Strutting one's funky Atheist stuff.

[Gordon]

Not necessarily an uncaused one but also not necessarily a caused one either.

So - some kind of semi-caused cause then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your merely putting my argument but in another way.
Not necessarily an uncaused one but also not necessarily a caused one either.

No I'm not. You wrongly claim the SU conjecture to give support to your notion of an "uncaused cause". The conjecture though takes you not one step closer to validating that idea as it would be equally in/valid with or without SU. You may as well claim that a conjectures about teeth disappearing from under pillows gives support to the claim "Tooth Fairy".     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No I'm not. You wrongly claim the SU conjecture to give support to your notion of an "uncaused cause". The conjecture though takes you not one step closer to validating that idea as it would be equally in/valid with or without SU. You may as well claim that a conjectures about teeth disappearing from under pillows gives support to the claim "Tooth Fairy".   

No. My point is that from the premise that the universe has a maker it doesn't follow that this creator is necessarily caused by something else. Neither is that derived necessarily from the term cause.

That any creator has to be caused comes from philosophical  naturalism which is neither confirmed nor denied by methodological naturalism.

In any case it doesn't matter since all the elements of Bostrom idea, a maker on whom we depend for our existence who is able to make itself known and make itself an avatar were there in Christianity.

As I keep saying. This is why SU is problematic for certain atheists like PZ Myers and scientists who see that SU may have a large eligious component.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So - some kind of semi-caused cause then?

No....either one or the other...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No. My point is that from the premise that the universe has a maker it doesn't follow that this creator is necessarily caused by something else. Neither is that derived necessarily from the term cause.

No-one says otherwise, though defining and setting out an argument for the “uncaused” bit you’re trying to insert would be a huge task regardless of the SU conjecture.

That any creator has to be caused comes from philosophical  naturalism which is neither confirmed nor denied by methodological naturalism.

No-one says it has to be. You have the burden of proof backwards again.

In any case it doesn't matter since all the elements of Bostrom idea, a maker on whom we depend for our existence who is able to make itself known and make itself an avatar were there in Christianity.

The “who is able to make itself known and make itself an avatar” may be in Christianity (and in various other faiths) but the SU conjecture says nothing at all about that. 

As I keep saying. This is why SU is problematic for certain atheists like PZ Myers and scientists who see that SU may have a large eligious component.

And as you keep being corrected, that’s just not true. If you want to make a religious claim that dumps most of your religion’s central tenets to be left with just “a simulator that may or may not have been caused by something else” and claim the SU conjecture for support for it that’s up to you, but in what sense then would your claim be religious?

Try this: you make a conjecture that teeth disappear from under pillows. I reply with, “that has a large Tooth Fairyist component”. Would you agree with me? Why not?   

[jeremyp]

Yes and simulated universe theory also has a maker of all that is seen and unseen in the universe too.

So?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No-one says otherwise, though defining and setting out an argument for the “uncaused” bit you’re trying to insert would be a huge task regardless of the SU conjecture.

No-one says it has to be. You have the burden of proof backwards again.

The “who is able to make itself known and make itself an avatar” may be in Christianity (and in various other faiths) but the SU conjecture says nothing at all about that. 

And as you keep being corrected, that’s just not true. If you want to make a religious claim that dumps most of your religion’s central tenets to be left with just “a simulator that may or may not have been caused by something else” and claim the SU conjecture for support for it that’s up to you, but in what sense then would your claim be religious?

Try this: you make a conjecture that teeth disappear from under pillows. I reply with, “that has a large Tooth Fairyist component”. Would you agree with me? Why not?

The inaccuracies here are. Denying elements existing in Bostroms theory of SU. MIsrepresentation of PZ Myers take on De Grasse Tyson. Charitably I'd accept ignorance of the response of scientist and philosopher present when De grasse Tyson elucidated his views on SU and to which PZ responded and ignorance of the views of other scientists including sabine hossenfelder? WhoJeremyP has flagged up before.

[Gordon]

No....either one or the other...

But that doesn't follow from what you said: you said "Not necessarily an uncaused one but also not necessarily a caused one either."

You mention two options and you say that neither option is 'necessary', and these two options (uncaused vs caused) do sound as if they are mutually exclusive, but you then imply that whatever one of these two options applies then that option isn't actually 'necessary' - what on earth do you actually mean here?

What you said sounds like a non sequitur to me, unless you can explain yourself more clearly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The inaccuracies here are. Denying elements existing in Bostroms theory of SU.

What elements do you think I’ve “denied”? You say this often, but you never manage to tell us what in the SU conjecture you think it is that points to an uncaused cause (let alone to one that makes itself known etc). Why not finally put up or shut up about that? 

MIsrepresentation of PZ Myers take on De Grasse Tyson.

As I recall they had something of a spat that you then seized on as if it implied that the latter was in some way arguing for a religious explanation. You then repeated that misrepresentation over many posts despite being corrected on it.
 

Charitably I'd accept ignorance of the response of scientist and philosopher present when De grasse Tyson elucidated his views on SU and to which PZ responded and ignorance of the views of other scientists including sabine hossenfelder? WhoJeremyP has flagged up before.

Less charitably I’d accept that you’re just telling lies again.

Oh, and I see you’ve completely ignored the rebuttal you were just given. Why is that?

Again: say you make a conjecture that teeth disappear from under pillows. I reply with, “that has a large Tooth Fairyist component”. Does your conjecture provide support for my belief "Tooth Fairy"? Why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally Vlad, as you keep referencing him for support I thought I’d take a look at what Bostrom actually hypothesised:

“Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.”

And here’s his conclusion:

“It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.

Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.”

— Nick Bostrom, "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?", 2003

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis)

Can you identify any part of this that proposes or even implies:

1. An uncaused cause? (Note that he says expressly, “…simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears” and, “…do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race” by the way. “Uncaused causes” wouldn’t have forebears and would not be descended from an original race.) 

2. A maker “who is able to make itself known”?

3. A maker that “make(s) itself an avatar”?

These are all supposed phenomena you claim to be “all the elements of Bostrom idea” (Reply 177) yet none of them are.

Why then do you persist with this obvious mischaracterisation of what he actually proposed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Incidentally Vlad, as you keep referencing him for support I thought I’d take a look at what Bostrom actually hypothesised:

“Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.”

And here’s his conclusion:

“It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.

Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.”

— Nick Bostrom, "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?", 2003

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis)

Can you identify any part of this that proposes or even implies:

1. An uncaused cause? (Note that he says expressly, “…simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears” and, “…do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race” by the way. “Uncaused causes” wouldn’t have forebears and would not be descended from an original race.) 

2. A maker “who is able to make itself known”?

3. A maker that “make(s) itself an avatar”?

These are all supposed phenomena you claim to be “all the elements of Bostrom idea” (Reply 177) yet none of them are.

Why then do you persist with this obvious mischaracterisation of what he actually proposed?

First of all you cannot just take what Bostrom says in part and then ask where the stuff you have left out is in the part you have left in. With all due respect that is a bit of a low dodge on your part.

Secondly, Bostrom is claiming, not only that the universe could be a simulation it probably is. The undeniable aspect is the universe has a creator/creators with purpose in Bostrom that happens to to run a simulation but having introduced the idea of a maker i'm afraid he doesn't get to determine his ideas of the purpose as the only reason for creating the universe. Indeed he only goes so far as to say the creator can be naturalistic....as do I, rather than HAS to be naturalistic. He then, in his original paper available on his website goes on to acknowledge analogy between the theory and Gods.

Bostrom's notion of simulating the world of ancestors and indeed the idea of immersing oneself in the world by taking part in the simulation is a staple of the computer simulation. Again Bostrom declares that the universe could be a simulation but yet again there is no justification to limit possible purposes to the one Bostrom is proposing.

Bostrom's idea of simulating the life of ancestors invites extending the purpose to it being an immersive simulation in which one takes on an avatar in the simulation. You can probably think of ways in which an avatar might give indication that it is not solely a sims and has another mode of existence.

There is to my recollection an article where Bostrom talks about Pop ups revealing the existence of an outside operator but since that probably dates from the 2000 I am still trying to track this down.

The fact is though ,pop ups, avatars etc. are staples of computer simulation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

First of all you cannot just take what Bostrom says in part and then ask where the stuff you have left out is in the part you have left in. With all due respect that is a bit of a low dodge on your part.

No it isn’t. You never bother with citations for the things you claim people have said, and as you often misrepresent what people actually say it doesn’t seem unreasonable of me to have done your job for you. If though you think I have “left out” the part where he proposes an uncaused cause, a creator that makes itself known, and a creator that appears as an avatar then just tell us where he said that.

What’s stopping you?

Secondly, Bostrom is claiming, not only that the universe could be a simulation it probably is. The undeniable aspect is the universe has a creator/creators with purpose…

That “with purpose” is something you just made up remember? Who’s to say that a descendant millennia into the future would not have such vast computing power that s/he was designing something else entirely from which the universe “we” happen to perceive inadvertently emerged?   

…in Bostrom that happens to to run a simulation but having introduced the idea of a maker i'm afraid he doesn't get to determine his ideas of the purpose as the only reason for creating the universe.

Ah, your burden of proof mistake again. I have a speculation that rainbows are simulations. According to you, that’s support for leprechauns doing the simulating then right? 

Indeed he only goes so far as to say the creator can be naturalistic....as do I, rather than HAS to be naturalistic.[/

And I don’t say that simulated rainbows HAVE to be naturalistic either. How does that take me even one step closer to validating leprechauns though? 

He then, in his original paper available on his website goes on to acknowledge analogy between the theory and Gods.

So you say. Where’s your citation for that claim though? 

Bostrom's notion of simulating the world of ancestors and indeed the idea of immersing oneself in the world by taking part in the simulation…

You don’t understand it. It’s not just that “we” inhabit a simulated universe, but that we are simulations too.

…is a staple of the computer simulation. Again Bostrom declares that the universe could be a simulation but yet again there is no justification to limit possible purposes to the one Bostrom is proposing.

Straw man noted. No-one does that – your cheat though is to jump from “you can’t exclude X” too “therefore X”. You may as well argue that telescopes not seeing a giant orbiting teapot supports your claim that it exists. You’re squarely in negative proof fallacy territory again.   

Bostrom's idea of simulating the life of ancestors invites extending the purpose to it being an immersive simulation in which one takes on an avatar in the simulation. You can probably think of ways in which an avatar might give indication that it is not solely a sims and has another mode of existence.

You might think that “invites extending the purpose”, but that wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that an uncaused cause, a maker that makes itself known to its creation, and a maker that makes itself an avatar are “all the elements of Bostrom idea”. None of these claims are elements of Bostrom’s idea though – it functions quite happily with none of them present. If you now want to shift ground to “invites extending the purpose” that’s up to you, but your prior claim has collapsed.

There is to my recollection an article where Bostrom talks about Pop ups revealing the existence of an outside operator but since that probably dates from the 2000 I am still trying to track this down.

Let me know when you do.

The fact is though ,pop ups, avatars etc. are staples of computer simulation.

But not of Botrom’s postulation, which was your claim.

Apart from all that though…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn’t. You never bother with citations for the things you claim people have said, and as you often misrepresent what people actually say it doesn’t seem unreasonable of me to have done your job for you. If though you think I have “left out” the part where he proposes an uncaused cause, a creator that makes itself known, and a creator that appears as an avatar then just tell us where he said that.

What’s stopping you?

That “with purpose” is something you just made up remember? Who’s to say that a descendant millennia into the future would not have such vast computing power that s/he was designing something else entirely from which the universe “we” happen to perceive inadvertently emerged?   

Ah, your burden of proof mistake again. I have a speculation that rainbows are simulations. According to you, that’s support for leprechauns doing the simulating then right? 

And I don’t say that simulated rainbows HAVE to be naturalistic either. How does that take me even one step closer to validating leprechauns though? 

So you say. Where’s your citation for that claim though? 

You don’t understand it. It’s not just that “we” inhabit a simulated universe, but that we are simulations too.

Straw man noted. No-one does that – your cheat though is to jump from “you can’t exclude X” too “therefore X”. You may as well argue that telescopes not seeing a giant orbiting teapot supports your claim that it exists. You’re squarely in negative proof fallacy territory again.   

You might think that “invites extending the purpose”, but that wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that an uncaused cause, a maker that makes itself known to its creation, and a maker that makes itself an avatar are “all the elements of Bostrom idea”. None of these claims are elements of Bostrom’s idea though – it functions quite happily with none of them present. If you now want to shift ground to “invites extending the purpose” that’s up to you, but your prior claim has collapsed.

Let me know when you do.

But not of Botrom’s postulation, which was your claim.

Apart from all that though…

I'm sorry but the moment you talk of computer simulations of history there is no argument against using it as a virtual reality experience where to understand what is unfolding you put yourself into the simulation.

I'm afraid Bostrom, De Grasse Tyson have let the genie out of the bottle, Bostrom recognises the analogy with religion.

If you merely accept it as a possibility then IMO. To say Avatars or using the simulation as a VR experience is not possible or a possible goal of the simulation, is SU dodging...Which is just another form of God dodging.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry but the moment you talk of computer simulations of history there is no argument against using it as a virtual reality experience where to understand what is unfolding you put yourself into the simulation.

It’d only be “history” if the simulator(s) created a facsimile of the past of their or someone else's ancestors. The SU conjecture doesn’t require that though, and even if it did you still misunderstand with “you put yourself into the simulation” – the idea could equally be that “we” are simulations, not just that we inhabit a simulation.     

I'm afraid Bostrom, De Grasse Tyson have let the genie out of the bottle, Bostrom recognises the analogy with religion.

And yet none of the things you claimed to be “elements” of the Bostrom conjecture are elements of the Bostrom conjecture. Why not either provide a citation that says otherwise or just stop lying about that?   

If you merely accept it as a possibility then IMO.

Meaning?

To say Avatars or using the simulation as a VR experience is not possible or a possible goal of the simulation,…

Straw man. No-one says that.

…is SU dodging

No it isn’t. You can embrace SU readily with none of the supposed “elements” you erroneously try to jemmy into it.

...Which is just another form of God dodging.

And the big lie to finish.

As you’ve completely avoided all the rebuttals I gave you, why are you bothering just with more straw men, misrepresentations and falsehoods here?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’d only be “history” if the simulator(s) created a facsimile of the past of their or someone else's ancestors. The SU conjecture doesn’t require that though, and even if it did you still misunderstand with “you put yourself into the simulation” – the idea could equally be that “we” are simulations, not just that we inhabit a simulation.     

And yet none of the things you claimed to be “elements” of the Bostrom conjecture are elements of the Bostrom conjecture. Why not either provide a citation that says otherwise or just stop lying about that?   

Meaning?

Straw man. No-one says that.

No it isn’t. You can embrace SU readily with none of the supposed “elements” you erroneously try to jemmy into it.

And the big lie to finish.

As you’ve completely avoided all the rebuttals I gave you, why are you bothering just with more straw men, misrepresentations and falsehoods here?   

The sentiment that you can embrace SU and not accept
The elements is tantamount to saying you can embrace SU and ignore the logical implications of it that you don't like in an act of special pleading.

I commend the Bostrom paper, not perhaps in terms of saying it's right but to get what the purpose might be, and the links Bostrom makes with religion and Gods.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The sentiment that you can embrace SU and not accept
The elements is tantamount to saying you can embrace SU and ignore the logical implications of it that you don't like in an act of special pleading.

Dear god but you struggle. You can embrace the SU conjecture exactly as Bostrom proposed it with none of the characteristics you claim to be “elements” of it at all. If you now want to resile from “elements” to “extra features I want to add” instead and then claim those features to be “logical implications” you can try that if you like, but you'd have all your work ahead of you to explain why they’d be logical implications rather than just baseless and unnecessary additions.   

Let me help you here. While you can't claim that the SU conjecture supports your conjecture "god", what you can say is that the two conjectures aren't incompatible. It doesn't take you any way further down the road of validating your claim "god" I know, but at least it's logically defensible.       

I commend the Bostrom paper, not perhaps in terms of saying it's right but to get what the purpose might be, and the links Bostrom makes with religion and Gods.

Which paper? You still haven’t cited it remember (though you have complained when I tried to do that job for you)?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Incidentally, by way of a coda it seems to me that the added feature “god” you’re trying to jemmy into the SU conjecture suffers in any case from the same but opposite problem of infinite regression that wrecks the cosmological argument (at least unless you invoke the same “it’s magic innit” get-out-of-jail-free escape clause). Even if there are (will be?) super advanced descendants of ours many years hence who have created “us”, who’s to say that they too wouldn’t be unwitting simulations made by even more advanced descendants of theirs, and so on forever? It’s an infinite progression problem rather than the infinite regression problem I guess, but it’s basically the same problem nonetheless. 

[Enki]

First of all you cannot just take what Bostrom says in part and then ask where the stuff you have left out is in the part you have left in. With all due respect that is a bit of a low dodge on your part.

Secondly, Bostrom is claiming, not only that the universe could be a simulation it probably is. The undeniable aspect is the universe has a creator/creators with purpose in Bostrom that happens to to run a simulation but having introduced the idea of a maker i'm afraid he doesn't get to determine his ideas of the purpose as the only reason for creating the universe. Indeed he only goes so far as to say the creator can be naturalistic....as do I, rather than HAS to be naturalistic. He then, in his original paper available on his website goes on to acknowledge analogy between the theory and Gods.

Bostrom's notion of simulating the world of ancestors and indeed the idea of immersing oneself in the world by taking part in the simulation is a staple of the computer simulation. Again Bostrom declares that the universe could be a simulation but yet again there is no justification to limit possible purposes to the one Bostrom is proposing.

Bostrom's idea of simulating the life of ancestors invites extending the purpose to it being an immersive simulation in which one takes on an avatar in the simulation. You can probably think of ways in which an avatar might give indication that it is not solely a sims and has another mode of existence.

There is to my recollection an article where Bostrom talks about Pop ups revealing the existence of an outside operator but since that probably dates from the 2000 I am still trying to track this down.

The fact is though ,pop ups, avatars etc. are staples of computer simulation.

Just to refer to three points for information purposes:

First you refer to "Bostrom is claiming, not only that the universe could be a simulation it probably is."

According to his own words this is simply not true.

Bostrom makes three propositions:

(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

He suggests that his arguments for the last proposition are sound, but that the simulation hypothesis is not necessarily any more probable than either of the other two propositions being true because we lack strong evidence for any of them. Indeed, his personal view is that he assigns only around a 20% probability to the simulation hypothesis.

Secondly on the subject of its religious connotations, you say "He then, in his original paper available on his website goes on to acknowledge analogy between the theory and Gods."

Correct.

This is the part of his original paper which deals with this:

Although all the elements of such a system can be naturalistic, even physical, it is possible to draw some loose analogies with religious conceptions of the world. In some ways, the posthumans running a simulation are like gods in relation to the people inhabiting the simulation: the posthumans created the world we see; they are of superior intelligence; they are “omnipotent” in the sense that they can interfere in the workings of our world even in ways that violate its physical laws; and they are “omniscient” in the sense that they can monitor everything that happens. However, all the demigods except those at the fundamental level of reality are subject to sanctions by the more powerful gods living at lower levels.

At no point does he say that the simulation creators are gods, only, in some ways, like gods.

Further, when asked 'What is the relation between the simulation argument and religion?', he said this:

It 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.

Finally he referred to Pop ups in a response to the question 'Isn’t the simulation-hypothesis untestable?' when he said:

There are clearly possible observations that would show that we are in a simulation. For example, the simulators could make a “window” pop up in front of you with the text “YOU ARE LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION. CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION.” Or they could uplift you into their level of reality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to refer to three points for information purposes:

First you refer to "Bostrom is claiming, not only that the universe could be a simulation it probably is."

According to his own words this is simply not true.

Bostrom makes three propositions:
He suggests that his arguments for the last proposition are sound, but that the simulation hypothesis is not necessarily any more probable than either of the other two propositions being true because we lack strong evidence for any of them. Indeed, his personal view is that he assigns only around a 20% probability to the simulation hypothesis.

Secondly on the subject of its religious connotations, you say "He then, in his original paper available on his website goes on to acknowledge analogy between the theory and Gods."

Correct.

This is the part of his original paper which deals with this:
At no point does he say that the simulation creators are gods, only, in some ways, like gods.

Further, when asked 'What is the relation between the simulation argument and religion?', he said this:
Finally he referred to Pop ups in a response to the question 'Isn’t the simulation-hypothesis untestable?' when he said:

Bostrom is not the only exponent of SU.
But what he does do is propose a creator of the universe which has a purpose.
So whatever is subsequent or below that astounding departure from traditional naturalism is effectively mere detail or superstructure.

In terms of being Gods or like Gods. I have no idea of his preferred theology. I am aware of straw clutching on this board on this issue where “like God” is treated as “nothing like God or gods”....an obvious preference.

When told of theological implications Dawkins gave such a creator praise after declaring
“I wouldn’t worship it” That I move says more about Dawkins than any extra universal creator.

[jeremyp]

Bostrom is not the only exponent of SU.
But what he does do is propose a creator of the universe which has a purpose.
So whatever is subsequent or below that astounding departure from traditional naturalism is effectively mere detail or superstructure.

In terms of being Gods or like Gods. I have no idea of his preferred theology. I am aware of straw clutching on this board on this issue where “like God” is treated as “nothing like God or gods”....an obvious preference.

When told of theological implications Dawkins gave such a creator praise after declaring
“I wouldn’t worship it” That I move says more about Dawkins than any extra universal creator.

What is your point exactly? Why are you burbling on about the universe as a simulation?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Bostrom is not the only exponent of SU.

But he is the one you were referencing for support for your clam “god”, albeit wrongly. That’s why people here have commented on what he actually said rather than on what you mistakenly inferred from it.
 

But what he does do is propose a creator of the universe which has a purpose.

No he doesn’t. The “with a purpose” part is just your own.   

So whatever is subsequent or below that astounding departure from traditional naturalism is effectively mere detail or superstructure.

There is no departure from “traditional naturalism” – he says expressly, “Although all the elements of such a system can be naturalistic, even physical, it is possible…” etc. 

In terms of being Gods or like Gods. I have no idea of his preferred theology. I am aware of straw clutching on this board on this issue where “like God” is treated as “nothing like God or gods”....an obvious preference.

Gibberish. You think there to be something you call “god”, and you also think this supposed god to have various characteristics – being causeless for example. What’s being explained to you is that something could be “god-like’ to an observer but not a god at all, namely because it has none of those characteristics. The Aztecs thought Cortes was a god, but in fact he was only god-like. Can you see the difference now? 

When told of theological implications Dawkins gave such a creator praise after declaring“I wouldn’t worship it” That I move says more about Dawkins than any extra universal creator.

Actually it would say more about a god so insecure that it wanted to be worshipped, but it’s irrelevant in any case.

So, now that Bostrom is a busted flush for you do you have any SU proponents to cite that do actually support your claims rather than just not contradict them?     

[Owlswing]

Vlad,

 Can you see the difference now? 

NO NO NO, a thousand times NO! For Vlad to see the difference would mean him admitting he is in error, he is wrong, and you and I both know that him admitting that is about as likely as Trump turning out to be the Messiah!

Vlad is never wrong, everyone else is wrong, but, on religion, never Vlad!

An unpleasant lesson I will admit, but one I have learnt, hence I ignore his religious bollo comments!

Owlswing

)O(

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


 
No he doesn’t. The “with a purpose” part is just your own.   
   

I am getting concerned with the progressive weakness of your arguments. Of course Bostrom proposes a creator with a purpose. In Bostrom's case, An ancestor simulation. That is a purpose. Your second weakness is, for some reason majoring on the ancestor simulation part rather than the feat of creating a universe for any purpose. IMHO that is creator avoidance.

[Roses]

NO NO NO, a thousand times NO! For Vlad to see the difference would mean him admitting he is in error, he is wrong, and you and I both know that him admitting that is about as likely as Trump turning out to be the Messiah!

Vlad is never wrong, everyone else is wrong, but, on religion, never Vlad!

An unpleasant lesson I will admit, but one I have learnt, hence I ignore his religious bollo comments!

Owlswing

)O(

Poor Vlad one needs to be kind and pity him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Poor Vlad one needs to be kind and pity him.

Does this pity and kindness manifest itself in almsgiving and financial donation?