Faith vs blind faith

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We're talking about religion, I'm waiting to see evidence that they're attached to any sort of rational processing.

Simulated Universe hypothesis?
 

[Outrider]

Simulated Universe hypothesis?

What of it? Are you suggesting that it's a religion?

O.

[Outrider]

I found it very interesting. Always happy to learn. So about these 2 hands that you brought up...as a "metaphor" -  how are they connected or is it part of your blind faith that they are 2 disembodied hands that aren't connected?

They are the 'two hands of religion'. I guess it's up to you whether you think they're an embodiment of 'the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing' or 'giving with one hand, taking back with the other'...

You must have picked hands in your imagery for a reason - or was it just a random guess? Could the metaphor have just as easily been 2 dogs wagging their tails?

Two dogs would give the impression that these were two different peas in a pod, rather than, say, two sides of the same coin...

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Some idiot said I was invisible non-existent boulder dodging, you know I found it very difficult to think what on Earth was he thinking about, perhaps he was a few coppers short of shilling, he was certainly very odd.

Thanks for asking Vlad.

Regards ippy

If someone imagined that an idiot, who was perhaps a few coppers short of a shilling, was talking to them, is that a sign of madness? Just wondering?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What of it? Are you suggesting that it's a religion?

O.

Well it has a creator who knows what they are doing who isn't part of the simulation but can guide it and fine tune it's parameters and maybe put a pop up ot two (Bostrom) so yep, it's pretty much there. Unless you try to get round it by saying that's not religion....religion is veneers and handwaving and bombs etc.....but that would be, er, trying to get round it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

They are the 'two hands of religion'. I guess it's up to you whether you think they're an embodiment of 'the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing' or 'giving with one hand, taking back with the other'...

You tell me - it's your metaphor. What does your blind faith lead you to believe? Are the two hands controlled by one brain - according to your blind faith I mean?

Two dogs would give the impression that these were two different peas in a pod, rather than, say, two sides of the same coin...

O.

Ah so you see religion as an inanimate benign object? Harmless until a person decides what to do with the coin?

[wigginhall]

The idea of simulated universes is usually connected with the idea of advanced aliens, who might have the technology to do this.   I don't see what this has to do with atheism or religion, since the aliens are not supernatural, at least, not in the proposals I've read about. 

[Outrider]

Well it has a creator who knows what they are doing who isn't part of the simulation but can guide it and fine tune it's parameters and maybe put a pop up ot two (Bostrom) so yep, it's pretty much there. Unless you try to get round it by saying that's not religion....religion is veneers and handwaving and bombs etc.....but that would be, er, trying to get round it.

'Can guide it' and 'do guide it' are different things, and most religions make some sort of claim to a moral 'sanctity' on the part of the creator, but I guess you could see it as sort of stripped down version of religion... except that I don't see a suggestion of worship in there:

"noun
1. (uncountable) The belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.
2.(countable) A particular system of faith and worship.
3.(uncountable) The way of life committed to by monks and nuns.
4.(countable) Any practice to which someone or some group is seriously devoted.
5.(uncountable, obsolete) Faithfulness to a given principle; conscientiousness."

Wiktionary, which isn't necessarily the best dictionary, but it's reasonable in most instances.

I fail to see the required 'worship' or 'devotion' elements. You might say that there's a 'faithfulness' to the principle, I suppose, if you're arguing in support of it. I see it as a scientific hypothesis more than a religion.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The idea of simulated universes is usually connected with the idea of advanced aliens, who might have the technology to do this.   I don't see what this has to do with atheism or religion.

It is an affirmative answer to a) where did we come from b) Does the universe have a purpose, c) was the universe created b) was there a creator.

This has enormous implications for atheism.

[Outrider]

It is an affirmative answer to a) where did we come from b) Does the universe have a purpose, c) was the universe created b) was there a creator.

This has enormous implications for atheism.

No more so than panspermia does, it just moves the question up a level. If we are a simulation run by aliens or humans, we're then faced with the questions 'where did they come from', 'what's their purpose', 'did they have a creator'...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Can guide it' and 'do guide it' are different things, and most religions make some sort of claim to a moral 'sanctity' on the part of the creator, but I guess you could see it as sort of stripped down version of religion... except that I don't see a suggestion of worship in there:

I can see how someone whose understanding of worship is limited to a caricature believer on his knees going ''Oh Lord I beseech thee as a miserable sinner snivel snivel'' might see know worship.

Worship starts when you acknowledge the creator, when you value his or her or it;s contribution and generally start thinking of the creator as an intelligent entity instead of a caricature.

I have to confess I've seen disrespect ahead of confirmation of Simulated status with smart alecs suggesting we were created  by some geeky alien teenager in his basement. But I suppose that is just antitheist machismo.

[Outrider]

Worship starts when you acknowledge the creator, when you value his or her or it;s contribution and generally start thinking of the creator as an intelligent entity instead of a caricature.

I acknowledge my father as my creator - biologically and socially - but that's a long, long way from worship.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No more so than panspermia does, it just moves the question up a level. If we are a simulation run by aliens or humans, we're then faced with the questions 'where did they come from', 'what's their purpose', 'did they have a creator'...

So what?

The creator of a simulated universe is to all intents and purposes God since we wouldn't be here without the creator and also our continued existence would not be dependent on this universe we are in.

In fact the more you think about it the more like God it becomes in a way, and your avoidance of that yet further evidence of Goddodging....I guess that generally explains attempts to besmirch such a creator as a spotty geek.

Retrace your steps on these posts Outrider...suspiciously like avoiding the cracks in the pavement?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I acknowledge my father as my creator - biologically and socially - but that's a long, long way from worship.

O.

Another Damn I must get another definition of worship otherwise i'm back in God territory moment Outrider?

[Outrider]

So what?

The creator of a simulated universe is to all intents and purposes God since we wouldn't be here without the creator and also our continued existence would not be dependent on this universe.

No, the claim 'god' is a lot more than a claim of a biological engineering achievement.

In fact the more you think about it the more like God it becomes in a way, and your avoidance of that yet further evidence of Goddodging....I guess that explains attempts to besmirch such a creator as a spotty geek.

I've not attempted to besmirch anyone.

Retrace your steps on these posts Outrider...suspiciously like avoiding the cracks in the pavement?

No, you're looking at lino and seeing cracked pavement is more the issue.

O.

O.

[Outrider]

Another Damn I must get another definition of worship otherwise i'm back in God territory moment Outrider?

Either we have markedly different understandings of the word 'worship', or you're just messing around now.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've not attempted to besmirch anyone.


O.

I've changed my post as I saw it doesn't apply to you.

[Outrider]

I've changed my post as I saw it doesn't apply to you.

You are gent

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Either we have markedly different understandings of the word 'worship', or you're just messing around now.

O.

I would suggest that we have arrived at a God who you won't worship. Since you seem to be suggesting that the creator is only God if it gets worship....Looks like you have dodged your way up your own alley.

[Outrider]

I would suggest that we have arrived at a God who you won't worship. Since you seem to be suggesting that the creator is only God if it gets worship....Looks like you have dodged your way up your own alley.

No, I'm suggesting that if someone said that god was some guy playing 'The Sims' on his quantum-computing console, that no-one would be suggesting we necessarily need to worship them or follow their words as moral precepts. And it wouldn't explain our origins, it would simply add a further step in the process, as we'd now need to explain the origin of the console-guy.

It's a creation-story, if you want to phrase it that way, but it doesn't posit the creator as a god.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm suggesting that if someone said that god was some guy playing 'The Sims' on his quantum-computing console, that no-one would be suggesting we necessarily need to worship them or follow their words as moral precepts. And it wouldn't explain our origins, it would simply add a further step in the process, as we'd now need to explain the origin of the console-guy.

It's a creation-story, if you want to phrase it that way, but it doesn't posit the creator as a god.

O.

I somehow knew you would get to the geeky guy in the basement...and I confess that if I had to find an excuse not to worship God that would be the God I would go for.

However geek guy is a punt isn't it or as I like to put it an exercise in Goddodging.
Looking honestly what it is is an attempt to demean the creator.
And it doesn't detract that we have arrived, reasonably at a person or at least an intelligence that is responsible for the creation and maintenance of the universe who could alternatively have many admirable qualities....maybe at a stretch perhaps this is something we could learn to respect, or fear or maybe even learn to love.

Yes there are questions about the simulator but if we are in a created universe/simulated universe that doesn't negate there being a creator.

[wigginhall]

It is an affirmative answer to a) where did we come from b) Does the universe have a purpose, c) was the universe created b) was there a creator.

This has enormous implications for atheism.

I see that you couldn't resist quote-mining, as you cut out my clause, 'since the aliens are not supernatural'.  I wonder why you did that?  Maybe because a naturalistic creator is not particularly germane to religion or atheism, as far as I can see, and super-advanced aliens would be that - naturalistic, not supernatural.     

[Outrider]

I somehow knew you would get to the geeky guy in the basement...and I confess that if I had to find an excuse not to worship God that would be the God I would go for.

The person running the sim and the person that created the programme wouldn't necessarily be the same individual, and we have no way of telling which it is.

However geek guy is a punt isn't it or as I like to put it an exercise in Goddodging.

Not really - even if you want the computer programmer/software designer/design team that built the programme rather than the person making the decisions on the seeding, they're still not (necessarily) qualitatively different to the basement console guy, and that's not something that's intrinsically worthy of worship.

Looking honestly what it is is an attempt to demean the creator.

No, it's an attempt to depict a possible creator honestly. Creating something doesn't make you sacred.

And it doesn't detract that we have arrived, reasonably at a person or at least an intelligence that is responsible for the creation and maintenance of the universe who could alternatively have many admirable qualities....maybe at a stretch perhaps this is something we could learn to respect, or fear or maybe even learn to love.

I could go for all of those, but none of them are 'worship'. There's nothing 'sanctified' about this creator, if they exist.

Yes there are questions about the simulator but if we are in a created universe/simulated universe that doesn't negate there being a creator.

No, but it doesn't suggest that it's 'The' creator, it's as worthy of worship as natural selection, which is our current understanding of our creator.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see that you couldn't resist quote-mining, as you cut out my clause, 'since the aliens are not supernatural'.  I wonder why you did that?  Maybe because a naturalistic creator is not particularly germane to religion or atheism, as far as I can see, and super-advanced aliens would be that - naturalistic, not supernatural.   

Aliens aren't usually supernatural because they are usually posited as being within the confines of this universe. But the type of alien we would be talking about would not be of this universe and that is what makes them supernatural.

Secondly they would , as, not part of this universe, look to all intents and purposes supernatural.

Thirdly what is that makes something supernatural?

I think if you think about it we have arrived at a God who was natural but has supernatural attributes.

Forthly I would contend that even a natural universe has supernatural aspects since either it is eternal or it popped into existence itself or it had assistance to do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The person running the sim and the person that created the programme wouldn't necessarily be the same individual, and we have no way of telling which it is.

Not really - even if you want the computer programmer/software designer/design team that built the programme rather than the person making the decisions on the seeding, they're still not (necessarily) qualitatively different to the basement console guy, and that's not something that's intrinsically worthy of worship.

No, it's an attempt to depict a possible creator honestly. Creating something doesn't make you sacred.

I could go for all of those, but none of them are 'worship'. There's nothing 'sanctified' about this creator, if they exist.

No, but it doesn't suggest that it's 'The' creator, it's as worthy of worship as natural selection, which is our current understanding of our creator.

O.

All Granted. it could be a pantheon......or something we experience as a trinity.....or whatever.
So lets just call it an ''it'' and you refuse to worship it on what looks suspiciously like religious grounds... would that negate it's existence?