Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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 "?

As you keep ignoring the explanation of the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient", perhaps you should.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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

I believe I only asked about multiverse. Things will have come to a pretty pass if a person cannot ask a non theological question on the multiverse unchallenged because they are a theist........don't you agree?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I believe I only asked about multiverse. Things will have come to a pretty pass if a person cannot ask a non theological question on the multiverse unchallenged because they are a theist........don't you agree?

If anyone had actually said that you can't ask a question, yes. As it's just another of your straw men though, so what?

[floo]

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 "?

We don't all live in the 'Land of La La', which you obviously inhabit.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

We don't all live in the 'Land of La La', which you obviously inhabit.

What's particularly scummy I think is that he just ignores all the arguments that undo his claims, then accuses others of a "La La" response.

[Stranger]

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".

Sometimes I think that even you don't understand what you are trying to say.

It's you who keeps on claiming that any speculation involving intelligent universe creation is automatically about a god - which makes no sense at all unless you think theism somehow has some sort of sole claim to the idea.

You're making no sense at all - which is par for the course, I guess....

[wigginhall]

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

It's an interesting point, since simulations are normally considered to be unreal.   For example, we don't really think that Lisa thinks about the meaning of life in the Simpsons.

However, a full-on SU might involve total illusion, i.e. that the inhabitants think it's real.    An example is Descartes' evil demon which can simulate my thoughts and feelings.   However, this can be filed under useless along with last Thursdayism, until it's testable.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sometimes I think that even you don't understand what you are trying to say.

It's you who keeps on claiming that any speculation involving intelligent universe creation is automatically about a god - which makes no sense at all unless you think theism somehow has some sort of sole claim to the idea.

You're making no sense at all - which is par for the course, I guess....

Theology has been in possession of this idea for centuries.
The idea has been poo pooed on this site until it was pointed out that Neil de Grasse Tyson among others had used the conjecture.

[Nearly Sane]

It's an interesting point, since simulations are normally considered to be unreal.   For example, we don't really think that Lisa thinks about the meaning of life in the Simpsons.

However, a full-on SU might involve total illusion, i.e. that the inhabitants think it's real.    An example is Descartes' evil demon which can simulate my thoughts and feelings.   However, this can be filed under useless along with last Thursdayism, until it's testable.

Indeed, Flatland or the Simpsons are real even if they can be intervened in by some outside force. Plus, of course, we have created an infinite regress in terms of any simulation being a simulation etc etc....

[Sebastian Toe]

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

It should be pointed out that Mr Alan Burns claims multiverse in his reality.
Maybe you should ask him?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It should be pointed out that Mr Alan Burns claims multiverse in his reality.
Maybe you should ask him?

If a multiverse exists Seb then somewhere Ricky Gervais is actually funny.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Theology has been in possession of this idea for centuries.
The idea has been poo pooed on this site until it was pointed out that Neil de Grasse Tyson among others had used the conjecture.

Stop lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If a multiverse exists Seb then somewhere Ricky Gervais is actually funny.

And you're not telling lies on an internet message board.

Now all we have to do is find it.

[wigginhall]

Theology has been in possession of this idea for centuries.
The idea has been poo pooed on this site until it was pointed out that Neil de Grasse Tyson among others had used the conjecture.

Well, Descartes' ideas have been discussed a bit, that is, the evil demon.   I suppose the demon got extended into the evil god, and various arguments for that.   Simulation just transfers the idea into machine code, but then the Matrix did that.

[wigginhall]

Indeed, Flatland or the Simpsons are real even if they can be intervened in by some outside force. Plus, of course, we have created an infinite regress in terms of any simulation being a simulation etc etc....

Yes, that's when pragmatics takes over.  This cheese sandwich may be a projection by an evil demon, or a construct in the Matrix, but never mind, I propose to eat it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Stop lying.

What, the idea of a creator not argued against or refuted. Next religionethics will have been behind Lane Craig all the way ha ha ha.

I think there were a few who argued that the universe has always been here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, that's when pragmatics takes over.  This cheese sandwich may be a projection by an evil demon, or a construct in the Matrix, but never mind, I propose to eat it.

Max Tegmark of multiverse fame suggests that if this is a simulated universe The dull and uninteresting might be deleted............You had better put some pickle on that sandwich.

[Sebastian Toe]

If a multiverse exists Seb then somewhere Ricky Gervais is actually funny.

But it does exist. Have you not been reading Mr Alan Burns' posts on this very thread?
You really must pay more attention.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What, the idea of a creator not argued against or refuted. Next religionethics will have been behind LanCraig all the way ha ha ha.

I think there were a few who argued that the universe has always been here.

Cite some theology that requires only a conjecture (rather than an assertion of fact) about a (rather than the) “something” (that need not be divine, ie not a god at all) that created a (rather than the) universe and that requires nothing whatever more about this creator (eg still being around, having the “omnis”, intervening in human affairs etc) and you’ll have made you case that the SU conjecture and some theology at least are “identical”.

Otherwise though, you’re not even close.

Put up or shut up.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Cite some theology that requires only a conjecture (rather than an assertion of fact) about a (rather than the) “something” (that need not be divine, ie not a god at all) that created a (rather than the) universe and that requires nothing whatever more about this creator (eg still being around, having the “omnis”, intervening in human affairs etc) and you’ll have made you case that the SU conjecture and some theology at least are “identical”.

Otherwise though, you’re not even close.

Put up or shut up.   

I am just commenting on the ridiculous position of the same argument being acceptable when put forward by someone with a degree in astrophysics but unacceptable from anyone with a PHD in theology. What magic must  be invoked.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am just commenting on the ridiculous position of the same argument being acceptable when put forward by someone with a degree in astrophysics but unacceptable from anyone with a PHD in theology. What magic must  be invoked.

No you’re not because there is no “same argument” at all, for the reasons I keep explaining and you keep ignoring.

You could easily show me to be wrong though – just cite some theology of the type I described and you would indeed have two identical positions.

Why so coy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No you’re not because there is no “same argument” at all, for the reasons I keep explaining and you keep ignoring.

You could easily show me to be wrong though – just cite some theology of the type I described and you would indeed have two identical positions.

Why so coy?

Of course there is a same argument.surely you don't want me write it for the umpteenth time?

An intelligent creator of a universe which is independent of that universe.
Your trouble is you are trying to move the goal posts onto other theology and ideas.
The idea though is common to SU and theology. Live with it.

While we are on about moving the goalposts Feser did a great bit on New atheists shifting to science when philosophy and metaphysics gets too difficult.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course there is a same argument.surely you don't want me write it for the umpteenth time?

An intelligent creator of a universe which is independent of that universe.

Actually a first time would be helpful, followed by an explanation of why the fundamental differences between the SU conjecture and theology that have been set out for you but you just ignore make you think them "identical" nonetheless.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Reply to your edit...

Your trouble is you are trying to move the goal posts onto other theology and ideas.

No, I'm trying to get you to suggest any theology at all that's "identical" to the SU conjecture. If you don't know of any (and I'm pretty sure you don't), finally man up and just say so.

The idea though is common to SU and theology. Live with it.

No it isn't - stop lying about that. I've asked you for an example of some theology that is common to the SU conjecture and you've provided none. Obviously Christian theology is out, and so far as I can see so are the theologies of the other Abrahamic faiths. If though you've managed to find some that is analogous, why not just tell us what it is? 

While we are on about moving the goalposts...

"We're" not moving them. You are.

Feser did a great bit on New atheists shifting to science when philosophy and metaphysics gets too difficult.

So you assert. He was easy to rebut the last time you referenced him, but that doesn't mean that he's necessarily always wrong. Why not tell us what you think his argument was so we don't just have your word for it?

[floo]

Floo,

What's particularly scummy I think is that he just ignores all the arguments that undo his claims, then accuses others of a "La La" response.

But he wouldn't be Vlad if he was any different.