Faith vs blind faith

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm suggesting that if someone said that god was some guy playing 'The Sims' on his quantum-computing console,

Sorry to say it but this just shows more thinking about the implications of simulated universes needs to be done.......and New atheism isn't going to help.

[wigginhall]

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.

You seem to be changing the notion of the supernatural quite a lot.  I've never seen it defined as being outside the universe.  Traditionally, God was defined as a spirit, in the old confessions, 'a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions;immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible',  and so on.   

I suppose somebody could propose that there are aliens who are like this, but I don't think that's usually considered.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

You seem to be changing the notion of the supernatural quite a lot.  I've never seen it defined as being outside the universe.  Traditionally, God was defined as a spirit, in the old confessions, 'a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions;immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible',  and so on.   

I suppose somebody could propose that there are aliens who are like this, but I don't think that's usually considered.

He's flip-flopping between a "supernatural" (ie outside the laws of nature) creator and a natural one, though why he'd want to worship either is anyone's guess - as indeed is why either would want to be worshipped. He's also trying a bit of Deepak Chopra-style "let's sound all sciency and stuff" re multiverse, simulated universe etc hypotheses as if that in some way validates "whatever pops into my head must be true somewhere".   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be changing the notion of the supernatural quite a lot.  I've never seen it defined as being outside the universe.  Traditionally, God was defined as a spirit, in the old confessions, 'a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions;immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible',  and so on.   

I suppose somebody could propose that there are aliens who are like this, but I don't think that's usually considered.

I think you are confusing God with the supernatural here.
The definition includes the imperviousness of investigation by natural means which something not of this universe certainly is.
Your post though is an exercise in choosing some divine attributes and excluding others for the purposes solely of eliminating the divine. That, is Goddodging.
Certainly a simulators intervention would appear as supernatural

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

He's flip-flopping between a "supernatural" (ie outside the laws of nature) creator and a natural one, though why he'd want to worship either is anyone's guess - as indeed is why either would want to be worshipped. He's also trying a bit of Deepak Chopra-style "let's sound all sciency and stuff" re multiverse, simulated universe etc hypotheses as if that in some way validates "whatever pops into my head must be true somewhere".   

Oh no another post about me........ha ha ha.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you are confusing God with the supernatural here.

Then, as ever, you think wrongly.
 

The definition includes the imperviousness of investigation by natural means…

Definition of what? Supernatural? Well, it’s your claim so it’s for you to tell us how you’d define it. Other than, “not natural” I have no idea what you mean by it, and nor how you’d investigate the claim at all – and nor it seems have you. 

…which something not of this universe certainly is.

“Would be”, not “is”. You’re overreaching again.
 

Your post though is an exercise in choosing some divine attributes and excluding others for the purposes solely of eliminating the divine.

It’s no such thing.

That, is Goddodging.

You can’t “dodge” something when you’ve been given no reason to think there’s something to dodge. Hasn’t this sunk in yet?

Certainly a simulators intervention would appear as supernatural

It might, but that doesn’t mean that it would be. So?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh no another post about me........ha ha ha.

Come now, Vlad, my tiny poppadom, you both love it and power your central heating, and that of four neighbours, by the warmth generated from your ears burning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then, as ever, you think wrongly.
 
Definition of what? Supernatural? Well, it’s your claim so it’s for you to tell us how you’d define it. Other than, “not natural” I have no idea what you mean by it, and nor how you’d investigate the claim at all – and nor it seems have you. 

“Would be”, not “is”. You’re overreaching again.
 
It’s no such thing.

You can’t “dodge” something when you’ve been given no reason to think there’s something to dodge. Hasn’t this sunk in yet?

It might, but that doesn’t mean that it would be. So?

Hillside If you assent to simulated universe theory you assent to an intelligent designer who is definitionally outside of the universe, you assent to an intelligent creator with the power to intervene. To then try allsorts of contortions to then avoid the obvious parallels with God is Goddodging taken to new heights each contortion a classic in avoidance.

All I seem to have to do is mention the word God and to use a horse racing metaphor...''and their off''.

I've not been Deepak Chopra....More Neil De grasse Tyson who has upset PZ Myers.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So many mistakes…

Hillside If you assent to simulated universe theory…

It’s not a "theory” at all – it’s a hypothesis. And you don’t “assent” to hypotheses, you just await (or look for) evidence that validates or invalidates them.

…you assent to an intelligent designer who is definitionally outside of the universe,…

No, just one who would be (or would have been) perhaps outside the universe of which you’re aware, but who may well not have been outside “the universe” as a whole.

…you assent to an intelligent creator with the power to intervene.

No, for all you know it could have been done by a super advanced species that set up the technology and then died out.

To then try allsorts of contortions to then avoid the obvious parallels with God is Goddodging taken to new heights each contortion a classic in avoidance.

Epically wrong. See above, and you don’t just get to jump from conjectures about very smart but naturalistic aliens to a supernatural god.

All I seem to have to do is mention the word God and to use a horse racing metaphor...''and their off''.

The only horse here is the one you attempted to ride a while back along the lines of, “If it can’t be explained naturally then it must be supernatural” until the poor nag collapsed and died under the weight of its own ludicrousness.

I've not been Deepak Chopra....

Yes you have. Attempting vaguely sciency-sounding terms you don’t understand or mischaracterise doesn’t help you.

More Neil De grasse Tyson who has upset PZ Myers.

Then give us some citations so we can examine your claim. So far though, you’re all over the floor.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So many mistakes…

It’s not a "theory” at all – it’s a hypothesis. And you don’t “assent” to hypotheses, you just await (or look for) evidence that validates or invalidates them.

No, just one who would be (or would have been) perhaps outside the universe of which you’re aware, but who may well not have been outside “the universe” as a whole.

No, for all you know it could have been done by a super advanced species that set up the technology and then died out.

Epically wrong. See above, and you don’t just get to jump from conjectures about very smart but naturalistic aliens to a supernatural god.

The only horse here is the one you attempted to ride a while back along the lines of, “If it can’t be explained naturally then it must be supernatural” until the poor nag collapsed and died under the weight of its own ludicrousness.

Yes you have. Attempting vaguely sciency-sounding terms you don’t understand or mischaracterise doesn’t help you.

Then give us some citations so we can examine your claim. So far though, you’re all over the floor.

Is this you?
1: I assent to simulated universe hypothesis and that it is a hypothesis, without prejudice to any results or conclusions
2: I Therefore I understand that this includes an intelligent designer/creator and maintainer of the universe who is not part of this universe.
3: I understand that such an intelligent designer could make intervention in the universe so simulated at any time and at any point
4: I have therefore no reason to assent to any suggestion of God, an intelligent designer/creator and maintainer of the universe who is not part of this universe and can intervene in the universe.

[Sebastian Toe]

It's been great watching your gyrations chaps.

Does that mean you are off for another flounce? (He said, ever hopeful).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Is this you?

1: I assent to simulated universe hypothesis and that it is a hypothesis, without prejudice to any results or conclusions 

Well, at least you understand now that it’s just a hypothesis – which is progress of a kind I suppose. Now we just have to sort out your “assent” problem. Presumably you must mean by it something like, “I choose to treat a hypothesis as if it had been validated even though it hasn’t” or some such, which is just a variant on that faith thing you’re so keen on. So what though?

2: I Therefore…

NON SEKWITUR ALERT, NON SEKWITUR ALERT! What “therefore”?

…I understand that this includes an intelligent designer/creator and maintainer of the universe who is not part of this universe.

You can “understand” that it includes Peter Pan, the ghost of Jacob Marley and all of Father Christmas’s little helpers if you want to, but as you’re just populating a hypothesis with whatever takes your fancy again, so what? 

3: I understand that such an intelligent designer could make intervention in the universe so simulated at any time and at any point

See above.

4: I have therefore no reason to assent to any suggestion of God, an intelligent designer/creator and maintainer of the universe who is not part of this universe and can intervene in the universe.

You have no reason to “assent” to anything so far. Mind you, how you’d get from a god who was part of the universe to one who also created it would be fun to see.

Give it up old son. Seriously. You’re way, way out of your depth here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well, at least you understand now that it’s just a hypothesis

Always have and it seems you are supporting that it's a hypothesis and we have walked through that hypothesis and are still able to accept it as a hypothesis. A hypothesis which is about an intelligent designer who created and maintains the universe yet is not part of the universe and all that is a reasonable hypothesis.... But God, an intelligent designer who created and maintains the universe and is not part of the universe is completely unreasonable, white noise, not even wrong.

Notice the only component which changes everything for you? That's right it's ''God''.

And that's Goddodging of Gene Kelly, Metro Goldwyn Mayer Proportions...

...Your welcome.

[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?

Yes if something like that were imagined you could be right, but there when taken out of context you can, as you've done here, make any post appear to say anything you like.

ippy

[Maeght]

Just in from work and catching up. What is all this goddodging nonsense.  To really be dodging God you'd need to know that God exists but to actas if God didn't. Some people may do that but  certainly doesn't apply generally to atheist I know. Is this just more distraction to avoid answering questions put?

[Sebastian Toe]

But God, an intelligent designer who created and maintains the universe and is not part of the universe

Do you subscribe to that ?

[Sebastian Toe]

Just in from work and catching up. What is all this goddodging nonsense.  To really be dodging God you'd need to know that God exists but to actas if God didn't. Some people may do that but  certainly doesn't apply generally to atheist I know. Is this just more distraction to avoid answering questions put?

In a word - yes.

[Enki]

It just looks to me that Vlad is smply playing a game of no-goddodging.

[Sebastian Toe]

It just looks to me that Vlad is smply playing a game of no-goddodging.

...or noGod-dodging?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just in from work and catching up. What is all this goddodging nonsense.  To really be dodging God you'd need to know that God exists but to actas if God didn't.

I think it applies to anybody who supports one theory as a valid hypothesis proposing a universe simulator... an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it and intervene but rejects a theory as a valid hypothesis proposing God, an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it an intervene.

What is the difference between the two, the word avoided? That's right ''God''.

[Sebastian Toe]

I think it applies to anybody who supports one theory as a valid hypothesis proposing a universe simulator... an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it and intervene but rejects a theory as a valid hypothesis proposing God, an intelligent designer not part of the universe it has created, which maintains that universe and can direct it an intervene.

What is the difference between the two, the word avoided? That's right ''God''.

Do you accept both as valid?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you accept both as valid?

I'm not sure there is a both since ID is IMO a subset of simulated universe.
Do I therefore think simulated universe is a valid hypothesis? Well simulated universe is a subset of multiverse and I'm not sure that is testable so we could be looking at Bad science......bad science but fucking good philosophy perhaps.

[ippy]

Just in from work and catching up. What is all this goddodging nonsense.  To really be dodging God you'd need to know that God exists but to actas if God didn't. Some people may do that but  certainly doesn't apply generally to atheist I know. Is this just more distraction to avoid answering questions put?

I'd go with your post. Maeght, in fact it's something that Vlad should be reconised for, without a doubt he is an exceptional exponent of avoiding any questions he has thrown in his direction, in fact it'd be interesting to go back over his posts and try to find something he has actualy answered.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd go with your post. Maeght, in fact it's something that Vlad should be reconised for, without a doubt he is an exceptional exponent of avoiding any questions he has thrown in his direction, in fact it'd be interesting to go back over his posts and try to find something he has actualy answered.

ippy

What questions do you guys think I could possibly help you with?
Don't turn your lack of interest in what I have to say into my unwillingness to answer a question.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm not sure there is a both since ID is IMO a subset of simulated universe.
.

Really?