Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Brian Shanahan

Geomy wrote: »

All jokes and banter aside.

Is the Universe capable of having a diety or God like entity ?

Do you remember Q in startrek ?

Anything is possible :-D

Fiction is not really a guide to the possibilities of reality. And the Q example isn't great, given how far he fell below humanity during his time romancing Captain Genocide over in the Delta Quadrant.

Geomy

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fiction is not really a guide to the possibilities of reality. And the Q example isn't great, given how far he fell below humanity during his time romancing Captain Genocide over in the Delta Quadrant.

Well we'll need someone like Q if we're under attack from species 8472 ;-)

Brian Shanahan

Geomy wrote: »

Well we'll need someone like Q if we're under attack from species 8472 ;-)

Nah, Tom Parris and the Doctor will suffice. After all they were the two go to guys for almost every crisis in that show, despite occupying two very important jobs where they absolutely had to be in a crisis.

Geomy

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Nah, Tom Parris and the Doctor will suffice. After all they were the two go to guys for almost every crisis in that show, despite occupying two very important jobs where they absolutely had to be in a crisis.

Wasn't that doctor an illusion....

Lol

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

For support for the simulation argument read Professor Nick Bostrom.

This is not a scientific study nor is there any scientific data here. It is just a FAQ designed to make clearer what the topic is and means for the lay person. There is no scientific support here so much as an explanation of what the actual claims are. It is akin to me asking you how to make cake and you describing to me what cake actually is.

Further the author of this blog piece, for I can think of no other accurate name for this link other than blog piece, acknowledges just how untestable the argument is and as such it is not even that much of a scientific hypothesis.

So I remain in a position of not having been shown any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the hypothesis. All you are doing is giving links explaining what the hypothesis is... which I already knew.

nagirrac wrote: »

The allegation by nozzferrahhtoo is that there is no support for the idea that the universe is a simulation, and that only a layperson would believe such.

Not what I said at all. What I said was that there have been several discovering made by scientists which for the purposes of communicating science to the lay person they described using analogies to things like VR simulations and the like.

While well intentioned, as most efforts at communicating science to the lay person are, a lot of people have run with this analogy and changed it from "This fact is analogous to VR" to "We are living in a VR". A leap of "reasoning" that is as massive as it is unsubstantiated. (Very).

These are all simple facts and nothing I feel any requirement to apologize for adumbrating so what apology you appear to be expecting is entirely opaque to me.

Geomy

These are all simple facts and nothing I feel any requirement to apologize for adumbrating so what apology you appear to be expecting is entirely opaque to me.[/quote]

To the layman, does that translate as I had no intention of offending you or is it just a gibberish attempt to justify your side of the discussion....

nozzferrahhtoo

It is neither. It is an attempt to point out that I see nothing requiring justification in the first place.

Shall we return to the thread topic now?

nagirrac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is not a scientific study nor is there any scientific data here. It is just a FAQ designed to make clearer what the topic is and means for the lay person. There is no scientific support here so much as an explanation of what the actual claims are. It is akin to me asking you how to make cake and you describing to me what cake actually is.

Not what I said at all. What I said was that there have been several discovering made by scientists which for the purposes of communicating science to the lay person they described using analogies to things like VR simulations and the like. While well intentioned, as most efforts at communicating science to the lay person are, a lot of people have run with this analogy and changed it from "This fact is analogous to VR" to "We are living in a VR". A leap of "reasoning" that is as massive as it is unsubstantiated. (Very).

You are either not reading what I have said or not understanding it. I have never said that the simulation argument is established science. The simulation argument as described by Nick Bolstrom (linked to in the blog I provided but you can find it easily on line) is a philosophical or metaphysical argument. It is an argument from logic. Like most arguments in philosophy it can be argued for and against. I find it quite a good argument, others do not, ca la vie.

As to the science, there is no scientist I am aware of who has tried to dumb down digital physics using analogies to VR. Perhaps I am wrong and you can point me to a specific source. Digital Physics is a very new field in science, Zuse' thesis was in 1967, and Wheeler's "it from bit" hypothesis dates from the 1980s. Unlike other hypotheses such as string theory and the multiverse there have been no pop science books written as yet that I am aware of, so no dumbing down for the layman. As an aside the term "string theory" is possibly the most misleading in all of science. Research into particle physics for the past 40 years has been dominated by this "theory" and it has yet to make one testable scientific prediction. How can a hypothesis that has never been tested against a prediction be a scientific theory? String theory in my opinion is looking for something that is not there, or in the words of Gerard 't Hooft "particles and their properties are not real in the ontological sense".

In the past you have accused me of making claims without citation. I have provided several sources on digital physics that you have completely ignored and you continue to state that no scientist is making the claim that the universe is based on computing, but rather they are making analogies. Nowhere in any of these sources is there any suggestion of an analogy with VR. Read the essay from George Ellis and show me where he says anything about an analogy with VR. What the various sources I have provided you is demonstrating is that there is a field of science that is pursuing the hypothesis that at its fundamental level the universe is informational. There are several scientists who have proposed that the universe is being deterministically computed on some kind of discrete computer. Consider Konrad Zues' thesis, the founder of digital physics, it is not an analogy.

http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/digitalphysics.html


So let me state my position for one last time, this time in hope. Science does not prove or disprove God, nor can it, at least with current science. People arguing that science proves God or disproves God are either being dishonest or pushing an agenda. The question of God is in the area of metaphysics, which tries to answer "why" questions, rather than the "how" questions that science pursues using the scientific method. It is possible and reasonable to believe in God simply by going out and sitting on a park bench and being humbled by the beauty of nature and being thankful for being sentient to be aware of such beauty. It is also possible and reasonable to consider all the wonderful discoveries of science and do the same. Belief is truly no more complicated that that, which is why many scientists do science and also are believers.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

You are either not reading what I have said or not understanding it.

Not agreeing with what you have said is not the same as me having ignored or failed to understand it. Much as you might like the two things to be the same, and try often to use them as if they are the same, they are not. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just find what you are saying to be unsubstantiated nonsense.

You can go on and on about VR simulations and how philosophers make interesting arguments that make it seem like it makes sense to you. That is all well and good. My point is simply that while it might appeal to your imagination and make some sense to you it is, and remains, unsubstantiated nonsense supported by nothing but you thinking it makes sense coupled with a few scientific facts that lend themselves to VR and Simulation type analogies.

nagirrac wrote: »

So let me state my position for one last time, this time in hope. Science does not prove or disprove God, nor can it

Nor should it need to. The onus is entirely on the person claiming there is a god to substantiate that claim. No one, let alone "science" is required to disprove it. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and the issue for me is that the claim there is some non human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe is not just slightly but ENTIRELY devoid of any argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend it even a modicum of credence. And nowhere in that statement do I limit that discussion to science.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is possible and reasonable to believe in God simply by going out and sitting on a park bench and being humbled by the beauty of nature and being thankful for being sentient to be aware of such beauty. It is also possible and reasonable to consider all the wonderful discoveries of science and do the same. Belief is truly no more complicated that that, which is why many scientists do science and also are believers.

That paragraph has a lot of words in it but essentially ends up saying nothing at all. I do not think it "reasonable" to postulate a god just because I have emotional reactions to objects or facts. I am far from devoid of any of the feelings you list above but I see nothing "reasonable" in postulating a god off the back of those subjective emotional reactions. Quite the opposite. I find it to be a completely nonsense non sequitur at best and a complete canard at worst.

nagirrac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not agreeing with what you have said is not the same as me having ignored or failed to understand it. Much as you might like the two things to be the same, and try often to use them as if they are the same, they are not. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just find what you are saying to be unsubstantiated nonsense.

My initial statement was correct, you clearly have not read any of the sources I provided to you, which is evidenced by the fact that you have not made a single comment on the scientific hypothesis proposed. Your analogy claim has just been blown out of the water and you seem oblivious to this. The only unsubstantiated nonsense in this discussion is the claim you have been peddling about analogies to VR, which merely confirms you have not looked at any of the work I have gone to the trouble of posting for you. Honest debating indeed. If your position is that Zuse, Fredkin and Ellis are making analogies then back up your position with a specific link to what they have said, or drop the unsubstantiated claim.

..or let's forget about the science of digital physics which clearly you have no interest in. What exactly is your position on scientists who also believe in God and what is your rationale for this position?

Almaviva

nagirrac wrote: »

What exactly is your position on scientists who also believe in God and what is your rationale for this position?

That their inate human psychological predisposition to believe in a god is stronger than their intelligence, ability for rational thought, and learned scientific knowledge ?

tommy2bad

Almaviva wrote: »

That their inate human psychological predisposition to believe in a god is stronger than their intelligence, ability for rational thought, and learned scientific knowledge ?

Or at least as strong but in a different compartment, science like Tony Blair don't do God and religion shouldn't do science.

nagirrac

Almaviva wrote: »

That their inate human psychological predisposition to believe in a god is stronger than their intelligence, ability for rational thought, and learned scientific knowledge ?

That at least is better than the standard new Atheist position of Dawkins and co. who claim belief in God is for fools and the gullible:).

Do you not think scientists are aware of the above claim and consider it? The claim above is a bit of an elitist belief that suggests humans don't evolve past 5 year olds intellectually on the God question and just accept whatever they are predisposed to believe, assuming such a thing even exists. Given how little we know of how consciousness evolved or what consciousness even is, I think the claim of predisposition to belief is a bit of a stretch. What we know is we have the ability to consider the question, how that came about is a bit of a mystery, a bit like the mystery of how the universe came about or the mystery of how life came about.

What I would agree to is that religious belief/practice has evolved among humans and has been selected, retained and passed on from generation to generation for possibly as long as 500,000 years. It is a social phenomena with clear empirical evidence of health benefits, so unsurprising it has been retained.

Almaviva

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you not think scientists are aware of the above claim and consider it? The claim above is a bit of an elitist belief that suggests humans don't evolve past 5 year olds intellectually on the God question and just accept whatever they are predisposed to believe, assuming such a thing even exists. .

I am sure they do. But you cannot change your nature of millenia of psychological evolution simply because today you can reason a conflicting conclusion.

The conflict with science explaining much of the world about us and debunking much religious witchdoctory, is only a very recent development in our history. I would guess we (humanity as a whole) probably never will ditch it - and agree as you say that it is probably good for us that we dont - it is what we are. For some, the 'sense of god' is an easy victor over any amount of intelligence, education, or time spent condsidering or debating the matter. The extraordinary hoops some of our finest religious and philosphical minds go through to try to make reason of their 'sense/belief' shows how strong it is.

lmaopml

Almaviva wrote: »

I am sure they do. But you cannot change your nature of millenia of psychological evolution simply because today you can reason a conflicting conclusion.

The conflict with science explaining much of the world about us and debunking much religious witchdoctory, is only a very recent development in our history. I would guess we (humanity as a whole) probably never will ditch it - and agree as you say that it is probably good for us that we dont - it is what we are. For some, the 'sense of god' is an easy victor over any amount of intelligence, education, or time spent condsidering or debating the matter. The extraordinary hoops some of our finest religious and philosphical minds go through to try to make reason of their 'sense/belief' shows how strong it is.

Then there are some us that believe that science has it's limits, just like the people who call themselves scientists - and can be both Christian and love science too. It's not impossible to be both and be comfortable as a bug in a rug.

Geomy

A lot of spiritual people are talking about a change in consciousness that's going on....

I'm spiritual and believe in Jesus as the son of God but wouldn't consider myself Christian
I also like Sufism and other aspects of different Religions....

I don't think I have to be Christian to have faith and hand my will and my life over to the care God on a daily basis...

More spiritual people believe in the one God

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

My initial statement was correct, you clearly have not read any of the sources I provided to you

This on going need you have to tell people they do not understand, are ignoring you, have not read the material, or some other imagined attribute you want to invent about people you know nothing about does not add in any way to the discussion. You are just engaging in attacking the poster not the posts.

If you have any substantiation for the claim we are in a VR I am all ears and I am here to discuss it with you. If you want however to play the game of pretending I do not understand things I do, or have not read things I have, then you are on your own.

By all means pick a couple of scientific facts you think support your claim and explain them in your own words.

nagirrac wrote: »

What exactly is your position on scientists who also believe in God and what is your rationale for this position?

I have no position on them. Scientists are just people like everyone else. The claim there is a god remains unsubstantiated regardless of whether a scientist makes the claim, or the old Romanian lady currently cleaning the toilets in the office where I now sit.

Why do you feel scientists are so special or warrant special attention in this?

nagirrac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you have any substantiation for the claim we are in a VR I am all ears and I am here to discuss it with you. If you want however to play the game of pretending I do not understand things I do, or have not read things I have, then you are on your own.

By all means pick a couple of scientific facts you think support your claim and explain them in your own words.

First of all I am not attacking you the poster, I am critical of your posting style. I have repeatedly stated my position regarding two separate claims and you have repeatedly carried on as if there is one, and failed to answer any question I have posed. For example I have asked you to substantiate your claim that scientists use analogy with VR to try to explain their science to a lay audience. Please provide one example where a scientist does this.

I am making two claims and you continue to reduce these to one claim which in my view is dishonest. The first is a scientific hypothesis that the universe is based on information processing at the fundamental level of reality, specifically cellular automata (Zues, Fredkin, Wolfram, 't Hooft). The second is a philosophical claim that the universe is a simulation (Bostrom). Although they may be related, one claim is a scientific claim and one is not, can we please keep that distinction clear.

Although I find the philosophical argument interesting, I agree it is speculation and there is currently no science to support it. By science I mean a hypothesis that has been tested against predictions and at least is a tentative theory. Like a lot of metaphysical arguments it may "fit the observed data" but that is a poor scientific argument. In my view it is in a very similar category to string "theory" and the multiverse hypothesis in that neither have been tested against predictions. Yes, the mathematical models work, but without testing against predictions how is something truly science?

The attached paper from Beane, Davoudi and Savage is a scientific hypothesis stemming form the work of earlier digital physics and making specific predictions regarding how a universe on a small scale could be constructed and how this can be extrapolated to a larger scale. The authors are not making an analogy to VR, they state quite categorically that they are taking seriously the idea that our universe is a numerical simulation. The distinction is clearly made between the science involved and the philosophy of what a numerically simulated universe might mean. One of the authors was interviewed recently and asked specifically who he meant by "they" when he referred to simulators. He answered that although physicists don't normally get into such matters as they are in the realm of philosophy, the most obvious answer is that "they" are our future descendants. Pure speculation I agree, and an unsubstantiated claim compared to the scientific hypothesis proposed in their paper.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf

Morbert

Leaving aside the science for the moment.

narigrrac: Why would you believe God would run a simulated approximation of a universe? Surely a simulation would imply a less than omnipotent simulator?

[edit for clarification of what I mean]
From the paper you posted:

"Nevertheless, assuming that the universe is finite and therefore the resources of potential simulators are finite, then a volume containing a simulation will be finite and a lattice spacing must be non-zero, and therefore in principle there always remains the possibility for the simulated to discover the simulators."

Do you believe God's resources are finite?

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Leaving aside the science for the moment.

narigrrac: Why would you believe God would run a simulated approximation of a universe? Surely a simulation would imply a less than omnipotent simulator?

Do you believe God's resources are finite?

To the finite question, potentially yes. The universe we observe may be the best universe that is possible, even for God.

I think one of the problems with the atheist argument against God is that it argues from literally a theist position. The most common arguments I have heard are 1) If God is omnipotent why did he make such a poorly designed universe, and 2) from a moral perspective why would God make a universe with such suffering. Some theists have an issue with these arguments also, especially the second one.

From a philosophy standpoint what makes us think that a God can only be good. Why would a God necessarily give a jot about our ideas of morality? Some gnostics for example believe that the universe was created by a demiurge or demiurges, so they could torture us to amuse themselves. Even a benevolent God could create the universe with all its suffering for reasons we do not understand. Most of the human suffering in the universe is caused by ourselves, if we have free will we can hardly blame God (a bit like a kid blaming their parents when they hurt themselves). Maybe omnipotent has limitations and the universe we observe is the best that God can create. Maybe the fundamental laws of the universe apply to God as well.

I don't believe God would create a simulated approximation of a universe. I believe (in the metaphysical sense) that the best word we have to describe the universe is a simulation. It ticks all the boxes for me that are unticked by other current metaphysical and scientific hypotheses. I am not a dualist, I believe that there is one reality which has infinite possibilities and that what we observe is one set of the possibilities.

lmaopml

Is there such a thing as 'leaving behind the science'?...especially on this thread?


Enter 'Philosophy' -

tommy2bad

nagirrac ;
Maybe the fundamental laws of the universe apply to God as well.

Hmm interesting? But dosn't that exclude the concept of God?
If God is bound by the universe then he isn't god and the incarnation becomes an impossibility!
Unless God somehow changes the rules which strikes me as unfair.

Not being contrary, just exploring the possibility!

nagirrac

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmm interesting? But dosn't that exclude the concept of God?
If God is bound by the universe then he isn't god and the incarnation becomes an impossibility!
Unless God somehow changes the rules which strikes me as unfair.

Not being contrary, just exploring the possibility!

Why would you assume we understand the fundamental laws of reality? If God designed them perhaps he then had to abide by them?

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

I don't believe God would create a simulated approximation of a universe. I believe (in the metaphysical sense) that the best word we have to describe the universe is a simulation. It ticks all the boxes for me that are unticked by other current metaphysical and scientific hypotheses. I am not a dualist, I believe that there is one reality which has infinite possibilities and that what we observe is one set of the possibilities.

You are now talking about something very distinct from the paper you linked to, which is explicitly talking about a simulation that approximates a universe using a lattice, and that approximation might be detectable.

Your use of the word metaphysical also implies your definition of simulation has nothing to do with digital physics, and is instead more related to solipsism.

What boxes does a simulated universe tick that, say indirect realism does not?

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

You are now talking about something very distinct from the paper you linked to, which is explicitly talking about a simulation that approximates a universe using a lattice, and that approximation might be detectable.

Your use of the word metaphysical also implies your definition of simulation has nothing to do with digital physics, and is instead more related to solipsism.

What boxes does a simulated universe tick that, say indirect realism does not?

morbert, you said in your prior post to leave the science aside and you asked a philosophical question. I answered your philosophical question and you move the goalposts back to science. Before I answer any more questions, can you comment on my answer to your philosophical question.

lmaopml

I think Morberts question is fairly consistent tbh with leaving the science behind to a certain extent.

Given that digital physics is the basis...


He is pretty much just comparing the two positions and asking why you think one metaphysical type philosophy is a preferred over another, and which seems more rational I suppose......I think so anyways, but I'm open to correction.

nagirrac

lmaopml wrote: »

I think Morberts question is fairly consistent tbh with leaving the science behind to a certain extent.

Given that digital physics is the basis...


He is pretty much just comparing the two positions and asking why you think one metaphysical type philosophy is a preferred over another, and which seems more rational I suppose......I think so anyways, but I'm open to correction.

I am making three claims. One is a science argument, in support of the hypothesis that the foundation of the universe can be described as a numeric simulation. I provided the scientific paper as evidence for a hypothesis that a universe can be simulated. It doesn't lead me to the conclusion that we are anywhere close to understating what "simulation" means from a scientific standpoint in the context of our universe.

The second is a philosophical claim that the universe could be a "simulation". This is a logic based 3 point argument made by Nick Bostrom.

The third is a deist claim that God is responsible for the reality we observe. This completes the metaphysical claim as God has to exist separate from our observed universe (the universe we can observe) or in the context of the above, is the programmer of the reality we observe.

Maybe morbert can clarify his question.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

morbert, you said in your prior post to leave the science aside and you asked a philosophical question. I answered your philosophical question and you move the goalposts back to science. Before I answer any more questions, can you comment on my answer to your philosophical question.

You posted a paper that discussed detectable characterstics of a simulated approximation of a universe, and then in the next message you said "I don't believe God would create a simulated approximation of a universe." I pointed out that, if this is the case, then your metaphysical claim is entirely unrelated to the papers you have been posting

Morbert wrote:

You are now talking about something very distinct from the paper you linked to, which is explicitly talking about a simulation that approximates a universe using a lattice, and that approximation might be detectable.

Your use of the word metaphysical also implies your definition of simulation has nothing to do with digital physics, and is instead more related to solipsism.

I then asked a follow-up question about why you believe a simulated universe is more satisfying, metaphysically speaking, than, say an indirect realist position. Your "moving the goal-posts" comment therefore doesn't make sense.

Or are you merely claiming it is possible that the universe might be a simulation, as your previous messages implied you were arguing that it is likely the universe is a simulation.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Or are you merely claiming it is possible that the universe might be a simulation, as your previous messages implied you were arguing that it is likely the universe is a simulation.

Thanks for clarifying morbert.

I am claiming the universe that we observe is most likely be a kind of simulation, perhaps the word simulation is not the correct one though, but I don't have a better word right now. It probably would be best if I described my complete metaphysical set of beliefs, and then let you rip that to pieces:)
I will do so as soon as I get a bit of time as it will be a longish post.

lmaopml

nagirrac wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying morbert.

I am claiming the universe that we observe is most likely be a kind of simulation, perhaps the word simulation is not the correct one though, but I don't have a better word right now. It probably would be best if I described my complete metaphysical set of beliefs, and then let you rip that to pieces:)
I will do so as soon as I get a bit of time as it will be a longish post.

I don't think that tearing an opinion apart is very constructive if it's not a reasonable approach.

I like the idea of sharing ideas - most people who propose a metaphysical interpretation of what is known naturally are always open to critics and always will be - Everett is a prime example of how a person proposes the simple and meets bias.

Nobody can possibly say he wasn't rational however - he was 'perfectly' rational - just like many others who will propose their own interpretation.

I know that I am a 'Catholic' and make no excuses for it and this may raise eyeballs and induce a kind of preconceived notion of what that means.

However, I still think that there is nothing like sharing ideas to 'chisel' another.

St. Thomas Aquinas is a real hero of mine because he is so very rational, so human, and not in the least uninformed as regards philosophy and nature - for that time and that period and for that understanding of what a human is - one imo couldn't study his equal.

Most people who explore the natural world learn best when their ideas are challenged and they are honest about that - I think that serves a great purpose too - being 'challenged'.

This is my 'philosophy' I guess. Getting 'chiselled' by others is not unwelcome, but most welcome, because most foundations are subject to earthquakes in this life.

Somebody may tear your theory apart, but it's perfectly ok to be honest about their intention and indeed to learn from it and to see where another is coming from I think.

I really enjoy honest and compelling dialogue, and I think Nagirrac and Morbert that your contribution is very welcome on this particular mega thread in this tiny arena on the net - because it's not point scoring but imo sharing of ideas - and I don't think one should ever be afraid to do that. There's no winner - just people talking. Cool!