Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure that I did but, regardless of its reasonableness or otherwise, it has nothing to do with theism (now I do recall saying that). You seemed to think it had because you don't (didn't?) understand the difference between necessity and sufficiency.

My argument is that acknowledging a personal creator of the universe who is independent of the universe is not an atheist position. To argue it isnt theism is laughablč.

[Stranger]

My argument is that acknowledging a personal creator of the universe who is independent of the universe is not an atheist position. To argue it isnt theism is laughablč.

What's laughable is calling it theism. This version of "theism" is not in the least bit credible because:

• The simulated universe argument is entirely naturalistic.
  
  
• The argument may make reasonable science fiction but it's in the same category as saying that I am most likely to be a Boltzmann brain.
  
  
• The definition of "universe simulators" as god(s) is utterly silly. If you define "god" to mean an overripe pomegranate, then "gods" obviously exist, but the notion of "theism" it represents is still absurd.
  
  
• Some people's definition of "god" is pretty much synonymous with the universe. I reject that idea of theism, not because their "god" doesn't exist but because it's a daft idea to call the universe god. Same goes for any universe simulators.
  
  
• If I'm being simulated, then why would I assume that the entire universe is being fully simulated? If it's just me, or a small group, or even just the Earth, and the rest is only simulated to the extent that it needs to be to look real to me/us, would the simulators still be "gods"? If so, is the Met Office a "god" because they partially simulate a universe? Just how complicated would a simulated "universe" have to be before the people who created achieved the status of "gods"?

In short, the whole thing is silly and utterly contrived, and if there were ever any solid evidence for it, I would still regard myself as an atheist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I see you are not prepared to make the case for naturalism then.claiming it doesn't need to have one made.

You rather proved my point......back of the net.

So now I explain how axioms work, that all observable phenomena are presumed to be naturalistic in the absence of any other investigable system, blah blah blah and you'll just ignore that with even more trollery. Been there, got the T-shirt. No thanks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My argument…

An actual argument. Really? Blimey! Maybe you have changed after all…

…is that acknowledging a personal creator of the universe…

That’s not “acknowledging”, it’s only “asserting” or “claiming” but ok…

… who is independent of the universe is not an atheist position.

If you assert this “creator” to be a god then necessarily you’re not an atheist. So?

To argue it isnt theism is laughablč.

No-one does. Believe in one or more personal gods and you’re a theist; believe in a god or gods who started the universe then didn’t concern itself with human affairs and you’re a deist; use “god” as a synonym for “the universe” and you’re just dicking around with language.

“Maybe you have changed after all…”

…and maybe not. Ah well.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Except of course:

1. This is a complete evasion of the rebuttals you've just been given. Funny that; and

Rebuttals which all show evidence of the conscious freedom employed to think up such rebuttals, Evidence which contradicts the essence of these rebuttals.

2. It's just yet another repetition of your fundamentally mistaken assertion that the way things feel must also be the way things are (ie, that making an argument at all must mean that your logically impossible version of "free"will is the real deal). Would it really kill you just for once to try at least to engage with the arguments that falsify you rather than just repeat the same mistake as if nothing had been explained to you?

The driving force behind arguments from both sides can't be explained away as just "feelings" of freedom.  If it were based on just a feeling of freedom, the results would be derived from uncontrollable reactions with no means of validation - thus rendering them to be meaningless.  The conscious freedom used to think up these arguments is essential for them to have any validity.

You may try to write such freedom off as a logical impossibility, but this does not change the reality.  It may well be a reality beyond human understanding, but our free will is still a demonstrable reality.

[torridon]

Rebuttals which all show evidence of the conscious freedom employed to think up such rebuttals, Evidence which contradicts the essence of these rebuttals.
The driving force behind arguments from both sides can't be explained away as just "feelings" of freedom.  If it were based on just a feeling of freedom, the results would be derived from uncontrollable reactions with no means of validation - thus rendering them to be meaningless.  The conscious freedom used to think up these arguments is essential for them to comprise any validity.

You may try to write such freedom off as a logical impossibility, but this does not change the reality.  It may well be a reality beyond human understanding, but our free will is still a demonstrable reality.

If free will were demonstrable then you would have been able to do so by now.  All you actually do is claim people doing what they want as evidence of free will.  Nobody disputes that people can do what they want; but for free will you have to show people being free of what they want, or demonstrate that they could have chosen otherwise.  This you have not done.

[Nearly Sane]

If free will were demonstrable then you would have been able to do so by now.  All you actually do is claim people doing what they want as evidence of free will.  Nobody disputes that people can do what they want; but for free will you have to show people being free of what they want, or demonstrate that they could have chosen otherwise.  This you have not done.

Leaving aside the incoherence of Alan's claims, why would Alan's inability to demonstrate something in a set of time.mean it is demonstrable? Surely there might be others that might be able to achieve it.

[Stranger]

And the foolish pseudo-logic just goes on and on...

The driving force behind arguments from both sides can't be explained away as just "feelings" of freedom.  If it were based on just a feeling of freedom, the results would be derived from uncontrollable reactions with no means of validation - thus rendering them to be meaningless.  The conscious freedom used to think up these arguments is essential for them to have any validity.

Another string of baseless assertions dressed up as reasoning. Where is the connection between anything that we do or post and the necessity of being able to have done differently without randomness?

Apart from the silly language "uncontrollable reactions", why wouldn't a deterministic mind be able to validate anything? How would being able to have done differently without randomness even help with validation?

You may try to write such freedom off as a logical impossibility, but this does not change the reality.  It may well be a reality beyond human understanding, but our free will is still a demonstrable reality.

Why are you totally unable to demonstrate it then?

You haven't even demonstrated that you have given it a single moment of clear, rational, logical thought. Come to think of it, you've done very little to demonstrate that you're not a software bot that just churns out these silly assertions over and over again.

You have provided not the first hint of the "sound logic" you claimed. Your posts are every bit as idiotic and reality denying as a creationist insisting that evolution can't have happened because cats always give birth to cats.

Where is your logic?

Are you an honest person?

If so, how about producing the logic you claimed to have or admitting you haven't got any?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Rebuttals which all show evidence of the conscious freedom employed to think up such rebuttals, Evidence which contradicts the essence of these rebuttals.

No, rebuttals that show your contention “which all show evidence of the conscious freedom employed to think up such rebuttals” to be fundamentally wrong in the first place. You’ve driven yourself into this cul-d-sac and won’t get out of it, so you just repeat the same error over and over again. What you need to do – finally – is to grasp why your original premise of “if you can make an argument then I’m right” is itself wrong. 

The driving force…

THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN EFFING “DRIVING FORCE”. HOW MANY EFFING TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE EFFING EXPLAINED TO YOU???

…behind arguments from both sides can't be explained away as just "feelings" of freedom.  If it were based on just a feeling of freedom, the results would be derived from uncontrollable reactions with no means of validation - thus rendering them to be meaningless.  The conscious freedom used to think up these arguments is essential for them to have any validity.

Utter bollocks. Yes they can be explained as the “feeling of freedom” – ie, an experiential, functional, workaday, practical description but with no deeper explanatory use at all, and yes they can be validated within that paradigm perfectly well because the outputs of our apparent freedom are testable with real world applications.   

You may try to write such freedom off as a logical impossibility, but this does not change the reality.  It may well be a reality beyond human understanding, but our free will is still a demonstrable reality.

No, it’s logically impossible because to be “free” as you imagine it our choices would have to be untethered from the wants that precede them, and unless you insist on invoking reason- and evidence-denying magic to get out of that problem logical impossibility is where you remain.

[ippy]

Rebuttals which all show evidence of the conscious freedom employed to think up such rebuttals, Evidence which contradicts the essence of these rebuttals.
The driving force behind arguments from both sides can't be explained away as just "feelings" of freedom.  If it were based on just a feeling of freedom, the results would be derived from uncontrollable reactions with no means of validation - thus rendering them to be meaningless.  The conscious freedom used to think up these arguments is essential for them to comprise any validity.

You may try to write such freedom off as a logical impossibility, but this does not change the reality.  It may well be a reality beyond human understanding, but our free will is still a demonstrable reality.

It's not quite so much an argument of two sides Alan, it's more for people that believe in this god stuff like you that need to show people that see no good reason to even look for this god figure of yours which is right up until the present day still an unevidenced mythical he, she or it figure of yours.

Why would anyone argue against something that that they've no good reason to think exists?

Commiserations Alan, ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's laughable is calling it theism. This version of "theism" is not in the least bit credible because:

• The simulated universe argument is entirely naturalistic.
  
  

There is nothing naturalistic about a personal creator of the universe who is independent of the universe.

Let us phrase this claim another way. The claim that nature has a personal creator independent of nature is theistic.

If you are merely claiming it as reasonable then you've undercut any claim of theism being unreasonable.

If you invoke Kevin the Nerd or Kevin the IT tech or similar to try to undo that then you are merely making argument ad ridiculum
[/list]

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Leaving aside the incoherence of Alan's claims, why would Alan's inability to demonstrate something in a set of time.mean it is demonstrable? Surely there might be others that might be able to achieve it.

Does it matter? Even if something was real if no-one could demonstrate it then it would be epistemically the same as not real. There might in principle be others who could demonstrate AB’s claims and assertions (again, leaving aside their incoherence) but, unless someone actually does it, there’s no reason to treat them differently from any claim about the not real.

[Stranger]

There is nothing naturalistic about a personal creator of the universe who is independent of the universe.

It is specifically based on an extrapolation of our own natural abilities and technology.

If you are merely claiming it as reasonable then you've undercut any claim of theism being unreasonable.

I didn't say it was reasonable and even if we regard it as such, theism is just as unreasonable as before because it's as utterly daft as claiming that god means a pomegranate or the universe.

I simply don't regard science fiction as theism - end of story. If you want to call mortal beings, using superior technology, "god(s)" and bow down and worship them, you're welcome, but, as far as I'm concerned, it would be just as daft as worshipping the Met Office or Bill Gates.

If you invoke Kevin the Nerd or Kevin the IT tech or similar to try to undo that then you are merely making argument ad ridiculum

The fact is that the argument you are are using to try to claim "god" would logically apply to Kevin, or a corporation, or even a cult of ancestor worshippers - your "gods" might even be worshipping us!

If you don't think that it's ridiculous to claim that an argument that applies to those possibilities is actually and argument for "god(s)", then there isn't really much more to be said.

Arguments for theism can either be unconvincing because they are simply unsound or invalid or because what they argue for isn't anything that it's in any way reasonable to refer to as god (or gods).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is specifically based on an extrapolation of our own natural abilities and technology.

That is found in theism but then the argument is theistic.

[Stranger]

That is found in theism but then the argument is theistic.

Drivel. But whatever, if you want to call water rats "gods", then your "gods" exist. This case is even more silly in that you're labelling any characters who appear in any number of different science fiction stories "god(s)" because of the way they use technology and then trying to claim that because any of these stories could possibly be true, it's an argument for theism.

Just been watching the latest series of Altered Carbon. The characters regularly both create and inhabit simulated worlds - so I'd have to assume that in Vlad's theology they're all gods. 

Totally Upminster.

[Alan Burns]

THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN EFFING “DRIVING FORCE”. HOW MANY EFFING TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE EFFING EXPLAINED TO YOU???

If there is nothing driving our thought processes who knows where they will end up

Utter bollocks. Yes they can be explained as the “feeling of freedom” – ie, an experiential, functional, workaday, practical description but with no deeper explanatory use at all, and yes they can be validated within that paradigm perfectly well because the outputs of our apparent freedom are testable with real world applications.   

So what is a "real world application" and how can it possibly test the validity of what you post on this forum if it is done without input from your own conscious self?

No, it’s logically impossible because to be “free” as you imagine it our choices would have to be untethered from the wants that precede them, and unless you insist on invoking reason- and evidence-denying magic to get out of that problem logical impossibility is where you remain.

Our conscious choices are not untethered from what precedes them - they are influenced by the past but not dictated by it.  Our conscious self has the last word.

[Stranger]

More pseudo-logic...

...and how can it possibly test the validity of what you post on this forum if it is done without input from your own conscious self?

Nobody has said there is no "input from your own conscious self".

The role of consciousness is utterly irrelevant to the logic of the fact that if you could have done differently, in exactly the same situation, then then can be no possible reason for said difference, so it can only be random.

Our conscious choices are not untethered from what precedes them - they are influenced by the past but not dictated by it.

Which means that, to a certain extent, they are untethered from what precedes them. You do seem to love self-contradiction.

Our conscious self has the last word.

Which decides either entirely because of what preceded it or not, and if not, therefore partly for no reason at all (randomness). Why do you think just saying the "conscious self" somehow changes anything? You're using it like you think it's a magic, logic defying spell or something.

Where is the "sound logic" you (apparently falsely) claimed to have?

If you can't produce it, why won't you have the basic human honesty to admit you have none?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If there is nothing driving our thought processes who knows where they will end up

No-one knows. So what? 

So what is a "real world application" and how can it possibly test the validity of what you post on this forum if it is done without input from your own conscious self?

No-one says it’s “without input”, just that the “conscious self” cannot be what you think it is. As for real world applications ooh, I dunno: maybe if a lab finds a cure for Coronavirus and people get better; maybe if someone invents a new battery technology and electric cars drive further on one charge; maybe if a Nasa mission sent to land on an asteroid actually lands on an asteroid. You know, real world applications that verify our reasoning. Now just for fun try verifying your claims “god” or “soul”. Nope, thought not… 
 

Our conscious choices are not untethered from what precedes them - they are influenced by the past but not dictated by it.  Our conscious self has the last word.

For that to be the case you’d have to identify, describe and demonstrate a whole new decision-making process outside all known logical and physical constraints to do the job. So far, all you have is “it’s magic” – that's a bit thin don’t you think?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. But whatever, if you want to call water rats "gods", then your "gods" exist. This case is even more silly in that you're labelling any characters who appear in any number of different science fiction stories "god(s)" because of the way they use technology and then trying to claim that because any of these stories could possibly be true, it's an argument for theism.

Just been watching the latest series of Altered Carbon. The characters regularly both create and inhabit simulated worlds - so I'd have to assume that in Vlad's theology they're all gods. 

Totally Upminster.

They are whether we like it or not the personal creators of their simulations. But whether they count as a universe is in question.

Just pointing at things as you suggest and just calling them God isnt theology. An argument that the universe could be simulated is since it is indistinguishable from theological iterations of the Cosmological argument and it is the ignorance of that which blinds people from the significance of what they are suggesting.

[Stranger]

They are whether we like it or not the personal creators of their simulations. But whether they count as a universe is in question.

You never did answer my question about how much of, and in what detail, a simulated "universe" needs to exit in order for its creators to be "gods" in your bizarre theology.

Just pointing at things as you suggest and just calling them God isnt theology. An argument that the universe could be simulated is...

No, it's just a silly suggestion. As I said, you are free to define "god" in any way you want but I am equally free to dismiss them as daft and trivial uses of the term. Either way, theism is unconvincing.

"God must exist because the bible says so and we know the bible is true because it was inspired by god."

and

"This rock is my god and it obviously exists."

are both unconvincing arguments for theism and your simulated universe one somehow manages to combine the absurdity of both.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You never did answer my question about how much of, and in what detail, a simulated "universe" needs to exit in order for its creators to be "gods" in your bizarre theology.

No, it's just a silly suggestion. As I said, you are free to define "god" in any way you want but I am equally free to dismiss them as daft and trivial uses of the term. Either way, theism is unconvincing.

"God must exist because the bible says so and we know the bible is true because it was inspired by god."

and

"This rock is my god and it obviously exists."

are both unconvincing arguments for theism and your simulated universe one somehow manages to combine the absurdity of both.

These questions are all very well but the central formulation is identical to those made in classic theism.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Does it matter? Even if something was real if no-one could demonstrate it then it would be epistemically the same as not real. There might in principle be others who could demonstrate AB’s claims and assertions (again, leaving aside their incoherence) but, unless someone actually does it, there’s no reason to treat them differently from any claim about the not real.

I think fallacious logic does matter. I thought it unusual of torridon to be using such so I pointed it out.

[Stranger]

These questions are all very well but the central formulation is identical to those made in classic theism.

Drivel.

The god of classical theism has many attributes and you are just taking one of them and elevating any kind of being or beings to the status of god on the basis of that one attribute. It's logically inept as well as obviously stupid.

Just quickly scanning through the wiki article (linked above), for starters you're missing: absolute metaphysically ultimate being (note the singular), omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, immutability, impassibility, and timelessness.

Anyway, this is just silly - if you insist that your science fiction characters are gods, so be it, but as far as I'm concerned that puts you on a par with someone saying god is a fairy because, well, they can perform miracles (magic), innit?

[SteveH]

Just quickly scanning through the wiki article (linked above), for starters you're missing: absolute metaphysically ultimate being (note the singular), omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, immutability, impassibility, and timelessness.

Of those, probably only omnibenevolence is an essential attribute of God. All of the others are or have been questioned, and most stem from Greek philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel.

The god of classical theism has many attributes and you are just taking one of them and elevating any kind of being or beings to the status of god on the basis of that one attribute. It's logically inept as well as obviously stupid.

And yet we find respectedscientists some atheist making the same formulations as classical theism e.g. a personal creator. Some try to blind us to this by ad hominem the personal creator they have generated by suggesting its Kevin the nerd.

As the created we have imho a better argument to say from thiis universe that it was closer to the metametaphysical God of philosophy rather than a Kevin which is almost obviously an argumentum ad ridiculum.