Faith vs blind faith

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really?

well lets see

Simulated universe necessarily proposes an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.

ID has a candidate for intelligent design where there is an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.

Venn diagrams and that.

[Maeght]

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''.

Firstly saying 'supported one theory as a valid hypothesis'  suggests you're not clear about what hypothesis and theory mean. However, if someone proposed an hypothesis as you outline then it you nature of this intelligent controller would be a factor to consider. The God of the bible could of course but put forward for this role,as could any diety or any other thing wanted to put forward. Personally I don't think the theology of the God of the Bible fits with this proposed controller but others may disagree. The God of the bible cannot be ruled out if considering candidates for the controller but has no more strength as a candidate than any other diety or any other proposed being.

The phrase God dodging suggests that the God of the bible is the strongest candidate and is being ignored, but that,'s not the case.and using such over the top phrases really doesn't help.

[Nearly Sane]

?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

Funny business - this taking out of context thing you describe. You're right that it can make written things appear to say anything you like. I seem to recall various atheists and theists doing this to religious texts.

Maybe you should stop posting about your beliefs on here in case someone takes your posts out of context and commits a terrible act.

Based on Outrider's blind faith beliefs about religion,  one could argue that your words may well be harmless but language holds your harmless words in one hand while the other hand uses language to cause oppression, killing and mayhem.  Outrider never did clarify if there was a disembodied brain controlling these hands he believes in.

[Maeght]

?

See above.

[Sebastian Toe]

well lets see

Simulated universe necessarily proposes an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.

ID has a candidate for intelligent design where there is an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.

Venn diagrams and that.

ID does not fall into the "simulated" set.
Try again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly saying 'supported one theory as a valid hypothesis'  suggests you're not clear about what hypothesis and theory mean. However, if someone proposed an hypothesis as you outline then it you nature of this intelligent controller would be a factor to consider. The God of the bible could of course but put forward for this role,as could any diety or any other thing wanted to put forward. Personally I don't think the theology of the God of the Bible fits with this proposed controller but others may disagree. The God of the bible cannot be ruled out if considering candidates for the controller but has no more strength as a candidate than any other diety or any other proposed being.

The phrase God dodging suggests that the God of the bible is the strongest candidate and is being ignored, but that,'s not the case.and using such over the top phrases really doesn't help.

Let's compare job descriptions

Simulated universe necessarily proposes an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.

Theistic God: an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.

Look pretty similar to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ID does not fall into the "simulated" set.
Try again.

Are you sure? Show your working out.

[Outrider]

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?

No, I refuse to worship it because a) it's an hypothesis without sufficient supporting evidence at the moment and b) because creating something doesn't make you worthy of worship - as you listed, respected perhaps or feared, but not worshipped.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I refuse to worship it because a) it's an hypothesis without sufficient supporting evidence at the moment and b) because creating something doesn't make you worthy of worship - as you listed, respected perhaps or feared, but not worshipped.

O.

a) fair enough.
b) I disagree. What makes your claim sounder?

[Outrider]

Funny business - this taking out of context thing you describe. You're right that it can make written things appear to say anything you like. I seem to recall various atheists and theists doing this to religious texts.

Possibly because they are often so vaguely worded or poetically translated that there is no obvious context, or when you take them in context they're vile.

Based on Outrider's blind faith beliefs about religion,  one could argue that your words may well be harmless but language holds your harmless words in one hand while the other hand uses language to cause oppression, killing and mayhem.  Outrider never did clarify if there was a disembodied brain controlling these hands he believes in.

Is it blind faith when you have people killing for their religion in numerous places around the world, or is it an acknowledgment of the available evidence?

O.

[Maeght]

Let's compare job descriptions

Simulated universe necessarily proposes an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.

Theistic God: an intelligent designer separate from it's creation which maintains it's creation, who can intervene in that creation, and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.

Look pretty similar to me.

This is quite a selective description of the God of the Bible isn't it?  Where would Jesus as the Son of God fit in for example?

[Outrider]

b) I disagree. What makes your claim sounder?

I am not beholden to worship something because it's creative - I don't worship the tea-lady, I don't worship Tracy Emin (or even any of the good artists), I don't worship carpenters...

Perhaps it's an aesthetic thing, but the very idea of 'worship' strikes me as singularly wrong - it's a self-debasing concept to think of something else as being somehow more worthy or significant, inherently, to the point of expecting servility.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is quite a selective description of the God of the Bible isn't it?  Where would Jesus as the Son of God fit in for example?

It is standard Theism Maeght.
1: I agree it is not exhaustive...but what it isn't is atheism unless atheism is now the same as theism.

2:Where does Jesus fit in? This about Professor Bostrom who is a lead simulation proponent

''Epistemologically, it is not impossible to tell whether we are living in a simulation. For example, Bostrom suggests that a window could pop up saying: "You are living in a simulation. Click here for more information." ....................l.........might be difficult for the native inhabitants to identify and for purposes of authenticity, even the simulated memory of a blatant revelation might be purged programmatically. Nonetheless, should any evidence come to light, either for or against the skeptical hypothesis, it would radically alter the aforementioned probability.'' wikipedia

Jesus fits the description of that window.

[SusanDoris]

I do not know how to worship - I wonder if any of the believers here can provide a clear explanation of how to do it?

[floo]

I do not know how to worship - I wonder if any of the believers here can provide a clear explanation of how to do it?

Same here I have never worshipped anything in my life, it just isn't me.

[Maeght]

It is standard Theism Maeght.
1: I agree it is not exhaustive...

Which is my point. There is much more to the God of the Bible than that.

...... but what it isn't is atheism unless atheism is now the same as theism.

Who's saying its the same as having mo belief in God?

2:Where does Jesus fit in? This about Professor Bostrom who is a lead simulation proponent

''Epistemologically, it is not impossible to tell whether we are living in a simulation. For example, Bostrom suggests that a window could pop up saying: "You are living in a simulation. Click here for more information." ....................l.........might be difficult for the native inhabitants to identify and for purposes of authenticity, even the simulated memory of a blatant revelation might be purged programmatically. Nonetheless, should any evidence come to light, either for or against the skeptical hypothesis, it would radically alter the aforementioned probability.'' wikipedia

Jesus fits the description of that window.

I guess you could come up with any story to fit in with such an hypothesis.

Not God dodging though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am not beholden to worship something because it's creative - I don't worship the tea-lady, I don't worship Tracy Emin (or even any of the good artists), I don't worship carpenters...

Perhaps it's an aesthetic thing, but the very idea of 'worship' strikes me as singularly wrong - it's a self-debasing concept to think of something else as being somehow more worthy or significant, inherently, to the point of expecting servility.

O.

I agree that it is down to a value judgment....and of course the interpretation of worthship.
I do not fully worship that formulation of the one God in Islam or Judaism for instance because he has not incarnated and does not die for me but I can worship a creator without whom there wouldn't be anything.

Your last paragraph, to me, just indicates an unexamined personal state...a bit like not standing the word God to the point of denying the manifest 'similarity' between identical descriptions of what the simulator of our universe must be and how God is described.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is my point. There is much more to the God of the Bible than that.

I guess you could come up with any story to fit in with such an hypothesis.

Not God dodging though.

Point one  May be true but how does that help atheism?

Point two  Only if it fits and unfortunately acceptance of another universe opens the door to all sorts of possibilities.

Point three since there is no material difference in description between the simulator and God any desire to eliminate the word God must just be related to the word and that doesn't look like a very rational move since it forgets the maxim ''If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck''.

In other words if you can't stand the word God but can stand the description of God you've probably Got a God phobia.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do not know how to worship - I wonder if any of the believers here can provide a clear explanation of how to do it?

Worship is derived from worth ship as far as I can see. I see it therefore as something we are doing all the time to various degrees. For a believer the ultimate worship state is following Jesus' commandment ''Love God and your neighbour as you love yourself.''

[Maeght]

Point one  May be true but how does that help atheism?

Point two  Only if it fits and unfortunately acceptance of another universe opens the door to all sorts of possibilities.

Point three since there is no material difference in description between the simulator and God any desire to eliminate the word God must just be related to the word and that doesn't look like a very rational move since it forgets the maxim ''If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck''.

In other words if you can't stand the word God but can stand the description of God you've probably Got a God phobia.

Point one. Who is suggesting this helps atheism,whatever that means. What do you mean by that?

Point two. As you say,all sorts of possibilities, which was my point.

Point three. As I said, God of the bible has equal claim as any other diety or creature anyone wants to propose.  It is not the obvious candidate so to not mention God of the bible specifically isn't God dodging. It could be God. It could be Zeus. It could be Derrick the Ardvark.Are you Zeus dodging?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Simulated universe necessarily proposes an intelligent designer separate from it's creation...

Intelligent enough to create that universe, though whether that creator in turn would also be an inhabitant of a simulated universe of which it wasn't aware is unknowable.

..which maintains it's creation,...

Nope. You'd have no idea about that. For all you'd know this "creator" could have wound up the clock and then buggered off, died, whatever.

...who can intervene in that creation...

Nope. See above.

...and can change the creation suddenly by altering it's rules.

Nope. See above.

And even if you hadn't got all that wrong still all you'd have in any case is a hypothesis - an idea that could be right but cannot be (or hasn't been) validated. And there as many of those as you'd care to shake a stick at - why then pick just one of them, then jump the validation bit and decide that's it's true anyway, then mischaracterise it to have all sorts characteristics it doesn't have, then call the answer "God", then worship it if not for blind faith?

Have I told you about my "assent" the the "gravity is pixies holding stuff down with invisible strings" hypothesis by the way?   

[wigginhall]

This is quite a selective description of the God of the Bible isn't it?  Where would Jesus as the Son of God fit in for example?

Yes, Vlad is being utterly disingenuous, in saying that the Christian God is like an engineer of universes.   Hang on, that seems to leave out a ton of stuff, such as having a son, who atones for our sins.   God is also supernatural, or 'pure spirit in eternity', as the ancient documents have it, but I've never seen any suggestion that advanced aliens are.    If there is universe engineering, it is a natural process, just as constructing a video game is. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

1:Intelligent enough to create that universe, though whether that creator in turn would also be an inhabitant of a simulated universe of which it wasn't aware is unknowable.

2:Nope. You'd have no idea about that. For all you'd know this "creator" could have wound up the clock and then buggered off, died, whatever.

3:And even if you hadn't got all that wrong still all you'd have in any case is a hypothesis - an idea that could be right but cannot be (or hasn't been) validated.

4:Have I told you about my "assent" the the "gravity is pixies holding stuff down with invisible strings" hypothesis by the way?

Point 1 Granted................ How does that help atheism?,
point 2 Granted.................How does that help atheism?
 Point 3 Granted..........How does it help atheism since thanks to the creator we are still going and dying creators and creators who have a day off are not unknown you know?,
Point 4:As long as it doesn't have fucking leprechauns in it, go ahead.

[Sebastian Toe]

Are you sure? Show your working out.

Yes.

Simulated universe. Well it's simulated, see description.

ID, it's not simulated, it's the real thing.
See here for the experts view.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/index.php