Revelation 1-22

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm explaining that there is a difference between making a simulation for beings to live in, and being god. Conceivably, a human could create a simulation in which there were conscious programme elements interacting, but that person would not be 'god' - they'd have a high degree of power and influence within that universe, but I still contend that doesn't make them 'god', unless you accept that a god is not inherently good or moral or right, but is merely a cosmic tyrant with unchecked power.

I think you are forgetting that the intelligent designer is not of the universe it designs. It could have any power and influence it allows itself and devolve any powers to it's creation and here we have touched upon another issue where theology has been active long before Messrs B Greene and NDG Tyson.

[Outrider]

I think you are forgetting that the intelligent designer is not of the universe it designs. It could have any power and influence it allows itself and devolve any powers to it's creation and here we have touched upon another issue where theology has been active long before Messrs B Greene and NDG Tyson.

No, that's fine, I'll concede that quite happily. You still don't seem to be addressing the idea that this is depicting god as 'nothing more' than a highly competent engineer. If that's the case then fine, we have no argument, because there's nothing in being an engineer that requires worship or acceptance of otherwise aribitrary moral requirements, and no obligation to obey rules or whims imposed from outside with no more less moral substance than anyone else's.

O.

[ippy]

I think you are forgetting that the intelligent designer is not of the universe it designs. It could have any power and influence it allows itself and devolve any powers to it's creation and here we have touched upon another issue where theology has been active long before Messrs B Greene and NDG Tyson.

I note in this post of yours you say, 'It could have any power and influence it allows itself', can you tell all of us how you came to know this as a fact.

Try, I know it's difficult for you but see if you can find a way to give an answer without changing the subject in some way Vlad, because I can't see there is any way you could possibly know this, (the underlined part above), to be a fact?

Kindest regards ippy 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I note in this post of yours you say, 'It could have any power and influence it allows itself', can you tell all of us how you came to know this as a fact.

Try, I know it's difficult for you but see if you can find a way to give an answer without changing the subject in some way Vlad, because I can't see there is any way you could possibly know this, (the underlined part above), to be a fact?

Kindest regards ippy

Did I ever say THIS IS A FACT? I might believe it's a fact and there are some dull and boring things which I can  demonstrate are facts but I have always been of the opinion that any world view cannot be so demonstrated.

I think i've also voiced my opinion that anyone caught trying pulling down someone elses worldview is ok as long as they then don't try and claim that they don't have one themselves.

Now Outrider and I are currently chewing the fat over simulated universes. Now whether that is a scientific fact or even a scientific hypothesis I am not sure but even the programmer of a simple programmer can determine the amount of rules/degrees of freedom which apply to the characters in the programme and that is what I mean by choosing the amount of power one has over the simulation. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, that's fine, I'll concede that quite happily. You still don't seem to be addressing the idea that this is depicting god as 'nothing more' than a highly competent engineer.

I disagree as I keep saying God fits what a simulated universe designer has to be in relation to the universe it has designed and built. Beyond that, 'simulated universe'  cannot say anything about the designer. No one can offer a either a ''nothing more'' nor a ''more than'' with scientific certainty.

I find your notion that religion doesn't or shouldn't describe it's deity/deities in glowing human metaphor most strange.

[ippy]

Did I ever say THIS IS A FACT? I might believe it's a fact and there are some dull and boring things which I can  demonstrate are facts but I have always been of the opinion that any world view cannot be so demonstrated.

I think i've also voiced my opinion that anyone caught trying pulling down someone elses worldview is ok as long as they then don't try and claim that they don't have one themselves.

Now Outrider and I are currently chewing the fat over simulated universes. Now whether that is a scientific fact or even a scientific hypothesis I am not sure but even the programmer of a simple programmer can determine the amount of rules/degrees of freedom which apply to the characters in the programme and that is what I mean by choosing the amount of power one has over the simulation.

I should have known better you always find a way to never answer anything, by the way do you think you're getting any closer to fully understanding secularism yet,? Oh yes, I almost forgot, you don't answer anything anyone asks you, so don't worry Vlad.

The kindest possible of regards ippy.

[Outrider]

I disagree as I keep saying God fits what a simulated universe designer has to be in relation to the universe it has designed and built. Beyond that, 'simulated universe'  cannot say anything about the designer. No one can offer a either a ''nothing more'' nor a ''more than'' with scientific certainty.

True, but that depiction does not equate to 'god', it equates to a designer, a mechanic, an engineer.

I find your notion that religion doesn't or shouldn't describe it's deity/deities in glowing human metaphor most strange.

My point is that religions do describe them in 'glowing' human metaphor, they are always depicted as something more than human not just quantitatively, but qualitatively. This computer programmer - advanced programming though it is - is not intrinsically something beyond a possible human potential.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

True, but that depiction does not equate to 'god', it equates to a designer, a mechanic, an engineer.

My point is that religions do describe them in 'glowing' human metaphor, they are always depicted as something more than human not just quantitatively, but qualitatively. This computer programmer - advanced programming though it is - is not intrinsically something beyond a possible human potential.

O.

Maker, that's another epithet for almighty God of old, Great Architect of the universe is another.
Man is made in God's image says.....co creator is a theological epithet for mankind. That a human can simulate what ''The maker'' does is no strange idea for religion. You seem to be revising the past in an act of heavy duty God avoidance.

The fact remains an intelligent designer who makes a universe of which they are not dependent on is a familiar trope in religion and has been for centuries.

There is also the problem of allowing the ability of universal transcendence in a simulator and then disallowing it in a simulator with the label God through a massive act of special pleading.

[Outrider]

Maker, that's another epithet for almighty God of old, Great Architect of the universe is another.  Man is made in God's image says.....co creator is a theological epithet for mankind. That a human can simulate what ''The maker'' does is no strange idea for religion. You seem to be revising the past in an act of heavy duty God avoidance.

You seem to be pretending that Christianity makes no claim about god other than that he is a cosmic watchmaker...

The fact remains an intelligent designer who makes a universe of which they are not dependent on is a familiar trope in religion and has been for centuries.

Yes; it's not, though, the whole of the religious trope, is it?

There is also the problem of allowing the ability of universal transcendence in a simulator and then disallowing it in a simulator with the label God through a massive act of special pleading.

You'll have to explain what you're aiming at with 'universal transcendence' there.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be pretending that Christianity makes no claim about god other than that he is a cosmic watchmaker...

No I just said there are aspects of the simulator which God fulfils. Simulation theory tells us very little more about the simulator. Bostrom talks about windows etc.
You seem to be pretending that God has never been described in religion and theology as an intelligent designer who makes a universe from which he his separate and entirely independent. The simulator can never be less than that description which is also a theological description but it/he/she/ they could be more.
What we are IMHO seeing then is you shuffling with the the goal posts. Is this in an attempt to eliminate God from access to the characteristics of a universe creator which has to be the Fred and Ginger, Busby Berkeley of God avoidance by claiming that God is somehow overqualified.

Other contributers seem to want to go the other way and have us believe that the creator is somekind of teenage dirtbag. Suggesting that any fool can create a universe like the one we've got. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More like a psychopath, if it exists, and what is attributed to it were true.

You need to take that up with Him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would, but sadly it is in hiding.

Or you are.

[Shaker]

Or you are.

No god-dodging again, Vladster?

[Outrider]

No I just said there are aspects of the simulator which God fulfils. Simulation theory tells us very little more about the simulator. Bostrom talks about windows etc.

The description of a simulator, I'd say, lies within the common understanding of the Christian God, but only constitutes a part of it.

You seem to be pretending that God has never been described in religion and theology as an intelligent designer who makes a universe from which he his separate and entirely independent. The simulator can never be less than that description which is also a theological description but it/he/she/ they could be more.

I'm not pretending anything of the sort, I've conceded that point repeatedly - I'm observing that to equate the two is to distinctly undersell the common understanding of 'God'.

What we are IMHO seeing then is you shuffling with the the goal posts.

And now you're pretending that you're humble, which is frankly even less believable I've not moved any goal-posts at all, I've accepted the designer concept from the start as a part of the simulated universe hypothesis, I've just not accepted the implicit equivalence with the claim 'God'.

Is this in an attempt to eliminate God from access to the characteristics of a universe creator which has to be the Fred and Ginger, Busby Berkeley of God avoidance by claiming that God is somehow overqualified.

No, it's making the point that even if the simulated universe hypothesis were to be in some way validated or, for the sake of argument, accepted in principle, it still wouldn't be any sort of evidence for the Christian depiction of 'God'.

Other contributers seem to want to go the other way and have us believe that the creator is somekind of teenage dirtbag. Suggesting that any fool can create a universe like the one we've got.

Arguably, with the right digital tool-kit, any douche-bag could; that's, in part, why it's such an inadequate device with which to attempt to establish 'God'.

O.

[Harrowby Hall]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/end-of-world-still-coming-soon-christian-numerologists-say-it-was-just-postponed/ar-AAsqa7C?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

The end of the world has been postponed until October 21st!

Are we all still here, Floo.or is this a nightmare dream?

[ippy]

October 21st has been and gone, and we are all still here. I wonder what excuse those who believe in that daft nonsense will come up with this time for getting the date wrong? It is a pity NM isn't around so we can quiz him about it.

I think he must have run out of Dynamic Energy from his last encounter with the forum Floo, I'd like to see him back, he would be good company for our A B but Alan's no where near as rightious as N M.

Regards ippy

[Harrowby Hall]

Perhaps Jesus hasn't got to the appropriate page in his Righteous Science textbook.

[Maeght]

Of course.

[Walter]

We are nearly into December and we are still here in spite of the dire predictions of end timers like NM!

in their favour, one day they will be right 

[Owlswing]

in their favour, one day they will be right 

You have proof of this, of course.

It is far more likely mankind will end but the planet will go on without us.

[Walter]

You have proof of this, of course.

It is far more likely mankind will end but the planet will go on without us.

No. At some point in the future Earth will no longer exist .

[Walter]

Probably, but not the sort of demise the end timers just love to predict.

and their 'predictions' are far more entertaining 

[Owlswing]

Not if you are a child or vulnerable person.

Since when did the Christians worry about such as they when it came to predictions of Godly punishment?

[Sassy]

There is so many posts containing out-of-date terminology and false beliefs about Christians today and even Christians after Christ died.
Is it too much to ask that atheists actually read the bible?

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Does it really need spelling out why the world did not end in October or why people should not have given any credence to the
person/s or the claim/s when made?

There is no logical way, given the evidence that the end of the world not coming can actually reflect badly on Christ or Christianity whatsoever.

This is why so many Christians tell atheists to study - up or shut-up.

We are not trying to be rude but it gets boring listening to the same old clap-trap spouted and written because the explanation why it did not happen is written in the bible.

At least educate yourselves on subjects before passing judgment in ignorance.  Atheism has nothing to study.
Take for instance the things discussed the last two pages about the end of the world.

You can take the subject  and google to get at least some idea. Come on folks how many years ago did Christ tell everyone only the father knew the day of his return?

[Maeght]

You don't need to read the bible to give no credence to the claims being made.

Most people don't judge all Christians by the end of the world claims made by the few.