Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can say it as much as you like, it's still bollocks.

It's because it only shares one characteristic. It isn't actually anybody else's job to provide guarantees, it's your job to say why the simulated universe conjecture is sufficient for any sort of being that's remotely like the Abrahamic god.

It proposes a creator external to the universe . This creator has volition and intentionality. It is independent of the universe.

Your argument sounds very like a Life of Brian "What have the Romans ever done for us " argument.

[Nearly Sane]

I heard the words Corona virus and then 'new' so I clicked on it It then disappeared, and I then managed to realise that it was in the prayers or Faith Sharing area. I posted a response to AB'  from his topic on the unread posts list but it was obviously confusing to have an almost identical title there.
Apologies to mods, but not to AB I'm afraid.

Suspected as much. I think it's pretty common not to look at the board title.

[Gordon]

It proposes a creator external to the universe . This creator has volition and intentionality. It is independent of the universe.

Does it propose on what basis something 'external' or 'independent' of the universe could even be known to exist, never mind what its intentions might be?

[Stranger]

It proposes a creator external to the universe . This creator has volition and intentionality. It is independent of the universe.

Except it doesn't even do that. Not a creator (singular). Even if it did propose a single creator, that's still only a necessary condition for it to be anything like the Abrahamic god. It is by no means sufficient.

Your argument sounds very like a Life of Brian "What have the Romans ever done for us " argument.

Except you don't keep on coming up with new things, you just endlessly repeat one (the only) thing. It's like I keep on telling you that a table isn't an elephant just because it has four legs and you keep on telling me it has four legs, over and over, and over again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does it propose on what basis something 'external' or 'independent' of the universe could even be known to exist, never mind what its intentions might be?

Bostrom actually says that pop ups a la computation could be sent from the creator to the universe to be read by the inhabitants of the universe.I think he even speculates that the inhabitants would divide over the origin of these messages................My,that sounds familiar.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except it doesn't even do that. Not a creator (singular). Even if it did propose a single creator, that's still only a necessary condition for it to be anything like the Abrahamic god. It is by no means sufficient.

Except you don't keep on coming up with new things, you just endlessly repeat one (the only) thing. It's like I keep on telling you that a table isn't an elephant just because it has four legs and you keep on telling me it has four legs, over and over, and over again.

Er its sufficient for the idea to be theistic rather than atheistic.

Of course another consideration is whether the distinction between what is or isnt natural as presented outside this particular theory might be bollocks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Contributors to this sub thread on simulated universe
Might like Lane Craig's take on how a creator of the universe which is arrived at has to be personal.
I think why the conclusion of personal creator for a simulated universe is obvious.

As I and PZ Myers have noted simulated universe theory as applied to this universe is strongly Teleological.

For the conjecture “maybe simulation” the only necessary AND SUFFICIENT condition is a simulator – that tells you nothing about what the simulator was or is, what its characteristics were, what its behaviours were, even whether it knew it was a universe simulator at all. It certainly tells you nothing about whether the simulator was “personal” – ie, knew or cared anything about the inhabitants of the universe it had simulated.

For theism you also need a creator as a necessary condition BUT NOT A SUFFICIENT ONE. You also need a raft of other conditions without which you don’t have theism at all. Think of a Venn diagram with two circles – the overlap says “creator/simulator”; the rest of the circle for “maybe simulation” is empty; the rest of the circle for theism is full of necessary conditions.   

The teleological argument is shite, no matter how much you try to polish it. It’s Paley’s watch gussied up. At heart it’s circular reasoning – it tries to argue “god” as the conclusion by inserting a god to have designed everything purposely that way to begin with: “God invented everything, therefore God”.

P Z Myers and Neil deGrasse Tyson would be appalled at someone co-opting them in support of theism.   

WLC is a buffoon, and a thoroughly unpleasant one too by the way. If you want to rely on him for philosophical support you’ve fundamentally backed the wrong horse.   

Apart from all that though…

[Gordon]

Bostrom actually says that pop ups a la computation could be sent from the creator to the universe to be read by the inhabitants of the universe.I think he even speculates that the inhabitants would divide over the origin of these messages................My,that sounds familiar.

Which doesn't describe how we would know that the source of any messages was external to or independent of this universe.

[Stranger]

Er its sufficient for the idea to be theistic rather than atheistic.

Drivel.

Theistic requires that it be related to belief in god(s). So either your definition of "god" is so absurdly broad that I totally reject it in the same way as I'd reject somebody calling the universe, or their pet rock "god", or it isn't sufficient at all. It most certainty isn't nearly sufficient to accept that it is theistic in the sense of the Abrahamic conceptions of "god", because the "creators" that it postulates only share a single characteristic with that sort of god.

I don't know what it is about both you and Alan. You both seem to want your faith to be seen as absurd, reasoning-free nonsense. It's utterly bizarre.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Er its sufficient for the idea to be theistic rather than atheistic.

In that case you must think hoof prints in the mud to be sufficient to be unicornistic right?

[Alan Burns]

Why did you edit my quote in order to remove the whole point? Just so you could do another mindless repetition instead of actually engaging with what I said?

Here is what I said: 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.

What is it you're finding so difficult? Regardless of to what extent logic (or anything else) is "conceived within your own conscious awareness", the above logic applies to it.

The point I made is still valid.
Your stated logic that you could not have done differently under the same circumstances is entirely your own personal view conceived within the conscious workings of your own mind.  It is entirely derived from your own consciously driven thought processes.  I still contest that our freedom to choose is not derived entirely from circumstances which are beyond your own control.  You are in control of your own conscious thought processes - the thought processes you used to come up with your stated logic.  And this fact alone is sufficient to render your stated logic to be flawed.

It wouldn't make a jot of difference to the contradiction you face if everything really did happen entirely in our "conscious awareness".

Do you understand?

My understanding is that we are not just spectators of our own thought processes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your stated logic that you could not have done differently under the same circumstances is entirely your own personal view conceived within the conscious workings of your own mind.  It is entirely derived from your own consciously driven thought processes.

Until and unless you're ever prepared to engage with the logic that falsifies "if you can make an argument then I must be right" you're just wasting everyone's time, yours included. Your problem is the false premise you hold to be inviolable a priori, and just repeating the same false premise endlessly is pointless.

[Stranger]

The point I made is still valid.

No matter how valid or otherwise it is, it's still totally irrelevant to the contradiction you face.

You are in control of your own conscious thought processes - the thought processes you used to come up with your stated logic.

I never said I wasn't in control. There is no conflict between me (the person I have become due to nature, nurture, and experience) being in control and determinism (not being able to have done differently).

And this fact alone is sufficient to render your stated logic to be flawed.

And there's the creationist-like pseudo-logic again. Of course it isn't. Where is any hint of actual reasoning or logic? What is it about anything we do that requires the ability to have done differently without randomness?

No matter how much you stamp your foot and gibber on about "conscious awareness" and "control", the logical contradictions at the heart of your notion of "freedom", don't go away. Until and unless you can face up to them, you're being every bit as irrational as a literalist insisting that the science is on their side when they say the Earth is only 6000 years old.

You said you had "sound logic", Alan. Where is it? Are you ready yet to admit you don't have any?

[torridon]

My understanding is that we are not just spectators of our own thought processes.

'Spectators' - not a great analogy, suggesting a separation between 'me' and my thoughts.  Closer to the truth would be to observe that we are our thoughts; this formulation also reveals the fundamental inadequacy of 'we control our thoughts'.

[ekim]

'Spectators' - not a great analogy, suggesting a separation between 'me' and my thoughts.  Closer to the truth would be to observe that we are our thoughts; this formulation also reveals the fundamental inadequacy of 'we control our thoughts'.

As regards 'spiritual practices' particularly those of the Far East it becomes a question of identity.  Some predominantly identify with their physical bodies and spend much time cultivating it, some with their emotional self and express that and some with their intellectual self and spend much time in thought.  Various meditation techniques are prescribed to transcend those states to reveal an inner conscious stillness with which to identify.  It is sometimes referred to as similar to a pristine childlike state.  What you describe as 'we are our thoughts' are seen as the consciousness as being attached to thoughts, emotions and physical appearance which go to make up the subjective 'self'.  Two quotes:

Huang Po [9th C Chinese Zen Buddhist Master]  Those who seek the truth by means of intellect and learning only get further and further from it.   Not until your thoughts cease, not until you abandon seeking for something, not until your mind is as motionless as stone will you be on the right road to the Gate.

Padma-Karpo [17th C Tibetan Tantric Guru]  Whatever thoughts or concepts or disturbing passions arise they are neither to be abandoned nor allowed to control one.   They are to be allowed to arise without trying to direct or shape them.   If they are merely recognised as soon as they arise they will be seen in their true form.

[Alan Burns]

No matter how valid or otherwise it is, it's still totally irrelevant to the contradiction you face.

I never said I wasn't in control. There is no conflict between me (the person I have become due to nature, nurture, and experience) being in control and determinism (not being able to have done differently).

And there's the creationist-like pseudo-logic again. Of course it isn't. Where is any hint of actual reasoning or logic? What is it about anything we do that requires the ability to have done differently without randomness?

No matter how much you stamp your foot and gibber on about "conscious awareness" and "control", the logical contradictions at the heart of your notion of "freedom", don't go away. Until and unless you can face up to them, you're being every bit as irrational as a literalist insisting that the science is on their side when they say the Earth is only 6000 years old.

You said you had "sound logic", Alan. Where is it? Are you ready yet to admit you don't have any?

Your whole post aptly displays evidence of your conscious freedom to control your own thought processes.  A freedom which is incompatible with the concept that you would have been unable to make any other posting.  How can you possibly come to deduce any logic if you had no freedom to direct your own thoughts?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your whole post aptly displays evidence of your conscious freedom to control your own thought processes.  A freedom which is incompatible with the concept that you would have been unable to make any other posting.  How can you possibly come to deduce any logic if you had no freedom to direct your own thoughts?

Nope. I just told you why in Reply 39361.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Until and unless you're ever prepared to engage with the logic that falsifies "if you can make an argument then I must be right" you're just wasting everyone's time, yours included. Your problem is the false premise you hold to be inviolable a priori, and just repeating the same false premise endlessly is pointless.

Any argument requires the conscious freedom to contemplate the subject of the argument and conceive the means to support your chosen point of view.

[Gordon]

Any argument requires the conscious freedom to contemplate the subject of the argument and conceive the means to support your chosen point of view.

Says who?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Any argument requires the conscious freedom to contemplate the subject of the argument and conceive the means to support your chosen point of view.

Nope. I just told you why in Reply 39361.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Nope. I just told you why in Reply 39361.

In Reply 39361 you consciously chose words to support your chosen point of view.  This demonstrates the conscious freedom which is essential to engage in any argument.  Without such conscious freedom you would have no more ability to argue than a rabbit.

[jeremyp]

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.

What is the metaphysical god of philosophy? I’ve never heard that term before.

[Gordon]

In Reply 39361 you consciously chose words to support your chosen point of view.  This demonstrates the conscious freedom which is essential to engage in any argument.  Without such conscious freedom you would have no more ability to argue than a rabbit.

You seem to have this odd idea that your thoughts and choices exist only in some imaginary bubble that you have complete conscious control over - and you don't, since if you were right I could consciously decide to like mayonnaise - and I can't.

And let's keep rabbits out of it, since that sounds like you're planning to inflict that old duffer Lewis on us again.

[Stranger]

Your whole post aptly displays evidence of your conscious freedom to control your own thought processes.  A freedom which is incompatible with the concept that you would have been unable to make any other posting.

Utterly baseless assertion.

How can you possibly come to deduce any logic if you had no freedom to direct your own thoughts?

How would being able to have done differently without randomness have helped in any possible way?

You cannot just assert reality into being the way you want it to be.

You have provided not one single morsel of a scintilla of a hint of a smidgen any reasoning whatsoever that connects our abilities to think about things, make choices, and write posts to your impossible, contradictory version of "freedom".

Just stamping your foot and asserting that they are the same thing, or that one is evidence of the other, is not logic.

You're like somebody who keeps on insisting that little elves pulling things to the ground are the reason for gravity and when asked for any hint of any evidence, you just say "look, things fall to the ground, so that provides ample evidence for the elves" and when people patiently explain to you how simple-minded and circular it is you just go on repeating that things falling down are evidence for elves.

Really, Alan, you really, really are being that stupid.

[torridon]

Your whole post aptly displays evidence of your conscious freedom to control your own thought processes.  A freedom which is incompatible with the concept that you would have been unable to make any other posting.  How can you possibly come to deduce any logic if you had no freedom to direct your own thoughts?

Typical Burns side-step.  The truth of a proposition does not depend on our ability (or otherwise) to consciously follow the line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion.  Does two plus two fail to equal four every time I fall asleep ?  Next time Stranger asks you about logic, how about addressing the point in good faith instead of this unbecoming smoke and mirrors.