Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

And no matter how many times you try to justify your own denial of human free will, the more evidence you provide of your considerable ability to utilise your own conscious freedom to think up such arguments

That we do what we want is not evidence that we could have done otherwise.  Nobody disputes that we act on what we most want, so long as nothing prevents us, obstructing us from exercising our will.  If nothing gets in my way, that is not supernatural, that is merely circumstantial.

[Gordon]

And no matter how many times you try to justify your own denial of human free will, the more evidence you provide of your considerable ability to utilise your own conscious freedom to think up such arguments

Well you would say that, wouldn't you.

[SusanDoris]

Don't be silly, Alan: given all you've said, and given your seemingly entrenched a prioi biases (that you may not be conscious of yourself), you are utterly predictable right down to your routine hyperbolic phraseology.

And really, really boring with it!!!

[SusanDoris]

AB,

If believing that makes you feel good about yourself, stick with it. It's too late for rationality to pierce the carapace of religious certainty you've spent decades constructing. Be nice though if you didn't try to fill the heads of children with it too. After all, if you can convince them that one set of utter bollocks is true what defence will they have against any other set of utter bollocks?

Very strongly seconded.

[Stranger]

And no matter how many times you try to justify your own denial of human free will, the more evidence you provide of your considerable ability to utilise your own conscious freedom to think up such arguments

This is simply untrue for reasons that have been explained to you many times, yet, instead of acknowledging what people have said and engaging with the counterarguments, we get this silly broken speak-your-weight machine act. It's very difficult to see it as in any way honest (unless you're very stupid).

You've basically made four assertions:

• That human choices are not fully deterministic (we could have done differently).
  
  
• That human choices do not involve any randomness.
  
  
• That human abilities, such are thinking and producing arguments, are evidence for 1 and 2.
  
  
• That you can support what you say with "sound logic".

The problem is that all of them appear to be totally baseless. You have not provided any hint of any reasoning to support any of them. Additionally, the first and second assertions contradict each other. The third is doubly absurd because you seem to think you can support baseless assertions by baselessly asserting that something is evidence for them; illogic². And the fourth, while it might have started out as a genuine misunderstanding, is now looking more and more like a deliberate barefaced lie by the day.

So, is this it Alan? Is this the height of your "intellectual" abilities? Can your brand of faith really reduce a MENSA level intellect to this level of stupidity - reduced to childlike repetition of baseless assertions while totally ignoring any opposing arguments?

Or are you ready yet to regain a bit of dignity and attempt some actual logic, try to engage with the counterarguments, or have the honesty to admit that you can't support your assertions with anything but faith?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So in response to my:

..then again we both know you don’t have that shred of decency don’t we and that instead we’re endlessly condemned to the intellectual equivalent of “Polly wants a cracker, Polly wants a cracker” from you until finally you fall off your perch.

You reply:

And no matter how many times you try to justify your own denial of human free will, the more evidence you provide of your considerable ability to utilise your own conscious freedom to think up such arguments.

And Lo!, truly I have the power of prophesy it seems. Uncanny!

I’ve no idea what you think endlessly repeating exactly the same dishonest, evasive, reason-denying, obdurate, argument-free idiocy will achieve other perhaps than to drive people even further from your faith beliefs. So why bother with it?

“Polly wants a cracker, Polly wants a cracker…” (repeat endlessly).   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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 teleological argument is shite,

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

Simulation theory does tell us what characteristics the simulator has volition goals intentionality these are all personal but also computational lots of it in fact.I would like to see your argument for a simulator without these properties. They are not properties of any old thing.

Teleological arguments might be shite but if youve made one......youve made one.

De Crasse Tyson might have just pulled the words "simulated universe" out of ass haphazardly....but that is unlikely. If he ìs appalled at making a teleological argument he should not have done so.

PZ Myers pojnts out what he sees as Tysons error.
That he acknowledges ST  to be intelligent design publically is just collateral.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Simulation theory does tell us what characteristics the simulator has volition goals intentionality these are all personal but also computational lots of it in fact.I would like to see your argument for a simulator without these properties. They are not properties of any old thing.

It tells us no such thing. There’s no more reason to assume a universe creator (or creators – could have been a collaborative activity after all) would have intended a universe than termites intend a termite mound. Such simulator(s) might just have been acting according to its/their nature with no concept of a universe that would result. 

Teleological arguments might be shite but if youve made one......youve made one.

You referenced WLC. He’s a proponent of the teleological argument. It’s a wrong argument for the reason I explained.

De Crasse Tyson might have just pulled the words "simulated universe" out of ass haphazardly....but that is unlikely. If he ìs appalled at making a teleological argument he should not have done so.

PZ Myers pojnts out what he sees as Tysons error.
That he acknowledges ST  to be intelligent design publically is just collateral.

This again? Whether or not NdGT made a mis-step as PZM argued does not imply that either think theism to be other than the crock of bad reasoning it is.

So anyway, as you just vanished before: using your previous “logic” (that a conjecture about a universe simulator is theistic because both involve a creator) on what basis would you argue that hoof prints in the mud aren’t a unicornistic idea?

Why so coy?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It tells us no such thing. There’s no more reason to assume a universe creator (or creators – could have been a collaborative activity after all) would have intended a universe than termites intend a termite mound. Such simulator(s) might just have been acting according to its/their nature with no concept of a universe that would result. 

You referenced WLC. He’s a proponent of the teleological argument. It’s a wrong argument for the reason I explained.

This again? Whether or not NdGT made a mis-step as PZM argued does not imply that either think theism to be other than the crock of bad reasoning it is.

So anyway, as you just vanished before: using your previous “logic” (that a conjecture about a universe simulator is theistic because both involve a creator) on what basis would you argue that hoof prints in the mud aren’t a unicornistic idea?

Why so coy?   

On one hand you have been arguing that the creator of the universe as a simulation doesn't have to have qualities of volition will intentioality which are the contentions of theism...........which is bunk unless you have the cojones to propose a defence.

And on the other hand you are saying we cannot say what the creator of a simulated universe is like.

Take the logical step man.

We are talking a simulated universe. A deliberate enterprise.

If as you say we cannot say what this deliberate simulator is. We cannot dismiss thè God of Abraham.

As I believe Enki pointed out several days ago.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

De Grasse Tyson PZ Myers might detest the teories but as I said. If NDGT makes the same arguments he makes them PZ confirms that he's made them......and worse Simulation theory satisfies WLCs and every theologian philosopher since Aristotle criteria of a personal creator.

One can slyly refer to this creator as Kevin the IT nerd
But you cannot argue that isn't a personal creator.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

On one hand you have been arguing that the creator of the universe as a simulation doesn't have to have qualities of volition will intentioality which are the contentions of theism...........which is bunk unless you have the cojones to propose a defence.

You never did grasp the burden of proof principle did you. If you think a universe simulator must have acted intentionally (let alone with any of the other conditions we’re told are necessary for theism) then it’s your job to argue for it. 

And on the other hand you are saying we cannot say what the creator of a simulated universe is like.

“Would have been”, not “is” – it’s just a conjecture remember? – and that’s right. All that would be necessary for the conjecture would a “something” (or “somethings”) that did the simulating. That’s it. Nothing else can be said. 

Take the logical step man.

You of all people are asking someone else to take a logical step?!?!?! Good Grief! Anyway, I just did – intentionality as a necessary condition is your claim, so you argue for it. 

We are talking a simulated universe. A deliberate enterprise.

So you assert. Do you assert termite mounds to be “deliberate enterprises” of termites too? Why not?

If as you say we cannot say what this deliberate simulator is. We cannot dismiss thè God of Abraham.

Ooh, been a while since you tried the negative proof fallacy. Good effort. No, a speculation about a simulated universe does not “dismiss the God of Abraham”. Nor does it dismiss Klingons. Or Leprechauns. Or the extra-universal equivalent of termites. Or anything. Your mistake though was to claim “maybe simulator” to be a theistic idea when it’s no such thing, at least not unless you think hoof prints to be a unicornistic idea too.     

As I believe Enki pointed out several days ago.

He tried the NPF too? Seems unlikely, but no doubt you’ll provide a citation to show that he did won’t you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

De Grasse Tyson PZ Myers might detest the teories but as I said. If NDGT makes the same arguments he makes them PZ confirms that he's made them......and worse Simulation theory satisfies WLCs and every theologian philosopher since Aristotle criteria of a personal creator.

One can slyly refer to this creator as Kevin the IT nerd
But you cannot argue that isn't a personal creator.

Isn’t the point rather that you cannot argue that it IS “a personal creator” (whatever that means)? You know, the burden of proof issue you always get wrong. If you think the speculation “maybe simulated universe” necessitates a “personal creator” tell us what you mean by it and – finally – attempt at least an argument to justify the claim.

[Stranger]

De Grasse Tyson PZ Myers might detest the teories but as I said. If NDGT makes the same arguments he makes them PZ confirms that he's made them......and worse Simulation theory satisfies WLCs and every theologian philosopher since Aristotle criteria of a personal creator.

One can slyly refer to this creator as Kevin the IT nerd
But you cannot argue that isn't a personal creator.

There really is so much wrong with this foolishness it's difficult to know where to start. First the SU conjecture doesn't necessarily lead to a creator (singular) at all, even if it did, it does not necessarily lead to a creator with any interest in us (depends what the simulation was for), even if we accepted all that, we still haven't got anything remotely like the traditional notion of a god.

Totally different concepts, with a different bases, and only one common characteristic.

Tables are not elephants because both have four legs.

[Enki]

On one hand you have been arguing that the creator of the universe as a simulation doesn't have to have qualities of volition will intentioality which are the contentions of theism...........which is bunk unless you have the cojones to propose a defence.

And on the other hand you are saying we cannot say what the creator of a simulated universe is like.

Take the logical step man.

We are talking a simulated universe. A deliberate enterprise.

If as you say we cannot say what this deliberate simulator is. We cannot dismiss thè God of Abraham.

As I believe Enki pointed out several days ago.

Not true, Vlad. In post 39337 I simply said that the idea of a personal creator is a conjecture that cannot be discounted that's all. Just like any idea of any god, it cannot be disproved. I even went on to suggest that if one was to take this conjecture seriously(which I don't) it was just as likely that the universe was an accidental outcome of some experiment as the idea that it was deliberate.

I also went on to say that even the theistic idea of a god in this simulation conjecture was questionable as the simulation might just as easily be the result of the actions of non supreme being(s). At no time did I allude to an Abrahamic god at all.

I even made it quite clear that I have no reason whatever to believe any of these simulation ideas just as I have no reason to believe in any god whatsoever.(The last sentence of post 39337)

In my response(post 39341) to your reply, I made it quite clear what my position is, by saying, "Secondly, I haven't 'endorsed' anything, least of all the idea that 'personal creation' has any substance to it at all."

The only time I referred to an Abrahamic god was in response to your idea that you would want guarantees that "this personal creator is not the one of say abrahamic theology", to which I replied:

Thirdly, I have given suggestions that this 'personal' creator. might well be a)more than one b)not 'supreme' at all. What guarantees have you that this is any the less plausible than it being the god of abrahamic theology?

As usual, you are trying to distort what I have said in order seemingly to bolster your own argument about the idea that we are living in a deliberate simulation created by an Abrahamic style God. As I find no evidence at all for any of this, I consider the whole idea of a simulated universe to be highly improbable, the idea of it being a 'deliberate enterprise' to be pure conjecture for the reasons given and the further idea that the Abrahamic God could be the instigator I find to be particularly questionable as such a God as portrayed in the Bible has so many other completely unconvincing and often contradictory attributes, and for which there isn't a scrap of evidence for its existence.

Of course I can't dismiss the idea out of hand just as I can't completely dismiss all sorts of ideas which are the result of pure conjecture without any supporting evidence whatever. So the idea of a simulated universe holds no particular attraction for me as a worthwhile  explanation for the existence of our universe at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not true, Vlad. In post 39337 I simply said that the idea of a personal creator is a conjecture that cannot be discounted that's all. Just like any idea of any god, it cannot be disproved. I even went on to suggest that if one was to take this conjecture seriously(which I don't) it was just as likely that the universe was an accidental outcome of some experiment as the idea that it was deliberate.

I also went on to say that even the theistic idea of a god in this simulation conjecture was questionable as the simulation might just as easily be the result of the actions of non supreme being(s). At no time did I allude to an Abrahamic god at all.

I even made it quite clear that I have no reason whatever to believe any of these simulation ideas just as I have no reason to believe in any god whatsoever.(The last sentence of post 39337)

In my response(post 39341) to your reply, I made it quite clear what my position is, by saying, "Secondly, I haven't 'endorsed' anything, least of all the idea that 'personal creation' has any substance to it at all."

The only time I referred to an Abrahamic god was in response to your idea that you would want guarantees that "this personal creator is not the one of say abrahamic theology", to which I replied:
 

As usual, you are trying to distort what I have said in order seemingly to bolster your own argument about the idea that we are living in a deliberate simulation created by an Abrahamic style God. As I find no evidence at all for any of this, I consider the whole idea of a simulated universe to be highly improbable, the idea of it being a 'deliberate enterprise' to be pure conjecture for the reasons given and the further idea that the Abrahamic God could be the instigator I find to be particularly questionable as such a God as portrayed in the Bible has so many other completely unconvincing and often contradictory attributes, and for which there isn't a scrap of evidence for its existence.

Of course I can't dismiss the idea out of hand just as I can't completely dismiss all sorts of ideas which are the result of pure conjecture without any supporting evidence whatever. So the idea of a simulated universe holds no particular attraction for me as a worthwhile  explanation for the existence of our universe at all.

I appreciate what you are saying and that you are not dismissing a theistic creator The God of Abraham is I think we agree a theistic creator.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You never did grasp the burden of proof principle did you. If you think a universe simulator must have acted intentionally (let alone with any of the other conditions we’re told are necessary for theism) then it’s your job to argue for it. 

“Would have been”, not “is” – it’s just a conjecture remember? – and that’s right. All that would be necessary for the conjecture would a “something” (or “somethings”) that did the simulating. That’s it. Nothing else can be said. 

You of all people are asking someone else to take a logical step?!?!?! Good Grief! Anyway, I just did – intentionality as a necessary condition is your claim, so you argue for it. 

So you assert. Do you assert termite mounds to be “deliberate enterprises” of termites too? Why not?

Ooh, been a while since you tried the negative proof fallacy. Good effort. No, a speculation about a simulated universe does not “dismiss the God of Abraham”. Nor does it dismiss Klingons. Or Leprechauns. Or the extra-universal equivalent of termites. Or anything. Your mistake though was to claim “maybe simulator” to be a theistic idea when it’s no such thing, at least not unless you think hoof prints to be a unicornistic idea too.     

He tried the NPF too? Seems unlikely, but no doubt you’ll provide a citation to show that he did won’t you?

Definitionally not everthing or anything is a simulator Hillside.

If you think a simulator lacks volition intentionality computation goals aims and purposes then you obviously dont know what a simulator is.

You assert that is wrong. That is a positive assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I appreciate what you are saying and that you are not dismissing a theistic creator The God of Abraham is I think we agree a theistic creator.

1. How about apologising to enki for misrepresenting him so egregiously?

2. You seem to think that "not dismissing" the Abrahamic God is epistemically significant to the claim. It isn't, any more than not dismissing leprechauns, shape-shifting aliens or a bored extra-celestial kid writing a computer game is epistemically significant to those claims. Short version: you're just flirting with the NPF again.

[Enki]

I appreciate what you are saying and that you are not dismissing a theistic creator The God of Abraham is I think we agree a theistic creator.

Just because I don't dismiss a theistic creator(I.E.cannot say in any absolute sense that one doesn't exist) doesn't mean to say that I hold any belief that there is one. One could say that the Abrahamic God is looked upon as a theistic creator, but that would only be one of his attributes.(for instance his supposed 'moral' characteristics). The idea of a deliberate simulation only concentrates on the one attribute(creation), an attribute which could be said to be common to all creator gods. Furthermore, the idea of a theistic creator is not necessary for the idea of a simulated universe, it could just as easily be a deistic creator.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Definitionally not everthing or anything is a simulator Hillside.

I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here, and nor I suspect have you. “A simulator” is merely something (os somethings) that cause(d) a simulation to occur – no more, no less.

If you think a simulator lacks volition intentionality computation goals aims and purposes then you obviously dont know what a simulator is.

Do termites have “volition intentionality computation goals aims and purposes” so as to cause termite mounds? Or can complexity arise from causal agents that have none of these things? You can assert that an SU simulator must have had these things if you want to, but you have all your work ahead of you still to make an argument to justify the claim.

You assert that is wrong. That is a positive assertion

Perhaps if you looked up “burden of proof” you wouldn’t keep getting it so badly wrong? A simulator with a whole list of characteristics you’ve added is a positive claim. It’s your job to justify it, not mine to falsify your unqualified assertion. All I can do is (correctly) to point out that these characteristics are not necessary for the conjecture "SU", just as unicorns are not a necessary for there to be hoof prints in the mud.

They’re your claims; you justify them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

1. How about apologising to enki for misrepresenting him so egregiously?

2. You seem to think that "not dismissing" the Abrahamic God is epistemically significant to the claim. It isn't, any more than not dismissing leprechauns, shape-shifting aliens or a bored extra-celestial kid writing a computer game is epistemically significant to those claims. Short version: you're just flirting with the NPF again.

Id like to say we have gotten waaaaaay of the point on this but .....hands up...... I can't ...........

It's you who is way of the point

Here's the point.....
Chalmers This is a version of the God hypothesis
Myers This is intelligent design.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Id like to say we have gotten waaaaaay of the point on this but .....hands up...... I can't ...........

It's you who is way of the point

Here's the point.....
Chalmers This is a version of the God hypothesis
Myers This is intelligent design.

More stupidity. NdGT posted an argument; PZM counter-argued that he'd inadvertently blundered into creator territory (albeit a creator about which nothing could be said). Neither of them argue for theism. QED.

Oh, and where was enki's apology?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here, and nor I suspect have you. “A simulator” is merely something (os somethings) that cause(d) a simulation to occur – no more, no less.

Do termites have “volition intentionality computation goals aims and purposes” so as to cause termite mounds? Or can complexity arise from causal agents that have none of these things? You can assert that an SU simulator must have had these things if you want to, but you have all your work ahead of you still to make an argument to justify the claim.

Perhaps if you looked up “burden of proof” you wouldn’t keep getting it so badly wrong? A simulator with a whole list of characteristics you’ve added is a positive claim. It’s your job to justify it, not mine to falsify your unqualified assertion. All I can do is (correctly) to point out that these characteristics are not necessary for the conjecture "SU", just as unicorns are not a necessary for there to be hoof prints in the mud.

They’re your claims; you justify them.

Termites and random processes all very well.
But certainly not classified as simulated universe.

The unconscious processes you quote may account for other theories of universe formation but not simulated universe.

And that is what NDGT, Chalmers and Myers are all talking about.

When a termite group make a termite mound they are making a termite mound. Nothing nix zero nada is being simulated here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

More stupidity. NdGT posted an argument; PZM counter-argued that he'd inadvertently blundered into creator territory (albeit a creator about which nothing could be said). Neither of them argue for theism. QED.

Oh, and where was enki's apology?

Misrepresation of what I have said which wasnt Myers was arguing for intelligent design but arguing it was  intelligent design.

Enki i'm sorry

Bluehillside  I'm sorry you lost the plot at an early stage.

[Alan Burns]

That we do what we want is not evidence that we could have done otherwise.  Nobody disputes that we act on what we most want, so long as nothing prevents us, obstructing us from exercising our will.  If nothing gets in my way, that is not supernatural, that is merely circumstantial.

The absence of constraints is not an explanation for our freedom to "think outside the box".  Neither are uncontrollable reactions to past events.

Our conscious freedom allows our thoughts to soar far beyond what can be defined by physical reactions and absence of constraints, or what is needed for survival.  Do you not have the freedom to drive your own imagination? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just because I don't dismiss a theistic creator(I.E.cannot say in any absolute sense that one doesn't exist) doesn't mean to say that I hold any belief that there is one. One could say that the Abrahamic God is looked upon as a theistic creator, but that would only be one of his attributes.(for instance his supposed 'moral' characteristics). The idea of a deliberate simulation only concentrates on the one attribute(creation), an attribute which could be said to be common to all creator gods. Furthermore, the idea of a theistic creator is not necessary for the idea of a simulated universe, it could just as easily be a deistic creator.

I never took you for anything but an atheist and if you want a reference for being one id happily give one.