Omnipotence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

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

First of all regarding the intelligent creator. In conversation with Brian Greene Dawkins stated that SU which has intelligent creation in it is ''Hard to refute'' and that the designer involved would have to be ''very disciplined''. Presumably because we have a ''disciplined'' universe.

Any claim of No evidence for intelligent design must cover also SU otherwise special pleading has happened.

That though is a different matter to whether the argument is reasonable. It seems many atheists and agnostics do. Since the argument for an intelligent designer separate and independent from any universe it has created is the same for SU and in at least deism any statement that it is somehow invalid in one of them is specially pleading and unreasonable.

I understand you see no direct or indirect evidence for an intelligent designer/creator but what is your position with regards the reasonableness of it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

Because you have no warrant to change definitions since an intelligent creator who creates a universe is at least deism. Since, er, it has created a/the universe.
Making or creating universe is a god thing i'm afraid.

In other words the arguments are the same in at least deism and SU it's just the labels have been changed arbitrarily and with no warrant.

I'm actually glad because not using the word god betrays a purely emotional reaction.
 




 


 

[Stranger]

Because you have no warrant to change definitions since an intelligent creator who creates a universe is at least deism. Since, er, it has created a/the universe.
Making or creating universe is a god thing i'm afraid.

Like killing mice is a cat thing. You're down to mindless repetition of your unsupported dogma - which I guess is a theist thing.

I'll ask you again to cite a single source that defines 'god' as "any intelligent being or beings at all that create any sort of universe" with no further characteristics whatsoever.

I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173).

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?

I'm actually glad because not using the word god betrays a purely emotional reaction.

Not using the word god for something that quite clearly isn't a god in any normal usage of the word is just speaking the English language. Trying to co-opt an idea to pretend that it has something to do with god is either silly or dishonest (I'm not sure which).

[Enki]

I understand you see no direct or indirect evidence for an intelligent designer/creator but what is your position with regards the reasonableness of it?

Only insofar as any notion is reasonable if it can be conjectured as possible. In this regard there are many conjectures which are possible but of little or no truth value unless they have at least some evidence to substantiate them beyond mere speculation.

For instance:

anyone of a number of gods may have created our universe-conjecture

a god that we have as yet no knowledge of may have created our universe-conjecture

a naturalistic being or beings may have created our universe-conjecture

[Stranger]

First of all regarding the intelligent creator. In conversation with Brian Greene Dawkins stated that SU which has intelligent creation in it is ''Hard to refute'' and that the designer involved would have to be ''very disciplined''. Presumably because we have a ''disciplined'' universe.

Any claim of No evidence for intelligent design must cover also SU otherwise special pleading has happened.

I don't know (or care very much) what RD said exactly but the versions of SU conjecture that I've seen don't claim that there is any evidence that our universe has been designed. It's a conjecture based on a set of assumptions.

There is no evidence, that I'm aware of, that the (our) universe was designed.

[wigginhall]

The attributes of gods are an interesting field, and as others have pointed out, not all gods are universe-creators.  In fact, there are some that are destructive, and there are those which look after one local area of life, see for example, the lares et penates in Roman culture, which look after the home.   I think in Bath you can find remnants of shrines to them.

And as Stranger has shown, the converse fallacy does not permit us to say that if some gods are universe creators, therefore universe creators are gods, just as mice-killers are not cats.   Some of them might be human!  Well, I meant universe creators, but also it applies to mice-killers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like killing mice is a cat thing. You're down to mindless repetition of your unsupported dogma - which I guess is a theist thing.

No. Killing mice has occurred through several reasons. In SU and at least Deism there is only one proposal an intelligent creator separate and independent from the universe it has created. At least in deism this has been the definition of God and the existence of such a thing has been argued against or not believed in by atheists and naturalists.

In other words you are guilty of Bad analogy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll ask you again to cite a single source that defines 'god' as "any intelligent being or beings at all that create any sort of universe" with no further characteristics whatsoever.

I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173).

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?

Not using the word god for something that quite clearly isn't a god in any normal usage of the word is just speaking the English language. Trying to co-opt an idea to pretend that it has something to do with god is either silly or dishonest (I'm not sure which).

1: You are shifting the goalposts. The definition fits deism and the argument exists in deism. The Oxford history of Christianity states there are two key ways of viewing God in Christianity One way is as Saviour and the other is as creator.
2: That being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creator is a bizarre notion of godhood goes against all the evidence.

I can only therefore assume you are engaging in historical revision and linguistic piracy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not using the word god for something that quite clearly isn't a god in any normal usage of the word is just speaking the English language. Trying to co-opt an idea to pretend that it has something to do with god is either silly or dishonest (I'm not sure which).

So an intelligent creator of the universe who is not dependent or part of that universe isn't a god in any normal usage then.

You've lost the plot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The attributes of gods are an interesting field, and as others have pointed out, not all gods are universe-creators.  In fact, there are some that are destructive, and there are those which look after one local area of life, see for example, the lares et penates in Roman culture, which look after the home.   I think in Bath you can find remnants of shrines to them.

And as Stranger has shown, the converse fallacy does not permit us to say that if some gods are universe creators, therefore universe creators are gods, just as mice-killers are not cats.   Some of them might be human!  Well, I meant universe creators, but also it applies to mice-killers.

First of all Wigginhall some Mice killers ARE cats. So having banged on about fallacies you have proceeded to make the usual mistake of arguing that ''it doesn't necessarily have to be a god...so it isn't.''

Secondly the only people who were in the intelligent universe creator game were religious. They called the intelligent designer and creator of the universe god or gods. Atheists if you hadn't noticed have called this idea unreasonable.

Some though think this is now a reasonable idea but are now apparently hanging on as nominal naturalists presumably because of the mass of ''argument'' they put up that contradicts their new position.

There is therefore historical revisionism, pride, denial, and linguistic redefinition (linguistic fascism) going on.

On another issue.
Is a simulated universe created which shares the physicality of the universe and is made from it a separate universe?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Me:

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...

L’Eau:

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

QED

[Stranger]

No. Killing mice has occurred through several reasons. In SU and at least Deism there is only one proposal an intelligent creator separate and independent from the universe it has created. At least in deism this has been the definition of God and the existence of such a thing has been argued against or not believed in by atheists and naturalists.

Deism is an unsupported story about a supernatural god or "supreme being", whereas the SU conjecture is an explicitly naturalistic conjecture about technological civilizations.

The Oxford history of Christianity states there are two key ways of viewing God in Christianity One way is as Saviour and the other is as creator.

I'm sure it does but I didn't ask about ways to view god, did I?

Does it say that being a creator is the only criterion to regard something as the Christian God? No need to be a saviour, or almighty, or all knowing, or good, or just, or anything to do with the Jesus character in the bible?

Unless it explicitly does say that, you still need to cite that source.

That being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creator is a bizarre notion of godhood goes against all the evidence.

Once again you are confusing necessity and sufficiency. To claim that "being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creation" is sufficient to be god, goes against all the evidence.

And YET AGAIN, you've ignored this question:

I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173).

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?

So an intelligent creator of the universe who is not dependent or part of that universe isn't a god in any normal usage then.

The word, in any normal usage, implies much more than that. Specifically, it does not, an any normal usage, apply to (for example) a technological collaboration between natural, mortal beings (or to spotty teenagers, for that matter).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Deism is an unsupported story about a supernatural god or "supreme being", whereas the SU conjecture is an explicitly naturalistic conjecture about technological civilizations.

I'm sure it does but I didn't ask about ways to view god, did I?

Does it say that being a creator is the only criterion to regard something as the Christian God? No need to be a saviour, or almighty, or all knowing, or good, or just, or anything to do with the Jesus character in the bible?

Unless it explicitly does say that, you still need to cite that source.

Once again you are confusing necessity and sufficiency. To claim that "being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creation" is sufficient to be god, goes against all the evidence.

And YET AGAIN, you've ignored this question:

I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173).

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?

The word, in any normal usage, implies much more than that. Specifically, it does not, an any normal usage, apply to (for example) a technological collaboration between natural, mortal beings (or to spotty teenagers, for that matter).

See reply to Wigginhall.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Deism is an unsupported story about a supernatural god or "supreme being", whereas the SU conjecture is an explicitly naturalistic conjecture about technological civilizations.

I'm sure it does but I didn't ask about ways to view god, did I?

Does it say that being a creator is the only criterion to regard something as the Christian God? No need to be a saviour, or almighty, or all knowing, or good, or just, or anything to do with the Jesus character in the bible?

Unless it explicitly does say that, you still need to cite that source.

Once again you are confusing necessity and sufficiency. To claim that "being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creation" is sufficient to be god, goes against all the evidence.

And YET AGAIN, you've ignored this question:

I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173).

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?

The word, in any normal usage, implies much more than that. Specifically, it does not, an any normal usage, apply to (for example) a technological collaboration between natural, mortal beings (or to spotty teenagers, for that matter).

Once you have redefined naturalism to include explicitly theological ideas by an act of linguistic piracy can you talk about SU being explicitly naturalistic. So another fail i'm afraid.

[Stranger]

See reply to Wigginhall.

I did - it did not address any of my points.

[wigginhall]

First of all Wigginhall some Mice killers ARE cats. So having banged on about fallacies you have proceeded to make the usual mistake of arguing that ''it doesn't necessarily have to be a god...so it isn't.''

Secondly the only people who were in the intelligent universe creator game were religious. They called the intelligent designer and creator of the universe god or gods. Atheists if you hadn't noticed have called this idea unreasonable.

Some though think this is now a reasonable idea but are now apparently hanging on as nominal naturalists presumably because of the mass of ''argument'' they put up that contradicts their new position.

There is therefore historical revisionism, pride, denial, and linguistic redefinition (linguistic fascism) going on.

On another issue.
Is a simulated universe created which shares the physicality of the universe and is made from it a separate universe?

For some reason, you are denying the logic of converses.   This just means that if a statement is correct, its converse need not be.   Hence, cats are mice-killers, but mice-killers need not be cats.   Ditto, gods and universe-builders.

It can also be expressed via set logic.   The set of mice-killers includes the sub-set of cats, but also other sub-sets, e.g. owls.  The set of universe builders includes the sub-set of gods but also other sub-sets, e.g. technologically advanced aliens.   You can't equate sub-sets - thus, owls are not cats, even though both kill mice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Deism is an unsupported story about a supernatural god or "supreme being", whereas the SU conjecture is an explicitly naturalistic conjecture about technological civilizations.

I'm sure it does but I didn't ask about ways to view god, did I?

Does it say that being a creator is the only criterion to regard something as the Christian God? No need to be a saviour, or almighty, or all knowing, or good, or just, or anything to do with the Jesus character in the bible?

Unless it explicitly does say that, you still need to cite that source.

Once again you are confusing necessity and sufficiency. To claim that "being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creation" is sufficient to be god, goes against all the evidence.

And YET AGAIN, you've ignored this question:

I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173).

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?

The word, in any normal usage, implies much more than that. Specifically, it does not, an any normal usage, apply to (for example) a technological collaboration between natural, mortal beings (or to spotty teenagers, for that matter).

An intelligent creator of this universe would be the end of the naturalistic argument i'm afraid. Since Deists could not be proved wrong. You have to think of these things you know.

I recall arguments about the differences between Leprechauns and the Christian God.
Some proposed Leprechauns who were in fact identical to God and then asked if that were the case if Christians would worship or consider Leprechauns God.
The answer of course was sure because Leprechauns and God would be the same thing.

The SU conjecture is the same argument as that for God...an intelligent creator of a universe independent of that universe. God therefore is as unsupported as SU no more no less. The only question then is what is this creator like. SU hazards no clues. Deism need say no more.

[Stranger]

Once you have redefined naturalism to include explicitly theological ideas by an act of linguistic piracy can you talk about SU being explicitly naturalistic. So another fail i'm afraid.

Oh, don't be so utterly silly!

The SU conjecture is explicitly about technological civilizations - its assumptions are based on extrapolations of our current technology. That's why it's so daft to say it's about god.

Just because the deists and theists made up stories about universe creation, doesn't give them some sort of copyright of the idea.

Medical cures for disease aren't supernatural just because the first stories of such cures described them as such.

Get a grip!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For some reason, you are denying the logic of converses.   This just means that if a statement is correct, its converse need not be.   Hence, cats are mice-killers, but mice-killers need not be cats.   Ditto, gods and universe-builders.

It can also be expressed via set logic.   The set of mice-killers includes the sub-set of cats, but also other sub-sets, e.g. owls.  The set of universe builders includes the sub-set of gods but also other sub-sets, e.g. technologically advanced aliens.   You can't equate sub-sets - thus, owls are not cats, even though both kill mice.

Even if there was a converse and there isn't because An intelligent creator of the universe who is separate from that universe IS a definition of a god or gods.
How does that help atheism? Because the creator could still be God. Indeed there are no reasons to exclude a god.

The trouble with Stranglers analogy is that he proposes mousetraps AND cats. That has nothing to do with the argument which only proposes an intelligent creator who etc. There are no different categories of intelligent creator proposed. The word god or gods being shorthand for the intelligent creator who etc......when was that NEVER the case?

Sorry to piss on your bonfire

[Sebastian Toe]

1: You are shifting the goalposts.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

[Stranger]

...An intelligent creator of the universe who is separate from that universe IS a definition of a god or gods.

Citation still missing.

That has nothing to do with the argument which only proposes an intelligent creator who etc. There are no different categories of intelligent creator proposed.

Of course there are different categories proposed: technological and supernatural, for starters, then there are subcategories of both of those.

The word god or gods being shorthand for the intelligent creator who etc......when was that NEVER the case?

Drivel. Again, cite a single source that says that that is the only criterion for godhood.

The SU conjecture is the same argument as that for God...an intelligent creator of a universe independent of that universe. God therefore is as unsupported as SU no more no less.

The SU conjecture is an 'argument' (actually a conjecture) about technological civilizations (how many more times?), which has bugger all to do with any of the arguments for gods.

An "intelligent creator of a universe independent of that universe" is not an argument, it's a conclusion, so your conclusion is a fetid pile of decomposing dingo's kidneys.

This has got way, way too silly......

[wigginhall]

Even if there was a converse and there isn't because An intelligent creator of the universe who is separate from that universe IS a definition of a god or gods.
How does that help atheism? Because the creator could still be God. Indeed there are no reasons to exclude a god.

The trouble with Stranglers analogy is that he proposes mousetraps AND cats. That has nothing to do with the argument which only proposes an intelligent creator who etc. There are no different categories of intelligent creator proposed. The word god or gods being shorthand for the intelligent creator who etc......when was that NEVER the case?

Sorry to piss on your bonfire

Of course, there is a converse, as many statements with 'be' have.   Thus, the converse of 'lions are mammals'  is 'mammals  are lions', again showing its falsity. 

With universe builders, we have the same asymmetry.   Gods are universe builders does not entail that universe builders are gods.

I think in set theory, it's saying that a sub-set is not normally equivalent to its superset, but correct me if I'm wrong, folks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Citation still missing.

Of course there are different categories proposed: technological and supernatural, for starters, then there are subcategories of both of those.

Drivel. Again, cite a single source that says that that is the only criterion for godhood.

The SU conjecture is an 'argument' (actually a conjecture) about technological civilizations (how many more times?), which has bugger all to do with any of the arguments for gods.

An "intelligent creator of a universe independent of that universe" is not an argument, it's a conclusion, so your conclusion is a fetid pile of decomposing dingo's kidneys.

This has got way, way too silly......

Oh, don't be so utterly silly!

The SU conjecture is explicitly about technological civilizations -

Even if they were
Could something like Mount Olympus not be described as a technological civilisation after all technology is the application of knowledge for practical purposes.
I think you are straw clutching here since SU appears in cosmology as well as in computer studies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

I did - it did not address any of my points.

He never will. I’m pretty much of the view that trying to talk logic with Vlad is akin to Scott Weitzenhoffer’s comment about debating with creationists:

“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

Vlad’s “contribution” here is nihilistic: it consists entirely of lies, misrepresentations, avoidance, ignoring every correction and falsification followed by the repetition of them, re-definitions of terms to suit his purpose and, to crown it all, accusing people who do none of these things of doing them. He’s utterly shameless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course, there is a converse, as many statements with 'be' have.   Thus, the converse of 'lions are mammals'  is 'mammals  are lions', again showing its falsity. 

With universe builders, we have the same asymmetry.   Gods are universe builders does not entail that universe builders are gods.

I'm afraid it does since Creator God or gods is a label or name for intelligent creators of universes etc. In other words the argument is the same for SU's and creator gods. Not to refer to a club promoted to a premier league club as a premier league club because it was in the first division last season is an analogy for what you are trying to say.

I believed I referenced Stranger to the article on creator gods. He seems to think that some strange how they are not referring to an intelligent creator who creates a universe but is not part of it/independent of it.

The argument is therefore Mammals are mammals.