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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, your posts are getting more and more absurd.

Silly word games. It really is a stretch to call the universe simulators "transcendent" - there is no suggestion that they are not subject to physical laws in their own universe.

Which "naturalists" have said that anything like a technological universe simulator is supernatural?

Pot, kettle, black.

Once again you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of fallacies and logic.

You can speculate all you want Vlad, but speculation is not, per se, a reason to take anything seriously. For that, we need logic or evidence.

Who is dodging god? In order to dodge something, you have to think that it is more than a fantasy - which I don't.

And I should value this opinion, why?

I really don't see what you think you can gain by putting forward such utter nonsense. As I have already pointed out, the arguments that lead to "intelligent design" are completely different - as are the intelligent designers that they conclude. Your attempts to connect concepts through the isolation of individual words and phrases is bizarre - is it some sort of joke?

Firstly, I don't accept NdGT as 'reasonable' speculation. It just about makes it into the category of science fiction.

Secondly, even if I did, I wouldn't have to accept that a (supernatural) deist god would be reasonable. The reasonableness of each has to be entirely based on the arguments put forward (assuming no actual evidence). There is no speculation about a deist god (that I'm ware of) that has any logical connection with the NdGT speculation.

God was never proposed as being transcendent of his own universe or himself.
He is transcendent of this universe. And that too is the condition of Tysons intelligent Creator.

Not only are you God dodging you are transcendence dodging too.

At the Dover trial the judge ruled that I D was Paleys argument.

[floo]

God was never proposed as being transcendent of his own universe or himself.
He is transcendent of this universe. And that too is the condition of Tysons intelligent Creator.

Not only are you God dodging you are transcendence dodging too.

At the Dover trial the judge ruled that I D was Paleys argument.

You are making a statement as if it is a fact, when it is only your belief.

[Stranger]

God was never proposed as being transcendent of his own universe or himself.
He is transcendent of this universe. And that too is the condition of Tysons intelligent Creator.

Once again you respond to a lot of detail, within a few minutes (without thought) and totally ignore most of it. What you have posted is just a continuation of your silly word games.

The technological simulation of a universe is a different concept from a supernatural god creating the universe. No amount of silly nonsense about the meaning of "transcendent" or any other word games are going to change the fact that they are fundamentally different.

[Stranger]

At the Dover trial the judge ruled that I D was Paleys argument.

And the absurdity just keeps on growing and goes on and on and on and on...

Intelligent design isn't, of itself, an argument, it's a process. The intelligent design of the universe (in this case) is the conclusion of a (bad) argument.

You really should stop digging.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again you respond to a lot of detail, within a few minutes (without thought) and totally ignore most of it. What you have posted is just a continuation of your silly word games.

The technological simulation of a universe is a different concept from a supernatural god creating the universe. No amount of silly nonsense about the meaning of "transcendent" or any other word games are going to change the fact that they are fundamentally different.

I'm sorry but their is no evidence that NDGT was specifically only talking about a universe other than ours and plenty that he was talking about THE universe. This universe.

The intelligent creator is not contingent on any universe it creates. But it's universe is contingent on it. The IC is therefore the necessary being for that universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The technological simulation of a universe is a different concept from a supernatural god creating the universe. No amount of silly nonsense about the meaning of "transcendent" or any other word games are going to change the fact that they are fundamentally different.

I think then we have to call in two definitions from you to check since it seems you are saying that an intelligent creator not contingent on the universe it creates is a natural thing.

Define what you mean by technology and define what you mean by supernatural.

[Stranger]

I'm sorry but their is no evidence that NDGT was specifically only talking about a universe other than ours and plenty that he was talking about THE universe. This universe.

It is central to his argument that there are multiple (simulated) universes, of which ours is only one.

The intelligent creator is not contingent on any universe it creates. But it's universe is contingent on it. The IC is therefore the necessary being for that universe.

So what? It is still a natural being in a natural (or simulated) universe, just as we are.

I think then we have to call in two definitions from you to check since it seems you are saying that an intelligent creator not contingent on the universe it creates is a natural thing.

See above - of course it's a natural thing.

Define what you mean by technology and define what you mean by supernatural.

technology - The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.

Which applies directly to how universe simulation would work.

supernatural - (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Clearly a universe simulator would be using technology, not the supernatural.

I really don't know why I'm extending to you the courtesy you so rarely extend to others, and answering your questions directly. You argument is STUPID to its core; ridiculous, bizarre, contrived, silly, nonsensical, laughable, risible...

You are making a total arse of yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is central to his argument that there are multiple (simulated) universes, of which ours is only one.

So what? It is still a natural being in a natural (or simulated) universe, just as we are.

See above - of course it's a natural thing.

technology - The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.

Which applies directly to how universe simulation would work.

supernatural - (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Clearly a universe simulator would be using technology, not the supernatural.

I really don't know why I'm extending to you the courtesy you so rarely extend to others, and answering your questions directly. You argument is STUPID to its core; ridiculous, bizarre, contrived, silly, nonsensical, laughable, risible...

You are making a total arse of yourself.

1 : what definitions are you using
2:  Can you tell me how science can demonstrate the multiverse
3: you cannot guarantee that another universe follows the same laws of nature. E.g. What if that universe is infinite in all respects and this one isn't ?

[ippy]

And the absurdity just keeps on growing and goes on and on and on and on...

Intelligent design isn't, of itself, an argument, it's a process. The intelligent design of the universe (in this case) is the conclusion of a (bad) argument.

You really should stop digging.

Everybody seems to have the same trouble with Vlad, I wouldn't have thought we were all wrong about his posts that mainly consist of all sorts that bear no relation to whatever it is you post to him.

I share the view that others have that when you ask Vlad something, anything that he can't answer he changes the subject, and it doesn't matter how much you try to get him back to the things you were trying to discuss with him, he somehow manages to bury you in gobbledegook, it then makes you think to yourself "is it me"? Then you might find yourself walking off muttering to yourself and perhaps start to think it's time I took up train spotting, no I'll enter that local marbles championship, now how's my stamp collection going or shall I take up collecting old tea bags; their coming to take me away Ha Ha!!

Regards ippy

[floo]

By posting as he does, Vlad is the centre of attention on this forum. Maybe he is having a good giggle at our expense?

[Stranger]

- sigh, yawn -

1 : what definitions are you using

I gave you two - what other big words are you finding hard?

2:  Can you tell me how science can demonstrate the multiverse

No. I've never claimed that it could. Multiple universes/simulations are, however, necessary for NdGT's speculation to work.

3: you cannot guarantee that another universe follows the same laws of nature.

No, I can't.

E.g. What if that universe is infinite in all respects and this one isn't ?

What the hell do you mean by "all respects"? This universe may well be infinite in spacial extent and future time. Is there a point here, struggling to get out...?

It is actually central to NdGT's speculation that the universe(s) in which simulations are created are at least similar enough to our own that the extrapolation of our computational abilities would still apply.

[Stranger]

I share the view that others have that when you ask Vlad something, anything that he can't answer he changes the subject, and it doesn't matter how much you try to get him back to the things you were trying to discuss with him, he somehow manages to bury you in gobbledegook, it then makes you think to yourself "is it me"? Then you might find yourself walking off muttering to yourself and perhaps start to think it's time I took up train spotting, no I'll enter that local marbles championship, now how's my stamp collection going or shall I take up collecting old tea bags; their coming to take me away Ha Ha!!

Well put. I'm just off to fish my last teabag out of the bin....

[wigginhall]

Well said, ippy.  Vlad does the old bait and switch technique - he sucks you in to a discussion about X, and then half-way through, decides to give X a different meaning, and then denies that he said anything about X, and asks you what you mean by it.   I can't see the point really. 

[Rhiannon]

Gaslighting?

[wigginhall]

Gaslighting?

Very insightful.  If you read ippy's post above, it's an almost perfect account of being gaslighted, except not in a romantic relationship, where it is truly deadly.   I think you can see the deliberate confusion, and the reversal of roles, thus, asking you to define the thing that I started talking about.    Shudder.

[Rhiannon]

Very insightful.  If you read ippy's post above, it's an almost perfect account of being gaslighted, except not in a romantic relationship, where it is truly deadly.   I think you can see the deliberate confusion, and the reversal of roles, thus, asking you to define the thing that I started talking about.    Shudder.

Indeed. Know it first hand.

[wigginhall]

Indeed. Know it first hand.

So do I, but I was just marveling at how widespread it is,  as I can see how trolling is often a form of gaslighting, as the troll often denies what they're doing, and some politicians use it also, to implant doubt in your mind about your perceptions.    We're actually a very affluent country, even though you can't afford heat and food at the same time.   We are giving more money to the NHS even though people are dying on trolleys.

[ippy]

Well put. I'm just off to fish my last teabag out of the bin....

What make?

Regards ippy

[ippy]

Gaslighting?

I suppose there's always a first time for most things, I've never heard the term gaslighting before, looked it up, interesting it's a bit Hitchcock, perhaps Vlad is a part of an imaginative theist plot, no.

Regards ippy

[Gordon]

Moderator:

We've removed a small number of recent posts for review that were primarily about the tactics used by other members rather than the content of their posts.

Update: The posts removed earlier have been returned with no changes.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon fails to grasp that his claim to have "encountered Jesus" has no more epistemic value than my claim to have met Elvis down the chip shop - and that personal beliefs and facts are not the same thing.

I don't think so...

Lieutenant Pigeon may be correct or he may be mistaken. You, on the other hand are lying!

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think so...

Lieutenant Pigeon may be correct or he may be mistaken. You, on the other hand are lying!

Why do you think bhs is lying here? Indeed what do you think he is lying about?

[Dicky Underpants]

Eh,

I suspected you were unmusical. Maybe your starved aesthetic component may be relevant in certain of your epistemic claims.
Not claiming anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspected you were unmusical. Maybe your starved aesthetic component may be relevant in certain of your epistemic claims.
Not claiming anything.

Eh?

[Dicky Underpants]

After reading Revelations 3.20 realised that christ was there and it meant me.
After a period of resistance to christ I invited Him in.

Bit sad that the fantasies of a drug-fuelled fanatic (which only got into the canon by the skin of its teeth) were significant in your conversion.