A God without compelling evidence?

[DBT]

Visible handiwork?

 

[Learner]

Assuming so. Despite my previous post (intended with a hint of irony), I'm just as curious as you.

 

[excreationist]

However in your view of the universe at least...

You can see the handywork of the simulaton creator - giving you the idea.

Well I came up with:
https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php

A God who isn't obvious?
....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. As "God" in Futurama explains, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all".​

When I try to provide any evidence of specific examples it is just seen as those things - like coincidence.... though to me it seems like the handiwork of an intelligent force... so the game of hide and seek can be quite private rather than really out in the open...

Maybe there is a better analogy than hide and seek - hide and seek is more black and white.... well post #79 talks about people who weren't sure they found God....

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If this intelligent force is like other organisms than it's got company. It doesn't make any sense that there would be only one - unless it's a Horta. And if it's a Horta then there have been and will be again countless more. If it's the great simulator then it's nothing more than one of the great simulators.

If it's in some kind of telepathic "spooky" contact with all the simulators then we just don't know which simulation is ours.

Or it could be that these god things are like everywhere. Even on our tiny blue dot perhaps there are trillions of them, each controlling its own little fiefdom.

Why would there ever be only one? That's nonsensical.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If there was only one, then masturbation wouldn't be sinful.

 

[abaddon]

Thoughts involving logical(?) arguments:

1. Perhaps an intelligent force doesn't want to make his existence too obvious.


2. So any messages from God can't be miraculous
and can be explained by skeptics as being coincidence, hallucination, or delusion.


3. There doesn't seem to be any proof that the supernatural exists.


4. That is compatible with the proposed intelligent force - especially if a simulation is involved.

Here, let a skeptic ask the questions:

1. Why wouldn't it want to be known?

2. Are any of these alleged messages actually from a god and how do you know they are?

3. The problem is, is there compelling evidence for your claim?

4. But still, why believe it until after there is compelling evidence?

The skeptic's stance is to not invest into a belief without powerful reasons to do it. It's not because the Bible isn't accurate. It's not an aversion to whatever "the supernatural" is. It's not because "religious" experiences might be hallucinations...

Actually I think many "religious" and "spiritual" experiences are not problematic, when they're visceral feelings. It's the interpretation of the experience is where things go wonky. 1) experience and 2) interpretation of experience = two different things. Believers interpret the experience by mis-attributing it to invisible entities. Like feeling "the presence of the Holy Spirit in my heart" or "God is telling me ___". Some atheists will say "just a hallucination!" I don't, because I've had such experiences. They involved nothing visual or auditory; instead they were deeply moving visceral feelings (as I suspect most "spiritual" experiences are). And the difference between when I was theist and when I wasn't anymore, is I stopped attributing these feelings to entities other than my own mind.

I figure that many religious experiences are like this. The believers experience some "warm fuzzies" or see an apparent pattern in anything, but interpret them in the light of a metaphysical tale. And then their 'indisputable' personal experience becomes the reason to believe that metaphysical tale.

I remember a vid of some guy seeing a double rainbow. In his ecstasy he blubbered "What does it mean?! What does it mean?!" It means he's aware of something lovely in nature - the effect of light in water droplets. I don't dispute that he experienced what he experienced, it's if he left the experience behind and mentally flew off into the metaphysical ether is where the problem would lie. ("It's a sign from Gawd!")

Apparently a lot of people find a naturalistic explanation to be disappointing - and that disappointment with "mere nature" is tragic.

Why isn't nature wondrous enough in and of itself?

 

[excreationist]

Why would there ever be only one? That's nonsensical.

Yeah there could be different intelligent forces interacting with different people... though many people might be deluded and just chance was involved like random hallucinations from their brain malfunctioning...

 

[excreationist]

Here, let a skeptic ask the questions:

1. Why wouldn't it want to be known?

For me I think it does want to be known but not be too obvious. e.g. the "God playing hide and seek with itself" concept. If you had complete control in a simulation you could be like a god (omnipotent, omniscient, etc)... but then eventually you'd want more of a challenge and to have genuine surprises. To have good surprises implies the possibility of bad surprises...

2. Are any of these alleged messages actually from a god and how do you know they are?

Well one of my holy scriptures is "When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." My point is that there is an intelligent force - it might not be the creator but I find its existence comforting and meaningful... it is possible it is in fact some kind of devil... after all 2 Corinthians 11:14 says Satan can pretend to be an angel of light. (though I don't believe in most of the Bible).

3. The problem is, is there compelling evidence for your claim?

There is for me - e.g.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists
also:
"I wanted to annoy God so I was reading a Gideon's Bible upside-down then soon after I was given my own sealed Bible - inside it was upside-down!"

And a few days earlier:
"While in a mental ward I realised that Connect 4 sets also involve 42 pieces. This special set was the first time I'd ever tried counting the pieces. There were exactly 42 pieces but there should be 21 pieces of each color because it is possible to have a tied game. I think "God" (an intelligent force) might have a sense of humor. It seems my life is not as balanced as it should be."

4. But still, why believe it until after there is compelling evidence?

By "compelling evidence" I mean it would convince most skeptics who just hear about it.... (though I personally experienced it)

The skeptic's stance is to not invest into a belief without powerful reasons to do it. It's not because the Bible isn't accurate. It's not an aversion to whatever "the supernatural" is. It's not because "religious" experiences might be hallucinations...

Actually I think many "religious" and "spiritual" experiences are not problematic, when they're visceral feelings. It's the interpretation of the experience is where things go wonky. 1) experience and 2) interpretation of experience = two different things. Believers interpret the experience by mis-attributing it to invisible entities......

Well after I was a YEC I went straight to naturalism for a few years... then I had a delusion that I was in a computer game... then I hypnotized myself into a catatonic state based on a hunch that I was in a simulation.... then I didn't believe in the supernatural for quite a few years... then based on the link earlier in this post I started to suspect I had a connection with an intelligent force....

 

[excreationist]

BTW even if it isn't true now, it could be made true in a simulation in the far future... so that intelligent forces could interact with beings in a simulation in a way that doesn't really affect the mainstream science within the simulation. Or there could be a movies or video games based on these concepts....

 

[excreationist]

A bit of a miracle happened today. My rational mind is somewhat baffled but my emotional mind doesn't really care that much. My 21.5 inch 2014 iMac was standing on top of some books. I had an earphone connected by a cord and it got caught when I was getting up. The iMac tipped over onto the desk then fell onto the floor. Somehow the computer didn't even get a single crack. The only damage was that the sound doesn't work if the earphones aren't plugged in. Probably because the cord was pulling onto the audio socket when it fell.

On the other hand when I ordered a 27 inch iMac on eBay in June, it arrived cracked and smashed. It was packed incredibly thoroughly and generously. I would have thought that it would have had to have dropped from a few feet to have been damaged that badly. But the seller had photos that showed that the computer wasn't originally damaged. Here are the photos.... luckily in this case it was covered by eBay/PayPal. If it had happened today I'd have to have bought another computer. BTW when I saw how huge and impractical the 27 inch computer was I was having second thoughts... so I was glad that I could get a refund for it.

Anyway intellectually I found these events to be interesting though I don't see it as very strong evidence for an intelligent force. I think the chance of the computer not getting any cracks today is less than 20% and the chance of the eBay 27 inch computer arrived that smashed would be maybe 5% or less.

 

[excreationist]

I wrote this for Reddit:

(Based on https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php)

If we are in a simulation there would be one or more intelligent forces that created it and they (or other beings) might intervene from time to time.

Sometimes they might like players to be aware that they are intervening but not want this to be obvious so that the connection is more mysterious. The intelligent force could be playing “hide and seek” with the players.

Like “God” in a Futurama episode says, "When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all”.

I think the intelligent force only intervenes in a way that skeptics could explain as involving coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud.

Though there are hints that our world could involve a simulation and an intervening intelligence, modern supernatural skeptics feel justified in their belief that the world is purely mechanistic and physical.

This way a belief in paranormal intervention is more about personal faith and reasoning rather than involving any type of scientific consensus. Though it remains possible that there can be paranormal intervention in a simulation.

Then there is the possibility that the Bible was guided by an intelligent force. It could be a test of the character of its readers - from the all-or-nothing thinking of fundamentalists and many atheists, to people who believe much of the Bible isn't historical while still believing in some kind of God.​

 

[Jarhyn]

I wrote this for Reddit:

(Based on https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php)

If we are in a simulation there would be one or more intelligent forces that created it and they (or other beings) might intervene from time to time.

Sometimes they might like players to be aware that they are intervening but not want this to be obvious so that the connection is more mysterious. The intelligent force could be playing “hide and seek” with the players.

Like “God” in a Futurama episode says, "When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all”.

I think the intelligent force only intervenes in a way that skeptics could explain as involving coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud.

Though there are hints that our world could involve a simulation and an intervening intelligence, modern supernatural skeptics feel justified in their belief that the world is purely mechanistic and physical.

This way a belief in paranormal intervention is more about personal faith and reasoning rather than involving any type of scientific consensus. Though it remains possible that there can be paranormal intervention in a simulation.

Then there is the possibility that the Bible was guided by an intelligent force. It could be a test of the character of its readers - from the all-or-nothing thinking of fundamentalists and many atheists, to people who believe much of the Bible isn't historical while still believing in some kind of God.​

As someone who runs simulations for all kinds of different reasons, some including active evolvers, I can pretty confidently say that the concept of doing so precludes most, if not all, ideas of a "good" god.

Do they come in to play games? Then they are literally toying with us. Fuck them.

Do they do it because they need help and want peers? Then they are violating our very ability to fulfill our purpose for existence by making us unable to solve the problems we exist to solve.

Are they doing it because they love us? If they are, it's a shitty way to show love because it allows selection for an inability to survive. Not very all-wise, eh?

If it is for an experiment, the majority of experiments would be invalidated by tinkering, and the remainder would be necessarily experiments concerning the effects of tinkering. So we are back to being toyed with.

I could go on.

The fact is, if we are going to assume the remaining option: god is mortal and flawed, albeit intelligent enough to make a simulation this expansive, and seeks general intelligences that are capable of helping them.solve their problems (exactly what we do, today, to source AI). Or God simply does not exist.

Neither of these options allows sticking the fingers I the pie, and in fact argues heavily against interference with the simulation.

I am not all or nothing. I generally approach the topic from the perspective of IF god exists. I will say however that I am first party to some ridiculous coincidences, and at least one potential haunting. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[OLDMAN]

If we are in a computer simulation or if we are characters in a dream sequence, or the product of a god with a plan....then nothing we do matters. Further more, the abiltiy to reason would not have evolved. The first and primary use of reasoning is for survival, we do not need to survive if we are brains in a vat.
Also, if everything is pre-planed then we could just as easily cross a busy highway blindfolded as using reason. (because when god decides your times up, it's up) So the only epistemology that allows for reason to evolve as a survival tool is one where chance can be altered by learning from experience and applying reason towards surviving.
Because we can reason our survival we would do well in a world just like the one we see before us.

 

[Jarhyn]

If we are in a computer simulation or if we are characters in a dream sequence, or the product of a god with a plan....then nothing we do matters. Further more, the abiltiy to reason would not have evolved. The first and primary use of reasoning is for survival, we do not need to survive if we are brains in a vat.
Also, if everything is pre-planed then we could just as easily cross a busy highway blindfolded as using reason. (because when god decides your times up, it's up) So the only epistemology that allows for reason to evolve as a survival tool is one where chance can be altered by learning from experience and applying reason towards surviving.
Because we can reason our survival we would do well in a world just like the one we see before us.

Every thing that has happened in any simulation I have ever run "matters".

You are showing your namesake if you fail to understand how and why intelligence would evolve from the mechanics of what this is, regardless of what back end implements it. Why would you possibly think it would matter to whether we could exist inside any such implementation?

Your argument dies there. It can matter to outside just as much as it does not matter to us why we are here.

 

[excreationist]

As someone who runs simulations for all kinds of different reasons, some including active evolvers, I can pretty confidently say that the concept of doing so precludes most, if not all, ideas of a "good" god.

Well in this thread my idea of a God is one that people aren't sure exist (see the Futurama quote). Based on Epicurus' trilemma this God could be good but just not all powerful. If he was all powerful and was all good it would be obvious he existed.

Do they come in to play games? Then they are literally toying with us. Fuck them.

I don't see a problem with that. Usually video games are about playing games and I think we're in a video game. Like Alan Watts says musical instruments involve "play" as well.

Do they do it because they need help and want peers? Then they are violating our very ability to fulfill our purpose for existence by making us unable to solve the problems we exist to solve.

I'm not sure what you mean... need help for what? Want peers? Remember I'm saying I don't think God wants to be obvious.

Are they doing it because they love us? If they are, it's a shitty way to show love because it allows selection for an inability to survive. Not very all-wise, eh?

I think it's more like a video game.... e.g. Morty being Roy

If it is for an experiment, the majority of experiments would be invalidated by tinkering, and the remainder would be necessarily experiments concerning the effects of tinkering. So we are back to being toyed with.

I think the game is just an approximation so it isn't very accurate....

The fact is, if we are going to assume the remaining option: god is mortal and flawed,

Outside of the simulation, yes.

albeit intelligent enough to make a simulation this expansive,

The intelligent force that intervenes isn't necessarily the one that created the simulation... e.g. in "The Sims", a company created the game, then a player created the Sim characters and intervenes from time to time.

and seeks general intelligences that are capable of helping them.solve their problems (exactly what we do, today, to source AI). Or God simply does not exist.

Like I said God might not want to be obvious.

Neither of these options allows sticking the fingers I the pie,

If it can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations or fraud then lots of people wouldn't notice if some people were aware of intervention... (e.g. see post #88)

and in fact argues heavily against interference with the simulation.

Like I said skeptics wouldn't even notice.

I am not all or nothing. I generally approach the topic from the perspective of IF god exists. I will say however that I am first party to some ridiculous coincidences, and at least one potential haunting. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If there is a simulation then it is possible for external beings to have God-like abilities in the simulation. The God-like abilities don't make sense if you don't have a simulation.

 

[excreationist]

If we are in a computer simulation or if we are characters in a dream sequence, or the product of a god with a plan....then nothing we do matters.

If you deliberately broke your leg then you'd be in pain. For me, whether or not I'm in severe pain matters.

Further more, the abiltiy to reason would not have evolved.

I think the attributes of humans are deliberate (perhaps we are similar to the beings that simulated us). I think our evolution involves a virtual history. If you've got games on billions of computers and set-top boxes then you'd cut corners and do things like not always explicitly simulate evolution on an atomic level...

The first and primary use of reasoning is for survival, we do not need to survive if we are brains in a vat

Often in video games a goal is to survive... even if it isn't "real"....

Also, if everything is pre-planed then we could just as easily cross a busy highway blindfolded as using reason

That could be true in a "block universe" but not in the video games I'm talking about.

(because when god decides your times up, it's up) So the only epistemology that allows for reason to evolve as a survival tool

Like I said I think evolution has a virtual history - it started with the goal and worked backwards.

is one where chance can be altered by learning from experience and applying reason towards surviving.
Because we can reason our survival we would do well in a world just like the one we see before us.

BTW here's a web page that talks about what our video game could be all about and it's not just about survival....
https://markmanson.net/life-cheat-codes

​

There are five levels in life:​

Level 1 – Find food; find a bed to sleep in at night​

Level 2 – Know you’re not going to die​

Level 3 – Find your people​

Level 4 – Do something that’s important and valuable to both yourself and others​

Level 5 – Create a legacy

​

 

[excreationist]

As someone who runs simulations for all kinds of different reasons...

BTW I'm working on an essay / webpage that talks about top-down vs bottom-up simulations...

I wrote that:

Top-down simulations start with the big picture then generate more and more detail when needed. This is known as "level of detail".

Bottom-up simulations start with everything built with the smallest building blocks and simulate them faithfully rather than approximate them when you get further away

I will give Flight Simulator 2020 as a example of a top-down game and Minecraft as an example of a significantly bottom-up game...

What do you think?

 

[DBT]

That something is possible doesn't mean that this is in fact how the world works. As there's no way to test the Simulation hypothesis, it remains an interesting idea, a remote possibility. An extremely remote possibility.

 

[excreationist]

That something is possible doesn't mean that this is in fact how the world works. As there's no way to test the Simulation hypothesis, it remains an interesting idea, a remote possibility. An extremely remote possibility.

Well like Elon Musk I think there would probably be billions of simulations based on computers and set-top boxes... (and over the centuries there would be even more...) my belief is also based on a few personal experiences including post #88. Though like post #91 says it is based on personal faith and reasoning. Though on the other hand I don't have a very firm or dogmatic faith.

Then there's this:
Scientific American - Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

“We just assume the principle of indifference, which is the default assumption when you don’t have any data or leanings either way.”
So each hypothesis gets a prior probability of one half, much as if one were to flip a coin to decide a wager.​

 

[Jarhyn]

Well in this thread my idea of a God is one that people aren't sure exist (see the Futurama quote). Based on Epicurus' trilemma this God could be good but just not all powerful. If he was all powerful and was all good it would be obvious he existed.


I don't see a problem with that. Usually video games are about playing games and I think we're in a video game. Like Alan Watts says musical instruments involve "play" as well.

Do they do it because they need help and want peers? Then they are violating our very ability to fulfill our purpose for existence by making us unable to solve the problems we exist to solve.

I'm not sure what you mean... need help for what? Want peers? Remember I'm saying I don't think God wants to be obvious.

Are they doing it because they love us? If they are, it's a shitty way to show love because it allows selection for an inability to survive. Not very all-wise, eh?

I think it's more like a video game.... e.g. Morty being Roy

If it is for an experiment, the majority of experiments would be invalidated by tinkering, and the remainder would be necessarily experiments concerning the effects of tinkering. So we are back to being toyed with.

I think the game is just an approximation so it isn't very accurate....

The fact is, if we are going to assume the remaining option: god is mortal and flawed,

Outside of the simulation, yes.

albeit intelligent enough to make a simulation this expansive,

The intelligent force that intervenes isn't necessarily the one that created the simulation... e.g. in "The Sims", a company created the game, then a player created the Sim characters and intervenes from time to time.

and seeks general intelligences that are capable of helping them.solve their problems (exactly what we do, today, to source AI). Or God simply does not exist.

Like I said God might not want to be obvious.

Neither of these options allows sticking the fingers I the pie,

If it can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations or fraud then lots of people wouldn't notice if some people were aware of intervention... (e.g. see post #88)

and in fact argues heavily against interference with the simulation.

Like I said skeptics wouldn't even notice.

I am not all or nothing. I generally approach the topic from the perspective of IF god exists. I will say however that I am first party to some ridiculous coincidences, and at least one potential haunting. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If there is a simulation then it is possible for external beings to have God-like abilities in the simulation. The God-like abilities don't make sense if you don't have a simulation.

As I keep pointing out, god toying with us is BAD! Like, fucked up on a level Lovecraft wrote about. Mostly because ethical action relies on a symmetry, and symmetry relies on a balance of power, opportunity, and understanding. Literally no consent can exist across that boundary. It is essentially equal to pedophilia, but for literally every act and decision.