianity or theism or deism or polytheism is plain wrong.

Which is why no-one has done that.

I think we can take it that a feature of your argument is now that this is a reasonable argument but because religion is unreasonable this cannot be a religious argument. Can you spot the problems with that assumption?

Yes – that it’s not my assumption at all; it’s just yet another of your straw men.

Your alternative is specially pleading that it is a lousy argument that becomes reasonable in the hands of a scientist.

No it isn’t. Stop lying.

First, it’s not an argument at all whether reasonable or otherwise; it’s just a conjecture. Lying about that isn’t helping you.

Second, it still fails to satisfy almost all the conditions that would be necessary for the SU conjecture to be “identical” to theism as you so wrongly claimed. 

You can never though effectively or logically make this a non theological argument other than arbitrarily and by an act that would be the ''Irish success in the Eurovision Song Contest'' of historical revisionism.

As it’s not my argument at all, I’ll leave you to your private grief about this.

Given that, the idea is I feel so philosophically 'productive' the implications should be debated whether you are able to accept is as part of theology or not.

It’s not productive at all, either as science or as theology. It’s not productive as science because (currently at least) there’s no way to investigate the conjecture such that it could be anything other than a conjecture.

And its not productive as theology because the SU conjecture lacks almost all the sufficient characteristics of theology. Perhaps if you finally grasp the difference between “necessary” and “sufficient” you’d understand why and, as an added bonus, stop making a fool of yourself here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's not a new definition of god.

Yes it is. “God” is routinely defined as “supernatural”, ie outside the laws of nature. Supernaturalism isn’t though necessary for the SU speculation. If you want to call smart and naturalistic aliens “gods” that’s up to you, but it’s a fundamental re-definition of the usual meaning of the term. 

The problem here is your knowledge of Theology and you are in that position specifically because you swallowed the Dawkinsian guff about not having to know any Leprechology.

No it isn’t. The problem here is that you have no argument to take your from the conditions necessary for the SU conjecture to the conditions sufficient for theology.

You are trying the Hillside Gambit of demanding that recognising the conjectures of SU as theology means that they are also the limits of theology.

There is no such “gambit”, and no he isn’t. 

SU therefore does not affect theology at all.

Which is true, though better put as: “The SU conjecture lacks many of the characteristics necessary for it to be analogous to theology.”

It says something of which theology has talked of for centuries and is silent on the rest.

Which is why it’s not identical to theology at all, either in status or in content.

Your argument reeks of desperation.

Pity you don’t grasp irony – that one’s a doozy.

[wigginhall]

Spotty teenager is IMHO a ploy to denigrate god or gods. In a conference where Brian Greene suggested ''spotty teenager'' Richard Dawkins said that in his view this teenager would have to be in RD's view, Remarkably disciplined.

Moral evil/teenage boredom is, I move, a feature of Greek polytheism

It's just pointing out that SU carries no implications as to the nature of the simulator, except intelligence.  Hence,  to go from SU to divine is backasswards.   Croesus is a rich man, but this doesn't imply that a rich man is Croesus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Leaving aside for now your category error of conflating “articulated” with “speculated”, you’ve just run up again against your necessary/sufficient problem: whether or not “a creator” has long been part of theism does not by any stretch make it identical to theism, which was your claim.   

It might be a “starting point”, but it sure as anything isn’t the finishing point too – which is why your “identical” claim fails so abjectly.

Which is why no-one has done that.

Yes – that it’s not my assumption at all; it’s just yet another of your straw men.

No it isn’t. Stop lying.

First, it’s not an argument at all whether reasonable or otherwise; it’s just a conjecture. Lying about that isn’t helping you.

Second, it still fails to satisfy almost all the conditions that would be necessary for the SU conjecture to be “identical” to theism as you so wrongly claimed. 

As it’s not my argument at all, I’ll leave you to your private grief about this.

It’s not productive at all, either as science or as theology. It’s not productive as science because (currently at least) there’s no way to investigate the conjecture such that it could be anything other than a conjecture.

And its not productive as theology because the SU conjecture lacks almost all the sufficient characteristics of theology. Perhaps if you finally grasp the difference between “necessary” and “sufficient” you’d understand why and, as an added bonus, stop making a fool of yourself here.

The SU conjecture of a deliberate creator of a universe independent of that universe is identical to that of a deliberate creator of a universe independent of that universe found anywhere else Hillside. Any other declaration is special pleading.........and that's your subsequent arguments fucked i'm afraid.

[wigginhall]

The old term was fallacy of the converse, wasn't it?  It's nice to see one being used so prolifically. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The SU conjecture of a deliberate creator of a universe independent of that universe is identical to that of a deliberate creator of a universe independent of that universe found anywhere else Hillside.

Yes it is. What's got to do with theology though, let alone to do with being "identical" to it?

Any other declaration is special pleading.........and that's your subsequent arguments fucked i'm afraid.

The only special pleading here is your pleading that "a deliberate creator of a universe independent of that universe" is synonymous with theology. Perhaps if you stopped lying about that it'd help?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Ah so you just ignore what he said and instead attack what you think to be his motive for saying it.

What does that say about you do you think?

I fully understand Hitchen's arguments, but they do not make the slightest dent in my Christian faith, because God has made Himself known to me and nothing can take away this personal relationship.  If Hitchen had known God, I am sure he could have chosen to use his intelligence to support the Christian faith instead of trying to ridicule it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes it is. What's got to do with theology though,

LOL

[BeRational]

I fully understand Hitchen's arguments, but they do not make the slightest dent in my Christian faith, because God has made Himself known to me and nothing can take away this personal relationship.  If Hitchen had known God, I am sure he could have chosen to use his intelligence to support the Christian faith instead of trying to ridicule it.

You think god has made himself known.

How can you be sure it's not the devil playing a clever trick on you?

[Nearly Sane]

I fully understand Hitchen's arguments, but they do not make the slightest dent in my Christian faith, because God has made Himself known to me and nothing can take away this personal relationship.  If Hitchen had known God, I am sure he could have chosen to use his intelligence to support the Christian faith instead of trying to ridicule it.

So your god choose not to appear to Hitchens, and will punish him for eternity for using his intelligence - did you mean to portray your god as a lying thug?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully understand Hitchen's arguments, but they do not make the slightest dent in my Christian faith, because God has made Himself known to me and nothing can take away this personal relationship.  If Hitchen had known God, I am sure he could have used his intelligence to support the Christian faith instead of trying to ridicule it.

If you fully understood the argument you'd realise that your (no doubt sincere) belief about that is probably misplaced. That's your problem: no matter how cogent the arguments that undo you, you cannot or will not even consider them because their consequences would be too difficult for you to process. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

LOL

Why is that confusing for you? Theology makes assertions about the creator of the universe; the SU conjecture would necessitate only a creator of a universe.

QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why is that confusing for you? Theology makes assertions about the creator of the universe; the SU conjecture would necessitate only a creator of a universe.

Then that universe can have a God of that universe and this universe can't have a God? Special pleading Hills. Back to the drawing board for you my lad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Then that universe can have a God of that universe and this universe can't have a God?

Has anyone ever said that?

Special pleading Hills. Back to the drawing board for you my lad.

It would only be special pleading if I’d actually said the thing you just pretended I said.

“This universe” as you put it could have anything, gods and leprechauns included. That though tells you nothing at all about what it does have and nor for that matter about whether such a speculation would be naturalistic or divine.

Apart from that though… 

[Shaker]

I fully understand Hitchen's arguments

Given your track record of other things that you claim to understand fully, I'll have to remain sceptical here as in those cases.

but they do not make the slightest dent in my Christian faith

Total immunity to reason and logic does that.

because God has made Himself known to me and nothing can take away this personal relationship.

That's your interpretation.

[Walter]

I fully understand Hitchen's arguments, but they do not make the slightest dent in my Christian faith, because God has made Himself known to me and nothing can take away this personal relationship.  If Hitchen had known God, I am sure he could have chosen to use his intelligence to support the Christian faith instead of trying to ridicule it.

have you any idea how crazy and ridiculous this sounds to an atheist?

substitute Disney land for CHRISTIAN FAITH and FATHER CHRISTMAS  for god and you might get close to what I hear when you make claims .