Creator: supernatural vs natural (posts from 'fine detail in the gospels).

[Stranger]

In what way then can he justifiably even refer to ''the God Hypothesis'' unless it had previously been a feature of claims for God?

Why don't you actually read the blog post? The whole point of which (that you keep ignoring) is to point out that the arguments for the SU speculation are as just as hopeless as the arguments for god. SU takes a different starting point and ends at a different conclusion (naturalistic in both cases) but shares some of the absurdity, circular reasoning, and is similarly untestable and unfalsifiable.

It stands in flat contradiction to your silly claim that SU provides a reason to take the idea of god seriously - both because it isn't an argument for god (it's naturalistic) and because the argument is just as hopeless as other arguments for god.

You can make an arse of yourself by attempting to distort the details all you want - but the whole point of the article will still be in flat contradiction of your main claims about SU.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Why don't you actually read the blog post? The whole point of which (that you keep ignoring) is to point out that the arguments for the SU speculation are as just as hopeless as the arguments for god. SU takes a different starting point and ends at a different conclusion (naturalistic in both cases) but shares some of the absurdity, circular reasoning, and is similarly untestable and unfalsifiable.

It stands in flat contradiction to your silly claim that SU provides a reason to take the idea of god seriously - both because it isn't an argument for god (it's naturalistic) and because the argument is just as hopeless as other arguments for god.

You can make an arse of yourself by attempting to distort the details all you want - but the whole point of the article will still be in flat contradiction of your main claims about SU.

It's all bonkers - he's trying to recruit PZ Myers to his side ("my agent") when all Myers actually says is that NdGT's arguments are as stupid as those used by theologians. Not only does NdGT not argue for the god of theology, Myers doesn't accuse him of it either.

[Maeght]

It is relevant to the issue of whether Tyson's theory is a version of the God hypothesis.

Whether it is a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis is IMHO another debate albeit one I am quite happy to have.

Okay, so why not include the whole phrase and then say taht rather than showing an incomplete quote which gave a false impression of what was being said? Just because you think it is irrelevant doesn't mean you should leave it out.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Okay, so why not include the whole phrase and then say taht rather than showing an incomplete quote which gave a false impression of what was being said? Just because you think it is irrelevant doesn't mean you should leave it out.

It's worse than that. If he genuinely thought it was irrelevant why bother doctoring it?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter drivel. It's a naturalistic argument (as Chalmers points out) rather than a magical one, from different premises, arriving at a different conclusion (aside from one, single solitary feature).

To claim they are "exactly the same" is simply untrue - as anybody (who isn't dishonest, stupid, or blinded by faith) can see.

This post doesn't even mention Chalmer's use of the term ''The God hypothesis'' preferring to eliminate that, as was always the danger, so that we could focus his use of the term naturalistic.

Its absence from earlier posts would of course have had the same effect, the elimination of the idea that there ever was a god hypothesis.

I think Chalmer's is guilty of a contradiction in terms. I don't know what was on his mind.
It doesn't matter. His use of the term The God hypothesis belies the idea that this has never been a theological idea and anysuggestion it is is linguistic piracy and Historical revisionism.

However your post does demonstrate that the naturalistic bit was a separate debate.

Have a nice day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This post doesn't even mention Chalmer's use of the term ''The God hypothesis'' preferring to eliminate that, as was always the danger, so that we could focus his use of the term naturalistic.

Its absence from earlier posts would of course have had the same effect, the elimination of the idea that there ever was a god hypothesis.

I think Chalmer's is guilty of a contradiction in terms. I don't know what was on his mind.
It doesn't matter. His use of the term The God hypothesis belies the idea that this has never been a theological idea and anysuggestion it is is linguistic piracy and Historical revisionism.

Have a nice day.

That's not what he said. Stop lying. What he actually said was, "a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis".

Why did you doctor the quote?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 What he actually said was, "a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis".

How does that show he didn't use the term ''the god hypothesis''?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How does that show he didn't use the term ''the god hypothesis''?

Because that wasn't the term he used - he used a different term ("a naturalistic version of..."), then you doctored it so it meant something else.

Why did you doctor the quote?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Because that wasn't the term he used - he used a different term ("a naturalistic version of..."), then you doctored it so it meant something else.

If he didn't use the words ''The God hypothesis'' which is a term in its own right, how could you then argue that he used the term ''naturalistic version?''

[Maeght]

Leaving out the 'naturalistic version of' gives it a different meaning don't you think?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leaving out the 'naturalistic version of' gives it a different meaning don't you think?

It is then not a contradiction in terms is what I immediately think.
Do you think the naturalistic version part negates the god hypothesis part?

[Maeght]

It is then not a contradiction in terms is what I immediately think.

So does it give a different meaning?

Do you think the naturalistic version part negates the god hypothesis part?

Do you think it changes the meaning?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So does it give a different meaning?

Do you think it changes the meaning?

Ive answered that, As it stands it is a contradiction in terms. What more can be claimed for it.

I think he meant to say this is a rehash of the god hypothesis without the mention of God.

If he had wanted to give it the interpretation that some would have wanted he would have said this is a naturalistic hypothesis end of. There is not much comfort in Chalmer's words for those who seek to deny a God hypothesis concocted centuries ago by goddists.

We are in this age of e mail at liberty to find out what he actually meant by it.

For me it doesnt matter since it establishes that there is the God hypothesis.

[Maeght]

Ive answered that,

Where?

As it stands it is a contradiction in terms. What more can be claimed for it.

That is not an answer to my question.

[Stranger]

I think Chalmer's is guilty of a contradiction in terms.

The silliness just gets worse and worse...

I don't know what was on his mind.

I think you're in a minority of one.

It doesn't matter. His use of the term The God hypothesis belies the idea that this has never been a theological idea and anysuggestion it is is linguistic piracy and Historical revisionism.

Back to the infantile and completely irrelevant "theists thought of universe creation first".

Grow up!

However your post does demonstrate that the naturalistic bit was a separate debate.

Drivel.

Your posts are still totally ignoring the point of the blog post, which was to say that SU was just as bad as arguments for god. PZ Myers is flatly contradicting your claim that SU is a reason to take the idea of god seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The silliness just gets worse and worse...

I think you're in a minority of one.

Back to the infantile and completely irrelevant "theists thought of universe creation first".

Grow up!

Drivel.

Your posts are still totally ignoring the point of the blog post, which was to say that SU was just as bad as arguments for god. PZ Myers is flatly contradicting your claim that SU is a reason to take the idea of god seriously.

An intelligent creator of the universe is not a minor detail, but central to the Tyson speculation and centuries old theology.

There is no backing for those who deny that the God hypothesis has anything to do with the Tyson speculation from Chalmers description of Tyson as a ''naturalistic version of the God hypothesis.''

There is nothing to back up the idea that Myers is only saying the Tyson speculation is just as bad as theology in his terms

''We have a term for that Neil de Grasse Tyson:intelligent design''

And

''That really is an intelligent design creationism argument''

Note not just is but really is.

Your case is blown.

[Stranger]

An intelligent creator of the universe is not a minor detail, but central to the Tyson speculation and centuries old theology.

Yes Vlad, but (once again for the very, very hard of thinking) they are not the same sort of creator at all. One is a magical invention and the other is a naturalistic speculation.

Different premises, different type of creation, different type of creator.

It's fantasy (god) vers. science fiction (SU).

There is no backing for those who deny that the God hypothesis has anything to do with the Tyson speculation from Chalmers description of Tyson as a ''naturalistic version of the God hypothesis.''

The rest of the quote explains exactly what is meant by the comparison: "...the simulation hypothesis is a naturalistic version of the god hypothesis, that claiming the universe is a simulation implies that there is a great Simulator, “someone” who built this code with some intent."

In that respect the ideas are similar but it does not negate the aforementioned fundamental differences.

Different premises, different type of creation, different type of creator.

There is nothing to back up the idea that Myers is only saying the Tyson speculation is just as bad as theology in his terms

I suggest you brush up on your reading for comprehension skills.

''We have a term for that Neil de Grasse Tyson:intelligent design''

And

''That really is an intelligent design creationism argument''

Note not just is but really is.

Yes, with different premises, different type of creation, different type of creator. And there is still bugger all evidence for intelligent design in this universe.

Your case is blown.

In your bizarre fantasies, perhaps.

I dunno, this is getting boring and it's such an utterly laughable 'argument for god' I'm almost tempted to encouge you to use it. I wonder, have you mentioned it to any of your fellow theists?

In addition to all that, you continue to completely ignore several points that have been made. You claimed elsewhere that this forum can be 'nasty' but you are a very frustrating person to try to have a sensible debate with. You ignore significant counterarguments and then go on making the same claims that have been dealt with before - often then claiming a fictional victory over your opponents.

Amongst the arguments you've totally ignored on this thread recently:

• The improbability that this speculation would lead to just one creator (mono-silly-pretend-theism): #676
  
  
• Your promiscuous approach to the kind of god you argue for. Feser's argument would lead to nothing at all like the sort of silly-pretend-god that NdGT's speculation would.
  
  
• The fact that neither Feser's nor NdGT's speculation would be anything like the Christian god.
  
  
• The argument that it is a reasonable assumption (given that the whole speculations is based on assumptions) that partial universe simulations, for specific purposes, would be more common than full universe simulations. Hence, if we are in a simulation, it's unlikely that the whole universe (in both time and space) is actually being simulated. In that instance, are you still going to insist on calling its creator a 'god' because it created a part of a universe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes Vlad, but (once again for the very, very hard of thinking) they are not the same sort of creator at all. One is a magical invention and the other is a naturalistic speculation.

Different premises, different type of creation, different type of creator.

It's fantasy (god) vers. science fiction (SU).

The rest of the quote explains exactly what is meant by the comparison: "...the simulation hypothesis is a naturalistic version of the god hypothesis, that claiming the universe is a simulation implies that there is a great Simulator, “someone” who built this code with some intent."

In that respect the ideas are similar but it does not negate the aforementioned fundamental differences.

Different premises, different type of creation, different type of creator.

I suggest you brush up on your reading for comprehension skills.

Yes, with different premises, different type of creation, different type of creator. And there is still bugger all evidence for intelligent design in this universe.

In your bizarre fantasies, perhaps.

I dunno, this is getting boring and it's such an utterly laughable 'argument for god' I'm almost tempted to encouge you to use it. I wonder, have you mentioned it to any of your fellow theists?

In addition to all that, you continue to completely ignore several points that have been made. You claimed elsewhere that this forum can be 'nasty' but you are a very frustrating person to try to have a sensible debate with. You ignore significant counterarguments and then go on making the same claims that have been dealt with before - often then claiming a fictional victory over your opponents.

Amongst the arguments you've totally ignored on this thread recently:

• The improbability that this speculation would lead to just one creator (mono-silly-pretend-theism): #676
  
  
• Your promiscuous approach to the kind of god you argue for. Feser's argument would lead to nothing at all like the sort of silly-pretend-god that NdGT's speculation would.
  
  
• The fact that neither Feser's nor NdGT's speculation would be anything like the Christian god.
  
  
• The argument that it is a reasonable assumption (given that the whole speculations is based on assumptions) that partial universe simulations, for specific purposes, would be more common than full universe simulations. Hence, if we are in a simulation, it's unlikely that the whole universe (in both time and space) is actually being simulated. In that instance, are you still going to insist on calling its creator a 'god' because it created a part of a universe?

Your problems are
A lack of knowledge of theology.
A lack of knowledge of the word technology
The problems surrounding use of the term extrapolated technology
Substitution of the term supernatural with the term magical
Ignorance of Clarkes law of technology
Personal incredulity
Dimunition of Chalmers and Myers criticisms of the Tyson speculation
Dimunition of Chalmers mentioning The God hypothesis
Exaggeration of the presence of the word naturalistic after all the speculation is a version of the God hypothesis.
Your post contains other issues imho better dealt with separately.
But in conclusion I maintain that Chalmers and Myers give no comfort to those arguing this is.not centrally the same ground covered by theology which Chalmers terms the God hypothesis.

[Stranger]

Your problems are
A lack of knowledge of theology.

Until you've established a reason to take the idea of the god, to which the theology refers, seriously, it's irrelevant.

A lack of knowledge of the word technology

That appears to be your problem, not mine.

The problems surrounding use of the term extrapolated technology

What problems would those be?

Substitution of the term supernatural with the term magical

What do you think the difference is and how does it affect the argument?

Ignorance of Clarkes law of technology

That would only apply from the point of view of people who don't understand the technology. It is not a claim that technology is magic (or supernatural) and in no way impacts the fundamental differences between technological simulations and supernatural/magic creation.

Personal incredulity

About what?

Dimunition of Chalmers and Myers criticisms of the Tyson speculation

Eh? It's me who said that the main point of the article was to say how hopeless the Tyson speculation was by comparing it to arguments for god.
 

Dimunition of Chalmers mentioning The God hypothesis
Exaggeration of the presence of the word naturalistic after all the speculation is a version of the God hypothesis.

The problem here is that you are trying to make a big deal of individual phrases and ignoring the overall message of the article. Then again, I guess that's to be expected from a Christian - ignoring the work as a whole and trying to read a lot into individual passages is, after all, the only way you can extract a meaningful message from the bible...

Your post contains other issues imho better dealt with separately.

Why? They are very relevant to this discussion.

But in conclusion I maintain that Chalmers and Myers give no comfort to those arguing this is.not centrally the same ground covered by theology which Chalmers terms the God hypothesis.

In conclusion from what? You've answered none of the counterarguments and this post was all bluster and no substance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

An intelligent creator of the universe is not a minor detail, but central to the Tyson speculation and centuries old theology.

In which Vlad…

Starts with a misrepresentation – theology concerns itself with the creator, not a creator, then misquotes NdGT (misquoting being something of a Vlad speciality) when he lies about Tyson suggesting a creator of "the" universe. What NdGT actually said was: “Whatever that being is, it very well might be able to create a simulation of a universe.” You know, rather like the writers the Sims computer games have created "a simulation of a universe". Are those programmers the gods of theology too in Vlad's bizarre ontology I wonder?   

( https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz568WwWwUI )

Note first the “a” universe there, not “the” universe as Vlad pretends. Note too by the way that he says, "a simulation of" and not "a universe" at all. Does Vlad know of a hitherto unknown branch of theology that would concern itself with this - "simulation theology" perhaps? As the NdGT speculation concerns only a simulation, that says nothing to an (let alone to "the") actual universe about which theologians make their various guesses.   

He follows with failing to understand that the NdGT speculation would fail even the basic requirements for deism – the creator of the universe vs a creator of a (simulated in any case remember) universe – let alone those for theism.

And finishes with flat out lying again, this time about the tenets of theology. Theology starts with the premises of deism and adds a while pile of characteristics (not least the omnis), none of which are necessary for the NdGT speculation. He also incidentally glosses over the important epistemic distinction between a speculation (NdGT) and an assertion (theology).

So what gives with this idiocy? My guess is that he’s aiming for another entry in the website, “Fundies Say the Darndest Things”, but who can possibly say?   

So Vladdo - why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Until you've established a reason to take the idea of the god, to which the theology refers, seriously, it's irrelevant.

That appears to be your problem, not mine.

What problems would those be?

What do you think the difference is and how does it affect the argument?

That would only apply from the point of view of people who don't understand the technology. It is not a claim that technology is magic (or supernatural) and in no way impacts the fundamental differences between technological simulations and supernatural/magic creation.

About what?

Eh? It's me who said that the main point of the article was to say how hopeless the Tyson speculation was by comparing it to arguments for god.
 
The problem here is that you are trying to make a big deal of individual phrases and ignoring the overall message of the article. Then again, I guess that's to be expected from a Christian - ignoring the work as a whole and trying to read a lot into individual passages is, after all, the only way you can extract a meaningful message from the bible...

Why? They are very relevant to this discussion.

In conclusion from what? You've answered none of the counterarguments and this post was all bluster and no substance.

The excusing /celebration of ignorance of theology is a lousy basis for any sensible debate on what theology has argued and how long it has been arguing it.

I'm surprised that a man of your acumen has missed that obvious point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The excusing /celebration of ignorance of theology is a lousy basis for any sensible debate on what theology has argued and how long it has been arguing it.

Then try educating yourself on what it does entail. Theology makes assertions of fact that require the supernatural about the creator (or creators) of the universe that's the actual one.

That's about as far away from NdGT's speculation about a creator (or creators) of a universe that's a simulated one with no necessity at all for supernaturalism.

So, again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then try educating yourself on what it does entail. Theology makes assertions of fact that require the supernatural about the creator (or creators) of the universe that's the actual one.

That's about as far away from NdGT's speculation about a creator (or creators) of a universe that's a simulated one with no necessity at all for supernaturalism.

So, again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?

Sorry Hillside are you saying that NDG doesn't apply these speculations to this universe?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladastrophe,

Sorry Hillside are you saying that NDG doesn't apply these speculations to this universe?

Cut the crap. You've just had your ludicrous claim comprehensively dismantled by having the qualitative differences between what NdGT (actually) said and the assertions of theology explained to you - deal with that.

Oh, and while you're at it: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Note to Vlad,

Translation: If the Mods would be so kind as to hive off being called on my lying into a different thread that would leave me free to keep doing it here.

Note to Vlad: stop lying for your own ends about what people have actually said by misquoting them and stop pretending that "naturalistic" (and "a" (twice) and "simulation") doesn't make all the difference in the world from the assertions of theology.

So, (yet) again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?

Entertainingly paranoid.

The Chalmers quote in its entirety doesn't help your case.

Your own saunter through the statement was a bit like the town band.

At the word naturalistic you are in full strike drum going cymbals clashing trumpets blazing.
By the time you reach the word version the drum stops the march step breaks discordant toots and by the time you get to the main movement ....the term God hypothesis the band is behind the town hall, hats off , having a smoke.