I believe any intellectually honest scientificlly based atheists understands random mutations creating anything useful is quite unlikely what is why we need billions of years, also the fine tuning augument is a one time no do overs over balance of constants based on forces ie forces are balenced so atoms do not calapse or fly apart for example. These constant variables in physis are so exact that if they were off even slightly the universe/life would not exist. Honest atheists have to fall back to parrallel universes or something because they understand how improbable that is.....now for my argument.
Here is a "expanded from original Nick Bostrom simulation theory to be a theological aurgument" irrefutable proof of god.
Simulation Argument 1 must be true (I have more don't worry)
(1) all species are very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage and no species has gotten there before us.
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of games/simulations.
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
So either all species kill themselves or at least 1 species has gotten to a state of advanced computer processing. With this computer processing power, they still run games/simulations like us running sims or world of Warcraft (we already run billions of these but do not have the power to run them with real AI.) If a race has gotten this kinda computer power there would be 1 "real" universe and billions of billions of these Games/Simulations. There would be no way for Pacman to really know he was in a simulation. Now each simulated universe obviously has a creator, which holds God's properties (outside of time/space/mater, existed before the universe, created the universe, has full power, can see everything, and join in if he likes). A 'created universe' as most religions claim's modern English word is 'video game'. So in summary if any species ever got/gets the power to run such simulations there is a near 100% chance we are in one which means a near 100% chance it is a creation which means it is a near 100% chance it was created which means it is a near 100% chance there is a creator which by default has 100% of God properties......
Anybody that has studied the subject understands the universe has been tested and found to be digital and not analog, smallest possible lengths for example also is also evidence of physics containing error fixing type code at a quantum level....so question is why believe athisum when it is so improbable and why reqect this argument that seems to me to be quite probable.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Kgp4life, you wrote, “so question is why believe athisum when it is so improbable and why reqect this argument that seems to me to be quite probable.”
1. I don’t ‘believe’ atheism. It is the rejection of a belief.
2. So if an argument seems quite probable to you, that should be enough for me to accept it? Egotism much?
I do not care what you believe if you are not making any claims to reality. I am talking about people that are claiming God does not exist in actual reality not in their minds.
Which god?
God's properties (outside of time/space/mater, existed before the universe, created the universe, has full power, can see everything, and join in if he likes)
It was in the argument (are you now making actual claims about actual reality and not talking about random thoughts in a random monkey brain....at least playing along)....like i said if you do not actually believe in objective reality it is kinda pointless debating you.
You didn’t answer my question. There are all sorts of gods. Are you referring to one in particular? Which one? A new one? One you alone define?
It may indeed be pointless to debate if you are unable / unwilling to provide specifics.
@Kgp4life
As it turns out, I say only "I do not believe in-----god(s) the soul, an afterlife, heaven, hell, angels, demons, the paranormal, mediums any forms of fortune telling(including biblical) dragons, mountain trolls or fairies at the bottom of my garden" I disbelieve in each for the same reason;lack of proof. I make no claims of knowledge. That makes me and agnostic atheist.
If an atheist states; 'there is no god" or "I believe there is no god" he/she is making an affirming statement attracting the burden of proof. I don't actually know any so-called 'hard atheists' .
My position is that so far, the existence of gods is/are unfalsifiable. (can be neither proved nor disproved) Consequently, that neither the existence nor non existence of gods may reasonably be claimed .
"....like i said if you do not actually believe in objective reality it is kinda pointless debating you."
Perhaps first define what you mean by objective reality.
In the time I have been on this forum I have yet to find an apologist who is capable of reasoned argument or debate. You're making a huge assumption in thinking anyone here is very interested in debating you. I for one am ambivalent.
Seeing as you are so interested in objective reality, perhaps you'd like to kick off by showing us the objective proof for the existence of god. Any god, I don't mind.
Let me make sure I've understood ; your god is an infinite being with infinite attributes? IE omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent . Now don't let me put words in your mouth.
Before we go any further, perhaps turn your obvious intellect towards the problem of evil. This just to see if you're serious. So far, no religion has produced a credible explanation for the existence of evil, given the notion of an all powerful and compassionate god.
I'm especially fond of what Epicurus had to say about the matter:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus"
@theist
So, your claim is, reality is a program coded by your god...and nothing to do with abiogenesis. IC.
1. Need objective evidence that our reality is a program.
2. Need objective evidence your god is competent to program a "speak and spell" let alone existence.
3. Need objective evidence your god exists wherever.
4. Need objective evidence your god is omniscient/omnipresent...etc.
5. Need objective evidence your god has interacted with matter.
if not...
6. Need objective evidence your god can do anything without interacting with matter.
7. Need objective evidence of a realm free of the constraints of time space and matter.
8. Need objective evidence that your god exists in a realm free of the constraints of time space and matter.
9. Need objective evidence abiogenesis is not possible.
10. Need someone to unplug the nail gun pointed at my temple before I "end program" from the torture of reading another tired bizarre unsubstantiated creationist polemic.
There...my ten commandments for your argument.
You do not seem to be familiar with the simulation argument, it is quite a well known scientific therory...may I ask how much you know about it. It am not writing a book for you......I had a simple question for someone that is actually familar with the science....question was why believe in something quite improable istead of something quite probable....i could maybe link you to a video to catch up....are there people that keep up on science here?....I think that is gair right i am sure you guys get tired of explain evolution or the big bang to someone, when they could just youtube it.
@theist
Are you talking to me?
Just a heads up, it is going to be helpful for everyone, if you direct your responses to the person that it is intended for.
"so question is why believe athisum when it is so improbable and why reqect this argument that seems to me to be quite probable."
One good reason to reject your claim is your spelling. That would be spelled atheist, and reject.
Now, consider that I may not know the simulation argument...that does not invalidate my questions. I answered your call for debate with valid questions...don't be dishonest and not answer my questions now. That would make your presentation for debate...ummmm, not debate.
PS, do me a favor before we start, and take care of number 10. please...unplug my nail gun. :P
Notice, new theist guy ...doG wrote “argument”.
You wrote “ quite a well known scientific therory..”
YOU are wrong in your use (ie accepted scientific fact).
There are no “facts” to support Simulation “theory” - it is in fact a hypothesis. Once there is “test ability” THEN there is repeatability and scientific “shredding” to see if it “holds up”.
SO can you provide “evidential PROOF” of even the “simulation” that we live within?
THEN provide PROOF of the “programmer” (you say god - I guess advanced civilizations, either homework’s or alien...which is it?)
You are a non-starter.
It certainly is not an accepted scientific theory, this is another falsehood.
Would you like me to link you to a youtube video explianing the simulation argument ( or you could youtube it yourself)....it is kinda a prerequisite. Would you debate someone that understands nothing of what you are talking about?
Kgp4life, oh my, are you asserting that you’re getting these responses because folk here are unfamiliar with the simulation argument?
@theist
Again, it is going to be helpful for everyone, if you direct your responses to the person that it is intended for. It is easy now, seeing I am still awake, and you are about to go to work, and we are basically the only two on here...but when smarter people than me chime in, it will get confusing for everyone, including yourself, when this thread gets busy. Wouldn't ANC4life be more accurate?
"Would you debate someone that understands nothing of what you are talking about?"
Yes, often, it is well worth doing so in a debate, that way there are no assumptions taken for granted by either party.
What are you afraid of? Are any of my questions not in line with your narrative? I mean you surely read my list, to define so...no?
You know the subject, so it should be easy for you. Learning your narrative will likely not change my questions, will they? :)
Anywho...No thanks, I try not to use youtube for my source of information...I would prefer you answer each one of my questions precisely please. Thank you.
@Kgp4life
Since you're the one making the argument, it's incumbent on you to properly explain your position. Then demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support your claims.
Personally I don't care either way, as this type of argument is always unfalsifiable, it is utterly meaningless. Like claiming you have invisible pet unicorn. Who cares...
Kgp4life, you wrote, “ it is quite a well known scientific therory (sic)”
Is it? Really? A theory?
If you are after an intellectual debate rooted in science, you should first learn what a theory is.
@Kgp4life
Stolen verbatim from the website www.simulation-argument.com. By Nick Bostrom
Doesn't bode well when the OP plagiarises without acknowledgment. Hardly 'intellectual" honesty.
Fact is it would be easy to ascertain if we were living in a simulation if the "masters" (I deliberately will not use the 'god' noun here) would be good enough to send a screen pop up with "you are in a simulation, deal with it" or some similar expression upon a request being uttered.
That brings up back to a a race or a single 'master of the universe' character being utterly immoral in watching his creations destroy themselves in the name of false god's that the MotU had created within them.
If you are going to answer please do not plagiarise https://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html. It will be noticed. Simulation theory has been around since about 2003. It has to put aside the "infinite Universe" hypotheses entirely as the two cannot exist side by side.
Although the 'MotU' may have godlike qualities it is an error to call it "god". It may be something beyond our experience, something we can never fully comprehend (at our current degree of advancement) but is assuredly not "god" and thus the hypothesis ' simulation' fails at that point.
@hellsangeloftricycles
I think it is a variant of the argument...lets see.
Yes that is why my was in quotes, my part was later in argument.....ok good someone that understands the simulation theory.....yeah the infinate universe does not destroy the simulation argument in actuality all you have to simulate in the inputs and output to a concussness it would be computationally easy comparitivly to actually running the ai it's self.....pacman would never know the difference. The programmer would be outside of pacman space time so yeah he pacman time has nothing to do with programmer time.
@dishonesttheist
Now in an infinite universe, does that mean your god is timeless? is that correct?
OK then, if I am following correctly, please answer 7. and 8. on my list please.
Besides, if your god could not be all knowing if he is timeless, but if he is all knowing he could not be timeless. Which is he?
@Old Man
"Stolen verbatim from the website---"
Not the first time an apologist has been guilty of that.
Why do you think they do it?
I've come up with these reasons
(1) Too lacking in imagination or too stupid to come up with something of their own .
.
(2) That they assume that we're too stupid or ignorant to notice. I've found that there is usually at least one person here familiar with the most obscure claims and arguments . (most of the apologists who come here don't know the difference between a claim and an argument)
Thanks for pointing out the plagiarism.. Now I can ignore the prick without feeling guilty. He/she /it crossed the line between the expected cognitive dissonance and clear intentional deception. Fuck him/her/it
Lol whatever dude i am not publishing a paper.....I pointed to youtube and said it is a well known theory I wasnt hiding anything. Do you say who's theory the big bang originally was....do you know
@dishonesttheist
Oh, oh, let me use my psychic powers, Ohhhmmmmm, Ohmmmm,...its coming to me, I am seeing a church, no,...yes, yes, a catholic church, Ohmmmmm, Ohmmmmmm...I am also seeing in my mind a book on an alter...no, not that book, one that reads "the standard model"...Hmmmm I wonder what that means...oh, oh, and right next to it is calculator and a melting belgian waffle? Hmmm that's weird...Am I close? Oh, Oh, wait I see a name appearing in mind....Hmmmm...Georgina?...no, no...George? That's about all I can come up with...my psychic abilities become weaker with less sleep.
Now, you are claiming a god, by inserting it into the something called, the simulation argument? Which you claim is a well known theory...huh. I never knew it was a theory...I am learning so much from you. LOL.
Now, i see the true color of your debate potential, using insults to rebut, questions asked of you. Huh.
Didnt think you wanted to be in real debate.....
Need objective evidence that our reality is a program. (There has been tests and some of the evidenve was in my original point, digital reality, minimal possible scales of soace and time planks contant, quantum physics equations are very simular to error correcting code usrd for internet for example, plus holgraphic universe thing apply, even the doible slit experiment shows location of electron is only determained when someone measuring it otherwise it exist in probability space as you my expect in such as simulation, quantum intaglement wouls also be explained ie 2 particles accross universe semi communicating instantly that could happen in a simulation, especially the delayed double slit kinda experiments with particles kinda messing with time would be quite logical in a simulation)
2. Need objective evidence your god is competent to program a "speak and spell" let alone existence....if he made this teality i would say he is compitant
3. Need objective evidence your god exists wherever.....like i said we are talking probablilities for example in 250 years of reAl technology we already have incredabily realistic games and are already close to ai....size of universe screams someone may have beat us to the punch either alien race or possible future human running historical or even religious simulation. If 1 such simulation was ever made it would be 50% chance if being in it.
4. Need objective evidence your god is omniscient/omnipresent...etc.....any good programmer would have logs and databases knowing pretty much whatever they want to know.
5. Need objective evidence your god has interacted with matter.
if not...programmer would have nothing to do with simulated space time or matter
6. Need objective evidence your god can do anything without interacting with matter.....the oacman programmer can do whatever he wants in the pacman game not sure why i would haveto prove that
7. Need objective evidence of a realm free of the constraints of time space and matter....what are you talking about...programmer of pacman is outside of pacman space time, i will explain more if you dont get it
8. Need objective evidence that your god exists in a realm free of the constraints of time space and matter....same
9. Need objective evidence abiogenesis is not possible......i said it was highly improbable probabley close to wining 10 poweballs in a row
@dishonesttheist
Do you know the difference between subjective and objective evidences? Just checking, not trying to insult you...because your response does not include objective evidence whatsoever...but it does include "if he made this teality(reality)...". Do you not think answering that "if", is paramount in your claim of a god? Do you regularly ask people to believe in a creator, without said evidence?
We are close to developing AI, which would mean that AI could conceivably interact with its creator. LOL Kewl eh? It makes me question why your god has not interacted with its creation? There are several possibilities, but none that doesn't contradict a god myth characteristic...except one. Non-existence. It is nice that our species has the ability of abstract thought, but that does not trump (excuse the bad word) objective evidence when it comes to belief. I will go further by saying, that belief in things not objectively evidenced, is a distinct failure in reason.
Well thats what happens when you ask some one that you dont trust. There is scientific experiments and evidence but you will have to get that from the trusted scientists own mouth, becuade obviously my quick summary was not good enough for you
@dishonesttheist
Deflection is another dishonest debate tactic. Huh.
Running tally...
1. Plagiarism
2. Ad hominem insults
3. Deflection
In your initial claim, you said you believe in a specific god...correct? If a god, which one? It would be nice to know out of respect, but doesn't really matter.
You do know that there are multiple programmers needed to develop an AI, developed from our species...at least there where in the development of pacman...LOL. So how does, this simulation argument? account for just one god, and not many? ...and are you willing to admit multiple gods? Does that fit with your narrative?
I mean cyber already asked you this and you didn't answer...so I am not hopeful, and fully expect more dishonesty.
@ KgP
The website is quite adamant that there is no evidence for the hypotheses apart from subjective observational data.
Have you actually read any of the hypotheses yet? I mean read it and comprehended it? It seems you have skimmed and followed on Youtube. Hardly a study.
@killertricyclist
I don't think he realizes the original simulation argument proposed that his god equals an AI...LOL.
Was the website/paper even updated...So your saying all these top well known scientists are entertaining this theory in public for what intellectual amusement? Observable experiments are quite inline with the theory and it explains much about the quantuam weirdness we experiementally are seeing. Does it 100% proof we are in a simulation no, but I cant name too many 100% rock solid not subject to change based on new evidence theories. Might as well just throw everything out the window if that is your measurement.
Pages