Strutting one's funky Atheist stuff.

[Stranger]

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

The problem is that you keep on shifting the goalposts. Sometimes it's about necessity or Feser's base of hierarchy, sometimes it's the source of objective morality, and others it's any kind of entity at all that makes a universe (or some part thereof - a question you never address).

If you want a sensible discussion, want to propose some argument or accuse others of 'dodging', then the very first thing you need is a fixed definition of what you mean by 'God'. For some reason you seem to want to avoid giving one at all costs...

[Enki]

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.

Not my suggestion, Vlad, but one which Bostrom ( whom you obviously thought fit to bring into this conversation) himself suggested in accordance with his simulation hypothesis.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Yes – you like to tell us what this supposed god of your does (answers prayers etc), but will never tell us what it is. The SU hypothesis doesn’t require any of the former, with the sole exception of the ability to create the universe we happen to perceive. Naturally you’ll ignore this rebuttal as you have all the others you’ve been given, but that it won’t make it any less true.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes – you like to tell us what this supposed god of your does (answers prayers etc), but will never tell us what it is. The SU hypothesis doesn’t require any of the former, with the sole exception of the ability to create the universe we happen to perceive. Naturally you’ll ignore this rebuttal as you have all the others you’ve been given, but that it won’t make it any less true.

I don’t think we’ve been through your thesis on the meaning of the term answered prayer.
In terms of a rebuttal. Saying it’s ok that an entity with purpose can create a universe but on no account should we treat that like God or that it is impossible for some relationship is unreasonable.
Once we are into this kind of territory any limitation on what the creator is is unreasonable and indeed a case of special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem is that you keep on shifting the goalposts. Sometimes it's about necessity or Feser's base of hierarchy, sometimes it's the source of objective morality, and others it's any kind of entity at all that makes a universe (or some part thereof - a question you never address).

How is discussing there aspects of Gods being and actions shifting the goalposts?
The Feser argument is greater than Kalam but Kalam still has mileage imho with regard to infinities being seemingly impossible in science.
The feser   argument works imho just as well with or without infinities.

[Roses]

How is discussing there aspects of Gods being and actions shifting the goalposts?
The Feser argument is greater than Kalam but Kalam still has mileage imho with regard to infinities being seemingly impossible in science.
The feser   argument works imho just as well with or without infinities.

It is only in your humble opinion!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don’t think we’ve been through your thesis on the meaning of the term answered prayer.

Bizarre reply. I don’t have a “thesis” on that – it’s just religious gibberish so far as I can tell. If you want to introduce it though (however irrelevantly) then it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it, not mine (the same problem you have with your claim “god”). 

In terms of a rebuttal. Saying it’s ok that an entity with purpose can create a universe but on no account should we treat that like God or that it is impossible for some relationship is unreasonable.

And untrue. No-one does that and you’ve had this straw man detonated countless times before now. Why then return to exactly the same lie once again rather than deal with its falsification?
 

Once we are into this kind of territory any limitation on what the creator is is unreasonable and indeed a case of special pleading.

It could be, a but as no-one here claims that territory it’s irrelevant.

[jeremyp]

jeremy,

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

So what? I wasn't claiming to give Vlad's definition of God. I don't know what Vlad's definition of God is because he won't tell us.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

So what? I wasn't claiming to give Vlad's definition of God. I don't know what Vlad's definition of God is because he won't tell us.

It wasn't a criticism of you - it was a criticism of Vlad's specious claim that a universe-creator would also therefore be his notion of "god".

[jeremyp]

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'?

Under my definition, the fact that the creator of a simulation created it is enough to earn that creator the label of "God" to the inhabitants of the simulation. I agree it's quite a broad definition but I think anything that fulfils it is a good answer to the question "who created the Universe?" (provided we actually discover that such a being exists)

I do not believe, by the way, that the Universe we live in is a simulation. I find Sabine Hossenfelder's argument persuasive. Essentially, she claims that the natural laws of the Universe would not look the same in a simulation. 

if I write a Game of Life implementation, am I the 'God' of that 'universe'?

Yes.

[jeremyp]

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

But you understand that you have not provided a definition and my definition is a long way from the Christian god?

[jeremyp]

jeremy,

It wasn't a criticism of you - it was a criticism of Vlad's specious claim that a universe-creator would also therefore be his notion of "god".

Yes, I understood that and it's a flaw that none of the Christians who bring up these specious "proofs" ever address. Also, in spite of being practically the lowest possible denominator god, it's still vulnerable to some of the other arguments used by non believers. In particular we still need to answer where did this god come from?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Yes, I understood that and it's a flaw that none of the Christians who bring up these specious "proofs" ever address. Also, in spite of being practically the lowest possible denominator god, it's still vulnerable to some of the other arguments used by non believers. In particular we still need to answer where did this god come from?

Yes. Best guess (as he won’t or can’t tell us) is that Vlad believes in a personal god, whereas at best the SU conjecture could open a door to deism rather than to theism. As you say though, deism has its own problems that the deist would have to address before claiming the conjecture to indicate a deity.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you understand that you have not provided a definition and my definition is a long way from the Christian god?

Broadly, My definition is this. (I have emboldened the statement relevent to the point of your definition being a ''long way'' from the Christian god.)

Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is,
seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Roses]

Belief is not the same as providing any evidence to support that belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Broadly, My definition is this. (I have emboldened the statement relevent to the point of your definition being a ''long way'' from the Christian god.)

Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is,
seen and unseen etc...

Yes, we know the CV. That tells us what you think your god does. What you were asked though is what you think this "god" is. 

Coda

By the way, aside from the first part you put in bold, the SU speculation wouldn't even get its trousers off even in principle as the beginning of a rationale for the rest of the claims.

[Outrider]

We believe in one God,

This creed is accepted by the majority of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant faiths who then espouse a range of divine beings through the ranks of the angels (fallen and otherwise) and then three gods at the head (with some flim-flam three-in-one multi-pack offer justification)... if the opening line is contradicted by practice, in what way is any of this starting to clarify a definition of a god or a meaning of the word?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This creed is accepted by the majority of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant faiths who then espouse a range of divine beings through the ranks of the angels (fallen and otherwise) and then three gods at the head (with some flim-flam three-in-one multi-pack offer justification)...

Wooah...let me stop you there. None of the denominations you mention consider angels or saints as divine. In terms of the trinity, that should more properly addressed on the Christianity board.

You never addressed the declaration of God as the maker of all things seen and unseen. The exact claim of those who propose that the universe might be a simulation by which I mean that that idea necessarily requires a maker with purpose.

Any further claim that this maker MUST be in the nature of a mere technician is I’m sure you agree, completely unwarranted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You never addressed the declaration of God as the maker of all things seen and unseen. The exact claim of those who propose that the universe might be a simulation by which I mean that that idea necessarily requires a maker with purpose.

That's not the same speculation (it's not a claim) of the SU conjecture at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's not the same speculation (it's not a claim) of the SU conjecture at all.

That is plainly wrong.
You seem to be conflating the idea of a maker of the universe which has purpose. With speculation on what it could be like or what its purpose is. I dont see how you can deny that theology was first with the maker idea and that the maker idea has resurfaced in SU. Any notion that the makerMUSTbe natural is special pleading.

[Outrider]

Wooah...let me stop you there. None of the denominations you mention consider angels or saints as divine.

Yeah, because these are some other 'rank' of not mortal, but still magical, but totally not the same magical 'obvs'...

In terms of the trinity, that should more properly addressed on the Christianity board.

No, it should be just chuckled at politely and left in the 'this is what happens when you try to make it up as you go along' meme-bin.

You never addressed the declaration of God as the maker of all things seen and unseen.

I didn't need to, I'd already pretty much given up on the attempt at a definition after the first line, as I pointed out.  However, if you feel that needs addressing... why would I think there was a conscious architect to reality?

The exact claim of those who propose that the universe might be a simulation by which I mean that that idea necessarily requires a maker with purpose.[/qote]

The simulated universe, yes, but those creating the simulation?  One of the problems with the 'simulation theory' is that those simulated universes will go on to produce their own simulations, which go on to produce their own, ad infinitum, and suddenly you have a geometric expansion of the processing power required to run the top-level simulation... infinite processing power?

Any further claim that this maker MUST be in the nature of a mere technician is I’m sure you agree, completely unwarranted.

This maker, yes... the 'ultimate' maker, the maker of (to quote) '... all things, seen and unseen...', not just this simulated universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This maker, yes... the 'ultimate' maker, the maker of (to quote) '... all things, seen and unseen...', not just this simulated universe.
[/quote]
a)This universe could be the only universe there is. There is no logic that limits the maker of this universe to er, this universe or indeed all universes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That is plainly wrong.

Let’s see shall we?

You seem to be conflating the idea of a maker of the universe which has purpose.

And you’ve fallen at the first hurdle. Where does the SU speculation suggest that the “simulator” must have been purposive? Or even for the matter acted alone?

Not a good start…

With speculation on what it could be like or what its purpose is.

No, you’ve introduced the idea of purpose not me – the SU speculation doesn’t require it, and I haven’t proposed it.

You’re falling apart at the seams here.

I dont see how you can deny that theology was first with the maker idea…

Well if you call the earliest creation myths “theology” I’ll give you that, but I’ve made no claim to the contrary. Most ancient tribal peoples with surviving cultures seem to have creation stories of various types – I’m quite drawn to the Norse mythology version in which Ymir, a humanoid giant, was formed from melting ice. When Ymir sweated, more giants were born. The first man and woman emerged from the sweat of the giant's armpit. You though are free to take your pick from countless others if that’s your thing. 

…and that the maker idea has resurfaced in SU.

Not really. The SU conjecture speculates only about a simulator that happens to have made only the universe that’s available to us. It says nothing about whether that simulator was itself part of some different dimension entirely (perhaps with creation myths of its own).

Religionists on the other hand as I understand generally go instead for (their choice of a) god being the beginning of everything, and then throw in some special pleading to fix the infinite regress problem that gives them.

Any notion that the makerMUSTbe natural is special pleading.

And your favouring straw man to finish. Have you ever, ever here seen anyone at all say that a (supposed) creator MUST (or even just must) be natural? No you haven’t have you so why keep straw manning about that?

Oh, and almost nothing in the Nicene Creed CV you posted for your god is any part of the SU speculation in any case, so you remain entirely unsupported about all that whacky stuff.

Even by your abysmal standards you’ve managed a pretty epic fail here old son.

Oh well.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Let’s see shall we?

And you’ve fallen at the first hurdle. Where does the SU speculation suggest that the “simulator” must have been purposive? Or even for the matter acted alone?

Not a good start…

More projection than a Cinerama presentation.
It is you who have crashed.... ''Simulation'' is a purpose.

 
[/quote]

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

More projection than a Cinerama presentation.
It is you who have crashed.... ''Simulation'' is a purpose.

Stop digging will you! Why would you think that the universe we seem to inhabit at an experiential level but that's actually a facsimile of that universe must necessarily therefore have been created purposively?

Try to answer that without collapsing into one or more of the various fallacies on which you routinely rely.