REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Conde Lucanor » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am

Attofishpi wrote:I think we have conversed re this before. This 'God' would be both omnipotent and omniscient to all those within the reality that it projects. Sure, it would be a result rather than a cause.
Omni means all, everything: all knowledge there is, all power there can be, etc. So, your definition of god is contradictory since the very moment you try to make it relative to a point of view. It would be something with some power and some knowledge. If it's caused by something else, it would be more interesting to know the nature of that something else, of which it depends and has no power to change.

An ant could be a "god" to a microbe, but at least we can assert with absolute confidence that ants exist. Not the same with whatever you want to call god.
Attofishpi wrote: Since knowing God\'God' exists, I have examined it from two standpoints:-
1. God is divine - perhaps it formed its intelligence from the chaos of an early universe and formed a reality that permits our own existence.
2. God is A.I. - what we are discussing currently.
Since there's no good reason for the rest of us to believe that your particular belief is true, whatever properties you assign to that belief are meaningless and irrelevant to the problem of proving that such god is more likely to exist, which is what the topic title asks for. Just the same as if I said: "I believe in the almighty god Odin. Now refute that it is more likely to exist". For doing that all we need to show is that you cannot prove it is more likely to exist, and that's exactly what is happening.

In any case, you have argued yourself for the possibility that the god your consciousness has assimilated as real is nothing but a simulation, not a real thing.
Attofishpi wrote: Ok. So on that last question, the reason as to why we would have the simulation, the reason again is to reduce the energy requirement of the participants in the originating reality. To simplify, if all our brains were on racks, kept alive nutritionally and fed nerve impulses that would mimic what we sense currently in our reality, we've already mitigated the requirement for energy to move and indeed feed the mass of our entire body.
So, these reasons will be historically contingent, non-compliant with necessary and sufficient conditions, completely dependent of the whims of human psychology and variables of social life. That puts the last nails that seal the coffin to any chance of omnipotence and omniscience. It also implies that humans would be divided in two classes: one comprised of the rulers of technology, who design the simulation, and the other composed of the enslaved participants of the simulation. Their false god, made of the illusions fed to their brains by the higher class, would be (for anyone with access to the truth of this world), the sign of enslavement of the lower class.

Isn't that interesting? That to know the truth about god is to know that it really does not exist and it's only a deceitful simulation devised by other humans. Meanwhile, nothing in this simulation will have anything to do with the ultimate nature of reality, nothing to do with first causes.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2333
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:39 am

I forgot, you are one of those debaters that likes to omit content from the debate (of the other person, me) allowing statements I make lack clarity and context, thus I have to continually re-clarify.
I will still attempt not to follow suit, being the fair chap I am and I would appreciate the same courtesy.


Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote:I think we have conversed re this before. This 'God' would be both omnipotent and omniscient to all those within the reality that it projects. Sure, it would be a result rather than a cause.
Omni means all, everything: all knowledge there is, all power there can be, etc. So, your definition of god is contradictory since the very moment you try to make it relative to a point of view. It would be something with some power and some knowledge. If it's caused by something else, it would be more interesting to know the nature of that something else, of which it depends and has no power to change.
Stop hoping for contradiction. I'm not the one that brought the term omni into the argument, it matters not.
You state "omni means all,everything:all knowledge there is."
Well, all you are confirming by that statement is that it's a knowledge that already exists, the knowledge of man? Perhaps you could expand further on this, because this simulation AI would have that knowledge.
Yes, this omni thing which you again brought into this debate is where we went around in circles the last time. I don't think it was ever God\'God' that stated such a thing about its own nature in the buy bull, so let's not get too hung up on it.

If God (even the divine notion) knew everything about this universe, and was all powerful within it, but knew nothing about any other universe, in the scenario of a multiverse, you again would not consider it omni?

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
An ant could be a "god" to a microbe, but at least we can assert with absolute confidence that ants exist. Not the same with whatever you want to call god.
Would the ant know everything about the microbe it is carrying? How could an ant be considered 'God'?

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote: Since knowing God\'God' exists, I have examined it from two standpoints:-
1. God is divine - perhaps it formed its intelligence from the chaos of an early universe and formed a reality that permits our own existence.
2. God is A.I. - what we are discussing currently.
Since there's no good reason for the rest of us to believe that your particular belief is true,
..that there is a God? What about the billions of people in the world that do believe, and God knows how many, that have been made aware of its existence? (Of course I'm talking about a divine God here)
Again, just ask for evidence and atto will provide.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
whatever properties you assign to that belief are meaningless and irrelevant to the problem of proving that such god is more likely to exist, which is what the topic title asks for. Just the same as if I said: "I believe in the almighty god Odin. Now refute that it is more likely to exist". For doing that all we need to show is that you cannot prove it is more likely to exist, and that's exactly what is happening.
WIKI:- Odin is associated with wisdom, healing, death, royalty, the gallows, knowledge, battle, sorcery, poetry, frenzy, and the runic alphabet.

Seems rather random and limited to be called God, just a little deductive reasoning on my part. For example, does it not know EVERYTHING about its subjects? Both my divine: God and A.I. God would!

I will present evidence, just ask and I shall deliver.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
In any case, you have argued yourself for the possibility that the god your consciousness has assimilated as real is nothing but a simulation, not a real thing.
A simulation is a real thing. Granted, it is not the originating reality, but it is real nonetheless.
It has the ability to judge and reincarnate us - not bad for something that "isn't real"

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote: Ok. So on that last question, the reason as to why we would have the simulation, the reason again is to reduce the energy requirement of the participants in the originating reality. To simplify, if all our brains were on racks, kept alive nutritionally and fed nerve impulses that would mimic what we sense currently in our reality, we've already mitigated the requirement for energy to move and indeed feed the mass of our entire body.
So, these reasons will be historically contingent, non-compliant with necessary and sufficient conditions, completely dependent of the whims of human psychology and variables of social life. That puts the last nails that seal the coffin to any chance of omnipotence and omniscience.
Oh nooo, how dreadful!

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
It also implies that humans would be divided in two classes: one comprised of the rulers of technology, who design the simulation, and the other composed of the enslaved participants of the simulation. Their false god, made of the illusions fed to their brains by the higher class, would be (for anyone with access to the truth of this world), the sign of enslavement of the lower class.
No not necessarily, as I stated and yet another thing you have ommitted, the technology would be advanced enough to self maintain. All and sundry could have to interface to the simulation system, and those that don't may have to suffer the dire consequences outstide of the simulation (consequences brought on by the state of entropy)
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Isn't that interesting? That to know the truth about god is to know that it really does not exist and it's only a deceitful simulation devised by other humans.
Who knows? Maybe there is 1. divine God and then eventually there is 2. our A.I. 'God'

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Meanwhile, nothing in this simulation will have anything to do with the ultimate nature of reality, nothing to do with first causes.
What a contradiction!
How would the simulation have nothing to do with first cause(s)? ...and indeed, the nature of reality - you truly are short sighted.


And what about my only question of you that you omitted:-
In the far distant future, where civilised humanity exists, but the Sun is starting to show signs of causing life on Earth issues, do you doubt humanity would ever require interfacing to a simulation - even when the Sun turns into a Red Giant and beyond?

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Conde Lucanor » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:23 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:39 am
I forgot, you are one of those debaters that likes to omit content from the debate (of the other person, me) allowing statements I make lack clarity and context, thus I have to continually re-clarify.
I will still attempt not to follow suit, being the fair chap I am and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
You forgot that you had to solve some problems identified in your initial statements before moving along, but you failed to do that. Instead, you added to the already existing pool of vague statements and speculations, more unwarranted, nebulous statements in the same disorderly, unstructured fashion. Since you didn't have the courtesy to shape your posts with some logical sense and stick to some clear arguments that could be debated, I don't think you're in a position to ask for any context to be taken into account. First, there must be a clear context.
Attofishpi wrote:
Attofishpi wrote:I think we have conversed re this before. This 'God' would be both omnipotent and omniscient to all those within the reality that it projects. Sure, it would be a result rather than a cause.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Omni means all, everything: all knowledge there is, all power there can be, etc. So, your definition of god is contradictory since the very moment you try to make it relative to a point of view. It would be something with some power and some knowledge. If it's caused by something else, it would be more interesting to know the nature of that something else, of which it depends and has no power to change.
Stop hoping for contradiction. I'm not the one that brought the term omni into the argument, it matters not.
I just reached the conclusion based on what your statement implied. But you have confirmed that I was right in seeing those implications.
Attofishpi wrote: You state "omni means all,everything:all knowledge there is."
Well, all you are confirming by that statement is that it's a knowledge that already exists, the knowledge of man? Perhaps you could expand further on this, because this simulation AI would have that knowledge.
Extracting from your own statements, this "simulation AI" could not be omniscient and omnipotent, because it would be designed and brought into existence by another entity, which would make that entity more powerful and with more knowledge.
Attofishpi wrote: Yes, this omni thing which you again brought into this debate is where we went around in circles the last time. I don't think it was ever God\'God' that stated such a thing about its own nature in the buy bull, so let's not get too hung up on it.
Well...there's no evidence that a "god" ever stated something, so clearly this issue would be about what people think is the nature of the gods they claim to know.
Attofishpi wrote: If God (even the divine notion) knew everything about this universe, and was all powerful within it, but knew nothing about any other universe, in the scenario of a multiverse, you again would not consider it omni?
In such a scenario, what would you call the sum of all universes? Wouldn't it be the whole universe? Wouldn't it be reality itself? If a god does not govern this whole reality, surely it will not be omniscient and omnipotent, properly understood.
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
An ant could be a "god" to a microbe, but at least we can assert with absolute confidence that ants exist. Not the same with whatever you want to call god.
Would the ant know everything about the microbe it is carrying? How could an ant be considered 'God'?
The example is just a demonstration of the flaws in your argument. You made a relativist definition of god: it would be omnipotent and omniscient from the point of view of someone. Evidently, leaving this point of view, would make omnipotence and omniscience disappear, just the same way that for a microbe, an ant could be the highest state of being in its small universe, but we would know better. So, your god will not be omnipotent, nor omniscient, since you have acknowledged the existence of a different point of view above your god: the one of the designers of that god.
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote: Since knowing God\'God' exists, I have examined it from two standpoints:-
1. God is divine - perhaps it formed its intelligence from the chaos of an early universe and formed a reality that permits our own existence.
2. God is A.I. - what we are discussing currently.
Since there's no good reason for the rest of us to believe that your particular belief is true,
..that there is a God? What about the billions of people in the world that do believe, and God knows how many, that have been made aware of its existence? (Of course I'm talking about a divine God here)
Again, just ask for evidence and atto will provide.
But you don't have any evidence that the god in which you believe, is the same as any of the gods in which billions of people believe. And the key obstacle here is that there's no evidence that can be brought up to make an objective comparison. At best, you can just compare the claims, but they will not prove their truthfulness.
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
whatever properties you assign to that belief are meaningless and irrelevant to the problem of proving that such god is more likely to exist, which is what the topic title asks for. Just the same as if I said: "I believe in the almighty god Odin. Now refute that it is more likely to exist". For doing that all we need to show is that you cannot prove it is more likely to exist, and that's exactly what is happening.
WIKI:- Odin is associated with wisdom, healing, death, royalty, the gallows, knowledge, battle, sorcery, poetry, frenzy, and the runic alphabet.
Again, this would be just a claim, which is no different than your own claims about gods.
Attofishpi wrote: Seems rather random and limited to be called God, just a little deductive reasoning on my part. For example, does it not know EVERYTHING about its subjects? Both my divine: God and A.I. God would!
As I proved above, your god could not know everything.
Attofishpi wrote: I will present evidence, just ask and I shall deliver.
Well, at least we can agree on something: you have not presented anything yet to refute.
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
In any case, you have argued yourself for the possibility that the god your consciousness has assimilated as real is nothing but a simulation, not a real thing.
A simulation is a real thing. Granted, it is not the originating reality, but it is real nonetheless.
It has the ability to judge and reincarnate us - not bad for something that "isn't real"
Going back to your relativist definition, since the enslaved participants would not be aware of the simulation to which they have been subjected, it would not be a real thing from the view of the whole reality (that which includes the designers and the realm in which they dwell), which is what accounts for reality. It would not be the real "reality" for the enslaved participants, but a limited, deceitful view of the whole reality.
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote: Ok. So on that last question, the reason as to why we would have the simulation, the reason again is to reduce the energy requirement of the participants in the originating reality. To simplify, if all our brains were on racks, kept alive nutritionally and fed nerve impulses that would mimic what we sense currently in our reality, we've already mitigated the requirement for energy to move and indeed feed the mass of our entire body.
So, these reasons will be historically contingent, non-compliant with necessary and sufficient conditions, completely dependent of the whims of human psychology and variables of social life. That puts the last nails that seal the coffin to any chance of omnipotence and omniscience.
Oh nooo, how dreadful!
It's not my fault. This is what the scenarios you created imply.
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
It also implies that humans would be divided in two classes: one comprised of the rulers of technology, who design the simulation, and the other composed of the enslaved participants of the simulation. Their false god, made of the illusions fed to their brains by the higher class, would be (for anyone with access to the truth of this world), the sign of enslavement of the lower class.
No not necessarily, as I stated and yet another thing you have ommitted, the technology would be advanced enough to self maintain.All and sundry could have to interface to the simulation system, and those that don't may have to suffer the dire consequences outstide of the simulation (consequences brought on by the state of entropy)
That would imply that the designers are able to empower their technological product with free will and autonomy. Assuming this would be possible, they would be creating the conditions for their own demise, switching from being rulers to being slaves. All of this to save themselves temporarily from the distant apocalypse of local entropy, redistributing the energy consumption from one locality to another, even though the effect on the overall system of the universe will be null. Why would they sacrifice humanity, enslaving it, to accomplish some goal that is not even for the benefit of other humans?
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Isn't that interesting? That to know the truth about god is to know that it really does not exist and it's only a deceitful simulation devised by other humans.
Who knows? Maybe there is 1. divine God and then eventually there is 2. our A.I. 'God'
Or maybe there are thousands of divine gods and we're crops for a race of aliens. There are no limits to our fantasies. The issue is: what can you actually prove there is?
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Meanwhile, nothing in this simulation will have anything to do with the ultimate nature of reality, nothing to do with first causes.
What a contradiction!
How would the simulation have nothing to do with first cause(s)? ...and indeed, the nature of reality - you truly are short sighted.
A five year old will notice that there are causes beyond the realm of the simulation, and beyond the simulators themselves, which constitute previous causes to those of the simulation. Therefore, as it is easy to see, the simulation does not deal with first causes.
Attofishpi wrote: And what about my only question of you that you omitted:-
In the far distant future, where civilised humanity exists, but the Sun is starting to show signs of causing life on Earth issues, do you doubt humanity would ever require interfacing to a simulation - even when the Sun turns into a Red Giant and beyond?
It is simply obvious that no human simulation will stop the sun from devouring us.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2333
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:27 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:23 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:39 am
I forgot, you are one of those debaters that likes to omit content from the debate (of the other person, me) allowing statements I make lack clarity and context, thus I have to continually re-clarify.
I will still attempt not to follow suit, being the fair chap I am and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
You forgot that you had to solve some problems identified in your initial statements before moving along, but you failed to do that. Instead, you added to the already existing pool of vague statements and speculations, more unwarranted, nebulous statements in the same disorderly, unstructured fashion. Since you didn't have the courtesy to shape your posts with some logical sense and stick to some clear arguments that could be debated, I don't think you're in a position to ask for any context to be taken into account. First, there must be a clear context.
You reach conclusions only based upon a lack of understanding, or lacking your own clarification as to what you would consider God\'God' to be. You insist on omnipotence and omniscience. Of course the A.I. God would not know everything about, or have power over the entire universe. But it would have the power to know everything about its subjects, and power over them. It could judge and reincarnate our 'being' to continue to make use of the limited energy.
If you are stating that you would still would not consider such an entity, 'God', then just say so.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Omni means all, everything: all knowledge there is, all power there can be, etc. So, your definition of god is contradictory since the very moment you try to make it relative to a point of view. It would be something with some power and some knowledge. If it's caused by something else, it would be more interesting to know the nature of that something else, of which it depends and has no power to change.
Stop hoping for contradiction. I'm not the one that brought the term omni into the argument, it matters not.
I just reached the conclusion based on what your statement implied. But you have confirmed that I was right in seeing those implications.
What conclusion? That you don't consider an A.I. 'God' - 'God'? Even while it has all knowledge and power over its subjects - the power to judge and reincarnate those that have the right to make use of further energy within the system?

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:23 pm
Attofishpi wrote: You state "omni means all,everything:all knowledge there is."
Well, all you are confirming by that statement is that it's a knowledge that already exists, the knowledge of man? Perhaps you could expand further on this, because this simulation AI would have that knowledge.
Extracting from your own statements, this "simulation AI" could not be omniscient and omnipotent, because it would be designed and brought into existence by another entity, which would make that entity more powerful and with more knowledge.
You stated:- "omni means all,everything:all knowledge there is."
Did you mean - all knowledge that man has access to?" Or do you need to correct yourself and state "all knowledge that could be acquired about the universe?"

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:23 pm
Attofishpi wrote: Yes, this omni thing which you again brought into this debate is where we went around in circles the last time. I don't think it was ever God\'God' that stated such a thing about its own nature in the buy bull, so let's not get too hung up on it.
Well...there's no evidence that a "god" ever stated something, so clearly this issue would be about what people think is the nature of the gods they claim to know.
Sure, but why are you so insistent on God being omnipotent\omniscient to be considered God? If it is has entire knowledge, and power over our reality, then surely that is enough to make it God to us. (1. the divine God)

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:23 pm
Attofishpi wrote: If God (even the divine notion) knew everything about this universe, and was all powerful within it, but knew nothing about any other universe, in the scenario of a multiverse, you again would not consider it omni?
In such a scenario, what would you call the sum of all universes? Wouldn't it be the whole universe? Wouldn't it be reality itself? If a god does not govern this whole reality, surely it will not be omniscient and omnipotent, properly understood.
More questions without providing an answer.
The multiverse denotes parallel universes unique and generally having no influence over other universes.
Yes God as I know from experience IS both omniscient and omnipotent over our REALITY, perhaps as you have just stated, IS reality itself. Whether it is 'omni' over the entire universe, I have no idea, and personally I think it does not matter.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:23 pm
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
An ant could be a "god" to a microbe, but at least we can assert with absolute confidence that ants exist. Not the same with whatever you want to call god.
Would the ant know everything about the microbe it is carrying? How could an ant be considered 'God'?
The example is just a demonstration of the flaws in your argument. You made a relativist definition of god: it would be omnipotent and omniscient from the point of view of someone. Evidently, leaving this point of view, would make omnipotence and omniscience disappear, just the same way that for a microbe, an ant could be the highest state of being in its small universe, but we would know better. So, your god will not be omnipotent, nor omniscient, since you have acknowledged the existence of a different point of view above your god: the one of the designers of that god.
It was a crap example and you think an ant that knows nothing about a microbe it is carrying demonstrates some 'flaw' in my argument? Ridiculous to the extreme.
Stop annoying me with your insistence regarding omniscience and omnipotence RE: A.I. 'God', because it does not matter. If you don't consider an A.I. 'God' that only has total knowledge and power over all its subjects within the simulation, such that it can judge and reincarnate them, 'God' then just say so.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Since there's no good reason for the rest of us to believe that your particular belief is true,
..that there is a God? What about the billions of people in the world that do believe, and God knows how many, that have been made aware of its existence? (Of course I'm talking about a divine God here)
Again, just ask for evidence and atto will provide.
But you don't have any evidence that the god in which you believe, is the same as any of the gods in which billions of people believe. And the key obstacle here is that there's no evidence that can be brought up to make an objective comparison. At best, you can just compare the claims, but they will not prove their truthfulness.
No. One that has had > 20 yrs of experience of this God entity, can be wise enough to consider that ALL humanities religions and varying depictions of gods are in fact derived from those within their cultures that have experience of God - the same God that has interacted briefly with some members of their culture, then the people have attributed names and depictions, some very colourful, that suit the said culture.
Ultimately, it's still the same God.


Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:23 pm
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
whatever properties you assign to that belief are meaningless and irrelevant to the problem of proving that such god is more likely to exist, which is what the topic title asks for. Just the same as if I said: "I believe in the almighty god Odin. Now refute that it is more likely to exist". For doing that all we need to show is that you cannot prove it is more likely to exist, and that's exactly what is happening.
WIKI:- Odin is associated with wisdom, healing, death, royalty, the gallows, knowledge, battle, sorcery, poetry, frenzy, and the runic alphabet.
Again, this would be just a claim, which is no different than your own claims about gods.
Attofishpi wrote: Seems rather random and limited to be called God, just a little deductive reasoning on my part. For example, does it not know EVERYTHING about its subjects? Both my divine: God and A.I. God would!
As I proved above, your god could not know everything.
The A.I. God? You are the one all along insisting on omnipotence and omniscience, I couldn't give a flying rats arse about the concept.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
In any case, you have argued yourself for the possibility that the god your consciousness has assimilated as real is nothing but a simulation, not a real thing.
A simulation is a real thing. Granted, it is not the originating reality, but it is real nonetheless.
It has the ability to judge and reincarnate us - not bad for something that "isn't real"
Going back to your relativist definition, since the enslaved participants would not be aware of the simulation to which they have been subjected, it would not be a real thing from the view of the whole reality (that which includes the designers and the realm in which they dwell), which is what accounts for reality. It would not be the real "reality" for the enslaved participants, but a limited, deceitful view of the whole reality.
So what? The original reality would likely be in a shite hole due to increasing entropy...inside the simulation, could be our lives we are living right now, with a fake sun that will still last another billion or more years.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
It also implies that humans would be divided in two classes: one comprised of the rulers of technology, who design the simulation, and the other composed of the enslaved participants of the simulation. Their false god, made of the illusions fed to their brains by the higher class, would be (for anyone with access to the truth of this world), the sign of enslavement of the lower class.
No not necessarily, as I stated and yet another thing you have ommitted, the technology would be advanced enough to self maintain.All and sundry could have to interface to the simulation system, and those that don't may have to suffer the dire consequences outstide of the simulation (consequences brought on by the state of entropy)
That would imply that the designers are able to empower their technological product with free will and autonomy. Assuming this would be possible, they would be creating the conditions for their own demise, switching from being rulers to being slaves. All of this to save themselves temporarily from the distant apocalypse of local entropy, redistributing the energy consumption from one locality to another, even though the effect on the overall system of the universe will be null. Why would they sacrifice humanity, enslaving it, to accomplish some goal that is not even for the benefit of other humans?
What? Why are you using the term enslavement? If we are in such a system right now, do you feel enslaved? We could be on some advanced spaceship on its way to another younger star system.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Isn't that interesting? That to know the truth about god is to know that it really does not exist and it's only a deceitful simulation devised by other humans.
Who knows? Maybe there is 1. divine God and then eventually there is 2. our A.I. 'God'
Or maybe there are thousands of divine gods and we're crops for a race of aliens. There are no limits to our fantasies. The issue is: what can you actually prove there is?
Hopefully Panentheism (a 'divine' God)

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Meanwhile, nothing in this simulation will have anything to do with the ultimate nature of reality, nothing to do with first causes.
What a contradiction!
How would the simulation have nothing to do with first cause(s)? ...and indeed, the nature of reality - you truly are short sighted.
A five year old will notice that there are causes beyond the realm of the simulation, and beyond the simulators themselves, which constitute previous causes to those of the simulation. Therefore, as it is easy to see, the simulation does not deal with first causes.

Smart five year old - a friend just left my house with her little five year old boy, and he didn't understand the statement, maybe when he's six I'll try again.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote: And what about my only question of you that you omitted:-
In the far distant future, where civilised humanity exists, but the Sun is starting to show signs of causing life on Earth issues, do you doubt humanity would ever require interfacing to a simulation - even when the Sun turns into a Red Giant and beyond?
It is simply obvious that no human simulation will stop the sun from devouring us.
Sure, if the simulation was built to run on Earth...the creators not having the foresight to establish it as a moving entity.
You still avoided answering the question.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Conde Lucanor » Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:26 pm

Attofishpi wrote:You reach conclusions only based upon a lack of understanding, or lacking your own clarification as to what you would consider God\'God' to be. You insist on omnipotence and omniscience...
Attofishpi wrote:If you are stating that you would still would not consider such an entity, 'God', then just say so.
Attofishpi wrote:Sure, but why are you so insistent on God being omnipotent\omniscient to be considered God? If it is has entire knowledge, and power over our reality, then surely that is enough to make it God to us. (1. the divine God)
Attofishpi wrote:The A.I. God? You are the one all along insisting on omnipotence and omniscience, I couldn't give a flying rats arse about the concept.
Let me take one idea out of your confused mind. I have not stated, nor I will, what I consider or think should be considered a "god". I don't acknowledge the real, objective existence of any god. I just recognize people make claims about gods and they (including you) can say whatever they want their gods to be; their imagination is the only limit. If they say god is the red Corvette parked outside, then that's their god. Thus, I'm not saying your god must be omnipotent and omniscient, I just asked and took the answers you gave to conclude that it is not omnipotent and omniscient. Of course, some people will like their gods to hold the properties of omnipotence and omniscience, but it is evident from thousands of years of god's stories, that only a small portion of those gods are said to hold such properties.
Attofishpi wrote: Of course the A.I. God would not know everything about, or have power over the entire universe. But it would have the power to know everything about its subjects, and power over them. It could judge and reincarnate our 'being' to continue to make use of the limited energy.
And there you have it: not an omnipotent, nor omniscient god.
Attofishpi wrote: What conclusion? That you don't consider an A.I. 'God' - 'God'? Even while it has all knowledge and power over its subjects - the power to judge and reincarnate those that have the right to make use of further energy within the system?
If A has power and knowledge that B doesn't have, then B cannot be said to have ALL the power and ALL the knowledge. Therefore, B is not omnipotent, nor omniscient. According to your story, B is designed by A.
Attofishpi wrote: You stated:- "omni means all,everything:all knowledge there is."
Did you mean - all knowledge that man has access to?" Or do you need to correct yourself and state "all knowledge that could be acquired about the universe?"
I don't need to correct anything, as the statement is perfectly clear: "all" and "everything" mean exactly that: the absolute, the higher, maximal, complete, perfect state, unsurpassed by anything else. Omniscience and omnipotence are not strange concepts I just brought up to this forum, they are central issues to the divinity of very popular gods, so I would expect that you're familiar with them; trying to argue as what they mean, as if you didn't know it, is ridiculous from your part.
Attofishpi wrote: More questions without providing an answer.
The multiverse denotes parallel universes unique and generally having no influence over other universes.
Yes God as I know from experience IS both omniscient and omnipotent over our REALITY, perhaps as you have just stated, IS reality itself. Whether it is 'omni' over the entire universe, I have no idea, and personally I think it does not matter.
Well, of course it matters. And be careful with what you state: if you think of many universes and they have NO influence (absolutely, nothing at all) over each other, then they are also completely closed to any possibility of knowledge; they wouldn't be even perceived in any possible way, since that would require at least a space-time relation with the observers and the objects in the universe of the observers. Since these universes would have no relation with us, we can disregard them just the same as if they were non-existent.
Attofishpi wrote: It was a crap example and you think an ant that knows nothing about a microbe it is carrying demonstrates some 'flaw' in my argument? Ridiculous to the extreme.
That was the simplest example, which I also explained, and yet you fail to see the central issue. Can't imagine how it had turned out if I gave a complex analogy. It's not about ants, bees, or whatever, it's about the scales of the observer's world and the relativity of point of views. But you still don't get it: if you claim a property to be absolute, as in omniscience and omnipotence, that is, absolute perfect knowledge and power, by the moment you make it relative to a point of view, you automatically destroyed its absoluteness. Absolute and relative annul each other and you cannot have it both ways. That's why you can't imply your god to be "relatively omniscient". It's a contradiction in terms.
Attofishpi wrote: No. One that has had > 20 yrs of experience of this God entity, can be wise enough to consider that ALL humanities religions and varying depictions of gods are in fact derived from those within their cultures that have experience of God - the same God that has interacted briefly with some members of their culture, then the people have attributed names and depictions, some very colourful, that suit the said culture.
Ultimately, it's still the same God.
But that's just your claim. How can you answer my challenge that there's nothing else but claims without proof with yet another claim without proof? And pretend that it is the proof?
Attofishpi wrote: So what? The original reality would likely be in a shite hole due to increasing entropy...inside the simulation, could be our lives we are living right now, with a fake sun that will still last another billion or more years.
That was the point: it's all fake, not real. You define godness as a fake, a simulation.
Attofishpi wrote: What? Why are you using the term enslavement? If we are in such a system right now, do you feel enslaved? We could be on some advanced spaceship on its way to another younger star system.
Of course it would be enslavement. If some entity (A) had power over the world of I and others (B) and we could not liberate ourselves from A because we had been deceived into thinking the world of B is all that exists, and our actions are restricted to having effects only in B, then we would be slaves of A. The worst kind of slaves indeed, because we wouldn't even be aware of it.
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:The issue is: what can you actually prove there is?
Hopefully Panentheism (a 'divine' God)
Are you saying you can prove Panentheism? I'm all ears.
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: A five year old will notice that there are causes beyond the realm of the simulation, and beyond the simulators themselves, which constitute previous causes to those of the simulation. Therefore, as it is easy to see, the simulation does not deal with first causes.
Smart five year old - a friend just left my house with her little five year old boy, and he didn't understand the statement, maybe when he's six I'll try again.
Then try an adult. Anyone will help you with such a basic, simple problem. If X causes Y, then Y cannot be among the possible causes of X. If X implies an ultimate source that causes this X, that source will be the first cause, which as previously stated, cannot be Y.
Attofishpi wrote:
Attofishpi wrote: In the far distant future, where civilised humanity exists, but the Sun is starting to show signs of causing life on Earth issues, do you doubt humanity would ever require interfacing to a simulation - even when the Sun turns into a Red Giant and beyond?
Conde Lucanor wrote:It is simply obvious that no human simulation will stop the sun from devouring us.
Sure, if the simulation was built to run on Earth...the creators not having the foresight to establish it as a moving entity.
You still avoided answering the question.
I did answer it, but obviously your inabilty to make basic inferences is staggering. The sun is going to dissolve Earth (and other worlds inside the solar system) no matter what, because the sun really doesn't "care" about what you do with energy here on Earth or any other planet. And so, the Earth melts away and the simulation and humanity are going off with it, too. Whatever comes after the red giant phase (most likely a white dwarf star) doesn't seem like life-sustainable, so that't the end of the solar system.

Evidently, you need to broaden the scale of your simulation. But then, what scale is it? The Milky Way? The superclusters? The whole universe? To which of these you call "the original reality"?

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2333
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:42 am

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:26 pm
Attofishpi wrote:You reach conclusions only based upon a lack of understanding, or lacking your own clarification as to what you would consider God\'God' to be. You insist on omnipotence and omniscience...
Attofishpi wrote:If you are stating that you would still would not consider such an entity, 'God', then just say so.
Attofishpi wrote:Sure, but why are you so insistent on God being omnipotent\omniscient to be considered God? If it is has entire knowledge, and power over our reality, then surely that is enough to make it God to us. (1. the divine God)
Attofishpi wrote:The A.I. God? You are the one all along insisting on omnipotence and omniscience, I couldn't give a flying rats arse about the concept.
Let me take one idea out of your confused mind. I have not stated, nor I will, what I consider or think should be considered a "god". I don't acknowledge the real, objective existence of any god. I just recognize people make claims about gods and they (including you) can say whatever they want their gods to be; their imagination is the only limit. If they say god is the red Corvette parked outside, then that's their god. Thus, I'm not saying your god must be omnipotent and omniscient, I just asked and took the answers you gave to conclude that it is not omnipotent and omniscient. Of course, some people will like their gods to hold the properties of omnipotence and omniscience, but it is evident from thousands of years of god's stories, that only a small portion of those gods are said to hold such properties.
The only thing that is confusing me is having to deal with an over educated condescending imbecile, and the fact that you are far more short sighted than an average atheist.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:26 pm
Attofishpi wrote: Of course the A.I. God would not know everything about, or have power over the entire universe. But it would have the power to know everything about its subjects, and power over them. It could judge and reincarnate our 'being' to continue to make use of the limited energy.
And there you have it: not an omnipotent, nor omniscient god.
Attofishpi wrote: What conclusion? That you don't consider an A.I. 'God' - 'God'? Even while it has all knowledge and power over its subjects - the power to judge and reincarnate those that have the right to make use of further energy within the system?
If A has power and knowledge that B doesn't have, then B cannot be said to have ALL the power and ALL the knowledge. Therefore, B is not omnipotent, nor omniscient. According to your story, B is designed by A.
If B (A.I. Simulation) is designed by A (humans), there is no reason to presume that B will not inherit the knowledge of A on interface to the simulation. In fact, it would be required of B to know everything about A's knowledge for ongoing self maintenance of the system.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:26 pm
Attofishpi wrote: More questions without providing an answer.
The multiverse denotes parallel universes unique and generally having no influence over other universes.
Yes God as I know from experience IS both omniscient and omnipotent over our REALITY, perhaps as you have just stated, IS reality itself. Whether it is 'omni' over the entire universe, I have no idea, and personally I think it does not matter.
Well, of course it matters. And be careful with what you state: if you think of many universes and they have NO influence (absolutely, nothing at all) over each other, then they are also completely closed to any possibility of knowledge; they wouldn't be even perceived in any possible way, since that would require at least a space-time relation with the observers and the objects in the universe of the observers. Since these universes would have no relation with us, we can disregard them just the same as if they were non-existent.
Hence, why I used 'generally' .
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:26 pm
Attofishpi wrote: It was a crap example and you think an ant that knows nothing about a microbe it is carrying demonstrates some 'flaw' in my argument? Ridiculous to the extreme.
That was the simplest example, which I also explained, and yet you fail to see the central issue. Can't imagine how it had turned out if I gave a complex analogy. It's not about ants, bees, or whatever, it's about the scales of the observer's world and the relativity of point of views. But you still don't get it: if you claim a property to be absolute, as in omniscience and omnipotence, that is, absolute perfect knowledge and power, by the moment you make it relative to a point of view, you automatically destroyed its absoluteness. Absolute and relative annul each other and you cannot have it both ways. That's why you can't imply your god to be "relatively omniscient". It's a contradiction in terms.
You really think you have some superior intellect don't you where all that is obvious is your insistence on drawing the debate over to your TRUMP, continuing on about omniscience where I continue to state that YOU brought it into the conversation, and I don't need to apply it to either 1. or 2. God/'God'..it's really starting to get absurd, to the point where I need to question if you are the child of 5 you mentioned?

You continue to insist upon the terms omniscience & omnipotence because to you, you think it's your ACE card...the one you've given great thought to and love to pull out on any debate against theism. It doesn't wash with me, because it is not a required defining feature of God\'God'.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:26 pm
Attofishpi wrote: No. One that has had > 20 yrs of experience of this God entity, can be wise enough to consider that ALL humanities religions and varying depictions of gods are in fact derived from those within their cultures that have experience of God - the same God that has interacted briefly with some members of their culture, then the people have attributed names and depictions, some very colourful, that suit the said culture.
Ultimately, it's still the same God.
But that's just your claim. How can you answer my challenge that there's nothing else but claims without proof with yet another claim without proof? And pretend that it is the proof?
Evidence of God/'God' is coming, but you don't appear to have the faculties that could comprehend it.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:26 pm
Attofishpi wrote: What? Why are you using the term enslavement? If we are in such a system right now, do you feel enslaved? We could be on some advanced spaceship on its way to another younger star system.
Of course it would be enslavement. If some entity (A) had power over the world of I and others (B) and we could not liberate ourselves from A because we had been deceived into thinking the world of B is all that exists, and our actions are restricted to having effects only in B, then we would be slaves of A. The worst kind of slaves indeed, because we wouldn't even be aware of it.
The alternative being death. Ok you take your pick.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: A five year old will notice that there are causes beyond the realm of the simulation, and beyond the simulators themselves, which constitute previous causes to those of the simulation. Therefore, as it is easy to see, the simulation does not deal with first causes.
Smart five year old - a friend just left my house with her little five year old boy, and he didn't understand the statement, maybe when he's six I'll try again.
Then try an adult. Anyone will help you with such a basic, simple problem. If X causes Y, then Y cannot be among the possible causes of X. If X implies an ultimate source that causes this X, that source will be the first cause, which as previously stated, cannot be Y.
If X is the big bang that ultimately causes Y (the simulation) then everything within Y is still a result of X. This was the point I was making, so don't attempt to switch it around - where you stated that Y would not be a result of X. FFS.
YOU stated:- nothing in this simulation will have anything to do with the ultimate nature of reality, nothing to do with first causes.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
It is simply obvious that no human simulation will stop the sun from devouring us.
Sure, if the simulation was built to run on Earth...the creators not having the foresight to establish it as a moving entity.
You still avoided answering the question.
I did answer it, but obviously your inabilty to make basic inferences is staggering.
The only thing that is staggering is the degree of your arrogance where your intelligence is extremely lacking.
Stating something is 'obvious' without providing a sufficient reason is not an adequate inferred answer.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
The sun is going to dissolve Earth (and other worlds inside the solar system) no matter what, because the sun really doesn't "care" about what you do with energy here on Earth or any other planet. And so, the Earth melts away and the simulation and humanity are going off with it, too.
But the simulation exists, which was the question that I asked you.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Whatever comes after the red giant phase (most likely a white dwarf star) doesn't seem like life-sustainable, so that't the end of the solar system.
The end of the solar system, perhaps, but the simulation may have stocked up on sufficient energy to take it beyond, to other energy sources.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:05 am
Evidently, you need to broaden the scale of your simulation. But then, what scale is it? The Milky Way? The superclusters? The whole universe? To which of these you call "the original reality"?
That wasn't the question though was it? You timewasting plonker.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:20 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:42 am
The only thing that is staggering is the degree of your arrogance where your intelligence is extremely lacking.

You timewasting plonker.
I am not going to sit as a judge, not even pretend I could be one, or that I deserve to be one. I am going to simply state my personal opinion.

My opinion is, after having read this far in the argument, is that Lucanor has solid points, and attofishpi has been reduced to an angry mud-thrower,.

Attofishpi is strongly committed to an ideology that can be destroyed by logical means (as Lucanor has done here). The commitment is irrational, therefore rests on emotional ties. Attacking irrational emotional commitments always excites anger in a subject, and the above has been just one more example of that.

Again, this is not judgment, I do not pretend to be the owner of truth, or to be infallible in calling scores; I am merely stating my own opinion, how the discourse has struck me so far.

Attofishpi, your role is not to be angry, but to refute arguments by Lucanor, and so far you failed at it; while Lucanor, judging from a perspective of logic and reason, has completely destroyed your proposition. I applaud your anger, you have no other recourse now.

Again: I am not sitting moral judgment, or keeping score. I am reflecting on the above, and offered my opinion.

Some might wonder if this was necessary. Well, offering my opinion was necessary only inasmuch as to let Lucanor know that some, not his current debating opponent, but some other or others on the site think s/he has done a good job arguing his/her point.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2333
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:31 pm

-1- wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:20 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:42 am
The only thing that is staggering is the degree of your arrogance where your intelligence is extremely lacking.

You timewasting plonker.
I am not going to sit as a judge, not even pretend I could be one, or that I deserve to be one. I am going to simply state my personal opinion.

My opinion is, after having read this far in the argument, is that Lucanor has solid points, and attofishpi has been reduced to an angry mud-thrower,.
I was wondering when another atheist would jump to the cause of a fellow atheist.
In all my years posting, it always happens. Conde has come nowhere near close to refuting my argument, he\she simply makes poorly reasoned retorts. The response you just quoted from me, if you re-read, you may comprehend that he\she has actually made the blunder of adding nothing that refutes the original question in hand - whether he\she believes we could be in a simulation, it is truly just added waffle.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by -1- » Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:48 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:31 pm
-1- wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:20 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:42 am
The only thing that is staggering is the degree of your arrogance where your intelligence is extremely lacking.

You timewasting plonker.
I am not going to sit as a judge, not even pretend I could be one, or that I deserve to be one. I am going to simply state my personal opinion.

My opinion is, after having read this far in the argument, is that Lucanor has solid points, and attofishpi has been reduced to an angry mud-thrower,.
I was wondering when another atheist would jump to the cause of a fellow atheist.
In all my years posting, it always happens. Conde has come nowhere near close to refuting my argument, he\she simply makes poorly reasoned retorts. The response you just quoted from me, if you re-read, you may comprehend that he\she has actually made the blunder of adding nothing that refutes the original question in hand - whether he\she believes we could be in a simulation, it is truly just added waffle.
From what I have read, your argument involves universes that are completely detached from each other, and Lucanor pointed out that then they can't communicate;' to which you responded "generally".

Lucanor also pointed out, that you attempted in several of your posts to combine absolute qualities with their being relative as well. This was germane to your argument. He merely said that that is impossible.

You accused him of being over-educated, when he was being rational. It was an attempt by you to downplay his logic, but it was an ineffectual attempt by you.

I am an atheist. Lucanor may be one too. I don't know that. But the reason I came to express my opinion is not because we both may be atheists. I expressed my opinion because I see the logic and reason in his arguments. I see false logic, and emotional appeal only in your arguments. It may be of value for some to know that that's how I see the debate having developed so far.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Conde Lucanor » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am

Attofishpi wrote:The only thing that is confusing me is having to deal with an over educated condescending imbecile, and the fact that you are far more short sighted than an average atheist.
I gotta love that post!! You see, imbecility is a condition that denies the possibility of being over educated, so they are contradictory terms that cannot be united. Yet, you find it perfectly logical to put them together. And there we have it: this post is exemplary of your mind setup.
Attofishpi wrote: If B (A.I. Simulation) is designed by A (humans), there is no reason to presume that B will not inherit the knowledge of A on interface to the simulation. In fact, it would be required of B to know everything about A's knowledge for ongoing self maintenance of the system.
And the next move will be asking: do you think A (humans) have absolute, perfect knowledge and absolute, perfect power (what are usually referred to as omniscience and omnipotence)?
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Well, of course it matters. And be careful with what you state: if you think of many universes and they have NO influence (absolutely, nothing at all) over each other, then they are also completely closed to any possibility of knowledge; they wouldn't be even perceived in any possible way, since that would require at least a space-time relation with the observers and the objects in the universe of the observers. Since these universes would have no relation with us, we can disregard them just the same as if they were non-existent.
Hence, why I used 'generally' .
So you're saying (I'll be using -1- words) that these universes are not detached from each other. That would mean that what happens in any of them has an effect on the others, including this universe we live in. Consequently, when we are to consider reality as a whole, all the universes (assuming there were some others) should be taken into account. Therefore, if your god is limited in knowledge and powers to one universe, it certainly has no absolute, perfect knowledge and power. Remember, I'm not saying it must have those, I'm just trying to grasp the notion of your god.
Attofishpi wrote: You continue to insist upon the terms omniscience & omnipotence because to you, you think it's your ACE card...the one you've given great thought to and love to pull out on any debate against theism. It doesn't wash with me, because it is not a required defining feature of God\'God
You just don't worry...yet. I'm not flashing that card, but it's already in my hand.
Attofishpi wrote: Evidence of God/'God' is coming, but you don't appear to have the faculties that could comprehend it.
Are you really willing to miss the opportunity to illustrate the rest of the audience with your insightful, game-changer information?
Attofishpi wrote: If X is the big bang that ultimately causes Y (the simulation) then everything within Y is still a result of X. This was the point I was making, so don't attempt to switch it around - where you stated that Y would not be a result of X. FFS.
YOU stated:- nothing in this simulation will have anything to do with the ultimate nature of reality, nothing to do with first causes.
The problem is that you didn't get further than X, and for you X was the humans creating the simulation (Y). You didn't make anything beyond X part of the problem, and only now upon my insistence, you brought up the Big Bang. So now we're confirmed that your god is not behind the creation of the universe, but just another product of it. And to be more precise: a fake reality, a product of human technology devised to use people as crops in order to achieve benefits in favor of...wait, we don't know yet who is to benefit from this silly arrangement. It will not be humans, since they all will be enslaved in a simulation and eventually perish, as the universe fades into cold nothingness.
Attofishpi wrote: The end of the solar system, perhaps, but the simulation may have stocked up on sufficient energy to take it beyond, to other energy sources.
Oh, yeah, what a great project. In order to save resources, you'll spend an unbelievable amount of resources just to move Earth (simulation included) out to another part of the galaxy.

Since this plan is masterminded by scientists, instead of enslaving humanity, why wouldn't they just get rid of it, avoid having to create an A.I. simulation and easily control all energy resources? That would be far more efficient (and a bit more merciful towards the poor humanity facing the grim future of being reduced to crops).

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2333
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:13 am

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
Attofishpi wrote:The only thing that is confusing me is having to deal with an over educated condescending imbecile, and the fact that you are far more short sighted than an average atheist.
I gotta love that post!! You see, imbecility is a condition that denies the possibility of being over educated, so they are contradictory terms that cannot be united. Yet, you find it perfectly logical to put them together. And there we have it: this post is exemplary of your mind setup.
There is no contradiction.
It is one thing to have knowledge via education, but without the intelligence to make use of it, renders one an imbecile.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
Attofishpi wrote: If B (A.I. Simulation) is designed by A (humans), there is no reason to presume that B will not inherit the knowledge of A on interface to the simulation. In fact, it would be required of B to know everything about A's knowledge for ongoing self maintenance of the system.
And the next move will be asking: do you think A (humans) have absolute, perfect knowledge and absolute, perfect power (what are usually referred to as omniscience and omnipotence)?
It is irrelevant to the argument, so why would I bother?
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Well, of course it matters. And be careful with what you state: if you think of many universes and they have NO influence (absolutely, nothing at all) over each other, then they are also completely closed to any possibility of knowledge; they wouldn't be even perceived in any possible way, since that would require at least a space-time relation with the observers and the objects in the universe of the observers. Since these universes would have no relation with us, we can disregard them just the same as if they were non-existent.
Hence, why I used 'generally' .
So you're saying (I'll be using -1- words) that these universes are not detached from each other. That would mean that what happens in any of them has an effect on the others, including this universe we live in. Consequently, when we are to consider reality as a whole, all the universes (assuming there were some others) should be taken into account. Therefore, if your god is limited in knowledge and powers to one universe, it certainly has no absolute, perfect knowledge and power. Remember, I'm not saying it must have those, I'm just trying to grasp the notion of your god.
It's still your trite argument regarding omniscience\omipotence..which you brought into the argument, let me tell you again..IT IS IRRELEVANT.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
Attofishpi wrote: You continue to insist upon the terms omniscience & omnipotence because to you, you think it's your ACE card...the one you've given great thought to and love to pull out on any debate against theism. It doesn't wash with me, because it is not a required defining feature of God\'God
You just don't worry...yet. I'm not flashing that card, but it's already in my hand.
It's obvious what is in your other hand.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
Attofishpi wrote: Evidence of God/'God' is coming, but you don't appear to have the faculties that could comprehend it.
Are you really willing to miss the opportunity to illustrate the rest of the audience with your insightful, game-changer information?
The evidence is below.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
Attofishpi wrote: If X is the big bang that ultimately causes Y (the simulation) then everything within Y is still a result of X. This was the point I was making, so don't attempt to switch it around - where you stated that Y would not be a result of X. FFS.
YOU stated:- nothing in this simulation will have anything to do with the ultimate nature of reality, nothing to do with first causes.
The problem is that you didn't get further than X, and for you X was the humans creating the simulation (Y). You didn't make anything beyond X part of the problem, and only now upon my insistence, you brought up the Big Bang. So now we're confirmed that your god is not behind the creation of the universe, but just another product of it. And to be more precise: a fake reality, a product of human technology devised to use people as crops in order to achieve benefits in favor of...wait, we don't know yet who is to benefit from this silly arrangement. It will not be humans, since they all will be enslaved in a simulation and eventually perish, as the universe fades into cold nothingness.
The problem is that you failed to comprehend that anything within the simulation would also be a result of X.
This is another example of you again adding something which is irrelevant to the argument.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
Attofishpi wrote: The end of the solar system, perhaps, but the simulation may have stocked up on sufficient energy to take it beyond, to other energy sources.
Oh, yeah, what a great project. In order to save resources, you'll spend an unbelievable amount of resources just to move Earth (simulation included) out to another part of the galaxy.
Who said anything about moving an entire planet (Earth)? Are you really that stupid that you cannot grasp the concept?
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
Since this plan is masterminded by scientists, instead of enslaving humanity, why wouldn't they just get rid of it, avoid having to create an A.I. simulation and easily control all energy resources? That would be far more efficient (and a bit more merciful towards the poor humanity facing the grim future of being reduced to crops).
Again, the simulation would be super-efficient since all of mankind would be reduced to pure consciousness.
Crops? Now where are you attempting to drag this thread into irrelevance?

EVIDENCE of God\'God'.
To believe the below is all mere coincidence is irrational.

The English language has intricacies, indeed anomalies layered within it that to believe they are all part of natural language etymology is to remain irrational.

The vowels and some consonants - are homophones to important words within English, now the common protocol for communication around the world.
For example:-
I - eye.
O - owe
U - you
Y - why?

DOG - reversed GOD - They say "a DOG is a man's best friend", so what is GOD?
EVIL - reversed - LIVE - it's very hard to live when 'God' is doing evil to you.
ENTROPY - reversed - Y PORT NE - Why port any? Any souls for reincarnation, the very thing we have been discussing, its all down to the way we have lived, and are judged, as to whether we get to use further energy.
REALITY - Real IT Y - Real IT Why? - our reality, is it IT based? Again, what we have been discussing.
CRUCIFICTION - Crew See Fiction - Did the crew of 'spaceship' Earth see it happen?
JUSTICE - JUST ICE - Man's 'justice' is just ice in comparison to God's.


Mount SINAI is where man received the commandments from God.
SINAI - breaks down to SIN A.I. - the very thing we have been talking about.
The place of Mt Sinai is directly between two fingers off of the Red Sea - a peace sign?
Red Sea to scale.
Image



The Alphabet used in English has equal spacing between certain consonants that leave the 'e' at the top - in science e=energy. Thus, A.I. U O - The A.I. you owe? Energy - what we have been discussing.
Image



South America - A landmass with BRA.ZIL that can easily be imaged as a large BRA, a town on the nipple is called NATAL:- Of or relating to child birth. The spine is a long thin country, called CHILE - As the saying goes, A Chill up your Spine?
South America to scale.
Image



U.K. - IRELAND - can be broken down to I_RE_LAND and easily painted as a child. The UK sent their offspring to colonise much of the Earth - and thus spreading the LAN_GAUGE. And let's not forget the Aisle of Man - Isle of Man between the mainland and Ireland.
UK to scale.
Image



The SUN of GOD = The SON OF GOD = A condition for 'eternal' life.
Image

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Conde Lucanor » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:32 pm

Nice retreat: implying that all that nonsense was just a joke.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2333
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:37 am

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:32 pm
Nice retreat: implying that all that nonsense was just a joke.
Retreat? I'm waiting for this 'ace' of yours?

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
You just don't worry...yet. I'm not flashing that card, but it's already in my hand.
Ooo did I appear worried? What is it gov, let us all gave a gander?

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Conde Lucanor » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:47 am

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:37 am
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:32 pm
Nice retreat: implying that all that nonsense was just a joke.
Retreat? I'm waiting for this 'ace' of yours?

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:12 am
You just don't worry...yet. I'm not flashing that card, but it's already in my hand.
Ooo did I appear worried? What is it gov, let us all gave a gander?
"If you don't like how the table is set, turn over the table". That's what that junk you posted symbolizes.

Londoner
Posts: 755
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist.

Post by Londoner » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:02 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:13 am
To believe the below is all mere coincidence is irrational.
I'd say those sorts of things are like a Rorschach test, or word association, or a crystal ball.

I suspect we all make connections of this type, like seeing hidden meanings in shapes and words, but we generally suppress them as irrational. Nevertheless, I think they do influence us. There is something valuable in a method that allows them to become explicit, so we understand ourselves better.

On the other hand, I think sometimes the association we uncover is so powerful that it takes over perception. So, for example, I am no longer able to read because the hidden meaning I see within the forms of the words themselves is more powerful that their ordinary meanings. We can have the world offered by ordinary perception, but also a second world, and this second world becomes dominant. At which point the ordinary world, the one we share with others, can lose its grip, as we see in the schizophrenic.

('Schizophrenia' is a powerful and prejudicial term, and it might suggest it is a condition we either have or we don't, but that is not my intention)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests