• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Argument from possible simulation

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 28, 2000
Messages
2,640
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a 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.
 
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?
 
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)
 
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?
 
excreationist said:
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....
 
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.

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.
 
hmm a deist OK, but now this is a Bible issue, wtf?
discuss the finer points of Jewish mythology??
 
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.

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? :devil: )
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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....
 
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?
 
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....
 
....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? :devil: )
Yes the creator isn't necessarily still existing now....
 
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".
 
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".
 
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
 
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....
 
Back
Top Bottom