Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 216

Thread: Argument from possible simulation

  1. Top | #11
    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 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?
    I was giving them as an example of things I have been repeating a lot in the past.... though it isn't part of this thread...

    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?
    I used it in the "Option 3: The Bible has no supernatural basis" section to explain why atheists can feel justified in their belief that God is a fairy tale..... note this thread has almost nothing to do with the Bible but my previous threads did....
    The other reason to not put God to the test is that God doesn't want to be obvious.... again, I've said that many times but it isn't relevant to this current thread.
    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.
    I wrote "I think there are good reasons to believe each of these possibilities though" and I give "good reasons" to believe in these possibilities including the atheistic option.

  2. Top | #12
    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 none View Post
    hmm a deist OK, but now this is a Bible issue, wtf?
    discuss the finer points of Jewish mythology??
    The Bible web page has almost nothing to do with this thread.... I was giving it as an example of things I have repeated a lot in other threads. This thread argues for deism but is compatible with a God that intervenes....

  3. Top | #13
    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 Jarhyn View Post
    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".
    It is possible that an intelligent force can intervene in a simulation. Something on its own is completely naturalistic....

    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!
    I'm not sure what you mean but do you agree that if it is a simulation that it had a creator?

  4. Top | #14
    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 Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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!
    I thought it was a premise....

    Step 2? The creator of the simulation, what about their God? If they have a god, that god would be our god too!
    That doesn't rule out there being our direct God.... though you have a point.
    Unless we are going for the Futurama Bender is God episode, and we have localized gods.
    I didn't go along with the localized gods part of the episode.
    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.
    Yes that is possible....

  5. Top | #15
    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 Bomb#20 View Post
    ....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? )
    Yes the creator isn't necessarily still existing now....

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,364
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,340
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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.
    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.
    Nice. This shows that human knowledge has certainly advanced over the last thousand hundreds. Understanding has advanced from "turtles all the way down" to "gods all the way up".

  7. Top | #17
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,898
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,809
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    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".
    It is possible that an intelligent force can intervene in a simulation. Something on its own is completely naturalistic....

    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!
    I'm not sure what you mean but do you agree that if it is a simulation that it had a creator?
    You are not catching the meaning.

    You are still talking in terms of a "contextualized universe" rather than a univers irrespective of it's context.

    Imagine an instance (and I really do mean just an instance) of the multiverse "Super Mario Brothers".

    Now, this multiverse is fairly simple. It has very few particle types, those particles have very few interactions, and they can occupy a fundamentally discrete number of positions in the fields that exists.

    There are many universes that exist in this multiverse, infinite in fact (owing to the fact that "lives" are available within it's physics).

    Now, to make this easier to "grok", imagine just ONE universe of all that multiverse, wherein the series of observable "interaction events" is "<event A> at 6 frames past <start event time> + delay, repeated three times".

    This universe is not a simulation, specifically. It may be simulated on a nintendo platform. It may be simulated on a PC emulator.

    I could create this universe.

    You could create this universe.

    "Which of us is the creator" of that universe is now exposed as a bad question, because it begs the question of whether this universe had to be "created" at all, or whether it is merely a point on which the SMB multiverse can fall. In fact, I can describe a universe with no instantiation within our own universe. Does that make it any less "of" the SMB multiverse?

    Even if a god came down and did some magic, making a bunch of magical events, there is still only the text of "what happened". Let's say an entity appears in front of every human on earth and says "I'm god, I created you", there's still no actual proof that this entity IS god or that it did in fact create us. All it is proof of is that entities can appear in this way, and that they can make such utterances. There is still only the text of "what happened" with no reality of "why".

  8. Top | #18
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,521
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,427
    Rep Power
    80
    A simulated universe implies an actual natural universe where someone is generating simulations....

  9. Top | #19
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    hmm a deist OK, but now this is a Bible issue, wtf?
    discuss the finer points of Jewish mythology??
    The Bible web page has almost nothing to do with this thread.... I was giving it as an example of things I have repeated a lot in other threads. This thread argues for deism but is compatible with a God that intervenes....
    wtf? deism is a god that doesn't interfere, theism is where a god interferes

  10. Top | #20
    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 none View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    hmm a deist OK, but now this is a Bible issue, wtf?
    discuss the finer points of Jewish mythology??
    The Bible web page has almost nothing to do with this thread.... I was giving it as an example of things I have repeated a lot in other threads. This thread argues for deism but is compatible with a God that intervenes....
    wtf? deism is a god that doesn't interfere, theism is where a god interferes
    Ok this thread's arguments are compatible with deism and theism....

Posting Permissions

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