 Today, this next panelist is Joseph West. He is a founding member, director, and secretary of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. He's the father of two children and the husband and lover of their mother, Jessica. He is a graduate student in sociology at the University of Arizona, where he's currently working towards a PhD. His primary research interests include religion, culture, technology, and the family. He holds a bachelor's degree in philosophy from the University of Utah. Joseph will be presenting the new God argument and theological implications of that argument. The new God argument is a argument that stems from secular assumptions and concludes with ideas that Mormons might associate with their perspective on God and various other religious matters. So without further ado, Joseph West. OK, this paper was co-written by Lincoln Cannon, who was just up here. And he's kind of the brain behind it. I'm kind of the Lincoln Cannon sidekick, but I got not nominated to present here. OK, so last night, Terrell Given spoke of Mormonism as a potentially rich resource for those of us interested in reconciling religious perspectives with those of scientific materialism. Although it was unplanned, my present today can accurately be characterized as an extension of his. Part of what Lincoln and I are trying to do in this paper is lay the groundwork for just such a reconciliation. This presentation, as you can see, is on the theological implications of the new God argument. And as a preview of where we're going, I'll say here that the new God argument concludes that an advanced civilization more benevolent than our own created our world. And it's important to hear distinguish between the argument itself and the theological implications of the argument. This is because the argument itself holds independent of any willingness to acknowledge theological implications. The new God argument is presented entirely free of religious language. It is based in assumptions widely shared among both religious and secular persons. So I'm going to try to briefly present the argument. And there's a handout circulating that we'll try to help with that so that I can do it in so quickly, after which I'll discuss some of the theological implications. So the argument consists of six parts. And one thing that may seem confusing is that I just said the argument will be presented free of religious language. And yet the title of the argument, as well as sort of the subparts of the argument, as you can see, are have religious titles. But this is intentional. While the content of each subargument is free of religious language, and indeed, each of these subarguments holds independent of the title, we purposefully represent each part with a religious symbol or title. And the point of this is to suggest our perspective on the relationship between religious and scientific language. And this diagram is in the handout. It's just to illustrate that the argument is not linear. So it doesn't necessarily follow one thing after the other logically. So some of these things hold independent of the other aspects of the presentation. That's kind of. OK, the first part is the faith position. And the faith position is simply the assumption that the human race will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. So it's just positing in faith that there is a future and that this future is worth working towards, kind of the acknowledgement that there is a kind of truth that depends on intentional creation. And this is a moral position, the faith position is. And so because everything else in the argument flows from this, you could accurately characterize the new God argument as a moral argument as much as anything else. OK, the angel argument is, in my opinion, the most difficult part of the argument to grasp. And so I'll try to be concise. So basically, we're presented with a paradox. On the one hand, the universe is old enough and large enough to have produced many earth-like planets. On the other hand, we lack sufficient evidence to claim knowledge of the existence of advanced civilization. And this is sometimes referred to as the Fermi Paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, who first posed the question, given the vastness of the universe, where are they? Why haven't we seen them yet? And reflection upon this paradox has led to different ideas. And one of these is called the great filter, or we call it the great filter argument, advocated by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, as well as another theorist, Robin Hansen. And OK, so the idea here is that perhaps advanced civilizations are extremely improbable, almost impossible. In the vastness of time and space across innumerable earth-like worlds, somewhere along the evolutionary path from inorganic matter to advanced civilizations, perhaps something is filtering the many possibilities down to improbabilities. And so what this could mean for us, for our civilization, is that if we are not already extraordinarily lucky to have benefited from some very, very low probability event in our past development, then very high probability events in our future development will almost certainly stop us from becoming an advanced civilization. So basically, the great filter is either behind us or ahead of us. And we better hope, according to Nick Bostrom that's behind us, otherwise we're almost certainly doomed. So when the presence of water was verified on Mars last year and people were speculating about the possibility of basic life forms, Bostrom wrote, quote, 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. OK, why does he hope this? Why does he hope we discover nothing? Two reasons. One, he understands the force of the great filter argument, that if there is this great filter and if it's not in our past, then the future of humanity is doomed. And two, he thinks that the lack of evidence for an advanced civilization is reason enough to assume that they're not out there, that advanced civilizations are improbable, which is one of the disjuncts here. So what is someone like Bostrom going to say if we discover that basic life is probable, if we discover it on Mars or some other planet within some close proximity? Would he throw his hands up in the air admitting that mankind is doomed? Or would he perhaps reconsider his assumption that advanced life forms are improbable? So we assume that basic life is probable. And we don't provide a scientific argument for this assumption. Those are out there. In this case, we're just simply assuming that it seems reasonable given the vastness of the years and the discovery of water on Mars that basic life forms are probable. So this is the assumption of the argument that someone like Bostrom would attack claiming that we have no evidence. And that's true, but I would respond that we know so little about the universe that we don't really have evidence to the contrary either. And this is an empirical question, the answer to which will hopefully become more clear over time. In the meantime, what we're doing here is exploring the implications of probable basic life. From there, we invoke the faith position and therefore we can conclude that advanced civilizations are probable. Okay, that's the angel argument. The creation argument begins with another quite well known essay published in 2003 again by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom entitled Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? And this argument is complicated, but just to summarize it, it's he argues for this disjunct here either, we probably will become extinct before becoming an advanced civilization that's capable of creating simulated worlds or any advanced civilization will probably does not simulate many worlds, meaning if we come to that point, maybe we'll progress to that point, but for some reason we'll choose not to create these simulated worlds or an advanced civilization probably simulated our world. And there's some complicated math that goes into the argument, but this is the basic idea. And so one thing that Lincoln kind of thought of one day is that the simulation argument can be generalized. So simulation is not the only means of world creation. And so it can be generalized to all forms of creation, meaning that instead of creating a computer simulated world, perhaps we'll terraform planets or create planets or some other, just pick your favorite means of creation that you can imagine and the same logic holds that if we eventually create many worlds like our own, then it's almost, the probability is almost for sure that we live in a created world ourselves. And it's noteworthy that we conferred with Boestrom on this point and he agrees that the logic holds independent of the means of creation of worlds like ours. Okay, so then from there we assume, we simply assume that if we can, if our civilization becomes capable of creating many worlds that we will think of, you know, world of Warcraft, Second Life, other virtual worlds, as the capability becomes available, we're going to use it, that's kind of an assumption. And then again invoking the faith position, we can conclude that an advanced civilization probably created our world. Okay, I'm gonna kind of zip through the charity arguments. So basically here we've come to, I said that the conclusion is that in advance, we should trust that an advanced civilization more benevolent than ours created our world. And so far I've got us to where an advanced civilization created our world. And now the remaining three parts are about why we can believe in the benevolence of these advanced civilizations. So the first one, this is the weakest of the charity arguments, the charity argument from angels. Basically the idea here is that if they're out there, if these advanced civilizations are out there, they're probably sufficiently powerful to destroy us if they wanted to, okay? So what does it mean that we're still here? We're still existing, we're still advancing. It demonstrates, depending on how you wanna look at it, it either just demonstrates some minimum level of benevolence on their part, or perhaps a more weakly stated, perhaps it simply demonstrates a lack of willful malevolence towards us. So again, not that much established by the charity argument from angels, but it does mean something that we're still here if they're out there and they have the capacity to destroy us if they wanted to. Okay, the charity argument from faith. Imagine a future time when enough destructive power to destroy the entire planet can be purchased for what is today a few dollars. Given present technological trends, this future or something like it is not as unlikely as some might think. In this future, given the present level of benevolence in our present civilization, we would probably destroy ourselves under such conditions. If such power was available on such a wide scale, then we would probably destroy ourselves. So if we hope to survive that, if we keep advancing technologically like we are, and if we hope to survive this dissemination of power through civilization, then we must grow in charity. So the idea is just that advanced civilizations must be more benevolent than us because if they weren't, they would have destroyed themselves and that we will as well if we don't become more benevolent. So we conclude that advanced civilization is probably more benevolent than us. Okay, charity argument from creation. This is, I think, the strongest argument for the benevolence of the advanced civilization is any advanced civilization that created our world probably acts towards us with at least as much benevolence as it expects any advanced civilization that created its world should act toward it. And this is actually even suggested by Boestrom in the original simulation argument. He suggests that once a civilization becomes aware that they are almost certainly living in a computer simulated world, that they are likely to consider the possibility that their actions may be rewarded or punished based on some moral criteria of their creators. So they will therefore treat their creations with benevolence. And I actually think another kind of way of thinking about the charity argument from creation is that think about how we feel about our creations, okay, about our own children. It may not be because we think we're gonna be punished. We may not treat our own children with benevolence just because we think we're gonna be punished as this is kind of suggesting. There's other deeper motivations there. It's that we feel this connection and love for them. And so basically extrapolating from our experience with our creations, we can maybe say some things about the potential benevolence of these advanced civilizations. Okay, so just to restate the conclusion, we should trust that an advanced civilization more benevolent than our own created our world, okay? Okay, so in the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith asks the question, what kind of a being is God? And he even says that here is the question that will pair adventure from this time henceforth occupy your attention. Okay, so I could kind of be thinking about this before he continues in his discourse and say, well, Joseph, having understood the new God argument, I'm gonna take a stab and say that God is an exalted man or woman or both who sits in thrones in yonder heavens and perhaps this is the great secret. What do you think? Okay, this is what he says. He goes on to expound on that in the discourse. He says, 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. And he forgets to talk about women there but we'll forgive him for that. So this is the heritage of Mormon theology. 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. The new God argument is important to Mormon audiences because it can ground Mormon faith rationally and therefore inform the practical decisions Mormons make as they go forward as a religious people. It can also inform and even improve Mormon interaction with the secular world, perhaps even providing a means for persuasion to the religious perspective. Okay. 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 ET. 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, we hardly agree. An argument for God never has been and never will be sufficient to replace the aesthetic of God in our lives. Experienced through individual communion with the divine. Moreover, in our 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 Lincoln and I learned from Joseph Smith, who so fully persuaded us of the practical value of faith in such a God that we were ready to assert this faith even if God didn't yet exist. However, the new God argument demonstrates the utter improbability of becoming like God and less God already exists. I'll conclude this paper 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. Oh, whoops. Jesus, I mean, no. That wasn't supposed to be there, okay. All right. Quote, 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, meaning these advanced beings, would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a dark-aged peasant transported to the 21st century. Imagine his response to a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a hydrogen bomber, 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 seddy signal would be to us like gods. In what sense then would the most advanced seddy aliens not be gods? 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 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. Close quote. 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. Thank you.