 Welcome everyone to this presentation of the new God Argument. My name is Andy West and I'll be chairing this session. We'll be hearing from Lincoln Cannon, who has a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Brigham Young and as well as a master's degree in business. And Joe West, who has a degree in accounting and philosophy from the University of Utah and is currently pursuing a doctorate in sociology at the University of Arizona. We'll hear from our two speakers and then afterwards we'll have a short period of question and answer from the audience and we'd ask that you keep your questions, limit your questions to under a minute because as has been pointed out in countless sessions, more than a minute and it's not really a question. I'd also like to make a quick plug and just point out to everyone that this session is sponsored by the Mormon Transhumanist Association of which I and Lincoln and Joe and some of the audience members here are members and board members involved with two different degrees but we have a little table in the back of the room and after the session if anyone wants more information or some nice Mormon transhumanist swag to impress your friends just stop by and pick some stuff up for free. With that, I guess that's it. With that I'll hand off to Lincoln. Whoever's going first, who's going first? I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child to answer the question in their own hearts what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves, turn your thoughts into your hearts and say if any of you have seen, heard or communed with Him this is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time I again repeat the question, what kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen Him, heard Him or communed with Him? Here is the question that will per-adventure from this time hence forth occupy your attention. Before we present the new God argument I'd like to make some brief introductory comments. I will first try to place this argument relative to historical arguments for the existence of God. I will then briefly describe the argument before we dive in. Historically and even presently, arguments for the existence of God aim at justifying a traditional Christian perspective. Those arguments are made within a particular context and that very context assumes particular values inherent to this traditional perspective. From our perspective as Mormons to place oneself within this traditional context is to betray the new revelation and admit failure before the task has begun. This is because some of these values which are assumed the moment you place yourself within the traditional context are the very dogmatisms from which the prophet Joseph was trying to free us by bringing forth new revelation. We will therefore follow Joseph and diverge from this traditional context. We are not concerned with omnipotent ex nihilo creators and uncaused causes. In fact, some would probably say that we are as atheistic as Richard Dawkins in this regard. This argument justifies emergent gods that organize worlds according to existing laws. This argument justifies the Mormon God. We feel to identify with Paul the apostle to the Gentiles who fiercely argued that Gentile converts need not first become Jews before becoming Christians. Similarly, we feel that we need not justify ourselves by the standards of the theological tradition from which our new faith emerged. Along with the revelations of our prophet came a new tradition, a new context. It is only within this context that we seek to justify our faith. When Lincoln and I and others first started formulating this argument the intended audience was the secularists who profess atheism. We wanted to show them that the logical implications of assumptions widely shared among them point to the importance of trust in the existence of beings which may qualify as gods according to the theology of many faith traditions including Mormonism. Accordingly, you will note that the argument will be presented almost entirely free of religious language. I say almost because as you've already seen the title of the argument is most certainly religious. Furthermore, the argument as a whole is composed of six parts all of which are given religious titles. This way of presenting the argument is intentional. The religious terminology is used only as the title or symbol of what lies beneath. Only in this introduction and in the conclusion will we discuss the connections to Mormon theology. The argument stands on its own regardless of whether or not one is willing to recognize the theological implications. Take note that the argument is not linear. It may be a bit difficult to follow which is why we've provided some notes which include the formalized version of the argument as well as a diagram which should help people follow along. It is important to understand that we're not trying to say that this argument necessarily compels everyone to believe in God. All we're trying to show is that logically a combination of a certain set of assumptions necessarily implies our conclusion which is that we should trust that an advanced civilization more benevolent than ours probably created our world. We will explicitly acknowledge our assumptions and seek to justify them to the extent time allows. Many of the assumptions are probabilistic and therefore the conclusion of the argument is probabilistic. So you may be thinking, well, if the intended audience is the secular atheist, why present it here at Sunstein? According to Mormon philosopher Sterling McMurran, quote, the primary task of theology is the reconciliation of the revelation to the culture to make what is taken on faith as the word of God meaningful in light of accepted science and philosophy. Close quote. This argument is important to a Mormon audience to ground our faith rationally and therefore inform the practical decisions we make as we go forward as a religious people. It can also inform and even improve our interaction with the secular world, perhaps even providing a means for persuasion to the religious perspective. To that end, we present to you the New God argument. Lincoln will present the first three parts of the argument, the faith position, the angel argument, and the creation argument. There are three charity arguments in order of strength. Lincoln will conclude after which we will open the discussion for questions and criticisms from the audience. God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and the great God who holds this world in its orbit and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power was to make himself visible, I say if you were to see him today you would see him like a man informed like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. The New God argument begins with the assumption that we, our human civilization here on earth probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. This is the faith position and we'll refer back to it a few times as we proceed with the argument. The faith position does not require any particular perspective regarding the amount of time it might take for us to become an advanced civilization. It could happen within coming decades or across the span of eons. Either possibility or any of the infinite possibilities between them is sufficient for the faith position. Moreover, from the outset the faith position does not require any particular understanding of what we must do to be considered an advanced civilization. Perhaps we'll cure cancer or end hunger. Maybe we'll voyage to the stars. Any of these possibilities or any set of many other possibilities is sufficient for the faith position. As we go along we'll introduce some assumptions about what we probably would do as an advanced civilization. But your imagination is the best starting point. Consider the future of our civilization as you think it should be. Imagine a future worthy of your trust. Assume we can and probably will eventually become such a civilization. No matter how long it takes so long as we work at it. That is the faith position. Of course, while embracing the probability of desirable futures we should not ignore the possibility of undesirable futures. Complacency may prove quite as dangerous as hopelessness and both our risks that we should seek to mitigate. Thus, we intend our formulation of the faith position that we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization to convey an optimal balance between trust in desirable futures and recognition of attending risks. Consider, for example, the attitude we should take if we were to discover that a large asteroid is headed directly at Earth and will destroy all life on the planet when it hits us in five years. While some of us may languish in despair and others may passively await a chance or supernatural remedy most of us would naturally take up the faith position and begin planning for and building a means of destroying or displacing the asteroid. Even while feeling anxious or simultaneously hoping for a lucky break or supernatural assistance. Remark that the faith position is valuable beyond the scope of the argument that we're presenting. There is a kind of truth that depends on intentional creation. For example, it may not be true that the materials at your dock are organized into the form of a ship but with some trust in and work toward such a possibility you just might make it true. Most of us have a similar perspective regarding the future of our civilization. Maybe it will be horrible but we'll trust in and work toward a wonderful future because we think it could make the difference. Some will argue that the optimism of the faith position is not realistic as demonstrated by the many occasions our experience differs from our preference. To the extent we lack power, unassisted optimism may not be realistic. However, to the extent we have power, optimism certainly is realistic as we use our power to create the experience we prefer. Moreover, since we don't infallibly know the full extent of our power even cautious optimism beyond our certain knowledge is wise. For example, you may or may not have what it takes to persuade someone to love you but you have a better chance if you're optimistic enough to make the phone call. The angel argument. The stars as we look at and listen to them present many of us with a paradox. On the one hand the universe should be old and large enough to have produced many earth-like planets. It's almost 14 billion years old and the visible portion alone contains over 100 billion galaxies. If our galaxy containing over 400 billion stars is typical then there are over 40 sextillion stars in the visible universe. That's 40 billion billions or 40 followed by 21 zeros. We're orbiting one of those stars on a planet that is four and a half billion years old. Unless earth is extremely improbable there's been time and space enough for many other planets like ours. On the other hand we lack sufficient evidence for the existence of advanced civilizations. The SETI program an internationally funded research for extraterrestrial intelligence reports no reproducible messages from Alpha Centauri or anywhere else outside our atmosphere. Claims of UFO sightings and encounters with ET are open to broad interpretation leaving most of us skeptical. While we cannot say with infallibility that advanced civilizations have not contacted or visited us we should acknowledge that we lack objective reason to conclude they have. Despite all that time and all those stars despite our careful looking and listening we lack evidence for advanced civilizations. There must be a reason for our lack of evidence for advanced civilizations. One possibility is that they are extremely rare if they exist at all because civilizations like ours almost always go extinct before becoming advanced. Maybe we're likely to destroy ourselves with super weapons or irreversibly exploit our environmental resources. Another possibility is that advanced civilizations are extremely rare because civilizations like ours are already extremely rare. It may be that the initial formation of life and the subsequent development of complex species and civilizations is likely to occur on only one in a septillion planets. If advanced civilizations are improbable then candidate civilizations such as ours must almost never appear or if they commonly appear they must almost never move on to become advanced civilizations before going extinct. In other words if we are not already extraordinarily lucky and have benefited from very low probability events in our past development then very high probability events in our future development will almost certainly stop us from becoming an advanced civilization. In the vastness of time and space across innumerable earth-like worlds somewhere along the evolutionary path from inorganic matter to advanced civilizations something is filtering the many possibilities down to mere improbabilities. That filter is either in our past or in our future. The only alternative is that advanced civilizations are not as rare as we might suppose. This is the great filter argument that one of the following propositions must be true. Either basic life forms are improbable or we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or advanced civilizations are probable. Last week a NASA robot verified the presence of water on Mars and some speculate that we may soon discover primitive life there. In response to such speculation Oxford philosopher Nick Boestrom recently wrote I hope that our Mars probes discover nothing. It would be good news if we find Mars to be sterile. Dead rocks and lifeless sands would lift my spirit. End quote. He wrote this from the perspective of someone that understands the force of the great filter argument. But also from the perspective of someone who has assumed that the lack of evidence for advanced civilizations also implies a probable lack of existence. If a robot discovers primitive life on Mars or if we otherwise determine that basic life forms are probable Boestrom would confront the troubling conclusion that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. I wonder how he would live with such a specter overshadowing him. Perhaps it would be sufficient to move him and question his assumption that advanced civilizations are improbable. I don't know how he would react but I know how he should react. If basic life forms are probable then according to the great filter argument either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or advanced civilizations are probable. Faced with such options our moral responsibility is to invoke the faith position. Reaffirm that we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization and embrace the consequence. Trust that advanced civilizations are probable. We need not sacrifice rationality to embrace trust that advanced civilizations are probable. We know too little to entertain confidence in our ability to discern them. It is not merely modern UFO and ET claims that contend for recognition as subjective experience of advanced civilizations but also the ancient and persistent weight of religious tradition and its purported interactions between the human and the divine. While some fine religious claims absurd appeals to absurdity do not disprove subjective experience. If advanced civilizations exist why should we suppose that they would interact with us in ways that are only slightly more advanced than our current capacities? Why not suppose that their interactions with us would be indiscernible from magic? Why should we suppose that we even have the anatomical capacity to comprehend them fully? One need not embrace a religious tradition to acknowledge the possibility that advanced civilizations are among the causes of experiences that some of us have interpreted into religious traditions. While we lack evidence for advanced civilizations a lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary. In some cases a lack of evidence to the contrary is of little or no practical consequence but in this case given the assumption that basic life forms are probable our probable future correlates with the probable existence of advanced civilizations. In this case a lack of evidence enables reasonable hope. Move on to the creation argument. A common task to which computers are applied today is that of simulation. Flight and automobile simulators have been available both to the military and for entertainment for many years. Financial simulators have become important for investors as medical simulators have improved our ability to train surgeons. Many persons enjoy playing games such as SimCity that simulate urban planning. Entire worlds are simulated both for scientific and entertainment purposes such as the popular virtual worlds World of Warcraft and Second Life in which persons buy and sell real estate hold meetings even dance and generally engage in a virtual life through the proxy of their avatars. Over time the quality of simulations has greatly improved. Users of early flight simulators saw only bumpy black and white outlines of abstract geometric features representing terrain above an equally coarse rendition of a cockpit. Today, full color three-dimensional geographies and other aircraft can be wrapped around a user inside a machine that moves to provide for physical for realistic physical sensations. As the computing power available to us continues to advance exponentially it seems reasonable to suppose that one of the things we might do is run increasingly detailed simulations of our world like it. As the level of detail increases and the user interface improves it would become ever more difficult to discern any difference between our world and the simulated worlds to the point that for all practical purposes simulation or virtual would no longer accurately describe those worlds or the apparently sentient persons in them. Furthermore, if an advanced civilization simulates many such worlds indistinguishable in degree of detail from its own world then the advanced civilization itself is much more likely to be one of many simulated worlds than it is to be the only hypothetical non-missimulated world. In other words an advanced civilization that simulates many worlds like those in its past is almost certainly not the first or only to do so and thus is probably simulated itself. This is the simulation argument that at least one of these three propositions must be true. Either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or any advanced civilization probably does not simulate many worlds like those in its past or an advanced civilization probably simulated our world. We can generalize the simulation argument. Its form remains valid regardless of the particular creative process to which it's applied. For example one of the main reasons that the simulation argument is valid terraforming or cosmoforming arguments would also be valid. Either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or any civilization probably does not terraform or cosmoform many worlds like those in its past or an advanced civilization probably terraformed or cosmoformed our world. Extrapolating from these examples we formulate a generalized argument. Either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or any advanced civilization probably does not create many worlds like those in its past or an advanced civilization probably created our world. Notice that the generalized argument in no way contradicts evolution theory either logically or empirically. To the contrary, although the generalized argument remains valid across all the particular creative processes to which it might be applied it may prove infeasible in many variations. In particular the generalized argument that contradict empirical evidence should be discarded despite their logical validity. It seems reasonable to suppose that any advanced civilization actually does create many worlds like those in its past. As mentioned previously our civilization has already implemented innumerable simulations of worlds like our own with rapidly increasing detail. We're also hard at work researching processes for space colonization and even studying the processes by which our universe was formed. Given the diverse ways in which an advanced civilization might prove capable of creating many worlds like those in its past it's hard to imagine that any advanced civilization would prove incapable of doing so. Moreover if capable it's even harder to imagine that they would uniformly choose not to do so. So choose your favorite creative process whatever appeals most to your sense of feasibility. If you expect our civilization assuming we do not go extinct first will somehow prove capable of creating many worlds like our own and proceed together to the consequence of our expectation. If any advanced civilization probably creates many worlds like those in its past then according to the simulation argument and the creation argument either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or an advanced civilization probably created our world. Given the faith position we choose to deny the probability that we will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization and so trust that an advanced civilization probably created our world. If ever we create many worlds like our own we almost certainly would not be the first or only civilization to do so. Our perspective regarding our origin for our expectation regarding our creative potential it would be remarkably inconsistent and extremely improbable to assert that we will eventually create many worlds like our own without also acknowledging that an advanced civilization probably created our world. God himself finding he was in the midst of threats and glory because he was more intelligent saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences that they may be exalted with himself so that they might have all that knowledge, power, glory and intelligence which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. Just briefly before I go on with these charity arguments I just want to mention that there's links the part that we just heard especially the angel argument in the creation argument are the most difficult parts to grasp especially for this particular audience because they're based on assumptions that are widely accepted among these circles including the great filter argument and the simulation argument so there's links to those arguments on the handout and they are really difficult to put your mind around so that's why we included those links if you're kind of okay the first is the charity argument from angels at least one of the following is true either advanced civilizations are improbable or any advanced civilization probably cannot stop the advance civilization in reach or the extent of our advance probably indicates the minimum benevolence of any advanced civilization in reach this argument essentially demonstrates a minimum level of benevolence of advanced civilizations so this is the weakest of the charity arguments in other words it doesn't demonstrate much charity just a minimum level the basic idea here is that if there are advanced civilizations that are out there we can't stop our advance to the point we find ourselves because either they can't or they choose not to so an assumption is that any advanced civilization probably can stop the advance of any less advanced civilization in reach we're simply assuming here that part of what it means to be an advanced civilization is the ability to stop the advance of any less advanced civilization to illustrate imagine you discover an ant hill in your backyard you could go out there and destroy that ant hill or otherwise stop the advance of the ant hill at any time similarly it is reasonable to assume that an advanced civilization could stop the advance of a less advanced civilization in reach if they so desired as Lincoln explained with the angel argument we should trust that advanced civilizations are probable the extent of our advance probably indicates the minimum benevolence of any advanced civilization in reach the probable advanced civilizations within reach of our world are at least benevolent enough to allow us to continue to advance to the point we find our civilization today the second is the charity argument from faith at least one of the following is true either any advanced civilization probably has increased in defensive capacity at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which it has increased in destructive capacity or any advanced civilization probably is more benevolent than us or we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization the basic idea here is that probably only civilizations that advance in benevolence survive long enough to become an advanced civilization advanced benevolence is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition for survival it may be the case that no civilizations ever become advanced before becoming extinct but what would it mean if they did first of all it would mean that the civilization is lucky enough not to have been struck by an asteroid or destroyed in some other way beyond the control of the civilization but aside from that and importantly for our argument here it would imply one of three possibilities one they may not increase in destructive capacity as they advance they increase in defensive capacity at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which they increase in destructive capacity or three they increase in benevolence a key assumption in this argument is that any advanced civilization probably has not increased in defensive capacity at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which it has increased in destructive capacity this assumption has two parts first part of what it means to become an advanced civilization is to increase in destructive capacity This is an assumption we think has merited based simply on observations of past trends in human destructive capacity. Throughout history, humans have increased in destructive capacity. Furthermore, destructive capacity has increased at an exponential rate. Looking at the history of weapons, anthropologists have suggested that early humans probably first used spears five million years ago. Over 4.5 million years after that, there is evidence of wooden spears made with fire hardened points. Over 100,000 years after that, humans begin making complex blades. 65,000 years after that, the bow and arrow emerges. 14,000 years after that is the first confirmed use of gunpowder. And then 1,000 years after that, the first nuclear weapon is used in war. By observing trends in our own civilization's weapons technology and extrapolating those observations into the future, we conclude that over time, it will continue to grow in destructive capacity. Generalizing that extrapolation, we feel justified in assuming that any advanced civilization probably has more destructive capacity than us. The second part of this assumption is that as civilizations advance in destructive capacity, they probably do not increase in defensive capacity at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which they increase in destructive capacity. We again look to our own civilization's experience to justify this assumption. One obvious example is that of protective armor. Kevlar vests used by the police and the army are only bullet resistant and can realistically only protect certain areas of the body. Batman's new and improved suit notwithstanding. Furthermore, we have yet to find a way to protect us at all from nuclear explosions and other destructive capabilities we possess. Our defensive capacity lies far behind our destructive capacity and probably will remain so if we become an advanced civilization. Finally, the moral responsibility imposed upon us by the faith position requires that we eliminate the proposition that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. Imagine a future in which a weapon powerful enough to destroy our entire planet could be produced for the cost of what is today a few dollars. Given present technological trends, that future may not be so far off as one might think. Assuming the present level of benevolence and defensive capacity of individuals within our civilization, such a future would bring with it almost certain doom. Any civilization, including our own that hopes to survive as it advances, must therefore increase in benevolence. Any advanced civilization probably is more benevolent than our present civilization. Now the Charity Argument from Creation, which we think is the strongest of the Charity Arguments. At least one of the following is true. Either an advanced civilization probably did not create our world, or any advanced civilization probably does not create many worlds like those in its past, or any advanced civilization that created our world probably acts towards us with at least the same benevolence. It hopes any advanced civilization that created its world acts towards it. The basic idea here is that if advanced civilizations become creators of worlds similar to those in their past, then they probably know that they are probably living in a created world themselves, and are therefore subject to the whims of their creator. Nick Bostrom, who is the author of the simulation argument, suggests in the simulation argument that an advanced civilization living in such a state would consider the possibility that their behavior in their world may be rewarded or punished based on some moral criteria determined by the creator. Advanced civilizations would therefore probably treat any world that it created at least as benevolently as it hoped to be treated by its creator. I think that an even more persuasive idea than that suggested by Bostrom is an appeal to our human feelings towards our creations, specifically towards our children. We treat our children with benevolence perhaps because of a fear of punishment from greater powers, but I think we do so more often because we feel a profound love for our children, so it probably is with the feelings of advanced civilizations towards their creations. There are two reasons why the creation argument is important here. First of all, as explained by Lincoln, part of the creation argument is the assumption that advanced civilizations probably create many worlds similar to their own. Secondly, the creation argument concludes that we should trust that an advanced civilization probably created our world. There are two ways of looking at the conclusion of this argument, analogous to two ways of understanding the behavior of children in relation to their parents. On the one hand, some parents believe that they must punish their children to teach them to act morally. Perhaps it is the case that children obey their parents out of a fear of punishment. Similarly, perhaps the creators of our world treat us benevolently out of a fear of punishment from their own creators. That understanding fits into the argument. On the other hand, perhaps the behavior of the child is more strongly motivated, not by fear of punishment, but by a love for the parents, which love can be reinforced by the nurturing behavior of the parents. Similarly, perhaps the creators of our world treat us benevolently out of a love and an understanding that love is the greatest motivator. Either way, the point of the charity argument from creation is that the manner in which the creator of our world treats us is probably influenced by its relationship with its creator. Any advanced civilization that created our world probably acts towards us with at least the same benevolence, it hopes any advanced civilization acts towards it. Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn to be gods yourselves and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. Okay, so let's now review the new God argument as a whole. It begins with the faith position, a practical assumption that we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. If for whatever reason you're not willing to embrace this position, we don't have a shared basis from which to proceed with the argument. Stemming from the faith position, the angel argument demonstrates that if you expect basic life forms are probable, and particularly if we confirm empirically that they are probable, you should trust that advanced civilizations are also probable. The alternative would be the morally irresponsible option of embracing the conclusion that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. Also stemming from the faith position, the creation argument demonstrates that if you expect we'll someday create many worlds similar to our own, then you should trust that an advanced civilization probably created our world. We almost certainly would not be the first or only civilization to do so, and the only probable alternative is that we will go extinct before creating many worlds like our own. Building from the angel argument, the charity argument from angels contends that given the probable existence of advanced civilizations, either they probably are incapable of stopping our advance, or the extent of our advance probably indicates their minimum benevolence. If you expect that they could stop us, you should conclude that they probably are demonstrating at least some minimum degree of benevolence, even if entirely passive towards us. Building from the faith position, the charity argument from faith demonstrates that if you expect any advanced civilization probably has, like us, increased in destructive capacity faster than defensive capacity, then you should also trust it probably is more benevolent than us. The alternative is that we'll probably end up misusing our increasing destructive capacity and destroy ourselves before becoming an advanced civilization. Building from the creation argument, the charity argument from creation contends that any advanced civilization that creates many worlds like those in its past would understand the creation argument. Know that an advanced civilization probably also created its world and therefore have incentive to act towards the world it creates with the same benevolence it hopes to receive. If you think we'll eventually create many worlds similar to our own, you should conclude that any advanced civilization that created our world knows the creation argument and would act towards us accordingly. In summary, if basic life forms are probable, then we should trust that advanced civilizations are probable. If any advanced civilization probably has increased in destructive capacity faster than defensive capacity and if any advanced civilization probably creates many worlds like those in its past, then we should trust that an advanced civilization more benevolent than us probably created our world. The alternative is that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. Some will not feel inclined to worship the kind of God entailed by this argument. On the one hand, some will feel it's too cold, too distant, smelling too much of UFOs and tasting too much of ETs. On the other hand, some will challenge that nothing in this argument compels us to grovel in self-flagellating adoration. With both sets of persons, I hardly agree. An argument for God never has been and never will be sufficient for the aesthetic of God in our lives, experienced through individual communion with the divine. Moreover, in my estimation, no God worthy of worship commands groveling. Rather, a God worthy of worship is a God worthy of respect. Emulation and friendship. The new God argument does not contend to provide a relationship with God. It contends only to demonstrate that a common worldview informed of contemporary science and technological trends leads to and is wholly compatible with faith in a particular kind of God. The God of this argument is a natural, material God that became God through natural, material means, suggesting how we might do the same. As emphasized in the argument, benevolence, not only power, is among those means and essential to them. This is the God of which I learned from Joseph Smith, who so fully persuaded me of the practical value of faith in such a God that I was ready to assert this faith even if God didn't exist yet. However, the new God argument demonstrates the utter improbability of becoming like God unless God already exists. We'll conclude by quoting perhaps the most unlikely and unwilling proponent of the new God argument. The talented evolutionary biologist and leading voice of the new atheist movement, Richard Dawkins, from his book, The God Delusion. Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman to the point of being God-like 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 setty signal would be to us like gods. In what sense, then, would the most advanced setty 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 crucial difference between gods and God-like 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 God-like 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 Mormons call that perhaps unfamiliar version of Darwinian evolution. God is what Mormons call those God-like extraterrestrials that didn't start that way. Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably gods. That's what Richard Dawkins tells us. That's what Joseph Smith told us. That's what the New God argument concludes. Beyond traditional theism and beyond new atheism, Zion, your God reigns. Lincoln and Joey will now field questions from the audience for about seven minutes, and for the purposes of audio recording, I would ask that if you have a question, please come to the mic to ask it. Again, we got about seven minutes. And I'm mad with power as the chair of this session, and I will cut it off. Referring to your handout, I have questions about four terms I'll make within a minute. The first, under the faith position, will not be extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. For me it implies that it might become extinct after becoming an extinct and advanced civilization. Is that correct? My part, let me finish. The second one is the angel argument, which you have found very clearly except for why you call it the angel argument. I don't understand what the angel has to do with that simple thing. And the third one is is simulation the same as creation? And if not, isn't it possible that an advanced civilization can create something without simulating itself? And fourth has to do with benevolence. I don't understand how you can assume benevolence in any case. All right, so very quickly. The first question about going extinct after, yes, the argument doesn't rely on advanced civilizations existing forever. Maybe they will, but the argument only relies on their probabilities. So they might be very probable, but it also might probably go extinct. Why angel? When we named all the rest of the arguments with religious names, we want to tie together the religious symbols and terminology with these secular arguments for aesthetic purposes. Simulation, is that the same as creation? Yes, but any other process of creation is sufficient as well. The generalized creation argument will work from terraforming, cosmoforming, creating the world out of bubblegum. It doesn't really matter, the argument stands. Except for feasibility issues with bubblegum. And then finally, why do we assume benevolence? There's three benevolence arguments that we've offered. None of which assume benevolence, all three of which are purporting to argue for benevolence. The first one is pretty weak. The second one, if you take the assumption that we will become destructive faster than we become defensive, then there aren't going to be any advanced civilizations unless they're more benevolent than us, simply based on that assumption. So if you don't buy the assumption, then you won't buy the argument. All of the arguments are based on those sorts of assumptions. I have several comments. I forgot the probability of going extinct. We're at 65 billion human beings now. So they're very philosophy-based, I suppose. Is it 100 billion? Is it 200 billion? Or is it 100 trillion? The likelihood of human beings not wanting to extinct is based on the expectation of how many human beings will there be. Although if you throw in radical life extension with that, there could be not many more than there already are and we could last a really long time. And on the calculation of how many worlds are capital worlds with the intelligent life, the anthropic calculations have an air because they always assume that it's based on the four and a half billion years that the Earth has been in existence, but they overwhip the fact that it's only been caused that it's only been caused with the life that was bloomed in the last time for 15 million years. Maybe. That we have the continent of Prodita and the Ice Age Earth. Now there's a lot of calculations that go into determining what period of time in the galaxies formation it would be possible to sustain life and there's lots of debate about that. Now in simulation it's annoying to me because it's like the same record over and over and it's static and it's like recycled death. The simulation argument does not depend on exactly replicating the details of previous simulations. The argument holds without exact replication. Now I tend to go because I'm a process theologian a multiple universe model of the infinite cosmic formula and diversity unimaginable where everything's based on feedback that God is very likely to source a feedback that we live on the we live on the on the top of those who came to come before us and we benefit and we move forward. I don't see how the simulation model can produce the diversity of the multiple universe model where diversity is unimaginable. The simulation model is my preference but it's not essential to the argument any form of creation that you think is most feasible is sufficient for the argument we're making. Thank you. My question is would not an advanced civilization have the ability to communicate with human beings in a way that it's not so ambiguous that it can be confused with the least majority episodes and other. I think so but I don't know if they would choose not to. I can't answer that but I would think they would. My question would not a civilization that's benevolent. Maybe unless they understand benevolence differently than us. I need to back up my tough topic just cut off the questions that those who stood up and kind of through those rapidly. That would be great. Hopefully on that as we've gone through this and I've really been struck with the weight of this argument and the force of this argument and forced to conclude of the almost sure probability of the existence of these beings already I've often found myself wondering why aren't they talking to me or if they are talking to me. More than I did ever before. Maybe they are in ways that they think are best for us. Who knows? I do a lot of traveling in third world countries and I question the benevolence issue to a certain extent. It seems like there's a lot more people who are not doing so well than those who are. Additionally I understand mosques and I've heard a lot about them. They have a belief I guess that this world was created by a Satan. I'm a leveling god. Anyway I just wonder how this sort of Yeah I think that's still an important issue and I think the problem of evil is still there even though it's not a logical problem it's still a problem in the sense of if you're so advanced why is there so much there's things that go on in the world that I can't imagine being justified and so I think that in that sense what this argument does is enable us to envision a god or perhaps of which we can become a friendship and then upon attaining friendship seek to understand the choices that advanced civilization had to make and perhaps understand those sort of terrible choices and maybe disagree maybe say you know what your choices were wrong and I don't accept that but in other words it doesn't have an answer for the problem of evil it just enables us to envision a god that is that we can someday approach about that and maybe come to a conclusion one way or the other about whether or not the choices they made were justified given the amount of evil in the world and keep in mind that the benevolence arguments do entail a more benevolence advanced civilization not an optimally, according to our definition benevolence civilization Well my question is along the same line if you were really creative why didn't you have a creative world where there is less suffering or suffering is a common experience of all humans off the planet there's so much suffering in the world, couldn't you have created less suffering Theoretically but I'm not an advanced civilization and they may know better than me I really don't know So again that's why I say that theoretically sure maybe when we come to advance to them like Joseph Smith said God emerged and sought proper to institute laws where the rest of us could become like him when we get to that point and we're able to talk to him like one person speaks to another person we can ask him those questions we can reason it out with him and make that choice for ourselves so it's still a definite issue that I grapple with doesn't solve the problem of evil and the questions will be available just outside the doors Thank you all for coming this morning and I would also quickly acknowledge Christopher Bradford for theatrically and with great drama performing the parts of Joseph Smith and Richard Dawkins and I would also just one more plug for coming to stop by the table to discuss about the Mormon Transhumanist Association and thank you for being here