Strutting one's funky Atheist stuff.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Supernatural' is another meaningless word without a proper definition.

So when are you going to show a bit of impartiality and criticise atheists for using it?

Indeed. So defining any universe simulator(s) as 'god', means that you have excluded any questions of contingency versus necessity and the question of the basis of existence (Feser) from the definition; not to mention any moral element, any afterlife, any of the omnis, any connection to any 'holy book', and so on, and so on. A universe simulator might have any of those characteristics but by applying the label to any simulators, specifically excludes all those things from the definition. As and aside you also never answered the question of how much of a universe has to be simulated before the simulator becomes 'god' - which makes the term even less meaningful.

The label 'God' has become far too vague to have a meaningful discussion about it; it's just rather comical nonsense. Unless you have a specific definition, then any discussion is impossible, as is any idea that anybody is doing any 'dodging'.

You seem to be missing the point of a creator independent of the universe it creates. It is impossible to exclude the possibility the of ultimate necessity of the creator. Indeed It would be utterly necessary from our point of view for our universe. The word simulation suggests 'personal' intervention and intent. Are you deliberately or subconsciously avoiding these considerations? If so then IMHO that is evidence of Goddodging

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Vlad hasn't made an argument for a non material god here. He can't have since he hasn't provided a definition

But he thinks he has - that's the point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So when are you going to show a bit of impartiality and criticise atheists for using it?

Atheists don’t use it, unless by quoting theists’ use of it to demonstrate its incoherence.   

You seem to be missing the point of a creator independent of the universe it creates. It is impossible to exclude the possibility the of ultimate necessity of the creator.

No it isn’t – there’s no sound argument to show that to be necessary rather than not impossible.

Indeed It would be utterly necessary from our point of view for our universe. The word simulation suggests 'personal' intervention and intent. Are you deliberately or subconsciously avoiding these considerations? If so then IMHO that is evidence of Goddodging

Jeez but you struggle – there is no good argument for necessity, and even if there was it’d just raise the same question about the reason for the existence of this supposed “god” a priori. It’s Fletcher’s tunnel again.     

[Stranger]

You seem to be missing the point of a creator independent of the universe it creates.

And you seem to be missing the point about having a proper definition in order to have any sort of sensible discussion.

It is impossible to exclude the possibility the of ultimate necessity of the creator.

This really isn't difficult. You need to come up with a definition of 'god'. That will either have to include 'necessity' or not. If it does, then you can't apply it to any possible universe simulators. The same goes for any other part of the definition that goes at all beyond the mere act of making / simulating a universe - or some undefined part thereof, which is another question you keep dodging.

If you strip the definition down to the point that any possible universe simulators are included, it becomes too vague to be in any way meaningful as a basis for discussion.

Indeed It would be utterly necessary from our point of view for our universe.

Utterly irrelevant to your previous approach to 'necessity'.

The word simulation suggests 'personal' intervention and intent.

Also irrelevant.

Are you deliberately or subconsciously avoiding these considerations?

No.

If so then IMHO that is evidence of Goddodging

Nobody can dodge something that hasn't been defined. Define 'God' properly and consistently (and stop changing the definition to suit whatever argument you're having at the time) or STFU about it because it's totally meaningless.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But he thinks he has - that's the point.

  Again whether he thinks he has or not, and I'm not seeing that that's clear, it doesn't matter if there are two definitions being used - it's just more meaningless words.

[Outrider]

The idea is that the creator is independent of it's creation and that the universe is created by a personal entity. As Chalmers has said this is a creation narrative and as PZ Myers has further pointed out, it is intelligent design which is commonly held as a cover for religion.

The version of Intelligent Design that rested on 'specific complexity' was determined by a judge to be explicitly a cover for religion; intelligent design claims in generally are commonly a cover for religion; this one isn't.

The theory immediately proposes the supernatural namely something without the nature of the universe, in fact in this respect it cannot fail to.

That's not what supernatural means - supernatural means beyond natural laws and effects. The possibility that we are artefacts of a computer simulation inside a natural universe doesn't do that, whereas the possibility that we are the product of the whim of a self-creating magical entity does.

The fact that the only thing that is ruled out of this  ,by you , is God.

Only two things have been posited, and I've rejected one of them on the basis expressed above. If you've other options then suggest them and they may or may not be accepted or rejected as well.

So we now know what it is you are running from.

Which 'we' is this?

It can't be the supernatural because the creative agent is outside of the universe. So this is a specific case of the supernatural which is being avoided.

As explained above, you are misconstruing the meaning of 'supernatural'.

When Dawkins was confronted by the simulated universe concept his reaction was interesting ''I wouldn't worship it''. He knew the parameters of a God he wasn't prepared to worship'' so that makes pleas of ''we don't know what you mean by God'' are IMHO misplaced.

No, the fact that Professor Dawkins was confident of one thing that wasn't a god doesn't mean that we have a useful definition of gods - I know that ducks aren't gods, I know that cheese isn't dark matter, I know that the smell of fish isn't dark energy, but none of those mean that I have meaningful definition for any of those.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

   Again whether he thinks he has or not, and I'm not seeing that that's clear, it doesn't matter if there are two definitions being used - it's just more meaningless words.

We seem to be going in circles here. He makes the accusation of “goddodging”. The primary rebutall is that when he can’t even tell us what he means by “god” the claim is incoherent ab initio. Inasmuch as he ever tries arguments to justify his belief “god” however (no matter what he may mean by that) those arguments can be tested on their inherent merits (when, so far at least, they always fail).     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
 

We seem to be going in circles here. He makes the accusation of “goddodging”. The primary rebutall is that when he can’t even tell us what he means by “god” the claim is incoherent ab initio. Inasmuch as he ever tries arguments to justify his belief “god” however (no matter what he may mean by that) those arguments can be tested on their inherent merits (when, so far at least, they always fail).   

How can the idea that the probability of an external creator based on simulation hypothesis fail without working to an agreed definition of 'god'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

How can the idea that the probability of an external creator based on simulation hypothesis fail without working to an agreed definition of 'god'?

Easily – the simulated universe hypothesis does not suggest that a divine creator is probable at all (that’s just one of Vlad’s various misrepresentations). Thus the idea fails regardless of how he might one day define what he means by that term.

Moreover, what he actually does too is fundamentally to misrepresent the position against him: he turns “there’s no sound reason to think there to be “god”” into the claim (that no-one here makes) “there is no god”.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Easily – the simulated universe hypothesis does not suggest that a divine creator is probable at all (that’s just one of Vlad’s various misrepresentations). Thus the idea fails regardless of how he might one day define what he means by that term.

Moreover, what he actually does too is fundamentally to misrepresent the position against him: he turns “there’s no sound reason to think there to be “god”” into the claim (that no-one here makes) “there is no god”.

Until you work with an agreed definition saying it doesn't imply a 'divine creator' is meaningless. Why did you move from 'god' to 'divine creator' - it doesn't help with definitions but rather introduces another undefined term.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Until you work with an agreed definition saying it doesn't imply a 'divine creator' is meaningless. Why did you move from 'god' to 'divine creator' - it doesn't help with definitions but rather introduces another undefined term.

 

But what you asked was “How can the idea that the probability of an external creator based on simulation hypothesis fail without working to an agreed definition of 'god'?”

The simulated universe hypothesis implies nothing about the “probability” of an “external creator” also being a god. Its arguments for an external creator can be discussed perfectly well with or without a divine component added, no matter how you define that added component. Thus the idea that it does fails – the appended god part is simply irrelevant.   

Second, there was no significance to using “divine creator” and “god” interchangeably – I was just picking up on the “external creator” in your question. The point here though remains that the hypothesis concerns itself only with a possible creator outwith “the universe” – it doesn’t require a divine/godly component so the (absence of a) definition for that unnecessary part is neither here nor there for its purposes.           

[Owlswing]

Jesus Christ - Vlad's even got you arguing among yourselves now!

Owlswing

)O(

[Nearly Sane]

Jesus Christ - Vlad's even got you arguing among yourselves now!

Owlswing

)O(

You give him way too much credit. That I have a specific disagreement with bhs on the most logical approach to an argument here is nothing to do with Vlad. Bhs and I have been having this sort of argument for as long as I can remember being on boards at the same time.

There',s also no such thing as a group that you could refer to as 'yourselves'. That 2 atheists might disagree on some pretty arcane point of discussion is no surprise. Other than not having a belief in god(s), there is no guarantee or need for anything else in common.

[Owlswing]

 You give him way too much credit. That I have a specific disagreement with bhs on the most logical approach to an argument here is nothing to do with Vlad. Bhs and I have been having this sort of argument for as long as I can remember being on boards at the same time.

There',s also no such thing as a group that you could refer to as 'yourselves'. That 2 atheists might disagree on some pretty arcane point of discussion is no surprise. Other than not having a belief in god(s), there is no guarantee or need for anything else in common.

All right! Bollocking accepted!

Owlswing

)O(

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Easily – the simulated universe hypothesis does not suggest that a divine creator is probable at all

That must be the most deluded piece of Goddodging you have ever given. Indeed there are forms of the theory e.g.  Bostroms which make it the most probable explanation for our universe and since it proposes a creator iexistentially independent of its creation that definition includes creator gods of a number of definitions.

[Stranger]

That must be the most deluded piece of Goddodging you have ever given. Indeed there are forms of the theory e.g.  Bostroms which make it the most probable explanation for our universe and since it proposes a creator iexistentially independent of its creation that definition includes creator gods of a number of definitions.

More utter bollocks. A universe simulator has some of the characteristic of some definitions of god(s). It is therefore not an argument for any such gods because having some characteristics of something does not make it the thing. Having four legs does not make something a cat, it might be a giraffe or a coffee table.

The only way to make this an argument for god(s) is to loosen the definition so much as to make it meaningless. Unless you accept that a university department, Universes 'ᴙ' Us Inc., or some mad scientist might count as god(s), then the simulation conjecture is not about god(s). Get over it and provide a proper definition of what you mean by 'God', otherwise any discussion of it is a waste of time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Bhs and I have been having this sort of argument for as long as I can remember...

No we haven't... (tee hee).

And yes, the conversations you and I have have very little to do with Vlad's skip fire attempts at reasoning. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That must be the most deluded piece of Goddodging you have ever given. Indeed there are forms of the theory e.g.  Bostroms which make it the most probable explanation for our universe and since it proposes a creator iexistentially independent of its creation that definition includes creator gods of a number of definitions.

First, simulated universe is just a hypothesis – nothing more.

Second, you claimed that the hypothesis implies that a creator also being a god was “probable”. It does no such thing.

Third, even if the above weren’t true most of the characteristics you think to be necessary for your choice of god aren’t necessary at all for the hypothesis. You’ve done the equivalent of “there are vague images taken at Loch Ness, therefore the monster is real”. If you think the hypothesis would mean your god is “probable”, tell us where it relies on all the bits you thinks your god must have in order to be god rather than just (possibly, not probably) there being a “something”.     

Fourth, as still you’ve given no sign of having any idea at all of how you’d define your god, your argument is entirely otiose in any case.

Apart from all that though, good effort little buddy…

[jeremyp]

More utter bollocks. A universe simulator has some of the characteristic of some definitions of god(s). It is therefore not an argument for any such gods because having some characteristics of something does not make it the thing. Having four legs does not make something a cat, it might be a giraffe or a coffee table.

The only way to make this an argument for god(s) is to loosen the definition so much as to make it meaningless. Unless you accept that a university department, Universes 'ᴙ' Us Inc., or some mad scientist might count as god(s), then the simulation conjecture is not about god(s). Get over it and provide a proper definition of what you mean by 'God', otherwise any discussion of it is a waste of time.

My definition of "God" would be "intelligent entity that created the Universe". If the Universe is a simulation, then whoever created that simulation is God from our point of view.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

My definition of "God" would be "intelligent entity that created the Universe". If the Universe is a simulation, then whoever created that simulation is God from our point of view.

But that definition would barely scratch the surface of what Vlad thinks to be necessary for his god to be his god. He's doing the equivalent of making an hypothesis about the possibility of a four-legged galloping thing also therefore being an argument for unicorns being probable.   

[Enki]

That must be the most deluded piece of Goddodging you have ever given. Indeed there are forms of the theory e.g.  Bostroms which make it the most probable explanation for our universe and since it proposes a creator iexistentially independent of its creation that definition includes creator gods of a number of definitions.

Bostrom doesn't suggest that it's the most probable explanation of our universe. Even within his hypothesis, he gives equal probability to other conclusions:

Personally, I assign less than 50% probability to the simulation hypothesis – rather something like in 20%-region, perhaps, maybe. However, this estimate is a subjective personal opinion and is not part of the simulation argument.

Furthermore he suggests that the simulation hypothesis:

has no direct connection with religious conceptions of a literally omniscient and omnipotent deity. The simulation-hypothesis does not imply the existence of such a deity, nor does it imply its non-existence.

Indeed, he goes on to say that, far from being outside natural laws

the simulators implied by the simulation-hypothesis would be naturalistic entities, subject to the laws of nature at their own level of reality

He is of the opinion that:

There is no known physical law or material constraint that would prevent a sufficiently technologically advanced civilisation from implementing human minds in computers.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html


Hence, if your 'creator god' idea is to be your yardstick then that must surely include any 'advanced civilization' capable of producing such a simulation, not necessarily one god at all, but potentially millions, all of whom are subject to natural laws. Interesting ideas of 'god' that you put forward, Vlad. 

[Stranger]

My definition of "God" would be "intelligent entity that created the Universe". If the Universe is a simulation, then whoever created that simulation is God from our point of view.

Okay, but That excludes most of the characteristics of most of the religious conceptions of god(s). Personally I'd regard it as a rather bizarre and pointless relabelling of something that might be entirely flawed and mortal and even have what we might regard as morally questionable motives. It's also pretty much a dead end. There might be such an entity (or group of entities) but there isn't any particularly good reason to think so (the SU argument isn't all that convincing although it's somewhat better than the traditional arguments for god) and if there is, so what? It's too vague a definition to take any further.

Also, perhaps you could answer the question that Vlad's been studiously ignoring? Just how much of a universe, and to what degree of detail, does a simulation need to be and have before its creator earns the label 'God'? If we take the SU argument, then, on the way to a full-blown simulation of a full universe (even if that was ever the aim), it's likely that a simulator would start somewhat smaller, perhaps with just a planet, or even just a single brain (perhaps not even a human brain) simulated in any detail, while all the rest is only simulated well enough to support the object of interest. Or is this more general; if I write a Game of Life implementation, am I the 'God' of that 'universe'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bostrom doesn't suggest that it's the most probable explanation of our universe. Even within his hypothesis, he gives equal probability to other conclusions:


Furthermore he suggests that the simulation hypothesis:

Indeed, he goes on to say that, far from being outside natural laws

He is of the opinion that:

https://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html


Hence, if your 'creator god' idea is to be your yardstick then that must surely include any 'advanced civilization' capable of producing such a simulation, not necessarily one god at all, but potentially millions, all of whom are subject to natural laws. Interesting ideas of 'god' that you put forward, Vlad. 

There is no logical law that constrains the creator to the laws of nature of the universe it creates. Personally the ability to create an alternative universe would lead me to do so.

Your suggestion could be taken as ultra naturalistic.

[Stranger]

There is no logical law that constrains the creator to the laws of nature of the universe it creates.

Straw man. That was not what was suggested.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy,

But that definition would barely scratch the surface of what Vlad thinks to be necessary for his god to be his god. 

And there’s you pleading that definitions are not provided.