 and Lincoln is the president of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. Lincoln is a professional software engineer. He has a background in both philosophy and in business at the same time, and we're very pleased to have him on the roster today. We can use science and technology to enhance ourselves and our world. If limits continue to recede, we may radically extend our lives and abundantly expand our resources. Such that present notions of poverty and even death would no longer apply. We may engineer new worlds and attain presently unimaginable degrees of flourishing. In so doing, we would change. We would be different than we are now to at least the extent that we are now different from our pre-human ancestors. We would be post-humans. Trust in our post-human potential is the essence of transhumanism. We trust that we can become post-humans, extrapolating technological trends into futures consistent with contemporary science, and acting pragmatically to hasten opportunities and mitigate risks. We trust that we should become post-humans, embracing a radical humanism that dignifies the ancient and enduring work to overcome and extend our humanity. Although denying superstition and hubris, our trust is more than rational and moral. The post-human aesthetic resonates with and shapes us. Affecting our thoughts, our words, and our actions, we want to become post-humans. We trust that we will not go extinct before becoming post-humans. This trust is the faith position, the basic assumption from which the New God argument begins. The New God argument is a transhumanist argument for faith in God, or trust in post-humans that may qualify as God in some religions. The argument combines religious titles with secular content to emphasize parallels that are essential to its conclusion. The argument does not prove that God exists. Rather, it proves that if we trust in our own post-human potential, then we should also trust that post-humans, more benevolent than us, created our world. Because such post-humans may qualify as God in some religions, the argument suggests that trust in our post-human potential should lead to faith in a particular kind of God. The New God argument arrives at its conclusion by combining three sub-arguments, each of which leverages the faith position. Number one, the Angel argument proves that if pre-humans are probable, then post-humans probably already exist. Number two, the Benevolence argument proves that if post-humans probably increased faster in destructive than defensive capacity, then post-humans probably are more benevolent than us. And then number three, the Creation argument proves that if post-humans probably create many worlds like those in their past, then post-humans probably created our world. Biologists trace human origins through billions of years of evolution. A broad confluence of observations indicates that our pre-human ancestors, from simple cells to hominids, generally increased in complexity at an accelerating rate, suggesting that initial evolution of pre-humans was less probable than subsequent evolution of humans. Yet physicist Enrico Fermi observed that the stars present us with a paradox. Our universe appears old and large enough to have produced many planets capable of supporting pre-humans, but a great silence leaves no objective evidence for post-humans. If there's plenty of time and space for pre-humans, then a subsequent evolution of humans or equivalents is yet more probable where are the post-humans? One possibility is that post-humans are improbable because their pre-human ancestors are already highly improbable. Even in a universe of 76 billion visible stars, maybe our planet is the only one on which life began. Counter-intuitively, this would be good news for us because it would explain an absence of post-humans with a reason in our past rather than our future. However, we're discovering life in increasingly hostile environments on Earth, and we've also verified the presence of water on Mars. Such observations lead many to speculate that we'll soon discover life on other planets and away from the possibility that pre-humans are improbable. Another possibility is that post-humans are improbable because humans and equivalents almost always go extinct before becoming post-humans, perhaps destroying ourselves with superweapons or environmental exploitation. This would be bad news because it puts the explanation for an absence of post-humans in our own future. As established in the great filter argument, the great silence may imply a great filter. In the vastness of time and space along evolutionary paths to post-humans, something may be filtering innumerable possibilities down to mere improbabilities. If pre-humans are improbable, then the filter would be in our past. Otherwise, the filter is in our future and we probably will go extinct before becoming post-humans. The only alternative is that post-humans are actually probable, and we simply haven't yet found or recognized them. We don't have objective evidence for this possibility, but we know too little to reject it. As evidence for pre-humans mounts and post-humans remain elusive, some may despair. Others will embrace the angel argument and trust that post-humans probably already exist because our future correlates with their probability. A lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary, and this lack enables reasonable hope. Anthropologists observe that our destructive capacity is increasing at an exponential rate. We have evidence that our ancestors used spears five million years ago, but did not fire hard in the points until 500,000 years ago. Over 100,000 years later, we began making complex blades roughly 65,000 years after that. We began using the bow and arrow. 14,000 years after that, we began using gunpowder. Less than a thousand years later, we used a nuclear weapon in war. Meanwhile, our defensive capacity increasingly lags. Clothing was not enough, shields were too small, armor was too slow, walls fell to gunpowder, and even oceans narrowed to intercontinental ballistic missiles. Today, the toughest personal armor is only bullet resistant. The most secure information systems depend on narrowing advantages, and we've persisted for decades with no practical defense against nuclear explosions. Benevolence explains our survival and continuing evolution, given the growing gap between destructive and defensive capacities. Benevolence is not evenly distributed among us, and it's surely encouraged by self-interest. However, at least among the empowered and on the whole, our common interest has resulted in at least enough benevolence for us to get where we are. Although we haven't always paused before pulling the trigger, we've paused enough to enable the present. We haven't always chosen the right leaders or enacted the right laws, but we're still here. We've demonstrated at least that much benevolence. Assuming we're not unique, post-humans probably have increased faster and destructive than defensive capacity, and, according to the benevolence argument, post-humans probably are more benevolent than us. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't have survived long enough to become post-humans, and neither will we. A common task to which we've applied computers is that of simulation. The earliest simulations provided basic numeric output. Later simulations interpreted their numbers into abstract visualizations. Today, simulations present whole worlds, with three-dimensional geographies approaching photorealism and immersive interactivity, for millions of users engaged in research, commerce, entertainment, warfare, by proxy of their avatars. As computing power increases, we'll probably continue to run increasingly detailed world simulations. Unabated, increasing detail would eventually obfuscate differences between our world and computed worlds, to the point that simulation and virtual would be poor descriptors. If post-humans attain such capacity and use it to compute many worlds like those in their past, then they probably are not the first or only to do so. Rather, as established in the simulation argument, as post-humans compute more worlds, it becomes more likely that they are themselves in a computed world, among the many actually computed rather than a theoretical non-computed world. The same would be true for us. We can generalize this reasoning which is valid for any creative process that is feasible and consistent with observation. For example, either post-humans probably don't terraform or cosmiform many worlds like those in their past, or post-humans probably terraformed or cosmiformed our world. By extrapolation, either post-humans probably don't create many worlds like those in their past, or post-humans probably created our world. The only alternative is that we probably will go extinct before becoming post-humans. Present trends are consistent with the possibility that post-humans actually would create many worlds like those in their past. The upper bounds of computing technology continue to rise, methodologies for space exploration continue to expand, and our understanding of the universe continues to grow. Moreover, the benefits from these efforts perpetuate our interest in forwarding them. At this point, it's easy to imagine that post-humans could and would realize potential that's already grasped by the human imagination. If ever we create many worlds like our own, we almost certainly would not be the first or only to do so. Our perspective regarding our origin should account for our expectation regarding our creative potential. It would be remarkably inconsistent and improbable to assert that we will eventually create many worlds like our own without also acknowledging the creation argument, which is that post-humans probably created our world. As a whole, the New God argument uses seven assumptions consistent with contemporary science and technological trends. The first assumption is the faith position. Assumes we will not go extinct before becoming post-humans. The second assumption, the great filter argument, establishes that either pre-humans are improbable or we probably will go extinct before becoming post-humans or post-humans already exist. Number three, trends in biological research suggest that pre-humans are probable. The fourth assumption, sociological observations suggest that either post-humans probably have not increased faster and destructive than defensive capacity or post-humans probably are more benevolent than us or we probably will go extinct before becoming post-humans. Assumption five, trends in weapons technology suggest that post-humans probably have increased faster and destructive than defensive capacity. Number six, the simulation argument establishes that either we probably will go extinct before becoming post-humans or post-humans probably do not compute many worlds like those in their past or post-humans probably computed our world. And number seven, trends in computing technology suggest that post-humans probably create many worlds like those in their past. From those seven assumptions, the New God argument makes three conclusions. Number one was the angel argument which concludes that post-humans probably already exist. Number two, the benevolence argument concludes that post-humans probably are more benevolent than us. And number three, the creation argument concludes that post-humans probably created our world. Post-humans more benevolent than us that created our world may qualify as God in some religions. Mormonism serves as an example. Founder Joseph Smith proclaimed that God was once as we are now. Became exalted and instituted laws whereby others could learn how to be gods, exactly as all gods have done before. Wilford Woodruff taught that God is progressing in knowledge and power without end, and it is just so with us. Lorenzo Snow prophesied that children now at play making mud worlds will progress in knowledge and power over nature to organize worlds as gods. Accordingly, the New God argument justifies faith in a natural God that became God through natural means, suggesting how we might do the same, as emphasized in the argument, benevolence and creation are among the means and essential to them. Transhumanists advocate trust in such post-humans, our potential, even if they don't exist yet. However, the New God argument proves our trust probably is vain unless they already exist. In his book The God Delusion, The Talented Evolutionary Biologist and Leading Voice of the New Atheist Movement, Richard Dawkins writes the following. Quote, Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman to the point of being godlike in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a dark age peasant transported to the 21st century. Imagine his response to a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a hydrogen bomb or a jumbo jet. As Arthur C. Clarke put it in his third law, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters or Jesus walking upon them. The aliens of our city signal would be to us like gods. In what sense then would the most advanced city aliens not be gods? In what sense would they be superhuman but not supernatural? In a very important sense, which goes to the heart of this book, The God Delusion, the crucial difference between gods and godlike extraterrestrials lies not in their properties but in their provenance. Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process. No matter how godlike they may seem when we encounter them, they didn't start that way. Science fiction authors have even suggested, and I cannot think how to disprove it, that we live in a computer simulation set up by some vastly superior civilization. But the simulators themselves would have to come from somewhere. The laws of probability forbid all notions of their spontaneously appearing without simpler antecedents. They probably owe their existence to a perhaps unfamiliar version of Darwinian evolution. Eternal progression is what some religions call that perhaps unfamiliar version of Darwinian evolution. God is what some religions call those godlike extraterrestrials that didn't start that way. Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably gods. So concludes the New God Argument.