Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Created it from what?

In theism and deism there are two lines of argument.

Well there are two types of creators or causers in philosophy primary and secondary

Firstly there are people like Plato and some christian theologians which have God as a kind of sculptor who shapes and directs some fundamental pre existent energy which would otherwise be completely uniform and inert, needing division and dynamism to distinguish it from the non existent which would actually be nothing while pre existent matter would just be busy doing nothing. God here would be a secondary creator.

All that of course doesn't sit well with the alternative type of creator the primary creator, powerful enough to bring matter into existence. Here existence is owed to the will and power of God since there is nothing, except non existence, outside of God.
So things exist because God exists.

I suppose the question remains as to how God pulls this off and this is where simulated universe thinking can help us out.

Here the universe is created in the universe of the simulator or universe of the 'creator' but it's empirical reality it's physical nature emerges out of that ''other'' universe while being totally dependent on it

In the ''universes'' we simulate today the processes that define those ''universes'' emerge on screens refreshed at 50Hz per second. The processes in the simulated universe emerge in an independent time dependent on the programming.

What might a universe existing but whose existence is constantly refreshed look like? Perhaps at a fundamental quantum level, virtual particles coming into then popping out of existence, with the bigger perspective maintained.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Doesn't correspond to my edition.

That isn't my problem

Taking this source at face value, again, I don't see why it matters. It's not a brilliant book and I don't think he was even trying to be compressive. As I said before: it doesn't support your contention that "...the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall."




Not the subject at all. I was referring to the absurdity of equating a simulated universe to theism and your apparent inability to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions to be classed as a god or gods.

As far as I can recall we never found out from you how claiming that, in the case of this being a simulated universe, ''the universe is dependent on it's existence for it's creation on whatever created it, which in turn is independent from it's creation'', is reasonable but the theistic suggestion that ''the universe is dependent on it's existence for it's creation on whatever created it, which in turn is independent from it's creation'' is not exactly the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your first paragraph contradicts the third. And what about all the gods that don't create the universe? Plenty to choose from: Godchecker.

I don't see how it contradicts the third since the God as described in Paragraph I could easily fit into the category described in paragraph 3.

I didn't realise we were talking about Gods which didn't create the universe so that question is non sequitur.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see how it contradicts the third since the God as described in Paragraph I could easily fit into the category described in paragraph 3.

I didn't realise we were talking about Gods which didn't create the universe so that question is non sequitur.

Slight clarification: I may have misunderstood but I thought your position was that something had the necessary and sufficient conditions of being a god if it could create something that would have the necessary and sufficient condions (not defined by you) of a 'universe' ?

[jeremyp]

Dawkins critiqued Aquinas' arguments in ''The God Delusion'' including the cosmological arguments he misunderstood one of the arguments leading him to propose that because everything needed a cause, God needed a cause. That was not Aquinas' argument.
 

How bizarre. Fancy thinking that everything having a certain property means that some member of the set of everything has that property. All the ways that try to rescue the Cosmological argument boil down to "everything except God has a cause..." That exposes the argument for the naked special pleading it is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How bizarre. Fancy thinking that everything having a certain property means that some member of the set of everything has that property. All the ways that try to rescue the Cosmological argument boil down to "everything except God has a cause..." That exposes the argument for the naked special pleading it is.

Rescue the cosmological argument from what?

Infinite regress?
The brute fact of the universe? Your own favourite and truly a special plead
Contingency without necessity?
Composite necessity?
Circular causation?

I think it was Sean M Carroll who said he was giving time to disprove the principle of sufficient reason
and indeed he who has stated that causation isn’t fundamental.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Slight clarification: I may have misunderstood but I thought your position was that something had the necessary and sufficient conditions of being a god if it could create something that would have the necessary and sufficient condions (not defined by you) of a 'universe' ?

By a universe I rather meant This universe. What we can’t say is whether “God” in the case of our universe is the Ultimate or a god within a pantheon with an eventual ultimate, that would need to be revealed.

[Nearly Sane]

By a universe I rather meant This universe. What we can’t say is whether “God” in the case of our universe is the Ultimate or a god within a pantheon with an eventual ultimate, that would need to be revealed.

In the post I replied to you used the term, 'the universe', not 'a universe'. From previous postings you seemed to imply that there could be muliple suffocient 'universes' in our current universe.

Your clarification seems to create further confusion so let us try a slightly different tack. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a 'created thing' to be a universe that would lead you to regard the thing creating it to be a god?


Btw, why use 'we' in your post here?

[jeremyp]

Rescue the cosmological argument from what?

From the contradiction in saying that "everything has a cause" and then claiming that God (who is the set of everything) does not have a cause.

The brute fact of the universe? Your own favourite and truly a special plead

But at least we know the Universe exists. Also, I don't rule out the possibility of an infinite regress nor do I rule out the possibility that there are things that are uncaused.

Contingency without necessity?
Composite necessity?
Circular causation?

By using fancy words you only disguise the bankruptcy of your argument, you don't repair it.

I think it was Sean M Carroll who said he was giving time to disprove the principle of sufficient reason
and indeed he who has stated that causation isn’t fundamental.

Yes, at the quantum level there is no cause and effect, only interactions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the post I replied to you used the term, 'the universe', not 'a universe'. From previous postings you seemed to imply that there could be muliple suffocient 'universes' in our current universe.

Your clarification seems to create further confusion so let us try a slightly different tack. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a 'created thing' to be a universe that would lead you to regard the thing creating it to be a god?

In general use a god doesn't have to be the creator of the universe or even be responsible for it but is an entity which has superhuman responsibility for an aspect of it.
In scholastic theological terms the God of this universe was independent for her existence from the universe she created and created it out her own volition. Some 'schoolmen' went further to suggest God was fundamental for existence, period and in simulated universe theory there is actually no available mechanism to exclude a God of that description.

Btw, why use 'we' in your post here?

I like to mix things up a little.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Continuing a review of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism Section b. Multiple Property Disproofs

Another form of deductive atheological argument attempts to show the logical incompatibility of two or more properties that God is thought to possess.  A long list of properties have been the subject of multiple property disproofs, transcendence and personhood

Time to define ‘’personal’’ here. Individual and free would be a good start . Debates rage as to whether humans are free but there are no questions as to whether people are personal. Surely volition is a good word to describe an entity like God who is free. Free acts suggest free will. I see no contradiction between transcendence and personhood

, justice and mercy,

But surely this is what the row over Christianity is all about. The crucifixion satisfies mercy and justice

immutability and omniscience

Knowing only comes about after learning? Worth a debate?

, immutability and omnibenevolence

Love only comes about through falling in love? Worth a debate?

, omnipresence and agency

Perhaps as  God is the conclusion of all hierarchies

, perfection and love

perfection is love, perhaps

, eternality and omniscience, eternality and creator of the universe

Did God create the universe in time? Is creation continual?

, omnipresence and consciousness.   (Blumenfeld 2003, Drange 1998b, Flew 1955, Grim 2007, Kretzmann 1966, and McCormick 2000 and 2003)
Source Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[jeremyp]

The crucifixion satisfies mercy and justice 

On what planet?

Ignoring the logical incoherence of a god having to engineer his own execution in order to sidestep one of his own rules, how does the crucifixion have anything to do with justice?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Reviewing the Internet encyclopedia  of Philosophy entry on Atheismc. Failure of Proof Disproof

When attempts to provide evidence or arguments in favor of the existence of something fail, a legitimate and important question is whether anything except the failure of those arguments can be inferred.  That is, does positive atheism follow from the failure of arguments for theism?  A number of authors have concluded that it does.  They have  taken the view that unless some case for the existence of God succeeds, we should believe that there is no God.

One would expect then a detailed breakdown of where and how the arguments failed and theists, certainly on this ‘’forum’’, are often invited to search uncited volumes for where this supposedly happened or to search one’s dishonest conscience and just own up to having been schooled by random atheists. And all that gainst a background of atheists hunkereing down under the cover of merely lacking a belief in God and no more having to prove God or disproving God than any rock or pot plant which also acks said belief

 
Many have taken an argument J.M. Findlay (1948) to be pivotal.  Findlay, like many others, argues that in order to be worthy of the label “God,” and in order to be worthy of a worshipful attitude of reverence, emulation, and abandoned admiration,

Again another atheist specification for being God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On what planet?

On any planet with any sense of culpability, absent in the humanist belief that everyone's a good bloke deep down(Disneyfication)

Ignoring the logical incoherence of a god having to engineer his own execution in order to sidestep one of his own rules, how does the crucifixion have anything to do with justice?

Not logically incoherent, God is just doing what everybody does when they forgive i.e. take it on themselves.

[Stranger]

On any planet with any sense of culpability, absent in the humanist belief that everyone's a good bloke deep down(Disneyfication)

Massive non sequitur. There is absolutely no need or justification for the bizarre sadomasochistic act of the crucifixion. It must be about as far away from justice and mercy that it's possible to get. Whether everybody is a 'good bloke' or not, is irrelevant.

Not logically incoherent, God is just doing what everybody does when they forgive i.e. take it on themselves.

I suggest looking up 'forgive' in a dictionary.

[Stranger]

As far as I can recall we never found out from you how claiming that, in the case of this being a simulated universe, ''the universe is dependent on it's existence for it's creation on whatever created it, which in turn is independent from it's creation'', is reasonable but the theistic suggestion that ''the universe is dependent on it's existence for it's creation on whatever created it, which in turn is independent from it's creation'' is not exactly the same.

Seriously? Not again with this mindless nonsense. Unless you use that the definition of 'God' this is just irrelevant. As a definition, it's crap, because it misses out (polytheistic) gods that don't create the universe and also many attributes associated with monotheistic gods, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, immortality, an so on. In other words it satisfies neither the monotheistic god-concepts or the polytheistic ones.

I also don't think you ever got round to saying how much of a universe would have to be simulated in order for the simulators to be regarded as 'god(s)'. I can see no reason at all for simulating an entire universe, quite frankly (I never said it was reasonable), and it certainly wouldn't be the first thing that would be done, even if that was the goal. We'd expect far more limited simulations first. Are weather forecasters proto-gods because they simulate the weather?

[jeremyp]

On any planet with any sense of culpability, absent in the humanist belief that everyone's a good bloke deep down(Disneyfication)

Do you realise that the crucifixion was deliberately designed to subvert the idea of "culpability". It provides a way for Christians to avoid paying the price for sins.

Not logically incoherent, God is just doing what everybody does when they forgive i.e. take it on themselves.

I don't have my son executed every time I forgive somebody.

[Outrider]

Not logically incoherent,

Absolutely logically incoherent - what are we being forgiven for? If we've been forgiven, why are we still being judged?

God is just doing what everybody does when they forgive i.e. take it on themselves.

So you're saying that God's just like us, but a bit more drama-queen?

O.

[jeremyp]

So you're saying that God's just like us, but a bit more drama-queen?

But he is also saying that, to forgive somebody for a crime, you have to do the time instead of them. It's utterly bizarre.

[Stranger]

But he is also saying that, to forgive somebody for a crime, you have to do the time instead of them. It's utterly bizarre.

Worse even than that, the punishment (being tortured to death) is not one that would be meted out to anybody for anything in any civilised society today and Jesus didn't even take the punishment properly because he didn't stay dead.

It's silly beyond belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Massive non sequitur. There is absolutely no need or justification for the bizarre sadomasochistic act of the crucifixion. It must be about as far away from justice and mercy that it's possible to get. Whether everybody is a 'good bloke' or not, is irrelevant.

I suggest looking up 'forgive' in a dictionary.

I think this assumes that sinning has no corrupting affect on the person and isn't an offence against God. The idea that forgiveness just involves the statement ''your forgiven'' seems magical thinking and not even true even if you discount God yet keep everyone else who has been offended against

[Outrider]

I think this assumes that sinning has no corrupting affect on the person and isn't an offence against God.

Where's the evidence of any 'corruption'? I get that it might be non-material, given the source claims, but even then that case isn't made, it's just an authoritarian 'you must follow the instructions'. The implication of the original isn't that you should obey because it's in your best interests, it's that you should obey because it's your place to obey.

As to whether it's an 'offence' against God, that's God's problem not ours.

The idea that forgiveness just involves the statement ''your forgiven'' seems magical thinking

***Poing*** went another irony-meter....

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you realise that the crucifixion was deliberately designed to subvert the idea of "culpability". It provides a way for Christians to avoid paying the price for sins.

Or it's a way to show mercy and to restore God's image in us.

I don't have my son executed every time I forgive somebody.

With all due respect that's cherry picked theology isn't it....The son of God IS God. If you forgive someone you are taking what they have done fully and any consequences on yourself e.g. if someone crashes their car into you. You sort it all out without them being penalised in anyway. It's a whole new level of forgiveness.

[Stranger]

I think this assumes that sinning has no corrupting affect on the person and isn't an offence against God.

No, it doesn't. I literally can't think of any set of assumptions that would make the crucifixion in the least bit just or merciful. Come to think of it, I can't even think of any way that an omni-type creator god would not also be omni-responsible.

The idea that forgiveness just involves the statement ''your forgiven''...

Sorry, did I miss somebody suggesting this?

...seems magical thinking...

...and not even true even if you discount God yet keep everyone else who has been offended against

Your point? People can forgive people, or not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolutely logically incoherent - what are we being forgiven for? If we've been forgiven, why are we still being judged?

A charge of logical incoherence in the case of morality looks to me as though you are assuming there is a moral realism. That surprises me. What are we being forgiven for? spoiling what is known as the image of God in us, in other words offending against God and our true selves.
I think there is the question of accepting our forgiveness and facing our likeness to God and God himself. Judgment I suppose is facing the truth of what we have done.

So you're saying that God's just like us, but a bit more drama-queen?

O.

I think we live at a more trivial, flippant, level and shallower than God.