Omnipotence

[Stranger]

I'm afraid as has been pointed out that Bostroms suggestion of windows by which the creator communicates brings further into theistic territory.

In much the same way as me typing on a computer here and you reading it there - hence transferring thoughts from my mind to yours, at a distance and without speech, takes us into the territory of telepathy.   

The conjecture by itself is apart from anything else sufficient for deism.

Totally backwards! Deism is sufficient for a universe creator (not the other way around). A universe creator is necessary for deism.

The conjecture says nothing further about the nature of the creator...

Which is why saying it must be a god is so utterly stupid!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid as has been pointed out that Bostroms suggestion of windows by which the creator communicates brings further into theistic territory.

Why on earth would you think that? It’s only been “pointed out” by you, with no argument of any kind to support the assertion.

The conjecture by itself is apart from anything else sufficient for deism.

No it isn’t. Deism entails supernaturalism (so smart aliens are out), and it entails the universe (so a universe is out too). I also tends to be framed as more than a conjecture.

The conclusion is therefore that you guys are indulging in doublethink and special pleading.

No it isn’t because your “therefore” just collapsed into a non sequitur.

The conjecture says nothing further about the nature of the creator…

Wrong again. It’s a creator (of a universe), not the creator at all. Constantly misrepresenting it isn’t helping you.

…  and so…

Another non sequitur.

… is wrong to say we can think of a teenager in a basement but nothing much more significant or sophisticated but hey having passed over into Goddism you've had your first taste of making God in your own image.

And now you’ve collapsed into incoherence. It’s simple enough I’d have thought – the conditions necessary for the NdGT conjecture to be true are qualitatively different from the conditions sufficient for theism to be true. Deal with that instead of reaching for barely understood terms that sound a bit sciency for faux authority for your irrationalism.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In much the same way as me typing on a computer here and you reading it there - hence transferring thoughts from my mind to yours, at a distance and without speech, takes us into the territory of telepathy.   

Totally backwards! Deism is sufficient for a universe creator (not the other way around). A universe creator is necessary for deism.

Which is why saying it must be a god is so utterly stupid!

Are you arguing an intelligent creator or not?
If you are then you are making the same conjecture that theists and deists do.
You at least in deist territory.
However deism comes with the problem since it suggests inability to interfere at any point in its creation. We cannot assert that. Being the Same issue this crops up in simulated universe theory. Hence Bostroms idea of windows from the creator. In theology this is covered by the idea of revelation.

Because Dawkins hand others have urged theological ignorance in their disciples I can see the shock horror and will to denial at finding oneself a deist.

[Stranger]

Are you arguing an intelligent creator or not?

No (as I already pointed out).

If you are then you are making the same conjecture that theists and deists do.
You at least in deist territory.

If I were arguing for the conjecture, no I wouldn't be making anything like the same conjecture. The simulated universe conjecture would share some characteristics with deism, namely a creator of a universe. Just like me accepting computers and the internet shares some characteristics with telepathy, namely communication at a distance and without speech.

I can see the shock horror and will to denial at finding oneself a deist.

No you can't, because nobody (even if the accept they conjecture) have found themselves to be desist - anymore than you and me have found ourselves to be believers in telepathy because we use the internet.

Please, at least try to engage with the points raised, instead to just repeating the same drivel you started with...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Are you arguing an intelligent creator or not?

Of course he isn’t. He’s already told you that. What he is doing though is pointing our the logical dead ends you keep running into. 

If you are then you are making the same conjecture that theists and deists do.

He isn’t and, even if he was, he’d be doing no such thing for reasons that have been explained to you many times now but that you just ignore.

You at least in deist territory.

No he wouldn’t be.

However deism comes with the problem since it suggests inability to interfere at any point in its creation.

It’s irrelevant in any case, but no it doesn’t – it makes no claims of any kind about that (“inability” would be a claim).

We cannot assert that.

No-one does.

Being the Same issue this crops up in simulated universe theory.

No it doesn’t, and it’s not a theory – it’s a conjecture or a speculation.

Hence Bostroms idea of windows from the creator.

That’s not what Bostrom suggests at all.

In theology this is covered by the idea of revelation.

No it isn’t. “Revelation” assumes as fact a priori a god, assumes that this god is inerrant, and assumes that this god’s words are accurately recorded in a book. That’s about as far removed from scientific hypotheses and conjectures as you can get. 

Because Dawkins hand others have urged theological ignorance…

To the contrary, Richard Dawkins and others have encouraged knowing what it is that theology (lots of theologies in fact) have to say.

…in their disciples…

There are no “disciples”.

I can see the shock horror and will to denial at finding oneself a deist.

No you can’t because the claim is ludicrous.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To the contrary, Richard Dawkins and others have encouraged knowing what it is that theology (lots of theologies in fact) have to say.

LOL!!!
Still, if you've declared the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe is not a theological idea but a naturalistic one.....You might as well go for it Big Time.

[Stranger]

Still, if you've declared the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe is not a theological idea but a naturalistic one.....

Are you really too dim to see that it isn't necessarily either?

Technology has realized a lot of ideas that were first thought of as magical or supernatural. Speculation that it might be able to realize more (such as simulated universe creation) doesn't mean accepting the original myths.

Seriously - what is it about this really, really simple concept that you are having such a problem with...?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

LOL!!!

Which bit is confusing you? RD has said that he wouldn’t be without the King James Bible and for that matter without much else of the Christian legacy besides, and it’s notable how often in debate the atheist knows more about the content of the “holy” books than the theist does.

That’s rather the point in fact – once you know what theology actually says you can identify its paucity of argument for “God” etc as a supposed fact. Unless that is you finally want to share here what knock down arguments it has that your detailed knowledge of it gives you but that you’ve hitherto kept a secret? You know, the bit you went all quiet abut when I asked you the same question several times recently.

Still, if you've declared the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe is not a theological idea but a naturalistic one.....You might as well go for it Big Time.

Just out of interest, why do you think lying like this so much helps you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Are you really too dim to see that it isn't necessarily either?

Either dim or dishonest. I've never really worked out which it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Here’s Vlad (Reply 152):

Because Dawkins hand others have urged theological ignorance in their disciples I can see the shock horror and will to denial at finding oneself a deist.

Here’s a link to an article Richard Dawkins wrote for the Guardian (titled “Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible”) where he actually says pretty much the opposite of that:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/may/19/richard-dawkins-king-james-bible

LOL indeed.

[SteveH]

Copied from the "If God Exists?" discussion.

L’Eau,

Except of course none of that’s – ooh, what’s the word I’m trying to think of here? Oh yeah, true.

What actually happened was that you posited a notion that allows a space for “God” to co-exist with “evil” by suggesting that one of the “omnis” – omnipotence – was only theoretically rather than actually true.

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.

Second, the fallacy of arbitrariness. You picked one of the omnis (apparently at random) to dilute, when you could equally have done the same with any of the others (or with a combination of them) and also created a space for evil to hide in.

Since then you’ve been entirely unwilling or unable to address the problems you’ve given yourself, preferring instead first silence and now insult.

Look, it’s simple enough. If you’re feeling upset that a cherished notion has been undone but so out of your depth that you can’t process it just say so. There are people here who readily will help you with the basics of how logic and argument work, and moreover you’ll be better equipped to deal with the world once you do grasp it.

Your actual response though does you no credit.

I'm tempted to give that post the answer it deserves, but I'm not getting suspended or banned for you.
I have not committed either of the fallacies you mention. Omnipotence is the "omni" that needs squaring with the existence of suffering, not the others, so that's what I was attempting to do. If I was committing some basic fallacies, then so are some eminent theologians and philosophers of religion - and that's not the fallacy of appeal to authority, smart-arse, because I'm not basing any claim on it, simply mentioning the fact.
Now go to hell.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm tempted to give that post the answer it deserves, but I'm not getting suspended or banned for you.
I have not committed either of the fallacies you mention. Omnipotence is the "omni" that needs squaring with the existence of suffering, not the others, so that's what I was attempting to do. If I was committing some basic fallacies, then so are some eminent theologians and philosophers of religion - and that's not the fallacy of appeal to authority, smart-arse, because I'm not basing any claim on it, simply mentioning the fact.
Now go to hell.

Just to point out again that if an omniscient god chooses to act in a way as described, then the question of suffering applies as does everything else. Omniscience makes even the idea of free will pointless, though it already appears nonsensical, (again as raised previously)

[bluehillside Retd.]

L’Eau,

I'm tempted to give that post the answer it deserves, but I'm not getting suspended or banned for you.

What makes you think that replying civilly with reason and logic would get you banned?

I have not committed either of the fallacies you mention.

Well, let’s see shall we...

Omnipotence is the "omni" that needs squaring with the existence of suffering, not the others, so that's what I was attempting to do.

First, that says nothing to your use or otherwise of fallacies.

Second, it’s wrong in any case. As I explained to you (but you just ignored) you could have diluted any of the other omnis and equally created a space for “evil”. Look, I’ll show you:

1. Omniscience is only theoretical, therefore there's stuff god doesn’t know about in practice which is where evil can hide.

2. Omnipresence is only theoretical, therefore there are places god can’t access in practice which is where evil can hide.

3. Omnibenevolence is only theoretical, therefore there are bad things god doesn’t care about in practice which is where evil can hide.

See? It “works” regardless of which one you arbitrarily pick.
 

If I was committing some basic fallacies, then so are some eminent theologians and philosophers of religion - and that's not the fallacy of appeal to authority, smart-arse, because I'm not basing any claim on it, simply mentioning the fact.

Actually yes it is (if some “eminent theologians” like it, so what?) and it’s an argumentum ad consequentiam too – (yet) another fallacy

Now go to hell.

That’s a serious anger management problem you have there old son, presumably fuelled by your inability actually to argue your corner.

[SteveH]

You are guilty of the testiculos loquitur fallacy above - i.e. talking bollocks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you really too dim to see that it isn't necessarily either?

Technology has realized a lot of ideas that were first thought of as magical or supernatural. Speculation that it might be able to realize more (such as simulated universe creation) doesn't mean accepting the original myths.

1: Starts with an ad hominem
2: Clarke's Law covers technology and magic
3: About myths. Just that they share the basic feature of having intelligent creators who are independent of the universe. In fact this feature, in the hands of atheists and agnostics, has given rise to a myth of it's own '' The pimply teenager geek who has created a universe in his basement.'' Dawkins has the good sense to state that given he created the universe he would have to have been a remarkably disciplined spotty teenager.
4: An intelligent creator independent of the universe they create has been in deism and theism, and argued against, disbelieved or had a lack of belief in by atheists for thousands of years.

[Stranger]

1: Starts with an ad hominem

Okay, I apologize but I am increasingly frustrated by your apparent unwillingness to actually consider what is said to you, rather than just repeating the same thing.

2: Clarke's Law covers technology and magic

Yes, making my point, not yours. We don't have to accept magic as soon as we can see how technology might achieve something that would have previously been regarded as magical.

3: About myths. Just that they share the basic feature of having intelligent creators who are independent of the universe. In fact this feature, in the hands of atheists and agnostics, has given rise to a myth of it's own '' The pimply teenager geek who has created a universe in his basement.'' Dawkins has the good sense to state that given he created the universe he would have to have been a remarkably disciplined spotty teenager.

No idea what you think this has to do with it.
 

4: An intelligent creator independent of the universe they create has been in deism and theism, and argued against, disbelieved or had a lack of belief in by atheists for thousands of years.

Yes - for various reasons. The main one (as far as this atheist is concerned) being that the various god concepts have no good evidence or arguments to support them (at least none that I have seen).

Now there is a conjecture that makes one aspect (creation of some sort of universe by some sort of intelligence - not THE universe by a specific entity) somewhat more believable; effectively moving the idea (of universe creation, not the whole god package) from pure fantasy to science fiction.

Your problem is that you keep insisting that, because of this one similarity, the conjecture has to be about a god - which is plain silly.

I'll try one more comparison:

Cats kill mice, right? I mean, it's part of what they do; part of being a cat. That does not mean that everything that kills mice is a cat. You must be able to see that, surely?

Now, it may well be true that the gods of theism and deism often create the universe. You could say that's part of their godlike nature.

In the same way that a mechanical mousetrap is not a cat, the universe creators of the simulated universe conjecture are not gods...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Okay, I apologize but I am increasingly frustrated by your apparent unwillingness to actually consider what is said to you, rather than just repeating the same thing.

Yes, making my point, not yours. We don't have to accept magic as soon as we can see how technology might achieve something that would have previously been regarded as magical.

No idea what you think this has to do with it.
 
Yes - for various reasons. The main one (as far as this atheist is concerned) being that the various god concepts have no good evidence or arguments to support them (at least none that I have seen).

Now there is a conjecture that makes one aspect (creation of some sort of universe by some sort of intelligence - not THE universe by a specific entity) somewhat more believable; effectively moving the idea (of universe creation, not the whole god package) from pure fantasy to science fiction.

Your problem is that you keep insisting that, because of this one similarity, the conjecture has to be about a god - which is plain silly.

I'll try one more comparison:

Cats kill mice, right? I mean, it's part of what they do; part of being a cat. That does not mean that everything that kills mice is a cat. You must be able to see that, surely?

Now, it may well be true that the gods of theism and deism often create the universe. You could say that's part of their godlike nature.

In the same way that a mechanical mousetrap is not a cat, the universe creators of the simulated universe conjecture are not gods...

Unfortunately your last point is undone by my last point 4.
In other words Atheism has been arguing against/not believing in an intelligent creator of the universe for centuries. As well as an outside of the universe.

You will find that further thinking on the intelligent creator will be herein indistinguishable from debates that have taken place in theology and in interfaith debate.

You need also to be reminded that Tyson et al talk about This universe being simulated.

You are IMHO guilty of category and linguistic reassignment or piracy and historical revisionism.

Finally Bad analogy. Your argument holds between a natural, non conscious non intelligent creation of the universe and an intelligent creator but that is not the argument in other words there is insufficient difference between an intelligent creator of the universe which is separate and independent of a universe and what is proposed at least in deism.

You have no warrant to declare:

''the universe creators of the simulated universe conjecture are not gods...''

Your argument

'' Me wanna still call a universe created by an intelligent creator Naturalistic'' is charming but childish.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

1: Starts with an ad hominem

Actually, no it doesn’t. An ad hom goes to an irrelevant characteristic – for example responding to an argument with, “well you’re fat then”. When the critique is relevant though – referring to the protagonist's inability to grasp the argument, to a history of dishonesty etc – then it’s not fallacious at all. For an example of an actual ad hom, here’s you on the “Faith vs Blind Faith discussion:

“Is this the Richard Dawkins who compared theology to Leprochology or the Richard Dawkins, the pious and avid promoter of colporteurage and reading of the King James version?”

2: Clarke's Law covers technology and magic

It also supports Stranger’s position. You do realise that right?

3: About myths. Just that they share the basic feature of having intelligent creators who are independent of the universe.

Wrong again. One (theism) requires the universe, the other (SU) requires only a universe.

In fact this feature, in the hands of atheists and agnostics, has given rise to a myth of it's own '' The pimply teenager geek who has created a universe in his basement.'' Dawkins has the good sense to state that given he created the universe he would have to have been a remarkably disciplined spotty teenager.

It’s not a myth it’s a thought experiment, and RD’s point was just about the aptness of the analogy rather than its substance. 
 

4: An intelligent creator independent of the universe they create has been in deism and theism, and argued against, disbelieved or had a lack of belief in by atheists for thousands of years.

Now you’re trying to straddle two horses at once – “an intelligent creator of the universe”: deism and theism require the creator of the universe; the SU conjecture requires only a creator of a universe.

Why is this so difficult for you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually, no it doesn’t. An ad hom goes to an irrelevant characteristic – for example responding to an argument with, “well you’re fat then”. When the critique is relevant though – referring to the protagonist's inability to grasp the argument, to a history of dishonesty etc – then it’s not fallacious at all. For an example of an actual ad hom, here’s you on the “Faith vs Blind Faith discussion:

“Is this the Richard Dawkins who compared theology to Leprochology or the Richard Dawkins, the pious and avid promoter of colporteurage and reading of the King James version?”


It also supports Stranger’s position. You do realise that right?

Wrong again. One (theism) requires the universe, the other (SU) requires only a universe.

It’s not a myth it’s a thought experiment, and RD’s point was just about the aptness of the analogy rather than its substance. 
 
Now you’re trying to straddle two horses at once – “an intelligent creator of the universe”: deism and theism require the creator of the universe; the SU conjecture requires only a creator of a universe.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Dear testiculos loquitur

Definition of Ad Hominem : (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:

Technology is defined as The employment of knowledge or scientific knowledge for practical ends. How does that help Stranger?
Tyson is talking about the chances being that this universe is simulated.
This universe or a universe or the universe?......This has no relevance.

I am beginning to feel the futility of arguing with somebody who is prepared to argue from the various contradictory standpoints that you do. I am beginning to see you as merely a contrarian for whom one day it is expedient to say that an intelligent creator is a stupid idea and the next that it's reasonable, that one day theology is as worth knowing as leprochology and the next Dawkins is a pious promoter of KJV. That there is no outside of the universe but there is on Wednesdays and I could go on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.

[Sebastian Toe]

Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.

If that is correct, now what?

[Stranger]

Unfortunately your last point is undone by my last point 4.
In other words Atheism has been arguing against/not believing in an intelligent creator of the universe for centuries. As well as an outside of the universe.

No, it isn't. PLEASE try to pay attention. I'm running out of ways to make this simpler.

Atheists have used various arguments against gods - the main one we seem to be discussing here, is that there is no reason to believe any of them. I am aware of no religion whose belief consists of "we believe that some sort of intelligence might have created this universe" and absolutely nothing else at all.

To reiterate the analogy: their gods (cats) make universes (kill mice) but not everything we can dream up (mousetrap) that can make a universe is a god (cat).
 
Are you really still having trouble with this?

You have no warrant to declare:

''the universe creators of the simulated universe conjecture are not gods...''

Your argument

'' Me wanna still call a universe created by an intelligent creator Naturalistic'' is charming but childish.

Why are you lying about the argument I made?

The conjecture itself is explicitly naturalistic - it is based on the idea that it is feasible to simulate a universe using technology.

Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.

Utter drivel - for the reasons outlined multiple times now...

[Enki]

Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.

The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davis puts the difficulties with this very well.

The other main problem with intelligent design is that the identity of the designer need bear no relation at all to the God of traditional monotheism. The 'designing agency' could be a committee of gods, for example. The designer can also be a natural being or beings such as an evolved super-mind or super-civilization existing in a previous universe, or in another region of our universe, which made our universe using super-technology. The designer can also be some sort of superdupercomputer simulating the universe. So invoking a super-intellect as the levitating super-turtle is fraught with problems

My own reason for not believing in a god is quite simple. I see no evidence at all for its existence.

[Stranger]

Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.

I also note that you have studiously ignored my questions about the limits of your bizarre idea of godhood.

What sort of 'universe' does one need to create? If I create a Game of Life, populate it with some initial state, and set it going, I have created a kind of (simple) universe - am I therefore, a god? What about a more complex universe for a computer game - are the coders gods? What about weather or climate simulations?

[wigginhall]

Yes, who knows how far humans will be able to go in building complex structures via machine code.    Ye shall become as gods in your mother's basement. 

Even more interesting is the idea that the brain 'constructs' or synthesizes reality, so you could argue that we already have a universe builder in our cranium.   Hence, various views that God is a projection of the creative ability in humans, for example, in C. G. Jung.