possible but not probable. I'm sticking with probable. Because there are so many more reasons as to why there is no creater, very few for it. And the ones for a god, are stretching the imagination, while the ones against a god are tied to simple logic. I'm going with simple logic here--you can have your gods, i have better things to do.
this argument doesn't posit God, only what could be called 'a god'. you are right to assert that the problem here is what constitutes a deity. from what i can see here, this argument begs the question of 'where does the original simulation come from?' i am an atheist and i think that any theist would be unwilling to accept a god that isn't THE GOD in all possible universes. what god is to most people-i think-is the power behind all universes.
@Maxid1 what if YOU are wrong? if i built a time machine and took you to the supposed time of Jesus and we couldn't find him what then? what would you make of your life if you found out that jesus was a character created by romans for the purpose of consolidating power in the empire through a religion that demands belief? do you have the ability to question the god you were taught to believe in? what will it take to get you to admit that jesus might be just another mythical character?
@wussbaref00t Roman persecution of Christians is a well-documented fact, which negates your argument that the Romans invented Jesus. Pauline Christianity is, however, a mish-mash involving elements of Mitrhraism and other popular religions created at the behest of Constantine.
Of course, now that brings up the same old question: Why would this creator make such an imperfect world, and doesn't it make him evil since he lets us suffer in it just for amusement? Just a thought. Btw, I am a theist, just pointing that out.
The year was 11 c. B.C. when the Visitor arrived .. from the star of Alnitrak, a blue giant that has engulfed his home, the planet of Nebiru. The assignment of the Visitor was to save its species from extinction, to marry the local ape, and to deliver all the knowledge of his civilization in order to protect their grand children from killing each other and exhausting the resources too fast. Which is mission impossible, as we all know.
That would just be an argument for a creator of this universe, but who created them?, it seems to fall apart when you question who created the people/beings who are not simulated.
I would say a many-worlds argument upon which all possible states of matter exist without a creator is a cleaner argument, if we first just accept matter exists, and then assume infinite states of matter then it isn't a surprise that you exist, the odds are 1 in 1.
"That would just be an argument for a creator of this universe, but who created them?, it seems to fall apart when you question who created the people/beings who are not simulated."
The origins of the creators is left up in the air, it would would be impossible to ascertain (as we know nothing about their universe). I accept that this means this is not an 'ultimate answer' but it is not meant to be; it doesn't have to be.
@noelplum99 Hey Noel, I have a modified version of this argument that I think may be even stronger than the original. It combines simulism with the idea of Kurzweil's 6th stage of evolution. Could you take a look at it? watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY
I've been actually wondering, as difficult as the Simulation Argument is to accept for religious people, if it might not permit for the possibility of a religious style deity (of the Frank Tipler variety) as the most probable simulator is the Omega Point.
@noelplum99 It's funny you bring in the Simulation Argument as an argument for God, because as a matter of fact, it turns out there's an old Kabbalistic text that describes the creation of the universe through language by "Jah the Lord of Hosts," via what bears an uncanny resemblence to a 22-level Bloch sphere, encoded with 231 permutations of qubits.
BTW fun note of trivia: Kurzweil's law tells us that the most likely simulator is the Omega Point: watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY
It's a dangerous argument from the perspective of denying the existence of God through Jesus Christ. As far as the bible goes, there are many instances of punishment for just this practice of considering god's other than the one true God. This video brings a few verses to mind. Job15:2"Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the east wind." 1 Corinthians 8:1"... Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." Isa 55:11"... it [Gods word] shall not return unto me void."
"It's a dangerous argument from the perspective of denying the existence of God through Jesus Christ."
If i quoted from the rig veda, pali canon, qur'an or any other text you do not regard as scripture would you regard its contents as a telling argument as to why you should refrain from doing something? i suggest to you you would not and on those grounds i am baffled why you think quoting your scripture to an atheist like myself is a worthwhile exercise?
@noelplum99 You're exactly who I'm supposed to quote scripture to, one who does not believe in it. What good would it do to quote it to someone who does believe? As Jesus said in Matt 9:12"But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." The central thing that's missing from all the other sources you mention is a savior. There is only one truth. To believe there are many truths would cause one truth to be more true than another.
@noelplum99 Again, that's what I'm called to do, by Jesus Christ,to further the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who don't believe in Him.I'm told to not add a word to it or subtract a word from it.It is complete truth.To change it, or be original, would require me to change the message that is perfect truth. Because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not truth, it just means it's truth you don't know or accept. You will have the opportunity to find out whether or not what I'm saying is true.
Whilst i admire your sense of conviction you offer me no means to differentiate your 'truth' claims from anyone elses. Your biblical quotes may impress someone who already holds them as scripture but you don't seem to understand that I do not. You would need to provide me with a seriously compelling case as to why I should regard the biblical authors in any higher regard than the guy down the end of the road and until you can do that you're on a hiding to nothing.
@noelplum99 Reading and comparing all the texts that you've mentioned would be one way for you to see the truth foundation in the message of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately it's unlikely you'll do that if you haven't already. I can explain why I continue to quote the scripture that you do not hold as scripture. To re-quote Isaiah 55:11"... it [Gods word] shall not return unto me void."I don't convince you of anything.I simply tell you the gospel and God does the rest. God's truth is written in you.
@Maxid1 "It's a dangerous argument from the perspective of denying the existence of God through Jesus Christ."
Well a variation of it could permit for religious-style God: watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY
Ever heard of Frank Tipler's Omega Point theory? Statistically speaking the Omega Point should be running the most simulations of all. Thus it is the most likely simulator.
If we are living in a simulation, we can almost certainly conclude that the human species will not face any major worldwide catastrophes that would hinder the progress of technology, as even though these events already happened, and "real" humans could've sustained a huge extinction or technological stopping ground, statistics say that it's much more likely for nothing of the such to have occurred. We should be hoping, in a sense, that we are living in one of the simulated universes.
@ONLYBESTVlDEOSFORYOU there was actually a scientist that killed himself after he realized that this is true. It has to do with photons knowing where all other photons are. And the discovery of non-locality. Its something about an electrical charge that is what makes us "feel" things. I couldn't explain it very well, but there are people that can. Chuck Missler is a good place to start.
Neoplum, this argument if flawed and weak to claim an existence of an omnipotent being.
If i made a computer simulation right now by creating artificial intelligence, it doesn't mean that i know literally "Everything" that's happening within the simulation, from every atom to every pixel within. Your saying is that God could be a teenaged programmer who created a computer game called "The Universe" and say he's omniscience, he will forget most things he made like how i wont remember every pixel
As an atheist, I actually quite like this argument. The main problem I have is the mental capacity needed to create and ever changing world, and follow the ever changing world. I can hardly remember what I did a few weeks ago, let alone what nearly 7 billion people are doing all over the world all the time. The concept is good, but I just can't get my mind around the processing power needed for a deity to create this universe.
@KieranMac17 You may have made a poignantly paradoxical counter argument to your own argument. By citing your own poor long-term memory and inability to maintain medium-term memory for more than a couple weeks, you are actually supporting the idea that a controlling consciousness would not have to be necessarily very grand at all, and only necessarily capable of monitoring or controlling only a handful of distinct consciousnesses for small periods of time.
@KieranMac17 That is to say, it is not unimaginable that a controlling consciousness might only have to entertain your brain with scenarios in which you interact with multiple apparently external consciousnesses for a relatively small period of time. Ask yourself, how often do you personally interact with more than a few people at once? That is, do your perceptions provide evidence of multiple independent consciousness for more than five minutes at a time? How about an hour? A day?
@KieranMac17 It is perhaps conceivable that a controlling consciousness may only have to have worked out scenarios of multiple consciousnesses interacting with each other for only short periods of perceivable time. You will not remember most of the details of those events. It does not seem impossible that whole simulations of interactions could be generated using the "seed" of a controlling consciousness, and then replicating the scenario repeatedly, with minor variations.
@KieranMac17 That is a good point which i was pondering about for the very same the past 3 months , just go type in a crowd of a million people zoomed out. Can you put your own brain and hold in your mind what such a crowd is thinking about simultaenously. It's quite hard in the long run as you cannot listen to two people speaking at once. Ask this, how many people do you "know", not as in personally but generally. Can you know a million people, is it possible for your brain to conceive that.
Well, if you were going to create a virtual universe, why would you create one with so much suffering? Anyway, its not an argument for the existence of God since the being that created our virtual universe would presumably be mortal.
Mortal in terms of his or her universe perhaps (though technology may well have taken care of that) but could still live for trillions of years in terms of our universe which it could run on fast forward.
Bear in mind also the huge numbers of gods that have been worshipped that have died or been killed - immortaility is not a prerequisite.
@noelplum99 Well, they weren't really Gods. You claimed it was an argument for an omnipotent God. A mortal can't really be omnipotent, because death is a restricting factor. Furthermore, we wouldn't know if this "god" is a goodguy or a mad scientist. In short, he lacks the qualifications of a monotheistic deity. He could be our "creator," but who created him? Is there a fundamental God underlying all these virtual universes?
Haha, so 99.9% of the gods worshipped over the millennia 'weren't really gods'!
Wrt your other points, all a momotheistic god needs is to be omnipotent from the perspective of our universe and to report His own omnipotence (in fact if i was being cynical i would say only the latter is really required). Bear in mind, to have created our universe is 'to have existed at all times' with regard to our temporality and to have been pre-existant (in his own).
@noelplum99 Unbelievable. God is supposed to have existed in ALL times, not just sometimes. God is "unbegotten and unbegot" FYI. And God is an esoteric concept that not many grasp. In fact many atheists have a better understanding of what God actually means than do Christians. I urge you to research the mystery schools. Start with William Cooper, and follow his leads to Luciferianism. Start with TZM and follow it back to the creed of astro-theology. God is not all that it seems.
I don't know anywhere in the bible where it discusses the prospect of different temporal realms and even from the perspective of philosophy much of the discussion predates by centuries the ideas that TBB has forced us to consider regarding extra-universal dimensional systems (or not). Henceforth, your comment is somewhat moot here, because in the terms that were understood in centuries past this god WOULD exist in all times.
@noelplum99 I thought of one way one might be able to tell if one was in such a simulated universe or not. If in at least some instances some of the people inside the simulation happened to somehow stumble across knowledge of the programming of the simulation it would appear to them as a body of esoteric knowledge that they could use to manipulate the simulation.
In particular what do you make of this? watch?v=TufKcBa5RaI
"Is there a fundamental God underlying all these virtual universes?"
Ofc that is another question.... and would the creator of our universe even know that?
The point is, in any event, scraping and bowing to the creator of our universe would make more sense than directing our attentions to his creator, the creator of his universe, for whom we know even less and may have no direct interest in us whatsoever.
@noelplum99 So we've established it isn't an argument for God, at least not the ultimate God. I also think its a poor argument for a creator of any sort. First of all, if we live in a virtual world, then our notions of what is possible are mere abstractions of a fake universe. Our science would have no bearing on the actual science of the universe. So the argument is rather self defeating, isn't it?
"Our science would have no bearing on the actual science of the universe."
Which may well be the case in any event. One of the theories doing the rounds atm is this holographic universe thing, that we are a holographic representation of what our universe really is: a flat surface on which everything actually happens.
Science is a model that accords with what we see and allows predictions. nothing I have said precludes us from doing that.
@noelplum99 And really, we should get to the essential question of "what is God?"
If you haven't heard about the new-age religious movement, you should probably Youtube Manly P Hall right now. You will find some very broad clues as to what "God" actually means. You see, its all a metaphor, and a very deep and sacred metaphor at that.
Even John 1:1 says "In the beginning there was the WORD, and the WORD WAS GOD.
So...intelligent theists are not really talking about a creator.
"If you haven't heard about the new-age religious movement, you should probably Youtube Manly P Hall right now"
There is enough bullshit to deal with with traditional religion without dealing with me having to deal with the new varieties someone thought up whilst sat in the bath last thursday
@noelplum99 Actually in an odd sort of way I could conceive of a hybrid of the simulation argument, with a classical deity.
You've heard of the "it from bit" idea in physics right? The idea is that far enough down the universe is made of information. (the matter "behind" the event horizon is a projection of the information on the surface)
Treat existence itself as a quantum computer program with no outside -or if there is an outside- a larger program. Then equate said program with God.
@noelplum99 You must see that it is not true. But these people did not have the internet. They only had the word. And we learned "you shall not kill" and "you shall not steal" and "you shall not seduce your neighbor's wife" and all these good things. And we have descended into madness. Our government kills and steals for a living, and regular people cheat on their spouses habitually. Its really kind of a backwards world when u think about it. Not any religion that I'd ever subscribe to....
have we? In fact when wwe work out homicide rates in western society and compare them to the per capita rates for these apparently more serene tribe living with nature we find ourselves to be considerably less murderous. I actually think the level of civility in our society, for a species of highly flawed apes, is nothing short of remarkable.
Actually i disagree. If you accept the principles on which the argument is made then on the basis of the statistics the result is the only logical answer. Empirical evidence trumps all for me, ofc, and i can give you no empirical evidence for this but then that is the nature of philosophical discourse and applies to all ideas for the origin of the universe: there is certainly no more empirical evidence for the existence of a multiverse as a solution as for this.
So for me this boils down to how you rate the initial statements, the axioms. Now i realise many theists would object to them but i dont see anything immaterial about life or consciousness, anything that would preclude us from creating it artificially. So for my money, and given our obvious predispositions granted us by evolution, i cannot really see why the number of artificial universes would not exceed the 'real' ones tht have sentient life. Why do you?
Statistics do not establish existence. Proof of existence must be established by evidence. Your admission that empirical evidence is paramount, and yet you admit to having none, I see no rational basis to accept a philosophical argument as valid evidence. I certainly mean no disrespect with this phrase but this is related to a logical fallacy related the argument from ignorance.
The first is that your initial statement was that this was 'the worst argument for god in the world'. When I questioned you on this you then jumped to saying all arguments for god were poor. Since you are keen on bringing up fallacies I should like to point out just what a wholly illogical leap that was: as it stands ALL arguments for god could be absolute shite and this could still be the best of the bad bunch.
I think statistical arguments have a strange status. I mean, consider Drake's equation, which is in almost every aspect an identical kind of approach to a not entirely different subject. Now, whilst we would all agree that whatever values we punch into Drake's it never provides us with a single piece of direct empirical evidence for extraterrestrial life, surely as we become more confident of the likely values for the different variables it DOES give us grounds ....
...to be more or less optimistic of our chances of finding life elsewhere in our galaxy? Or would you stand by your assertion that it is entirely worthless and we can infer nothing?
"Proof of existence must be established by evidence."
There is no claim here of providing proof of anything, Bostrom's model is purely and simply (like Drake's) about statistical likelihood - as you accept yourself this is simply an 'argument for' yet you lurch from talk of inductive empirical evidence to the deductive notion of 'proof' with the implication that you either prove something or can say nothing about it.
Here's the GD44 Equation: Trillions of planets in the universe, 1 planet known to contain life. Statistics don't look like a favorable argument here do they? Feel free to make arguments with statistics, though if we're arguing the existence of seemingly invisible deities we need more than number crunching.
That is a somewhat unusual application of Drake's equation there and I can see some real problems with your methodology.
However, were your methodology sound then i would suggest we could infer a great deal about the likely preponderance of life in the universe on the basis you suggest . Similarly, given Bostrom's argument here, if we found out that for some reason creating virtual sentient agents was impossible or required prohibitive comuptational power....
...(let us say a computer the size of a star to process a decent number of lifeforms) then that would sway our statistical expectation.
"seemingly invisible deities"
Clearly in a virtual universe the creator of the universe would be invisible. We actually create virtual universes all the time, albeit not populated by sentient agents and a great deal smaller and less detailed than our own. These universes are not hypothetical but real constructs...
...and in each and every one of them the 'deity', the creator of that universe (or perhaps the team of creators: the programmers of the software, of the operating system, the creators of the hardware and the end user) are utterly absent from the universe itself.
"Clearly in a virtual universe the creator of the universe would be invisible."
This is an ad hoc rationalization for the glaring lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of the proposed "creator". This entire argument is simply argument from analogy (software/virtual) supported by even more unbacked claims. Arguments by analogy, particularly in ontological/religious areas, are often far from the "greatest" arguments (as claimed by the video title).
"This is an ad hoc rationalization for the glaring lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of the proposed "creator""
It depends what you mean. It certainly is no rationalisation for the lack of empirical evidence for the traditional theistic deities who love to meddle in the affairs of us humans but rather just a realistic expectation. maybe you could propose something different? Are you suggesting in a simulation we should see 'SIMULATION' in capital letters....
On the other hand, Paul Davies proposed that if we did live in a simulation we might be able to find some clues, minor changes in variables made over time to get the simulation 'back on track', so the idea of possible empirical evidence is not necessarily the case.
However, regardless of the rights or wrongs, to say we cannot 'prove' the origins of our universe so we better not even discuss it seems a poor place to start.
@noelplum99 No slam necessary. You're operating an argument by analogy and presenting contradictions along the way. "Omniscient and omnipotent deity" but unable to overcome the invisibility problem. You've placed paramount value on empirical evidence yet find analogy the "greatest" argument. While this is an interesting and fun argument surely you could locate its flaws for refinement.
"You've placed paramount value on empirical evidence yet find analogy the "greatest" argument."
I dont see this fundamentally as an analogy, as you claim, though i expand on Bostroms argument to discuss how this may equate to ideas approximating to things like omniscience.
Tbh i am not sure what to make of this hit i quote here, though. We both agree that empirical evidence trumps all but as there are no arguments for a deity based on direct empirical evidence ....
...this argument is instead competing against arguments that are, in the main, wholly philosophical. In that respect i feel it has something those other arguments do not have which is a (albeit arguable) statistical basis in real world experience .
As to its flaws, well clearly there are many unknowns involved and at the present those uave to class as flaws. Also, as we both agree, ultimately an argument sich as this can only give a statistical inference it cannot....
Ever give us anything concrete to go on about our universe.
However, i think it has far more than 'fun' value. I have often used it against more dogmatic theists who assert that a creator must have characteristic a or b, usually via some philosophical reasoning, yet this argument demolishes those philosophical prerequisites.
Also, one day our descendents very well may become the creators of such universes and we need to consider the ramifications (the moral ones)......
Just to give a quick example. In the last two weeks in a long vid response to TrustinJC i use just such a computer simulation model to throw into question his assertions that we cannot judge God - by asking him if anythin i did to such a simulation would be beyond reproach if i was running such a thing.
This idea has been in 2 movies, the Matrix and the 13th Floor, which I believe does a better job with the concept. The problem as I see it, is we all appear to be in a real world with no universal objective, as one would have in playing a game. I believe that technology in biology for replacement of body parts, and in miniaturization for computers to help a damaged human brain, will converge in the next 30 years.
The result may evolve as a non-biological human, from a previously living person.
i haven't seen the 13th floor (maybe I should) but ofc the one difference between this and the Matrix is that they had real bodies and brains which were plugged in to a virtual world - they were not virtual beings themselves, solely part of the coding of the machine.
This is an infinite regression argument, because the consciousness that created the technology to create artificial consciousness had to come from somewhere. Further, being able to create an artificial intelligence does not grant deity like attributes. All you have managed to do is create an argument that its possible that we were designed by aliens....which evolution already rips apart with ease.
"All you have managed to do is create an argument that its possible that we were designed by aliens"
Usually people use the term alien to involve another creature actually in the same universe rather than the creator of the universe itself. However, if you wish to expand the definition to include a creator external to our universe then, yes, you would be correct both for this argument and the vast majority of the world religions deities also.
@noelplum99 Regardless, you are still making an attribute fallacy. A being that can create a universe does not necessarily have deity like powers. It is a good argument for the possibility for some sort of designer, but it is not an argument to start assigning attributes to said designer. What further kills the argument is the fact we can simulate some aspects of the BB right now with powerful computers, and we are far from deities.
Several points. Firstly, if you look at the range of deities that have been worshipped in human history I defy you to produce a definitive list of what you call deistic powers. Secondly, what is to stop us being omnipotent, for example, within the simulated universe we create?
I think the problem here is not the model but your preconceptions of what constitutes a deity, in fact maybe you can tell me the drastic 'must haven't you are referring to?
@noelplum99 Actually, that list of deific powers should probably come from you, since you are claiming said deity definition may exist. The omnipotence does not carry over to the area where we exist, so it does not fit the definition of omnipotence because there are areas where we would be limited. You will need to add qualifier after qualifier for your argument to work.
You have lost me with your comment. Certainly there is no specific requirement for a deity to be omnipotent but even then you seem to have gotten your example the wrong way round. The point I was aiming at is that the creator of our universe could be omnipotent in terms of our (in this case virtual) universe and yet no more potent than ourselves in his own.
@noelplum99 You asked what would stop us from being omnipotent, if you are not omnipotent everywhere you are not omnipotent. You are adding a qualifier to the definition. No, you will have to go through each since you want to argue the characteristics of what would qualify as a deity.
But its all moot since you can not demonstrate how being able to create a universe demands said being has such characteristics.
This is an interesting argument you make because usually the argument I hear is exactly the opposite one. For example when I argue that omniscience is impossible because no entity can be sure of what it doesn't know, only what it does, therefore, at the very least, no entity can be sure of its own status regarding omniscience (even if it does happen to know everything else). Anyway, the reply i usually recieve in droves is that as long as the entity knows everything about our ...
..universe that is all that is being claimed by the term.
However, I don't want to dodge your question.
What i would say instead that I agree, it is placing a restriction on omnipotence but then have never found anyone (aside from WL Craig) who does not. Every theist I have heard has accepted that God cannot do the logically impossible (create a square circle or a married bachelor).
My point is that in respect to us the deity would appear omnipotent and, as such, would be .....
...indistinguishable from the omnipotent deities that people believe in (I can only think of Yahweh and Lord Brahman, feel free to add to the list if you know of any others).
"but that does not make us immoral or eternal."
Potentially the being could run the entire simulation from beginning to end of the virtual universe in 'fast forward' within its own lifetime. In terms of that universe that is from the beginning to the end of time, or existant at all points in time if you prefer.
You misunderstand, this isn't about saying what characteristics the being HAS to have but what typically deistic characteristics a mundane being in its own realm could display in relation to the realm it created.
Typically abrahamic monotheists make various claims about what the creator of our universe *has* to possess, and they are a heady mix indeed (a list you agree is wrong as you yourself are stating that omnipotence is off the menu of
necessary characteristics) but my point with humanoid is that a large number, probably the majority, of gods ever worshipped were humanoid in form and there is nothing in this model that precludes the creator having this characteristic, in this case, in his own realm.
@noelplum99 I don't really care what lunatics like Craig argue, If you are going to say this is the greatest argument for a deity, the possibility to create and simulate a universe, then I ask you to not only define what a deity is but to also demonstrate the ability to create a universe imposes characteristics you consider to be of a deity. Otherwise, before we go off topic anymore, you have a fallacious argument fallaciously imposing characteristics, which I dont see being the best argument.
In 500 chars or can i write an entire book on the subject as would be necessary?
"imposes characteristics you consider to be of a deity."
Ok, I will come up with some: potentially worthy of worship; capable of acts we would regard as supernatural; with dominion over our lives. They are three such characteristics I would consider would apply here.
@noelplum99 Being worthy of worship is subjective, so we'll toss that simply because I can not agree that anyone or thing is worthy of worship. I have to disagree with your second term because supernatural does not exist, plus its also perception based. The being would still be using natural phenomena to simulate our universe, and the things in our universe would still rely on the natural world in the being's universe.
Shit you are one picky motherfucker, aren't you? Personally if there is some posiibility of getting some reward for the worship, some payback, then it would fall under my definition of 'worthy of worship' - in other words, it is worth your time and efforts to worship.
@noelplum99 Yes, I am one picky motherfucker. If that is your definition of worship, then I fail to see how its a godlike characteristic rather than a characteristic shared by many people or things.
These will have to be my last three responses, it is getting late.
I have another question: on what grounds do you assert that a godlike characteristic has to pertain solely to gods and to nothing else? Again, this runs counter to the breadth of deities that humans have worshipped...why not visit the wikipedia page 'list_of_deities' click on some of those listed and expand your definition a little?
@noelplum99 I don't assert that they have to pertain to gods and nothing else I ask what makes that a godlike characteristic when X can do it too. I just don't accept that being Y is godlike when its "godlike abilities" are restricted to a certain area. Like I said, with that in mind, I'm a god in my dreams and imagination, and so are you. This is where the flaw of your argument props up. How can you call it a deity when in the reality it is in it may not be? Good night.
"I have to disagree with your second term because supernatural does not exist"
Again, i think you are being deliberately difficult here. i mean I understand your point that, at least in some schools of thought, methodological naturalism ultimately subsumes anything we deem as supernatural once it can be demonstrated to exist and through what mechanism it operates, but ffs you must know what I am suggesting here.
In case you don't I will clarify: able to orchestrate phenomena....
...within the created universe that are inexplicable within the body of laws that govern the usual operation of that universe when running without outside intervention.
@noelplum99 This is not about schools of thought. The natural world covers existence, if we exist in some simulated universe, that universe exists within a natural realm with natural phenomena.
Also, I reserve the right to be deliberately difficult when you are arguing a failed argument as well as giving ammunition to people who can not think critically and insist on testing my patience not to stab them when they knock on my door and hand me raw garbage literature.
"The natural world covers existence, if we exist in some simulated universe, that universe exists within a natural realm with natural phenomena."
this is not a position you share with physicists. Physicists talk about laws as they pertain to our universe and make no comment on what, if anything, exists apart from our universe other than to speculate in what ways it could differ.
"when they knock on my door and hand me raw garbage literature."...that is your problem, not mine.
@noelplum99 Yeah? Well, you are helping spread my problem. Laws have nothing to do with this, laws in another universe are still natural laws in that universe and are still in existence in that universe and would still be natural to us, just different.
@noelplum99 The third term, while agreeable, I would have to ask what constitutes dominion. Because a tyrannical dictator has dominion of many lives and can have people killed on a whim, but that does not qualify them as deities.
@noelplum99 Appearance is not equated to actuality. We call those illusions. If the being is limited it is not omnipotent. I'll shorten this, I don't accept qualifiers for arguments. If the being is only immortal in the universe it creates but not in the one it is in, then its not immortal.
But I can shorten this conversation even further, I demand you demonstrate that being able to create a universe bestows defined godlike characteristics onto the creator.
@noelplum99 I'm not trying to create semantics, you are the one doing that by throwing out qualifiers in an attempt to justify an argument. Ok, creating a universe is a godlike quality, now are we talking about a physical universe or a simulated one that could be ran on a computer?
"now are we talking about a physical universe or a simulated one that could be ran on a computer?"
How would you know the difference?
Is there a difference?
Are we in a physical one or one run on a computer (or like some physicists now believe, a holographic projection, far from physical as we understand it)?
The question does not seem as clearcut as you make it sound.
@noelplum99 The difference is that one is made of various matter while the other is running on electricity going through hardware. One is a lot harder to do, while simulating one is basic programming and hard mathematics. One would help argue that its godlike, while the other can be done by some nerd in his parent's basement. I'm finding it hard pressed to call being able to simulate a universe as godlike. As opposed to a being actually manipulating matter itself with ease.
Which would be the start of an argument if we actually knew what this stuff called 'matter' actually was, which we are still not entirely sure of.
I have a question for you though: you make an assertion that creating a universe out of matter is harder thatn creating one on a computer. I wonder on what basis you make that assertion?
@noelplum99 Are you serious? I shouldn't even have to explain why making a physical universe is harder than simulating one. Go physically move a planet, then tell me how thats as hard as adjusting a few location parameters and we'll talk more about why its harder.
So you are comparing moving a planet within my own universe to manipulating a planet within a computer simulation I do not exist within but manipulate externally? Why not instead ask one of the simulated sentient agents within the simulation to move a simulated planet..... or do you prefer to compare apples with oranges?
@noelplum99 Thats relative, we are not talking about relative difficulty, we are talking about the difficulty of the creator. It is significantly easier to adjust a few parameters than to go out and not only travel through space, but to move an entire planet. The second you brought simulated being into the equation, you brought in the oranges.
We are talking about relative difficulty but when it comes to the creation of a 'physical universe' neither of us actually know what that entails (any assumption it means 'like our universe is', presupposes we live in a physical universe) and so you are comparing from a position of ignorance (not to mention from a wholly anthropocentric position)
@noelplum99 Well if we do not know what it takes to create a universe how can you say its possible for a being to create or simulate one? But that dodges the entire issue of the work and logistics it would take to move or create planets vs simulated stuff thats nothing more than electricity flowing through hardware. You are not going to win this argument simply because its a top down argument, not a X vs Y argument.
You can keep making that assertion but that is all it is. Let me say again that we aren't even sure what all this 'matter stuff' is - as I mentioned before we even have this speculation that our universe is just a 3rd representation on a 2d holographic reality (this is people like Leonard susskind proposing this, not idiots), so the certainty of your assertion rings truly hollow to me......
....but look I want to bring this back a little and go back specifically to what constitutes a deity. Now without producing an all encompassing definition I have to say to you that in my book if a pre-existent, transcendental sentient, omnipotent (all with respect to the universe in question) creator and maintainer doesn't class as a god, when that makes him mote powerful than over 99% of gods ever worshipped then I really don't know what a god is. Consequently I will ask....
...you again for your definition because, I am sort, it is not good enough to keep blithely refusing anything I propose in terms of deistic characteristics but then refusing to propose any alternative definitions. so lets have your definition and see how it holds up to a few examples of gods worshipped over the years. If you think my definition in this video is too 'small' then tell me on what grounds you undefine as god 99%+ of gods ever worshipped?
I didn't understand this when you said it the first time and I still don't. You asked me for some characteristics typically associated with deities, I gave you some and then you made this unusual claim. It made no sense then and I am still scratching my head (mind you given that you freely admit you haven't a clue what a deity is I wonder why you are concerned by the idea of finding yourself a deity in your own dreams)
@noelplum99 The reason you don't understand is because you are too busy trying to scrape together an argument that involves things you didn't bother defining. I can give you "my" interpretation of a deity and what it is, but I don't see why since I am not claiming anything.
@noelplum99 I claim I dont believe in the supernatural, I don't believe in what you call a deity, sure. I also dont believe that being able to create a universe would be worthy of granting someone deity status, since I can create universes in my sleep and you have not distinguished whether or not we are using natural universes or simulated ones.
Again, I dont care what lunatics think or call deities, I asked for your definition.
@noelplum99 Define what this "god" is, then explain how being able to create a universe grants characteristics and traits other than being able to create a universe. Thats as simple as its going to get.
To my definition, a creator of a universe IS a god, i don't really need to go any further than that. Ofc there are other characteristics that are commonly associated with gods, some of them exclusive to gods, some of them not, but 'creator of the universe' is one i associate exclusively with god(s).
I should point out to you that when we look at ancient cultures, what we consider their gods don't come with a sticky label saying 'god' on them. However, most of these cultures have a creation mythology and we ALWAYS refer to the agents involved in these stories as gods, see if you can find me a single exception to that rule.
@noelplum99 Fine, we wont go any further than that. You are now defining EVERYONE as a god, because I can create universes in my dreams, so can anyone else with a half decent imagination. Star trek and Star wars are good examples of why your argument is poor if thats your definition of a god, the people who thought those up are gods.
So i think we are both in agreement then. I would certainly say that george lucas would have to class as a god in his star wars universe. However, these universes are somewhat different to the types under discussion here (including ours) because they preclude the existence of sentient agents. In other words. George lucas may be a god of his conceptual framework but he is nobodys god - his universe is just an idea, a concept.
@noelplum99 I don't have a classification for a deity, I don't need one since I don't believe such beings exist nor claim one does. But if that is what you call a deity, I ask how does being able to simulate a universe bestow or demand these characteristics? I believe you answer was that its only within context of the simulated universe, then I have to ask how the hell is that the best argument for "god" as its an argument based off of our perception rather than actual facts?
In all my many exchanges on YouTube I have come across many creationists for whom the only thing they knew about evolutionary theory is that they don't believe in it. Congratulations, you are the first fellow atheist I have ever come across who makes the same statement about gods.
@noelplum99 No, it wouldnt be the same because I know about plenty of deities. I just dont believe in super powers, I can also admit its possible for super powerful beings to exist, but santa claus also has a possibility of existence. You are claiming you have a good argument for "god", I am asking YOU to define this thing you call god, not what other religions believe, and demonstrate how creating a universe transfers those charactertistics. Its pretty simple.
PS: I could have argued your point on these definitions btw because the restrictions you place are simply your own and both orthodox religion and those things we call dictionaries agree with me on this.
@noelplum99 The restrictions I place are the common definition of the terms in the most basic sense. But I don't even think thats worth touching on because omnipotence is itself illogical, even in a pocket universe that one could create, we would still be limited to our own lack of omnipotence when dealing with said universe. If you are going to argue that things inside the universe might perceive what seems like omnipotence, then I call your argument bunk.
"The restrictions I place are the common definition of the terms in the most basic sense." No they are not, omnipotence is commonly used with the exclusion of acts which are logically impossible. In any event, the important use of the terms are in how they are applied to those deities, as worshipped, for whom these characteristics are used.
@noelplum99 Misuse of a term by adding qualifiers does not make it the terms definition. We are talking real world here, not apologetics desperately trying to get around logical fallacies. Exclusion is a qualifier, a qualified term is not the definition.
"We are talking real world here, not apologetics desperately trying to get around logical fallacies"
Well in actual fact in terms of abrahamic scripture these absolutist terms only exist through overly-literalist interpretations of turns of phrase or, more recently, through further justification through claimed philosophical necessity that do not require the strictness of definition that you choose to emply.
@noelplum99 "Well in actual fact in terms of abrahamic scripture these absolutist terms...." Again, I don't care what lunatics claim. We are not talking about scripture deities, we are talking about what you defined as a deity.
"If you are going to argue that things inside the universe might perceive what seems like omnipotence, then I call your argument bunk."
Haha, that makes no sense on any level. Even if we take your definitions and demote my deity down to just 'very very powerful in terms of the universe he created' all you have done is placed him closer to the vast majority of notions of a deity that have been worshipped. How has that made my argument bunk?
@noelplum99 "Haha, that makes no sense on any level. ", Its bunk because your argument turns into "Maybe we are being tricked into thinking theres an omnipotent being" instead of "There may be an omnipotent being that created our universe etc etc". You've gone from the actual thing to a being thats nothing more than a trickster relying on our perception to make it seem godlike when it isn't.
"You've gone from the actual thing to a being thats nothing more than a trickster relying on our perception to make it seem godlike when it isn't."
Your definition of 'godlike' seems incredibly narrow. in fact your argument seems to be that only entities that are omnipotent to your standard classify for the terms deity or god which is far from the case.
@noelplum99 Its not narrow, I just don't accept things that pretty much anyone can do as godlike. I mean shit dude, with your argument I'm a god in my own dreams. Maybe you should worship me before I dream you into hell.
However, let me give you some typical attributes that would fit the model: humanoid, eternal/immortal, pre-existant.
Do I need to go through how these could apply to this Simulation model or can you fill in the blanks (serious question that, I will go through each if you wish me to)?
@noelplum99 Take us for example. We can simulate a world/universe if given enough programming time and computational power, but that does not make us immoral or eternal. Also, how does being able to create a universe demand the being be humanoid? Pre-existence itself demands answers to what came before said deity.
"Pre-existence itself demands answers to what came before said deity. "
Indeed it does and I have never said anything other than this, in fact the only people who ever claim otherwise are theists.
However, afaik everyone I have ever met who worshipped a deity worshipped (what they believe is) the direct creator of THIS universe, not the creator of the universe that contains the creator of this universe!
Yes. But if we eat from the tree of life (create artificial intelligence) we can be fairly certain that our creation will turn away from us, just as we turned away from our creator. We could become sucked into that virtual world eternally, in a process of eternal dehumanization. It would be the ultimate expression of the ouroborus. This is the theological concept of hell.
Maybe we do live inside simulation, artificial world, illusion word. Quantum mechanic tell us so, quark can just pop up from nowhere. But that is not relevan. Either this world is only illusion, or matter is real, the fact is we aware of ourself. Or no? Maybe I am the only one here which exist coz I know I'm aware and you all just illusion. The fact is I'm aware of myself, I do not create my awareness myself. Something created my awareness, so I would worship him.
If there is somebody who succed to create an artificials intelligent which have conciousness and aware of itself, then I would convert to atheist. Please respond. I also have think about this. I ever think, if I can made just one character, in the game, aware of himself, I already be God. But maybe, we never can. Because maybe, not the organism is the most complex, but the "soul" or the awareness is the most complex and only God could make it.
@probokator it has been proven that dolphins are aware of themselves, so I think that complexity of a consciousness is not determined by the recognition of self. Also, if I (or anyone for the matter) created an AI with a level of consciousness that rivals our own, it would be immoral and unethical to force that intelligence to worship myself (or whatever creator) or damn them to eternity in hell, because if I created them, what if they didn't want to be created?
So what exactly is this 'soul' and how does it work. Your invocation of an immaterial controlling component causes more problems than it solves. i would be interested in your comments on my video 'I know you haven't got soul' if you have a chance to watch it.
@noelplum99 "And if they ask you (O Muhammad SAW) concerning soul; Say: The soul: it is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little." (Noble Quran, Surat Al 'Isra', Verse 85). --> This is a direct challenge, if anyone can create artificial awareness, then the verse would be wrong. Until then, it is still valid. I will watch your vid after work. Salam.
If conciousness is a simple thing. Why there are no conciousness emerge from out internet? I mean, internet connect many things, from google super computer, NSA super computers, to billions of PC. It is interconnected, parallels. Then why no intelligent appears in our internet? Maybe, intelligent or conciousness, or awareness, only God could made. We cannot made a virtual world, with virtuals inhabitants which aware of themself. If we can, then we already be God. The fact is we can't.
The creator of the creator of the creators. Inception.
Manguneshane 3 days ago
possible but not probable. I'm sticking with probable. Because there are so many more reasons as to why there is no creater, very few for it. And the ones for a god, are stretching the imagination, while the ones against a god are tied to simple logic. I'm going with simple logic here--you can have your gods, i have better things to do.
philosophergenius 1 week ago
this argument doesn't posit God, only what could be called 'a god'. you are right to assert that the problem here is what constitutes a deity. from what i can see here, this argument begs the question of 'where does the original simulation come from?' i am an atheist and i think that any theist would be unwilling to accept a god that isn't THE GOD in all possible universes. what god is to most people-i think-is the power behind all universes.
wussbaref00t 2 weeks ago
@Maxid1 what if YOU are wrong? if i built a time machine and took you to the supposed time of Jesus and we couldn't find him what then? what would you make of your life if you found out that jesus was a character created by romans for the purpose of consolidating power in the empire through a religion that demands belief? do you have the ability to question the god you were taught to believe in? what will it take to get you to admit that jesus might be just another mythical character?
wussbaref00t 2 weeks ago
@wussbaref00t Roman persecution of Christians is a well-documented fact, which negates your argument that the Romans invented Jesus. Pauline Christianity is, however, a mish-mash involving elements of Mitrhraism and other popular religions created at the behest of Constantine.
PrettiestDogEver 2 weeks ago
Certainly an interesting theory. :)
Zoulz666 3 weeks ago
Very interesting :D
Of course, now that brings up the same old question: Why would this creator make such an imperfect world, and doesn't it make him evil since he lets us suffer in it just for amusement? Just a thought. Btw, I am a theist, just pointing that out.
dragonking700 1 month ago
RE: .. who created our Universe?
Everybody can have a theory.
The year was 11 c. B.C. when the Visitor arrived .. from the star of Alnitrak, a blue giant that has engulfed his home, the planet of Nebiru. The assignment of the Visitor was to save its species from extinction, to marry the local ape, and to deliver all the knowledge of his civilization in order to protect their grand children from killing each other and exhausting the resources too fast. Which is mission impossible, as we all know.
U1T001 1 month ago
That would just be an argument for a creator of this universe, but who created them?, it seems to fall apart when you question who created the people/beings who are not simulated.
I would say a many-worlds argument upon which all possible states of matter exist without a creator is a cleaner argument, if we first just accept matter exists, and then assume infinite states of matter then it isn't a surprise that you exist, the odds are 1 in 1.
MDEMONIC689 4 months ago
@MDEMONIC689
"That would just be an argument for a creator of this universe, but who created them?, it seems to fall apart when you question who created the people/beings who are not simulated."
The origins of the creators is left up in the air, it would would be impossible to ascertain (as we know nothing about their universe). I accept that this means this is not an 'ultimate answer' but it is not meant to be; it doesn't have to be.
noelplum99 4 months ago
@noelplum99 Hey Noel, I have a modified version of this argument that I think may be even stronger than the original. It combines simulism with the idea of Kurzweil's 6th stage of evolution. Could you take a look at it? watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY
I've been actually wondering, as difficult as the Simulation Argument is to accept for religious people, if it might not permit for the possibility of a religious style deity (of the Frank Tipler variety) as the most probable simulator is the Omega Point.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 4 days ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noelplum99 It's funny you bring in the Simulation Argument as an argument for God, because as a matter of fact, it turns out there's an old Kabbalistic text that describes the creation of the universe through language by "Jah the Lord of Hosts," via what bears an uncanny resemblence to a 22-level Bloch sphere, encoded with 231 permutations of qubits.
BTW fun note of trivia: Kurzweil's law tells us that the most likely simulator is the Omega Point: watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY
JohananRaatz 4 days ago
It's a dangerous argument from the perspective of denying the existence of God through Jesus Christ. As far as the bible goes, there are many instances of punishment for just this practice of considering god's other than the one true God. This video brings a few verses to mind. Job15:2"Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the east wind." 1 Corinthians 8:1"... Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." Isa 55:11"... it [Gods word] shall not return unto me void."
Maxid1 5 months ago
@Maxid1
"It's a dangerous argument from the perspective of denying the existence of God through Jesus Christ."
If i quoted from the rig veda, pali canon, qur'an or any other text you do not regard as scripture would you regard its contents as a telling argument as to why you should refrain from doing something? i suggest to you you would not and on those grounds i am baffled why you think quoting your scripture to an atheist like myself is a worthwhile exercise?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 You're exactly who I'm supposed to quote scripture to, one who does not believe in it. What good would it do to quote it to someone who does believe? As Jesus said in Matt 9:12"But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." The central thing that's missing from all the other sources you mention is a savior. There is only one truth. To believe there are many truths would cause one truth to be more true than another.
Maxid1 5 months ago
@Maxid1
""But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." "
Well at least Jesus had something original to say there, rather than just parroting off scripture.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 Again, that's what I'm called to do, by Jesus Christ,to further the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who don't believe in Him.I'm told to not add a word to it or subtract a word from it.It is complete truth.To change it, or be original, would require me to change the message that is perfect truth. Because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not truth, it just means it's truth you don't know or accept. You will have the opportunity to find out whether or not what I'm saying is true.
Maxid1 5 months ago
@Maxid1
Whilst i admire your sense of conviction you offer me no means to differentiate your 'truth' claims from anyone elses. Your biblical quotes may impress someone who already holds them as scripture but you don't seem to understand that I do not. You would need to provide me with a seriously compelling case as to why I should regard the biblical authors in any higher regard than the guy down the end of the road and until you can do that you're on a hiding to nothing.
noelplum99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noelplum99 Reading and comparing all the texts that you've mentioned would be one way for you to see the truth foundation in the message of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately it's unlikely you'll do that if you haven't already. I can explain why I continue to quote the scripture that you do not hold as scripture. To re-quote Isaiah 55:11"... it [Gods word] shall not return unto me void."I don't convince you of anything.I simply tell you the gospel and God does the rest. God's truth is written in you.
Maxid1 5 months ago
@Maxid1 "It's a dangerous argument from the perspective of denying the existence of God through Jesus Christ."
Well a variation of it could permit for religious-style God: watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY
Ever heard of Frank Tipler's Omega Point theory? Statistically speaking the Omega Point should be running the most simulations of all. Thus it is the most likely simulator.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
i think you watch the matrix too many times...... let me guess, we get a choice of the blue pill or red pill?
SANHEDRIN666 7 months ago
I hope our universe has good surge protection.
mdo686 8 months ago 2
If we are living in a simulation, we can almost certainly conclude that the human species will not face any major worldwide catastrophes that would hinder the progress of technology, as even though these events already happened, and "real" humans could've sustained a huge extinction or technological stopping ground, statistics say that it's much more likely for nothing of the such to have occurred. We should be hoping, in a sense, that we are living in one of the simulated universes.
ONLYBESTVlDEOSFORYOU 9 months ago
@ONLYBESTVlDEOSFORYOU there was actually a scientist that killed himself after he realized that this is true. It has to do with photons knowing where all other photons are. And the discovery of non-locality. Its something about an electrical charge that is what makes us "feel" things. I couldn't explain it very well, but there are people that can. Chuck Missler is a good place to start.
SuperDonster 8 months ago
So... basically, God is a nerdy computer programmer. Nice double polo btw.
CripDip 10 months ago
Neoplum, this argument if flawed and weak to claim an existence of an omnipotent being.
If i made a computer simulation right now by creating artificial intelligence, it doesn't mean that i know literally "Everything" that's happening within the simulation, from every atom to every pixel within. Your saying is that God could be a teenaged programmer who created a computer game called "The Universe" and say he's omniscience, he will forget most things he made like how i wont remember every pixel
southpark123secret 10 months ago
As an atheist, I actually quite like this argument. The main problem I have is the mental capacity needed to create and ever changing world, and follow the ever changing world. I can hardly remember what I did a few weeks ago, let alone what nearly 7 billion people are doing all over the world all the time. The concept is good, but I just can't get my mind around the processing power needed for a deity to create this universe.
KieranMac17 10 months ago
@KieranMac17 You may have made a poignantly paradoxical counter argument to your own argument. By citing your own poor long-term memory and inability to maintain medium-term memory for more than a couple weeks, you are actually supporting the idea that a controlling consciousness would not have to be necessarily very grand at all, and only necessarily capable of monitoring or controlling only a handful of distinct consciousnesses for small periods of time.
nelsnelson 10 months ago
@KieranMac17 That is to say, it is not unimaginable that a controlling consciousness might only have to entertain your brain with scenarios in which you interact with multiple apparently external consciousnesses for a relatively small period of time. Ask yourself, how often do you personally interact with more than a few people at once? That is, do your perceptions provide evidence of multiple independent consciousness for more than five minutes at a time? How about an hour? A day?
nelsnelson 10 months ago
@KieranMac17 It is perhaps conceivable that a controlling consciousness may only have to have worked out scenarios of multiple consciousnesses interacting with each other for only short periods of perceivable time. You will not remember most of the details of those events. It does not seem impossible that whole simulations of interactions could be generated using the "seed" of a controlling consciousness, and then replicating the scenario repeatedly, with minor variations.
nelsnelson 10 months ago
@KieranMac17 That is a good point which i was pondering about for the very same the past 3 months , just go type in a crowd of a million people zoomed out. Can you put your own brain and hold in your mind what such a crowd is thinking about simultaenously. It's quite hard in the long run as you cannot listen to two people speaking at once. Ask this, how many people do you "know", not as in personally but generally. Can you know a million people, is it possible for your brain to conceive that.
southpark123secret 10 months ago
You're right. We haven't descended into madness (we just haven't fully ascended out of it.)
As for new-age religion, I meant that Christian theologians incorporate all the ancient spiritual traditions, the Vedas, Kaballists, etc.
My point is that God isn't supposed to be a person.
God is a metaphor for truth, reason, and morality.
And God is the life force that permeates us.
No proof needed because the proof is life.
philnoll 10 months ago
Well, if you were going to create a virtual universe, why would you create one with so much suffering? Anyway, its not an argument for the existence of God since the being that created our virtual universe would presumably be mortal.
philnoll 11 months ago
@philnoll
Mortal in terms of his or her universe perhaps (though technology may well have taken care of that) but could still live for trillions of years in terms of our universe which it could run on fast forward.
Bear in mind also the huge numbers of gods that have been worshipped that have died or been killed - immortaility is not a prerequisite.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 Well, they weren't really Gods. You claimed it was an argument for an omnipotent God. A mortal can't really be omnipotent, because death is a restricting factor. Furthermore, we wouldn't know if this "god" is a goodguy or a mad scientist. In short, he lacks the qualifications of a monotheistic deity. He could be our "creator," but who created him? Is there a fundamental God underlying all these virtual universes?
philnoll 11 months ago
@philnoll
"Well, they weren't really Gods"
Haha, so 99.9% of the gods worshipped over the millennia 'weren't really gods'!
Wrt your other points, all a momotheistic god needs is to be omnipotent from the perspective of our universe and to report His own omnipotence (in fact if i was being cynical i would say only the latter is really required). Bear in mind, to have created our universe is 'to have existed at all times' with regard to our temporality and to have been pre-existant (in his own).
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 Unbelievable. God is supposed to have existed in ALL times, not just sometimes. God is "unbegotten and unbegot" FYI. And God is an esoteric concept that not many grasp. In fact many atheists have a better understanding of what God actually means than do Christians. I urge you to research the mystery schools. Start with William Cooper, and follow his leads to Luciferianism. Start with TZM and follow it back to the creed of astro-theology. God is not all that it seems.
philnoll 11 months ago
@philnoll
"God is supposed to have existed in ALL times"
I don't know anywhere in the bible where it discusses the prospect of different temporal realms and even from the perspective of philosophy much of the discussion predates by centuries the ideas that TBB has forced us to consider regarding extra-universal dimensional systems (or not). Henceforth, your comment is somewhat moot here, because in the terms that were understood in centuries past this god WOULD exist in all times.
noelplum99 10 months ago
@noelplum99 I thought of one way one might be able to tell if one was in such a simulated universe or not. If in at least some instances some of the people inside the simulation happened to somehow stumble across knowledge of the programming of the simulation it would appear to them as a body of esoteric knowledge that they could use to manipulate the simulation.
In particular what do you make of this? watch?v=TufKcBa5RaI
IoPizzaPlanet 7 months ago
@philnoll
"Is there a fundamental God underlying all these virtual universes?"
Ofc that is another question.... and would the creator of our universe even know that?
The point is, in any event, scraping and bowing to the creator of our universe would make more sense than directing our attentions to his creator, the creator of his universe, for whom we know even less and may have no direct interest in us whatsoever.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 So we've established it isn't an argument for God, at least not the ultimate God. I also think its a poor argument for a creator of any sort. First of all, if we live in a virtual world, then our notions of what is possible are mere abstractions of a fake universe. Our science would have no bearing on the actual science of the universe. So the argument is rather self defeating, isn't it?
philnoll 11 months ago
@philnoll
"Our science would have no bearing on the actual science of the universe."
Which may well be the case in any event. One of the theories doing the rounds atm is this holographic universe thing, that we are a holographic representation of what our universe really is: a flat surface on which everything actually happens.
Science is a model that accords with what we see and allows predictions. nothing I have said precludes us from doing that.
noelplum99 10 months ago
@noelplum99 And really, we should get to the essential question of "what is God?"
If you haven't heard about the new-age religious movement, you should probably Youtube Manly P Hall right now. You will find some very broad clues as to what "God" actually means. You see, its all a metaphor, and a very deep and sacred metaphor at that.
Even John 1:1 says "In the beginning there was the WORD, and the WORD WAS GOD.
So...intelligent theists are not really talking about a creator.
philnoll 11 months ago
@philnoll
"If you haven't heard about the new-age religious movement, you should probably Youtube Manly P Hall right now"
There is enough bullshit to deal with with traditional religion without dealing with me having to deal with the new varieties someone thought up whilst sat in the bath last thursday
noelplum99 10 months ago
@noelplum99 Actually in an odd sort of way I could conceive of a hybrid of the simulation argument, with a classical deity.
You've heard of the "it from bit" idea in physics right? The idea is that far enough down the universe is made of information. (the matter "behind" the event horizon is a projection of the information on the surface)
Treat existence itself as a quantum computer program with no outside -or if there is an outside- a larger program. Then equate said program with God.
JohananRaatz 7 months ago
@noelplum99 You must see that it is not true. But these people did not have the internet. They only had the word. And we learned "you shall not kill" and "you shall not steal" and "you shall not seduce your neighbor's wife" and all these good things. And we have descended into madness. Our government kills and steals for a living, and regular people cheat on their spouses habitually. Its really kind of a backwards world when u think about it. Not any religion that I'd ever subscribe to....
philnoll 11 months ago
@philnoll
"And we have descended into madness."
have we? In fact when wwe work out homicide rates in western society and compare them to the per capita rates for these apparently more serene tribe living with nature we find ourselves to be considerably less murderous. I actually think the level of civility in our society, for a species of highly flawed apes, is nothing short of remarkable.
noelplum99 10 months ago
Nope. Worst argument for god in the world.
gd44 11 months ago
@gd44
...and you think the best one is?
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 None. Arguments for god are useless. Only objective evidence and proof of deities has value.
gd44 11 months ago
@gd44
So a statistical argument, such as this one, is not objective?
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
No. As an opinion (argument) it is strictly subjective. Existence of anything is never established solely from argument.
gd44 11 months ago
@gd44
Actually i disagree. If you accept the principles on which the argument is made then on the basis of the statistics the result is the only logical answer. Empirical evidence trumps all for me, ofc, and i can give you no empirical evidence for this but then that is the nature of philosophical discourse and applies to all ideas for the origin of the universe: there is certainly no more empirical evidence for the existence of a multiverse as a solution as for this.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
So for me this boils down to how you rate the initial statements, the axioms. Now i realise many theists would object to them but i dont see anything immaterial about life or consciousness, anything that would preclude us from creating it artificially. So for my money, and given our obvious predispositions granted us by evolution, i cannot really see why the number of artificial universes would not exceed the 'real' ones tht have sentient life. Why do you?
noelplum99 11 months ago
@gd44
Statistics do not establish existence. Proof of existence must be established by evidence. Your admission that empirical evidence is paramount, and yet you admit to having none, I see no rational basis to accept a philosophical argument as valid evidence. I certainly mean no disrespect with this phrase but this is related to a logical fallacy related the argument from ignorance.
gd44 11 months ago
@gd44
Ok, two points to make.
The first is that your initial statement was that this was 'the worst argument for god in the world'. When I questioned you on this you then jumped to saying all arguments for god were poor. Since you are keen on bringing up fallacies I should like to point out just what a wholly illogical leap that was: as it stands ALL arguments for god could be absolute shite and this could still be the best of the bad bunch.
On to more important stuff:
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
I think statistical arguments have a strange status. I mean, consider Drake's equation, which is in almost every aspect an identical kind of approach to a not entirely different subject. Now, whilst we would all agree that whatever values we punch into Drake's it never provides us with a single piece of direct empirical evidence for extraterrestrial life, surely as we become more confident of the likely values for the different variables it DOES give us grounds ....
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
...to be more or less optimistic of our chances of finding life elsewhere in our galaxy? Or would you stand by your assertion that it is entirely worthless and we can infer nothing?
noelplum99 11 months ago
@gd44
Just one last point. You say:
"Proof of existence must be established by evidence."
There is no claim here of providing proof of anything, Bostrom's model is purely and simply (like Drake's) about statistical likelihood - as you accept yourself this is simply an 'argument for' yet you lurch from talk of inductive empirical evidence to the deductive notion of 'proof' with the implication that you either prove something or can say nothing about it.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
Here's the GD44 Equation: Trillions of planets in the universe, 1 planet known to contain life. Statistics don't look like a favorable argument here do they? Feel free to make arguments with statistics, though if we're arguing the existence of seemingly invisible deities we need more than number crunching.
gd44 11 months ago
@gd44
That is a somewhat unusual application of Drake's equation there and I can see some real problems with your methodology.
However, were your methodology sound then i would suggest we could infer a great deal about the likely preponderance of life in the universe on the basis you suggest . Similarly, given Bostrom's argument here, if we found out that for some reason creating virtual sentient agents was impossible or required prohibitive comuptational power....
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
...(let us say a computer the size of a star to process a decent number of lifeforms) then that would sway our statistical expectation.
"seemingly invisible deities"
Clearly in a virtual universe the creator of the universe would be invisible. We actually create virtual universes all the time, albeit not populated by sentient agents and a great deal smaller and less detailed than our own. These universes are not hypothetical but real constructs...
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
...and in each and every one of them the 'deity', the creator of that universe (or perhaps the team of creators: the programmers of the software, of the operating system, the creators of the hardware and the end user) are utterly absent from the universe itself.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
"Clearly in a virtual universe the creator of the universe would be invisible."
This is an ad hoc rationalization for the glaring lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of the proposed "creator". This entire argument is simply argument from analogy (software/virtual) supported by even more unbacked claims. Arguments by analogy, particularly in ontological/religious areas, are often far from the "greatest" arguments (as claimed by the video title).
gd44 11 months ago
@gd44
"This is an ad hoc rationalization for the glaring lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of the proposed "creator""
It depends what you mean. It certainly is no rationalisation for the lack of empirical evidence for the traditional theistic deities who love to meddle in the affairs of us humans but rather just a realistic expectation. maybe you could propose something different? Are you suggesting in a simulation we should see 'SIMULATION' in capital letters....
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
...writ large across the sky?
On the other hand, Paul Davies proposed that if we did live in a simulation we might be able to find some clues, minor changes in variables made over time to get the simulation 'back on track', so the idea of possible empirical evidence is not necessarily the case.
However, regardless of the rights or wrongs, to say we cannot 'prove' the origins of our universe so we better not even discuss it seems a poor place to start.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@gd44
"This is an ad hoc rationalization for the glaring lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of the proposed "creator""
C'mon man, if you really want to slam me at least make it a post-hoc rationalisation!
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 No slam necessary. You're operating an argument by analogy and presenting contradictions along the way. "Omniscient and omnipotent deity" but unable to overcome the invisibility problem. You've placed paramount value on empirical evidence yet find analogy the "greatest" argument. While this is an interesting and fun argument surely you could locate its flaws for refinement.
gd44 11 months ago
@gd44
"You've placed paramount value on empirical evidence yet find analogy the "greatest" argument."
I dont see this fundamentally as an analogy, as you claim, though i expand on Bostroms argument to discuss how this may equate to ideas approximating to things like omniscience.
Tbh i am not sure what to make of this hit i quote here, though. We both agree that empirical evidence trumps all but as there are no arguments for a deity based on direct empirical evidence ....
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
...this argument is instead competing against arguments that are, in the main, wholly philosophical. In that respect i feel it has something those other arguments do not have which is a (albeit arguable) statistical basis in real world experience .
As to its flaws, well clearly there are many unknowns involved and at the present those uave to class as flaws. Also, as we both agree, ultimately an argument sich as this can only give a statistical inference it cannot....
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
Ever give us anything concrete to go on about our universe.
However, i think it has far more than 'fun' value. I have often used it against more dogmatic theists who assert that a creator must have characteristic a or b, usually via some philosophical reasoning, yet this argument demolishes those philosophical prerequisites.
Also, one day our descendents very well may become the creators of such universes and we need to consider the ramifications (the moral ones)......
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
Just to give a quick example. In the last two weeks in a long vid response to TrustinJC i use just such a computer simulation model to throw into question his assertions that we cannot judge God - by asking him if anythin i did to such a simulation would be beyond reproach if i was running such a thing.
noelplum99 11 months ago
What if while I was watching this "god" decided to reset the universe because we knew to much!!!!!
2blecros 11 months ago
This idea has been in 2 movies, the Matrix and the 13th Floor, which I believe does a better job with the concept. The problem as I see it, is we all appear to be in a real world with no universal objective, as one would have in playing a game. I believe that technology in biology for replacement of body parts, and in miniaturization for computers to help a damaged human brain, will converge in the next 30 years.
The result may evolve as a non-biological human, from a previously living person.
EvolBob1 1 year ago
@EvolBob1
i haven't seen the 13th floor (maybe I should) but ofc the one difference between this and the Matrix is that they had real bodies and brains which were plugged in to a virtual world - they were not virtual beings themselves, solely part of the coding of the machine.
noelplum99 1 year ago
This is an infinite regression argument, because the consciousness that created the technology to create artificial consciousness had to come from somewhere. Further, being able to create an artificial intelligence does not grant deity like attributes. All you have managed to do is create an argument that its possible that we were designed by aliens....which evolution already rips apart with ease.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"All you have managed to do is create an argument that its possible that we were designed by aliens"
Usually people use the term alien to involve another creature actually in the same universe rather than the creator of the universe itself. However, if you wish to expand the definition to include a creator external to our universe then, yes, you would be correct both for this argument and the vast majority of the world religions deities also.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Regardless, you are still making an attribute fallacy. A being that can create a universe does not necessarily have deity like powers. It is a good argument for the possibility for some sort of designer, but it is not an argument to start assigning attributes to said designer. What further kills the argument is the fact we can simulate some aspects of the BB right now with powerful computers, and we are far from deities.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
Several points. Firstly, if you look at the range of deities that have been worshipped in human history I defy you to produce a definitive list of what you call deistic powers. Secondly, what is to stop us being omnipotent, for example, within the simulated universe we create?
I think the problem here is not the model but your preconceptions of what constitutes a deity, in fact maybe you can tell me the drastic 'must haven't you are referring to?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Actually, that list of deific powers should probably come from you, since you are claiming said deity definition may exist. The omnipotence does not carry over to the area where we exist, so it does not fit the definition of omnipotence because there are areas where we would be limited. You will need to add qualifier after qualifier for your argument to work.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
You have lost me with your comment. Certainly there is no specific requirement for a deity to be omnipotent but even then you seem to have gotten your example the wrong way round. The point I was aiming at is that the creator of our universe could be omnipotent in terms of our (in this case virtual) universe and yet no more potent than ourselves in his own.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 You asked what would stop us from being omnipotent, if you are not omnipotent everywhere you are not omnipotent. You are adding a qualifier to the definition. No, you will have to go through each since you want to argue the characteristics of what would qualify as a deity.
But its all moot since you can not demonstrate how being able to create a universe demands said being has such characteristics.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
This is an interesting argument you make because usually the argument I hear is exactly the opposite one. For example when I argue that omniscience is impossible because no entity can be sure of what it doesn't know, only what it does, therefore, at the very least, no entity can be sure of its own status regarding omniscience (even if it does happen to know everything else). Anyway, the reply i usually recieve in droves is that as long as the entity knows everything about our ...
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
..universe that is all that is being claimed by the term.
However, I don't want to dodge your question.
What i would say instead that I agree, it is placing a restriction on omnipotence but then have never found anyone (aside from WL Craig) who does not. Every theist I have heard has accepted that God cannot do the logically impossible (create a square circle or a married bachelor).
My point is that in respect to us the deity would appear omnipotent and, as such, would be .....
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...indistinguishable from the omnipotent deities that people believe in (I can only think of Yahweh and Lord Brahman, feel free to add to the list if you know of any others).
"but that does not make us immoral or eternal."
Potentially the being could run the entire simulation from beginning to end of the virtual universe in 'fast forward' within its own lifetime. In terms of that universe that is from the beginning to the end of time, or existant at all points in time if you prefer.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
"demand the being be humanoid?"
You misunderstand, this isn't about saying what characteristics the being HAS to have but what typically deistic characteristics a mundane being in its own realm could display in relation to the realm it created.
Typically abrahamic monotheists make various claims about what the creator of our universe *has* to possess, and they are a heady mix indeed (a list you agree is wrong as you yourself are stating that omnipotence is off the menu of
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
necessary characteristics) but my point with humanoid is that a large number, probably the majority, of gods ever worshipped were humanoid in form and there is nothing in this model that precludes the creator having this characteristic, in this case, in his own realm.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 I don't really care what lunatics like Craig argue, If you are going to say this is the greatest argument for a deity, the possibility to create and simulate a universe, then I ask you to not only define what a deity is but to also demonstrate the ability to create a universe imposes characteristics you consider to be of a deity. Otherwise, before we go off topic anymore, you have a fallacious argument fallaciously imposing characteristics, which I dont see being the best argument.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"I ask you to not only define what a deity is"
In 500 chars or can i write an entire book on the subject as would be necessary?
"imposes characteristics you consider to be of a deity."
Ok, I will come up with some: potentially worthy of worship; capable of acts we would regard as supernatural; with dominion over our lives. They are three such characteristics I would consider would apply here.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Being worthy of worship is subjective, so we'll toss that simply because I can not agree that anyone or thing is worthy of worship. I have to disagree with your second term because supernatural does not exist, plus its also perception based. The being would still be using natural phenomena to simulate our universe, and the things in our universe would still rely on the natural world in the being's universe.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"Being worthy of worship is subjective,"
Shit you are one picky motherfucker, aren't you? Personally if there is some posiibility of getting some reward for the worship, some payback, then it would fall under my definition of 'worthy of worship' - in other words, it is worth your time and efforts to worship.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Yes, I am one picky motherfucker. If that is your definition of worship, then I fail to see how its a godlike characteristic rather than a characteristic shared by many people or things.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
These will have to be my last three responses, it is getting late.
I have another question: on what grounds do you assert that a godlike characteristic has to pertain solely to gods and to nothing else? Again, this runs counter to the breadth of deities that humans have worshipped...why not visit the wikipedia page 'list_of_deities' click on some of those listed and expand your definition a little?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 I don't assert that they have to pertain to gods and nothing else I ask what makes that a godlike characteristic when X can do it too. I just don't accept that being Y is godlike when its "godlike abilities" are restricted to a certain area. Like I said, with that in mind, I'm a god in my dreams and imagination, and so are you. This is where the flaw of your argument props up. How can you call it a deity when in the reality it is in it may not be? Good night.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"I have to disagree with your second term because supernatural does not exist"
Again, i think you are being deliberately difficult here. i mean I understand your point that, at least in some schools of thought, methodological naturalism ultimately subsumes anything we deem as supernatural once it can be demonstrated to exist and through what mechanism it operates, but ffs you must know what I am suggesting here.
In case you don't I will clarify: able to orchestrate phenomena....
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...within the created universe that are inexplicable within the body of laws that govern the usual operation of that universe when running without outside intervention.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 This is not about schools of thought. The natural world covers existence, if we exist in some simulated universe, that universe exists within a natural realm with natural phenomena.
Also, I reserve the right to be deliberately difficult when you are arguing a failed argument as well as giving ammunition to people who can not think critically and insist on testing my patience not to stab them when they knock on my door and hand me raw garbage literature.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"The natural world covers existence, if we exist in some simulated universe, that universe exists within a natural realm with natural phenomena."
this is not a position you share with physicists. Physicists talk about laws as they pertain to our universe and make no comment on what, if anything, exists apart from our universe other than to speculate in what ways it could differ.
"when they knock on my door and hand me raw garbage literature."...that is your problem, not mine.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Yeah? Well, you are helping spread my problem. Laws have nothing to do with this, laws in another universe are still natural laws in that universe and are still in existence in that universe and would still be natural to us, just different.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@noelplum99 The third term, while agreeable, I would have to ask what constitutes dominion. Because a tyrannical dictator has dominion of many lives and can have people killed on a whim, but that does not qualify them as deities.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Appearance is not equated to actuality. We call those illusions. If the being is limited it is not omnipotent. I'll shorten this, I don't accept qualifiers for arguments. If the being is only immortal in the universe it creates but not in the one it is in, then its not immortal.
But I can shorten this conversation even further, I demand you demonstrate that being able to create a universe bestows defined godlike characteristics onto the creator.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
Ok then i will give you another godlike characteristic that I hope will not run foul of your sematic strictures.
Godlike characteristic #4: creates a universe.
It is my assertion that any creator able to create a universe has the godlike characteristic of creating a universe.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 I'm not trying to create semantics, you are the one doing that by throwing out qualifiers in an attempt to justify an argument. Ok, creating a universe is a godlike quality, now are we talking about a physical universe or a simulated one that could be ran on a computer?
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"now are we talking about a physical universe or a simulated one that could be ran on a computer?"
How would you know the difference?
Is there a difference?
Are we in a physical one or one run on a computer (or like some physicists now believe, a holographic projection, far from physical as we understand it)?
The question does not seem as clearcut as you make it sound.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 The difference is that one is made of various matter while the other is running on electricity going through hardware. One is a lot harder to do, while simulating one is basic programming and hard mathematics. One would help argue that its godlike, while the other can be done by some nerd in his parent's basement. I'm finding it hard pressed to call being able to simulate a universe as godlike. As opposed to a being actually manipulating matter itself with ease.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"one is made of various matter"
Which would be the start of an argument if we actually knew what this stuff called 'matter' actually was, which we are still not entirely sure of.
I have a question for you though: you make an assertion that creating a universe out of matter is harder thatn creating one on a computer. I wonder on what basis you make that assertion?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Are you serious? I shouldn't even have to explain why making a physical universe is harder than simulating one. Go physically move a planet, then tell me how thats as hard as adjusting a few location parameters and we'll talk more about why its harder.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
So you are comparing moving a planet within my own universe to manipulating a planet within a computer simulation I do not exist within but manipulate externally? Why not instead ask one of the simulated sentient agents within the simulation to move a simulated planet..... or do you prefer to compare apples with oranges?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Thats relative, we are not talking about relative difficulty, we are talking about the difficulty of the creator. It is significantly easier to adjust a few parameters than to go out and not only travel through space, but to move an entire planet. The second you brought simulated being into the equation, you brought in the oranges.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
We are talking about relative difficulty but when it comes to the creation of a 'physical universe' neither of us actually know what that entails (any assumption it means 'like our universe is', presupposes we live in a physical universe) and so you are comparing from a position of ignorance (not to mention from a wholly anthropocentric position)
bed for me now, sweet dreams.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Well if we do not know what it takes to create a universe how can you say its possible for a being to create or simulate one? But that dodges the entire issue of the work and logistics it would take to move or create planets vs simulated stuff thats nothing more than electricity flowing through hardware. You are not going to win this argument simply because its a top down argument, not a X vs Y argument.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
You can keep making that assertion but that is all it is. Let me say again that we aren't even sure what all this 'matter stuff' is - as I mentioned before we even have this speculation that our universe is just a 3rd representation on a 2d holographic reality (this is people like Leonard susskind proposing this, not idiots), so the certainty of your assertion rings truly hollow to me......
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
....but look I want to bring this back a little and go back specifically to what constitutes a deity. Now without producing an all encompassing definition I have to say to you that in my book if a pre-existent, transcendental sentient, omnipotent (all with respect to the universe in question) creator and maintainer doesn't class as a god, when that makes him mote powerful than over 99% of gods ever worshipped then I really don't know what a god is. Consequently I will ask....
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...you again for your definition because, I am sort, it is not good enough to keep blithely refusing anything I propose in terms of deistic characteristics but then refusing to propose any alternative definitions. so lets have your definition and see how it holds up to a few examples of gods worshipped over the years. If you think my definition in this video is too 'small' then tell me on what grounds you undefine as god 99%+ of gods ever worshipped?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Like I said, under your argument, I'm a god in my own dreams.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
I didn't understand this when you said it the first time and I still don't. You asked me for some characteristics typically associated with deities, I gave you some and then you made this unusual claim. It made no sense then and I am still scratching my head (mind you given that you freely admit you haven't a clue what a deity is I wonder why you are concerned by the idea of finding yourself a deity in your own dreams)
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 The reason you don't understand is because you are too busy trying to scrape together an argument that involves things you didn't bother defining. I can give you "my" interpretation of a deity and what it is, but I don't see why since I am not claiming anything.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
You have claimed you don't believe in a deity and you have claimed that creation of a universe in no way grants deistic status. That is two claims.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 I claim I dont believe in the supernatural, I don't believe in what you call a deity, sure. I also dont believe that being able to create a universe would be worthy of granting someone deity status, since I can create universes in my sleep and you have not distinguished whether or not we are using natural universes or simulated ones.
Again, I dont care what lunatics think or call deities, I asked for your definition.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Define what this "god" is, then explain how being able to create a universe grants characteristics and traits other than being able to create a universe. Thats as simple as its going to get.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
To my definition, a creator of a universe IS a god, i don't really need to go any further than that. Ofc there are other characteristics that are commonly associated with gods, some of them exclusive to gods, some of them not, but 'creator of the universe' is one i associate exclusively with god(s).
Now it is your turn.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
I should point out to you that when we look at ancient cultures, what we consider their gods don't come with a sticky label saying 'god' on them. However, most of these cultures have a creation mythology and we ALWAYS refer to the agents involved in these stories as gods, see if you can find me a single exception to that rule.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Fine, we wont go any further than that. You are now defining EVERYONE as a god, because I can create universes in my dreams, so can anyone else with a half decent imagination. Star trek and Star wars are good examples of why your argument is poor if thats your definition of a god, the people who thought those up are gods.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
So i think we are both in agreement then. I would certainly say that george lucas would have to class as a god in his star wars universe. However, these universes are somewhat different to the types under discussion here (including ours) because they preclude the existence of sentient agents. In other words. George lucas may be a god of his conceptual framework but he is nobodys god - his universe is just an idea, a concept.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 I don't have a classification for a deity, I don't need one since I don't believe such beings exist nor claim one does. But if that is what you call a deity, I ask how does being able to simulate a universe bestow or demand these characteristics? I believe you answer was that its only within context of the simulated universe, then I have to ask how the hell is that the best argument for "god" as its an argument based off of our perception rather than actual facts?
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
In all my many exchanges on YouTube I have come across many creationists for whom the only thing they knew about evolutionary theory is that they don't believe in it. Congratulations, you are the first fellow atheist I have ever come across who makes the same statement about gods.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 No, it wouldnt be the same because I know about plenty of deities. I just dont believe in super powers, I can also admit its possible for super powerful beings to exist, but santa claus also has a possibility of existence. You are claiming you have a good argument for "god", I am asking YOU to define this thing you call god, not what other religions believe, and demonstrate how creating a universe transfers those charactertistics. Its pretty simple.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
PS: I could have argued your point on these definitions btw because the restrictions you place are simply your own and both orthodox religion and those things we call dictionaries agree with me on this.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 The restrictions I place are the common definition of the terms in the most basic sense. But I don't even think thats worth touching on because omnipotence is itself illogical, even in a pocket universe that one could create, we would still be limited to our own lack of omnipotence when dealing with said universe. If you are going to argue that things inside the universe might perceive what seems like omnipotence, then I call your argument bunk.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"The restrictions I place are the common definition of the terms in the most basic sense." No they are not, omnipotence is commonly used with the exclusion of acts which are logically impossible. In any event, the important use of the terms are in how they are applied to those deities, as worshipped, for whom these characteristics are used.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Misuse of a term by adding qualifiers does not make it the terms definition. We are talking real world here, not apologetics desperately trying to get around logical fallacies. Exclusion is a qualifier, a qualified term is not the definition.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"We are talking real world here, not apologetics desperately trying to get around logical fallacies"
Well in actual fact in terms of abrahamic scripture these absolutist terms only exist through overly-literalist interpretations of turns of phrase or, more recently, through further justification through claimed philosophical necessity that do not require the strictness of definition that you choose to emply.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 "Well in actual fact in terms of abrahamic scripture these absolutist terms...." Again, I don't care what lunatics claim. We are not talking about scripture deities, we are talking about what you defined as a deity.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"If you are going to argue that things inside the universe might perceive what seems like omnipotence, then I call your argument bunk."
Haha, that makes no sense on any level. Even if we take your definitions and demote my deity down to just 'very very powerful in terms of the universe he created' all you have done is placed him closer to the vast majority of notions of a deity that have been worshipped. How has that made my argument bunk?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 "Haha, that makes no sense on any level. ", Its bunk because your argument turns into "Maybe we are being tricked into thinking theres an omnipotent being" instead of "There may be an omnipotent being that created our universe etc etc". You've gone from the actual thing to a being thats nothing more than a trickster relying on our perception to make it seem godlike when it isn't.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"You've gone from the actual thing to a being thats nothing more than a trickster relying on our perception to make it seem godlike when it isn't."
Your definition of 'godlike' seems incredibly narrow. in fact your argument seems to be that only entities that are omnipotent to your standard classify for the terms deity or god which is far from the case.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Its not narrow, I just don't accept things that pretty much anyone can do as godlike. I mean shit dude, with your argument I'm a god in my own dreams. Maybe you should worship me before I dream you into hell.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
However, let me give you some typical attributes that would fit the model: humanoid, eternal/immortal, pre-existant.
Do I need to go through how these could apply to this Simulation model or can you fill in the blanks (serious question that, I will go through each if you wish me to)?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Take us for example. We can simulate a world/universe if given enough programming time and computational power, but that does not make us immoral or eternal. Also, how does being able to create a universe demand the being be humanoid? Pre-existence itself demands answers to what came before said deity.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@Shyhalu
"Pre-existence itself demands answers to what came before said deity. "
Indeed it does and I have never said anything other than this, in fact the only people who ever claim otherwise are theists.
However, afaik everyone I have ever met who worshipped a deity worshipped (what they believe is) the direct creator of THIS universe, not the creator of the universe that contains the creator of this universe!
noelplum99 1 year ago
Great video :) You have great intellectual capacity to be able to entertain such an advanced idea.
TheConcolor 1 year ago
i think nick bostrom is the smartest human i have had the pleasure of listening to. great vid.
thrashish 1 year ago
This is such an interesting argument. I wish you would make more videos.
hugesinker 1 year ago
Plonker
MrJuno6 1 year ago
I am glad people like this are making videos like these.
I'm not saying I fully condone, understand, or agree with this position but Im glad I saw the video.
I think its a damn shame that less than 5,000 people have seen this.
seven0o 1 year ago
Hahaha, The Matrix
DaSlacker01 1 year ago
@DaSlacker01 Yup..
And we know the answer of the simulation shall be 42, but what is the damn question?
rusle 1 year ago
Yes. But if we eat from the tree of life (create artificial intelligence) we can be fairly certain that our creation will turn away from us, just as we turned away from our creator. We could become sucked into that virtual world eternally, in a process of eternal dehumanization. It would be the ultimate expression of the ouroborus. This is the theological concept of hell.
caveatemp 1 year ago
@caveatemp May the unicorn bless you.
Murdulo 1 year ago
Except God would know the difference. All human intellect comes to nothing.
eldorado61guy 1 year ago
@eldorado61guy
God would know what difference? Your comment makes no sense, was it intended for a different video?
noelplum99 1 year ago
Maybe we do live inside simulation, artificial world, illusion word. Quantum mechanic tell us so, quark can just pop up from nowhere. But that is not relevan. Either this world is only illusion, or matter is real, the fact is we aware of ourself. Or no? Maybe I am the only one here which exist coz I know I'm aware and you all just illusion. The fact is I'm aware of myself, I do not create my awareness myself. Something created my awareness, so I would worship him.
probokator 1 year ago
If there is somebody who succed to create an artificials intelligent which have conciousness and aware of itself, then I would convert to atheist. Please respond. I also have think about this. I ever think, if I can made just one character, in the game, aware of himself, I already be God. But maybe, we never can. Because maybe, not the organism is the most complex, but the "soul" or the awareness is the most complex and only God could make it.
probokator 1 year ago
@probokator it has been proven that dolphins are aware of themselves, so I think that complexity of a consciousness is not determined by the recognition of self. Also, if I (or anyone for the matter) created an AI with a level of consciousness that rivals our own, it would be immoral and unethical to force that intelligence to worship myself (or whatever creator) or damn them to eternity in hell, because if I created them, what if they didn't want to be created?
azteckminer 1 year ago
@probokator
So what exactly is this 'soul' and how does it work. Your invocation of an immaterial controlling component causes more problems than it solves. i would be interested in your comments on my video 'I know you haven't got soul' if you have a chance to watch it.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 "And if they ask you (O Muhammad SAW) concerning soul; Say: The soul: it is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little." (Noble Quran, Surat Al 'Isra', Verse 85). --> This is a direct challenge, if anyone can create artificial awareness, then the verse would be wrong. Until then, it is still valid. I will watch your vid after work. Salam.
probokator 1 year ago
If conciousness is a simple thing. Why there are no conciousness emerge from out internet? I mean, internet connect many things, from google super computer, NSA super computers, to billions of PC. It is interconnected, parallels. Then why no intelligent appears in our internet? Maybe, intelligent or conciousness, or awareness, only God could made. We cannot made a virtual world, with virtuals inhabitants which aware of themself. If we can, then we already be God. The fact is we can't.
probokator 1 year ago