Faith vs blind faith

[SusanDoris]

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.

How are you doing it?

For a believer the ultimate worship state is following Jesus' commandment ''Love God and your neighbour as you love yourself.''

Well, that is just passively following guidelines. Where's the worship in that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

How are aardvarks capable of simulating universes? When did that happen? We've never created one anywhere near the sophistication of our own universe?........What a potty suggestion.

Why are you happy around the word zeus and specially pleading the awfulness of God. The point is the Creator of the universe, whatever you call it has to have characteristics of the Abrahamic God or even a divine pantheon.

I'm wondering if you are heading towards we don't know but it can't be the God of the bible.

Also did you read what I put about Bostrom's windows?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Point 1 Granted................ How does that help atheism?,

Atheism doesn’t need to be “helped”. It merely rests on falsifying the arguments attempted for gods, which is what I just did in response to your, “Simulated universe necessarily proposes…” etc.

2 Granted.................How does that help atheism?

See above.

Point 3 Granted..........How does it help atheism…

See above.

…since thanks to the creator we are still going and dying creators are not unknown you know?

Incoherent. Point 3 explained that still all you’d have is a hypothesis. Why then treat it as anything else? 
 

Point 4:As long as it doesn't have fucking leprechauns in it, go ahead.

It’s not about leprechauns, or pixies. It’s about a hypothesis being just that – a hypothesis. You can “assent” to any hypothesis you like if you want to, but asserting truth claims on the back of it is just blind faith.

Again.

[Sebastian Toe]

For a believer the ultimate worship state is following Jesus' commandment ''Love God and your neighbour as you love yourself.''

What should the people who don't love themselves do?

[Sebastian Toe]

The point is the Creator of the universe, whatever you call it has to have characteristics of the Abrahamic God or even a divine pantheon.

Why does it have to have those characteristics?

[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.

It wouldn't matter what the question was that might be put to you Vlad, I've yet to see you give a straight answer to any questions asked of you; you are like most of your fellow travellers very good at asserting knowledge that you can't possibly know or support.

Perhaps you might for just this one time give a straight answer to this question: how does anyone avoid something that's not there in the first place to be able to avoid, something like a non-existent tea pot for example?

It'll be moderately interesting to see how you avoid this question, no doubt you'll stay true to your form, no reply'll count as a non answer too.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

This is all very well but how does it help atheism? PZ Myers has shat a whale over this already.

Bostrom proposes windows in the programme by which the can glimpse beyond the universe.
As for God being supernatural. The simulator is outside the universe and can intervene in a way indistinguishable to miracle and in a way that could not be classed as natural for the universe in the programme.

Therefore the simulator fullfils any criteria of the supernatural.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Ippy seems to think his post was taken out of context. I saw nothing particularly vague or poetic about his post but it's all individual taste and opinion I suppose - if you found his post (that he says was taken out of context) vague or poetic - ok.

The thing is though Outrider, you don't strike me as someone who knows much about religious context. Fervent metaphors that don't make sense is more your area of expertise.

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.

I was talking about your blind faith about religion that was outlined in your strange metaphor about hands. Does your faith include believing that these two hands are controlled by a shared brain or are they two disembodied hands that aren't connected to each other, in which case why pick hands? Maybe you picked hands at a sub-conscious level without really knowing why - parental indoctrination maybe? And you were saying something abut evidence in relation to your two hands belief? 

People kill in the name of words in numerous places around the world. We could apply your metaphor to  the two hands of language:  Pretty words like "People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” is just an apparently harmless innocuous situation that allows more immediately harmful ideas to survive, such as a formal declaration of war by a nation state.

Of course, maybe this "two hands of language" does not form part of your particular beliefs or world view? You might just like to stick to the two hands of religion belief. Bit like some people finding a belief in Islam more appealing than Christianity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What questions do you guys think I could possibly help you with?

The question, "why won't you answer questions?".

[Sebastian Toe]

What questions do you guys think I could possibly help you with?

This'll do for a start.

What is the reason for your obsession with Dawkins?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It wouldn't matter what the question was that might be put to you Vlad, I've yet to see you give a straight answer to any questions asked of you; you are like most of your fellow travellers very good at asserting knowledge that you can't possibly know or support.

Perhaps you might for just this one time give a straight answer to this question: how does anyone avoid something that's not there in the first place to be able to avoid, something like a non-existent tea pot for example?

It'll be moderately interesting to see how you avoid this question, no doubt you'll stay true to your form, no reply'll count as a non answer too.

Regards ippy

If someone tells me there is a non existent tea pot falling on my head I look to confirm it's non existence because the person suggesting a non existent tea pot could be dangerous and untrustworthy and it could be a real one.

When I see someone running down the road while claiming he's standing still I have to wonder.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Atheism doesn’t need to be “helped”. It merely rests on falsifying the arguments attempted for gods, which is what I just did in response to your, “Simulated universe necessarily proposes…” etc.

See above.

See above.

Incoherent. Point 3 explained that still all you’d have is a hypothesis. Why then treat it as anything else? 
 
It’s not about leprechauns, or pixies. It’s about a hypothesis being just that – a hypothesis. You can “assent” to any hypothesis you like if you want to, but asserting truth claims on the back of it is just blind faith.

Again.

A scientific hypothesis has to be testable old son....so show us the pixies.

[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.

Gabriella, I was just pointing the fact that you had taken my post out of context, I didn't think it that funny, I don't quote and never have quoted any texts from any so called religious literature, so you can cross me out where the misquoting of religious texts are concerned.

I'm not really an atheist, it's a bit like one of those words like calling a vacuum cleaner a Hoover, I don't particularly mind being referred to as an atheist, but I don't disbelieve in these various gods, all I think about them is I've heard of them and cant see there is any good reason to actually believe they're there in the first place to then be able to disbelieve in them, I describe myself as non-religious.

You be a contextual as you like Gabriella but wouldn't whoever it is you believe in would take a dim view of this practice of yours?

Kind regards ippy

[ippy]

If someone tells me there is a non existent tea pot falling on my head I look to confirm it's non existence because the person suggesting a non existent tea pot could be dangerous and untrustworthy and it could be a real one.

When I see someone running down the road while claiming he's standing still I have to wonder.

True to form Vlad, you just can't make yourself answer anything, can you?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A scientific hypothesis has to be testable old son....so show us the pixies.

Whoosh!

Show us the simulated universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

True to form Vlad, you just can't make yourself answer anything, can you?

Never has, never will. He's the "dodger" in chief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

...but I don't disbelieve in these various gods, all I think about them is I've heard of them and cant see there is any good reason to actually believe they're there in the first place to then be able to disbelieve in them, I describe myself as non-religious.

That's what "atheism" means.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Whoosh!

Show us the simulated universe.

you'd better ask Messrs Brian Greene, Neil De Grasse Tyson, N Bostrom, M Tegmark in fact any multiverser (Does that include antitheist pin up Sean Carroll?).
This is their hypothesis and interestingly you called it a hypothesis too, and a pixie hypothesis too to boot.
My interest in it is that something can be presented as a universe simulator but when it is pointed out that that would have the attributes of God there are interesting and irrational responses therefore simulator an Intelligent designer Outside the universe is ''acceptable'', God an intelligent designer Outside the universe unacceptable even though they are effectively the same thing.

What's at stake is owning one's reactions and psychological states and if you've been caught out irrationally feeling phobic toward the word God...investigate that.

The simulation theory also has an explanation for theism and atheism and encompasses metaphysical naturalism, If the simulation theory is correct...atheism is wrong.

What do I think of simulated universe theory? Initially Not science....but when you get a heavyweight pair like B Greene and NDG Tyson for it..............

I can see this having an influence on theology, I can see atheists adopting forms of theism, I can see some taking up traditional theism and I see hard arsed atheists stubbornly refusing to utter the word God.
 

[Sebastian Toe]

What do I think of simulated universe theory? Initially Not science....
 

....then what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

you'd better ask Messrs Brian Greene, Neil De Grasse Tyson, N Bostrom, M Tegmark in fact any multiverser (Does that include antitheist pin up Sean Carroll?).
This is their hypothesis and interestingly you called it a hypothesis too, and a pixie hypothesis too to boot.

A hypothesis is a hypothesis is a hypothesis is a…

If you want to “assent” to just one such and then make truth claims on the back of it you have no argument against anyone else doing the same thing for any other hypothesis.   

My interest in it is that something can be presented as a universe simulator but when it is pointed out that that would have the attributes of God there are interesting and irrational responses therefore simulator an Intelligent designer Outside the universe is ''acceptable'', God an intelligent designer Outside the universe unacceptable even though they are effectively the same thing.

You’ve had explained to you already that your “pointed out” fails – see Reply 246 for example.

What's at stake is owning one's reactions and psychological states and if you've been caught out irrationally feeling phobic toward the word God...investigate that.

No-one has been “caught out” doing that. What’s actually happened is that the arguments you’ve attempted for “God” have been falsified – no more, no less. 

The simulation theory…

It’s not a fucking theory. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

…also has an explanation for theism and atheism and encompasses metaphysical naturalism, If the simulation theory is correct...atheism is wrong.

There’s so much wrong in that sentence it’s hard to know where to start:

1. It has no “explanation for theism and atheism”. It just says that the universe “we” think we observe could be a simulated one. That’s it.

2. It doesn’t “encompass metaphysical naturalism” at all. You’d have no knowledge whatever about whether the simulator in chief was naturalistic or something else. 

3. “…if the simulation theory hypothesis is correct” is epistemically equivalent to “if the pixie gravity hypothesis is correct. The “if” is everything.

4. Even if it is correct, it would tell you nothing whatever about atheism.   

What do I think of simulated universe theory?

Well, you think it’s a theory rather than a hypothesis for starters it seems. Which is odd really given that you also told us a few posts back that you “always have” known it to be just a hypothesis.

Initially Not science....but when you get a heavyweight pair like B Greene and NDG Tyson for it..............

That’s an attempted argument from authority, and they’re not “for it” at all – they just think it’s a credible hypothesis.

You’re now at Mariana Trench levels of out of your depthness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

....then what?

Confusion, panic, hot flush, palpitations, involuntary sphincter contractions, then shitting of whale.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A hypothesis is a hypothesis is a hypothesis is a…

If you want to “assent” to just one such and then make truth claims on the back of it you have no argument against anyone else doing the same thing for any other hypothesis.   

You’ve had explained to you already that your “pointed out” fails – see Reply 246 for example.

No-one has been “caught out” doing that. What’s actually happened is that the arguments you’ve attempted for “God” have been falsified – no more, no less. 

It’s not a fucking theory. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

There’s so much wrong in that sentence it’s hard to know where to start:

1. It has no “explanation for theism and atheism”. It just says that the universe “we” think we observe could be a simulated one. That’s it.

2. It doesn’t “encompass metaphysical naturalism” at all. You’d have no knowledge whatever about whether the simulator in chief was naturalistic or something else. 

3. “…if the simulation theory hypothesis is correct” is epistemically equivalent to “if the pixie gravity hypothesis is correct. The “if” is everything.

4. Even if it is correct, it would tell you nothing whatever about atheism.   

Well, you think it’s a theory rather than a hypothesis for starters it seems. Which is odd really given that you also told us a few posts back that you “always have” known it to be just a hypothesis.

That’s an attempted argument from authority, and they’re not “for it” at all – they just think it’s a credible hypothesis.

You’re now at Mariana Trench levels of out of your depthness.

Hillside it doesn't for me on this board matter what the status or credibility of any of the theories are are as I've pointed out,
You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge sameness in two things which are er, the same.
Do you agree that the description I put for the simulator equally fits the basic theistic criteria? Intelligent designer/creator, not part of the universe, not dependent on the universe? If not then let's hear your alternative.

Whether you manage to brow beat me or use jedi grade turdpolishing on me, this ain't going to go away is it? particularly with the gang of scientific heavy weights.

Since I am the Bond villain of the forum can I misquote a line from Le Chiffre........It looks like your friend Doctor De Grasse Tyson is really my friend Doctor De Grasse Tyson......

Bwa Ha Ha Bwa Ha Ha Bwa Ha Ha. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trollboy,

Hillside it doesn't for me on this board matter what the status or credibility of any of the theories are are as I've pointed out,

Give me strength…IT’S NOT A FUCKING THEORY!!!

You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge sameness in two things which are er, the same.

What two things?

Do you agree that the description I put for the simulator equally fits the basic theistic criteria? Intelligent designer/creator, not part of the universe, not dependent on the universe? If not then let's hear your alternative.

Of course not, and I told you why back in Reply 246. “Theistic criteria” involve the supernatural, something “outside time and space” etc. None of that can be adduced necessarily from a hypothesis about a simulated universe (or for that matter about lots of simulated universes). 

Whether you manage to brow beat me or use jedi grade turdpolishing on me, this ain't going to go away is it? particularly with the gang of scientific heavy weights.

It’s already “gone away” inasmuch as the arguments you attempted have been falsified. 

Since I am the Bond villain of the forum can I misquote a line from Le Chiffre........It looks like your friend Doctor De Grasse Tyson is really my friend......

Bwa Ha Ha Bwa Ha Ha Bwa Ha Ha.

No, you’re actually just the lying troll of this forum, which is a different matter.

[wigginhall]

So Vlad is now suggesting supernatural aliens, creating universes?   I wonder how this fits in with standard Christian theology.  Are these aliens mini-gods, or maybe they have been sent as missionaries to create and colonize other worlds.    Will there be a mini-Jesus in such worlds?   Vladian theology goes from strength to strength.

[ippy]

ippy,

Never has, never will. He's the "dodger" in chief.

Still no answer, just as you say?

ippy