Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's not my argument.
My argument is that God is a creator of a universe.

No it isn't. Your "argument" is that as the SU speculation involves a creator of a universe, then – ta-daaaaa! – that means that the conjecture must be true, that the creator must be divine, and that the various additional characteristics required for theology (the "omnis", that it's also the creator of the universe etc) must also be present in order to obtain the "identical" status you claimed.

None of these things though are true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn't. Your "argument" is that as the SU speculation involves a creator of a universe, then – ta-daaaaa! – that means that the conjecture must be true, that the creator must be divine, and that the various additional characteristics (the "omnis", that it's also the creator of the universe etc) sufficient for theology must also be present in order to obtain the "identical" status you claimed.

None of these things though are true.

That reminds me, my alphabet soup must be done by now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought you were saying that if God is a creator of a universe, therefore a creator of a universe is God.  This is the fallacy of the converse, I think,  or affirming the consequent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That reminds me, my alphabet soup must be done by now.

This from you of all people? Gee whizz.

Anyway, which part confused you?

[wigginhall]

Decent summary. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Decent summary.

As, uniquely, it's error-free I'd say it's his best yet.

[Alan Burns]

This reminds me of two things, two examples of fairly florid anti-intellectualism.

One is a current poster here (who keeps changing his name) who seems to regard all and any serious discussion of philosophical issues as pretentious wankery and knowing correct, specific terminology is 'showing off'.

The second - the same thing, essentially - is the thick-as-pigshit kids I remember from school destined to have no higher station in life than to ask people if they want medium or large fries several times a day, who likewise scorned the other kids with a natural curiosity and natural intelligence who were genuinely interested in learning new and interesting things.

In both cases the use of a word such as 'clever' - otherwise regarded as a positive and laudatory term - is used as a negative, as though cleverness (either in people or in arguments) is somehow suspect, something to be mistrusted rather than commended, even applauded.

That you use the word is such a manner is very telling. The arguments that undo you are clever. They're well-thought-out, cogent, coherent, rational and in the right hands (literally - bluehillside; Prof. Davey; Gordon; torridon to name but a few*) beautifully couched - everything that your effusions are not, relying as they do on almost every logical fallacy known to man, personal whim elevated to absolute objective truth and what have you.

* E & OE.

But the irony is that any well thought out argument is ample evidence for the free will of the human soul - a freedom which can never be found in the deterministic physical reactions of purely material entities.

[Sebastian Toe]

But the irony is that any well thought out argument is ample evidence for the free will of the human soul - a freedom which can never be found in the deterministic physical reactions of purely material entities.

As I was reminded recently, when you go to heaven, you leave your brains behind!

[Walter]

As I was reminded recently, when you go to heaven, you leave your brains behind!

for most Christians that doesn't matter, they don't know how to use them properly anyway

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn't. Your "argument" is that as the SU speculation involves a creator of a universe, then – ta-daaaaa! – that means that the conjecture must be true, that the creator must be divine, and that the various additional characteristics required for theology (the "omnis", that it's also the creator of the universe etc) must also be present in order to obtain the "identical" status you claimed.

None of these things though are true.

Your forgetting that theists and deists were assigning the role of creator as articulated in SU centuries before. SU is not science but philosophy.
Moreover it is a latecomer.
What it is is a repudiation of the idea that there cannot be an outside of the universe, a turn round which to lessen the blow to New Atheism has rear guard action involving denial purely because people poop themselves over the word God or gods. The fundamental difference between the idea of creator inSU and theology is a courtiers reply which has naturally been detected by the person who invented courtiers reply, PZ Myers.

I for one will now not be able to see many on this board as strident macho antitheists but as bizarre deists dreading the full implications of accepting the philosophy of SU.

To them I wish them good luck in their migration.

[Gordon]

What it is is a repudiation of the idea that there cannot be an outside of the universe

Don't be silly, Vlad - this 'repudiation' of yours is just another idea: a corollary idea that there can be an 'outside' of the universe.

Ideas may well be insightful and stand scrutiny and investigation - or they can be fanciful, misguided or wrong, so you need some more flesh on the bones, old chap.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad - this 'repudiation' of yours is just another idea: a corollary idea that there can be an 'outside' of the universe.

Ideas may well be insightful and stand scrutiny and investigation - or they can be fanciful, misguided or wrong, so you need some more flesh on the bones, old chap.

Well let's discuss this in terms of SU which proposes an intelligent creator of a simulated universe.
Answer me this Gordon. Is that creator part of the simulation, outside it, independent of it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad - this 'repudiation' of yours is just another idea: a corollary idea that there can be an 'outside' of the universe.

Ideas may well be insightful and stand scrutiny and investigation - or they can be fanciful, misguided or wrong, so you need some more flesh on the bones, old chap.

Gordon. do you think we could be living in a simulated universe?

[floo]

Gordon. do you think we could be living in a simulated universe?

We could all be characters in a computer game.

[Gordon]

Gordon. do you think we could be living in a simulated universe?

No idea: how could I ever tell whether we were or weren't?

[Gordon]

Well let's discuss this in terms of SU which proposes an intelligent creator of a simulated universe.
Answer me this Gordon. Is that creator part of the simulation, outside it, independent of it?

No idea - you could tie yourself in knots over this, Vlad.

For instance: how could you tell that this universe is simulated, and even if it is could this simulation really be a 'stand-alone' universe, even if it seems that way to us, or could it be a part of something else, which is part of something else, which is part of some else, which is part of something else etc etc etc etc etc?

The idea of simulation may well be an interesting one but I suggest if you're going to use it as a hook to hang your God on then you need do some more work: foe example, explaining how you'd falsify the idea that we live in a simulated universe would be a very good place for you to start, since you're the one banging the simulation drum.   

[wigginhall]

This is angels on the head of a pin stuff, isn't it?   It's useless stuff.   We might be surrounded by time travelers who have come back to examine us.  So what?

[Rhiannon]

Given the utter bollockry in the world the idea that this in some form illusory is a comfort to many.

[Stranger]

Your forgetting that theists and deists were assigning the role of creator as articulated in SU centuries before. SU is not science but philosophy.
Moreover it is a latecomer.
What it is is a repudiation of the idea that there cannot be an outside of the universe, a turn round which to lessen the blow to New Atheism has rear guard action involving denial purely because people poop themselves over the word God or gods. The fundamental difference between the idea of creator inSU and theology is a courtiers reply which has naturally been detected by the person who invented courtiers reply, PZ Myers.

I for one will now not be able to see many on this board as strident macho antitheists but as bizarre deists dreading the full implications of accepting the philosophy of SU.

To them I wish them good luck in their migration.

It's always difficulty trying to unravel your bizarre posts but the only sense I can make out of this is as some sort of kindergarten taunt - sort of "we (theists/deists) thought of universe creators first, so nobody else is allowed to use the idea without accepting theism/deism, SO THERE!!".

All this utter nonsense in order to try to pretend that theism has the status of untestable conjecture instead of baseless fairy tale.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's always difficulty trying to unravel your bizarre posts but the only sense I can make out of this is as some sort of kindergarten taunt - sort of "we (theists/deists) thought of universe creators first, so nobody else is allowed to use the idea without accepting theism/deism, SO THERE!!".

All this utter nonsense in order to try to pretend that theism has the status of untestable conjecture instead of baseless fairy tale.

The only one IMHO  who  isn't allowing anyone to use the argument is Hillside who seems to want us to think this isn't found in theology.

My guess though is that you will not want to use it. Since such a proposition is the gateway to all sorts of questions.

Wigginhall has already pronounced on the value of thinking about this. It is useless. Do not trouble ourselves over it. If they aren't the words of intellectual dictatorship, I don't know what are.

I feel you are projecting. It is your side which wants the patent.
I say this is free intellectual property and as part of the collective which has held Intelligent Creator for centuries I say "go ahead, use the idea".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea - you could tie yourself in knots over this, Vlad.

For instance: how could you tell that this universe is simulated, and even if it is could this simulation really be a 'stand-alone' universe, even if it seems that way to us, or could it be a part of something else, which is part of something else, which is part of some else, which is part of something else etc etc etc etc etc?

The idea of simulation may well be an interesting one but I suggest if you're going to use it as a hook to hang your God on then you need do some more work: foe example, explaining how you'd falsify the idea that we live in a simulated universe would be a very good place for you to start, since you're the one banging the simulation drum.

What about the multiverse? What are your views on that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That’s a lot of mistakes you’ve packed into one Reply.

Your forgetting that theists and deists were assigning the role of creator as articulated in SU centuries before.

It's "you're", and no they weren’t. What they were actually doing was “assigning” (ie, asserting) the role of the creator of the universe, which isn’t what SU postulates at all.

Second, the SU conjecture just posts a possibility but does not assert as fact as theism does. 

SU is not science but philosophy.

Wrong again – it’s nether. What is actually is is just a conjecture.
 

Moreover it is a latecomer.

Wrong again. Late compared with what – the fundamentally different claims of theology?

What it is is a repudiation of the idea that there cannot be an outside of the universe, a turn round which to lessen the blow to New Atheism has rear guard action involving denial purely because people poop themselves over the word God or gods. The fundamental difference between the idea of creator inSU and theology is a courtiers reply which has naturally been detected by the person who invented courtiers reply, PZ Myers.

You’ve had this dishonest gibberish falsified several times now. Why are you just repeating your earlier mistakes?

I for one will now not be able to see many on this board as strident macho antitheists but as bizarre deists dreading the full implications of accepting the philosophy of SU.

To them I wish them good luck in their migration.

NURSE!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The only one IMHO  who  isn't allowing anyone to use the argument is Hillside who seems to want us to think this isn't found in theology.

Perhaps if you started with taking just one day a week off from lying you could gradually build your way toward honesty? Baby steps and all that…

Just to remind you by the way, your claim was that the conjecture of SU and the assertions of theism are “identical”. Remember?

My guess though is that you will not want to use it. Since such a proposition is the gateway to all sorts of questions.

No it isn’t. It’s just a speculation.

Wigginhall has already pronounced on the value of thinking about this. It is useless. Do not trouble ourselves over it. If they aren't the words of intellectual dictatorship, I don't know what are.

Then you don’t know what are. It’s “useless” because it’s not investigable. Mildly diverting perhaps, but that’s it. 

I feel you are projecting. It is your side which wants the patent.
I say this is free intellectual property and as part of the collective which has held Intelligent Creator for centuries I say "go ahead, use the idea".

It’s a different idea.

Why do you lie so much?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s a lot of mistakes you’ve packed into one Reply.

It's "you're", and no they weren’t. What they were actually doing was “assigning” (ie, asserting) the role of the creator of the universe, which isn’t what SU postulates at all.

Second, the SU conjecture just posts a possibility but does not assert as fact as theism does. 

Wrong again – it’s nether. What is actually is is just a conjecture.
 
Wrong again. Late compared with what – the fundamentally different claims of theology?

You’ve had this dishonest gibberish falsified several times now. Why are you just repeating your earlier mistakes?

NURSE!

That reminds me. Since the titles of old favourite threads are being changed. Why not change the name of the forum.................may I suggest " la la la la la Laa Laa Laa "?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What about the multiverse? What are your views on that?

That you have no idea what it entails, and nor therefore why it tells you nothing whatever about the claims of theology.