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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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"?