Omnipotence

[SusanDoris]

Fortunately, there are quite a few of us who do read andenjoy reading  the posts which are not by Vlad!!

[wigginhall]

I can't add much to that.

So you are proposing a polytheistic universe, or universes, full of gods creating other universes.   I think this is exciting.   Presumably, God is capo de tutti capi.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

So you are proposing a polytheistic universe, or universes, full of gods creating other universes.   I think this is exciting.   Presumably, God is capo de tutti capi.

Not only that, but these "gods" need only be flesh and blood (or whatever) aliens - there's no requirement for the "supernatural" stuff at all!

I wonder if old Vlad has been a scientologist or similar all along?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just musing on the "theoretically omniscient but not really because God doesn't know what will happen next" notion L'Eau recently attempted (and posted a link to). Seems to me that the problems that would give to the idea of an interventionist god idea are pretty devastating. On the one hand we're asked to believe that there's a god who, if the right pleas and propitiations are made, will intervene in human affairs in ways that would not otherwise have happened, but on the other we're also told to accept that he doesn't know what the consequences of those interventions will be ("because they haven't happened yet").

This is "god as kid in a shopping centre with a loaded Kalashnikov" scenario seems very strange to me.       

[Nearly Sane]

So presumably L'Eau's not really omniscient god is bound by time and exists within it? And is only omnipresent now? I have no idea what is being claimed for this god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you are proposing a polytheistic universe, or universes, full of gods creating other universes.   I think this is exciting.   Presumably, God is capo de tutti capi.

First of all I think you might be engaging in argumentum ad ridiculing or horse laugh fallacy.As the responsible person around here it is my duty to tell you that.

Polytheism is an inevitable possibility in SU. How could we know and why as a monotheist do I not propose polytheism? Isn't it all fun.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So presumably L'Eau's not really omniscient god is bound by time and exists within it? And is only omnipresent now? I have no idea what is being claimed for this god.

Nor I suspect has L'Eau - there are contradictions in the claims everywhere you look.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

Not only that, but these "gods" need only be flesh and blood (or whatever) aliens - there's no requirement for the "supernatural" stuff at all!

I wonder if old Vlad has been a scientologist or similar all along?

OR it just means that the 16th century division into natural and supernatural was shit and its 21st century iteration is even shitter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wasn't referring to that analogy in the post you are ostensibly replying to, but to run with it anyway; even if you insist the SU only suggests a mouse killer (universe creator), then you are insisting that it's a cat (god).

In fact it's worse than that because SU proposes a naturalistic, technological civilization and theism proposes a supernatural being.

Firstly, what part of "I've never said that (some) gods aren't intelligent creators of universes" are you finding difficult? I've also never denied that an intelligent creator is a central theme in many religions.

Secondly, this isn't a kindergarten game - you can't bagsy a concept just because you arrived at it first. As I said before, medical cures for previously incurable diseases don't have to be described as supernatural because religions had stories of them being miraculously cured first.

Thirdly, you still haven't provided a single reference that says that all universe creators are gods rather than gods being universe creator.

Fourthly, you haven't addressed the point that gods and universe creators cannot mean the same thing because some gods aren't universe creators.

The "high probability" is based on a set of assumptions and is anyway irrelevant to my question.

Sorry but I can't make any sense of that. A simulation would have to run on something (a computer or something equivalent) and that something would have to be in the same universe as the simulator. The 'physicality' of the simulation would be, err... simulated.

My point was that humans already run (limited, partial^*) simulations of this universe and explore 'universes' based on simple rules - like the Game of Life that can actually contain self-replicators and Turing machines - despite it's simple rule set ('physicality' or 'basic physics', if you like).

PS: Please take your time a read the above think about the points before replying.

^* And if we are in a simulation, we can't be sure that it is a complete simulation of the/our universe.

Of course I shall take time reading this.
In the meantime I am interested to know why you find you cannot apply the word god to a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe given that that creator is the necessary entity and the universe is the contingent?

I'm taking it that you seem happy philosophically to admit that some gods are universe builders. Am I right,

[bluehillside Retd.]

Polytheism is an inevitable possibility in SU.

So's leprechaunism.

So's anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So's leprechaunism.

So's anything.

A completely non productive statement..........so no change there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So's leprechaunism.

True......in a pantheon somebody would have to be responsible for the NewAtheists.
The little chaps are certainly whimsical enough for that.

[Stranger]

Of course I shall take time reading this.

Thank you.

In the meantime I am interested to know why you find you cannot apply the word god to a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe given that that creator is the necessary entity and the universe is the contingent?

Basically, the notion doesn't accord with any definition of the term 'god' that I'm aware of. I've invited you to supply one that would cover the technological simulation of a universe by ordinary, mortal beings but you haven't done so to date. I mean, I guess you could stretch the colloquial meanings to cover any being who has that degree of control over something but to seriously associate it with theology seems nonsensical. The starting points, arguments, and conclusion are all different in substantive ways; the only similarity at all is the notion of some intelligent agency creating something that is in some sense a 'universe'.

I used scare quotes around 'universe' because its definition in the context is still not clear. If we are simulations, then it is perfectly possible that most of our universe is not being simulated to anything like the detail that our immediate surroundings are - and that most of its past might never have actually happened (even in the simulated sense). It would all depend on what the simulation was for. If the purpose was to study the (simulated) universe as a whole (and we are an accident), we might expect it to more more complete than if the purpose was to study (say) scenarios for the development of intelligent life.

I'm taking it that you seem happy philosophically to admit that some gods are universe builders. Am I right,

I don't quite see what philosophy has to do with it - it's a simple matter of historical record that many god stories involve universe creation.

Again - take your time - I don't suppose I'll be back again until tomorrow anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you for your reply. I am still working up my reply to yours.
May I say that the comprehensive quality of your post and you gracious offer of time to digest makes a refreshing departure for this forum.

[Sebastian Toe]

May I say that the comprehensive quality of your post and you gracious offer of time to digest makes a refreshing departure for this forum.

Other forums are available for you to join and spend your valuable time.
Indefinitely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A completely non productive statement..........so no change there.

I’ll leave you to work out where you went wrong there.

Or not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Thank you for your reply. I am still working up my reply to yours.

May I say that the comprehensive quality of your post and you gracious offer of time to digest makes a refreshing departure for this forum.

He’ll learn. Perhaps if you didn’t lie so relentlessly others would extend to you the same courtesy?

Good bye.

[SteveH]

So presumably L'Eau's not really omniscient god is bound by time and exists within it? And is only omnipresent now? I have no idea what is being claimed for this god.

God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. God does not know the future for certain, but can make very accurate predictions about it, because of God's complete knowledge of the present.

[bluehillside Retd.]

L’Eau,

God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. God does not know the future for certain, but can make very accurate predictions about it, because of God's complete knowledge of the present.

Stop digging! If this omniscient “God” of yours “has complete knowledge of the present” as you put it, then he knows every possible sub-sub-sub (down to bedrock) particle of matter and force there is, in which case he can also calculate exactly how they’ll interact and thus what they’ll produce in the future!

If you do want to get of this hook of your own making, you’ll have to drop either (or both) contradictory position: posit a god who knows quite a bit but isn’t omniscient at all, or posit a god who is omniscient and thus knows everything that has been, that is, and that will be (in which case he has an awful lot to answer for). 

Just now what you have is a bugger’s muddle – an “omniscient” god who’s actually just a sort of smart bookie with a stubby pencil and a pork pie hat: pretty good at working out the odds, but every now and then a rank outsider will come up on the rails and take him unawares. 

Is “I believe in an omniscient god who can be surprised” really where you want to be?

Really though?   

[SteveH]

Copied from the "If God Exists?" discussion.

L’Eau,
.

I explained to you (neither adolescently nor sarcastically) that you’d fallen foul of two logical fallacies. First, the fallacy of special pleading: you took a specific claim (omnipotence) and diluted it to “theoretical” while ignoring the problem that you’d thereby fundamentally re-defined what “omnipotence” actually means.

That is not special pleading. This is. It is applying a different standard to yourself than to other people.

[SteveH]

L’Eau,

Stop digging! If this omniscient “God” of yours “has complete knowledge of the present” as you put it, then he knows every possible sub-sub-sub (down to bedrock) particle of matter and force there is, in which case he can also calculate exactly how they’ll interact and thus what they’ll produce in the future!

If you do want to get of this hook of your own making, you’ll have to drop either (or both) contradictory position: posit a god who knows quite a bit but isn’t omniscient at all, or posit a god who is omniscient and thus knows everything that has been, that is, and that will be (in which case he has an awful lot to answer for). 

Just now what you have is a bugger’s muddle – an “omniscient” god who’s actually just a sort of smart bookie with a stubby pencil and a pork pie hat: pretty good at working out the odds, but every now and then a rank outsider will come up on the rails and take him unawares. 

Is “I believe in an omniscient god who can be surprised” really where you want to be?

Really though?   

Wrong again - quantum uncertainty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

L'Eau,

That is not special pleading. This is. It is applying a different standard to yourself than to other people.

Presumably because you can't process the reasoning that undoes you. Why not at least try though? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

L'Eau,

Wrong again -

You can't have an "again" when you don't have a previous.

...quantum uncertainty.

OK Deepak - how exactly do you think quantum uncertainty gets you off the hook?

[Nearly Sane]

God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. God does not know the future for certain, but can make very accurate predictions about it, because of God's complete knowledge of the present.

This is just repeating your assertion, I was looking at the implications of it which seem to posit a 'god in time'. Does this mean that you see your idea of a god as subject to time? Or are you saying that it has chosen, like your idea of free will, to somehow limit its abilities by deciding to be subject to time? If it is subject to time, why isn't it also subject to other dimensions? Or if it has chosen to be subject to time, why didn't it chose that with other dimensions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

L'Eau,

You are as stupid...

The irony of that will be lost on you, but ok...

...as you are unpleasant and childish.

Using reason and logic to unpick arguments isn't unpleasant and childish. Telling people to "go to hell" when you can't process that reason and logic is.

If there is quantum uncertainty, God can't know exactly what is going to happen.

Then he's not omniscient.