Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 216

Thread: Argument from possible simulation

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77

    Argument from possible simulation

    I believe in a kind of God...

    More persuasive argument:
    1. It's possible we're in a simulation
    2. The simulation needs a creator
    3. The creator could be called 'God'
    Therefore there could be a God.

    My personal reasoning:
    1. It is likely we're in a simulation (according to Elon Musk's reasoning)
    2. The simulation needs a creator
    3. The creator could be called 'God'
    Therefore it is likely there is a God.

  2. Top | #2
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,228
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,974
    Rep Power
    61
    Do we really need another thread on this? How likely do you think it is that anybody in this thread will say anything not already said in another of your many threads on this same topic?

  3. Top | #3
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Do we really need another thread on this? How likely do you think it is that anybody in this thread will say anything not already said in another of your many threads on this same topic?
    This thread has nothing to do with my "God doesn't want to be obvious" focus in other threads. In other threads I'm saying that "God" intervenes (in a non-obvious way to skeptics) but here I'm just talking about a creator (who might not intervene at all after the creation of the simulation)

  4. Top | #4
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,228
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,974
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Do we really need another thread on this? How likely do you think it is that anybody in this thread will say anything not already said in another of your many threads on this same topic?
    This thread has nothing to do with my "God doesn't want to be obvious" focus in other threads. In other threads I'm saying that "God" intervenes (in a non-obvious way to skeptics) but here I'm just talking about a creator (who might not intervene at all after the creation of the simulation)
    Nothing? Is it completely different? In spite of the question being slightly differently formulated, you introduce the same hypothesis, to solve the same problem, and want to discuss this for the same reasons. It's one thing if there's an evolution of arguments, where you are refining the argument and wanting to discuss different aspects. But I'm not seeing it. It looks to me like you have a hobby horse that you want to repeat as often as possible. I don't see a development of your ideas. You're just repeating the same thing endlessly.

    What are you saying in this thread that is different enough from what you've said in other threads that will make this discussion different?

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist
    This thread has nothing to do with my "God doesn't want to be obvious" focus in other threads
    Nothing?
    Yes it isn't about detecting "God" - not being obvious is my explanation for why "God" would be undetectable to skeptics. And that idea was significantly based on a Futurama quote.
    Is it completely different?
    Well it still involves simulations and "god"...
    In spite of the question being slightly differently formulated,
    Yes this is about formal arguments...
    you introduce the same hypothesis, to solve the same problem, and want to discuss this for the same reasons.
    No in previous threads I said that according to skeptics there is absolutely no reason to believe in an intelligent force. Here my arguments are saying that God could be possible or likely..... even to skeptics....
    It's one thing if there's an evolution of arguments, where you are refining the argument and wanting to discuss different aspects. But I'm not seeing it. It looks to me like you have a hobby horse that you want to repeat as often as possible. I don't see a development of your ideas. You're just repeating the same thing endlessly.

    What are you saying in this thread that is different enough from what you've said in other threads that will make this discussion different?
    This is what I have been repeating as often as possible:
    https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php
    "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations. Or involve fraud such as magic tricks"
    And that God doesn't want to be obvious...
    I think the only thing this thread has in common is the idea that a simulation is possible or likely.... in other threads I'm saying that "God" could intervene while here I'm talking about a creator....

  6. Top | #6
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,228
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,974
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    This is what I have been repeating as often as possible:
    https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php
    "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations. Or involve fraud such as magic tricks"
    And that God doesn't want to be obvious...
    I think the only thing this thread has in common is the idea that a simulation is possible or likely.... in other threads I'm saying that "God" could intervene while here I'm talking about a creator....
    I'm aware of that you are repeating this. What I don't understand is why you are repeating it? Don't you think we heard you the first time?

    In your link, this is funny though.

    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    the Bible says to not put God to the test.
    If the Bible tells you not to put God to the test, how could that be any clearer declaration that the book is bullshit? It's like a used car salesman telling you not to take the car for a drive, and you take his word for it. Somebody telling the truth and trying to convince other people of it will, of course, encourage you to go and verify it for yourself and providing you with resources to do so. That's why people in this forum keep insisting on sources to back up iffy statements.

    Version 2.0 of that web site would benefit from leaving out the part about the Bible says that we shouldn't put God to the test. It doesn't benefit the rest of what they're trying to argue.

  7. Top | #7
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    0
    hmm a deist OK, but now this is a Bible issue, wtf?
    discuss the finer points of Jewish mythology??

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,887
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    9,684
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    I believe in a kind of God...

    My personal reasoning:
    1. It is likely we're in a simulation (according to Elon Musk's reasoning)
    2. The simulation needs a creator
    3. The creator could be called 'God'
    Therefore it is likely there is a God.
    You are correct -- it is likely that there is a God.

    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Yes it isn't about detecting "God" - not being obvious is my explanation for why "God" would be undetectable to skeptics.
    There's a better explanation for why she's undetectable, though: a woman stole her.

    Another possibility is simply that God is dead. Not unlikely, since she must be fifteen at this point.

    (Or in other words, how did you get from Step 3 to your conclusion? )

  9. Top | #9
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,898
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,809
    Rep Power
    49
    So, I have more than a little experience with the metaphysics and logic of "simulation".

    Plainly put, there is no real difference between that which exists "as a simulation" or something that exists "on its own".

    Really, "simulation" only has meaning when presented with a context, a set of things "around" the subject.

    The universe is what it is, regardless of what context drives those relationships. It is simultaneously a simulation, and not-a-simulation, BECAUSE IT IS THE PRODUCT OF ALL EVENTUALITIES THAT PRODUCE IT!

  10. Top | #10
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,282
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    73,755
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    I believe in a kind of God...

    My personal reasoning:
    1. It is likely we're in a simulation (according to Elon Musk's reasoning)
    2. The simulation needs a creator
    3. The creator could be called 'God'
    Therefore it is likely there is a God.
    So step 1 is a conclusion. Nice!

    Step 2? The creator of the simulation, what about their God? If they have a god, that god would be our god too! Unless we are going for the Futurama Bender is God episode, and we have localized gods. Of course, their religion could be their dimension's equivalent of Scientology! But their dimension could still have a creator (and our simulation designer is just an idiot about religion)... but if that is also a simulation, we have a third level for the creator/creator's god.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •