God, a Bored IT Tech

[minorwork]

It is more logically feasible that "creation" is a simulation in a computer...as opposed to an arbitrary Christian god that commits genocide and has a favorite tribe I'm the ancient world. Does this not make more logical sense to you? While neither philosophy can be proven, at least the IT tech god doesn't mythically interfere in human affairs and slaughter first born children for the actions of a single pharaoh.

I think the truth is not amenable to logic and if it were the person would be driven to madness by it.

All you're doing is substituting one creator for another more of your liking.

Just because something is worshipped doesn't mean it makes any more sense than something which is worshipped. In fact, in our world, the more something is worshipped, the less logical sense it tends to make.

Come again with that first statement?????

And the second requires me to ascertain what you mean by worship before I can evaluate the statement.

[Night]

I think the truth is not amenable to logic and if it were the person would be driven to madness by it.

I respect your opinion but I personally disagree. I think that there is a reason for the existence of the universe, a logical reason. However big or hard to understand that reason actually is, I don't see why it would drive someone mad.

All you're doing is substituting one creator for another more of your liking.

Well I'm an atheist so I don't believe in any creator. But you haven't answered my actual point. Isn't my idea more logical than some undefinable god that reads the thoughts of every human and kills the first born sons in Egypt for the actions of a pharaoh?

Come again with that first statement?????

And the second requires me to ascertain what you mean by worship before I can evaluate the statement.

I meant to say "isn't worshipped" at the end of that sentence.

Worship, as in praise the creator and...well...have faith in his existence from a religious perspective.

[minorwork]

I respect your opinion but I personally disagree. I think that there is a reason for the existence of the universe, a logical reason. However big or hard to understand that reason actually is, I don't see why it would drive someone mad.

I understand completely. There was a time when I thought the same. All I can say is if that exploration of self, and it is self that we are really talking about, is pursued hard enough you're liable to find out that I was not just speculating.

Well I'm an atheist so I don't believe in any creator. But you haven't answered my actual point. Isn't my idea more logical than some undefinable god that reads the thoughts of every human and kills the first born sons in Egypt for the actions of a pharaoh?

Oh yes, you'll find it more logical up to a point, then you'll confront the paradoxes as all have and will.

I meant to say "isn't worshiped" at the end of that sentence.

Worship, as in praise the creator and...well...have faith in his existence from a religious perspective.

Ah, that's cheap worship. Typical of being Catholic raised. Those words are easy. I'm wondering if you worship anything? I figured the I.T. god was my best shot. But much depends on what we mean by worship. Most worship self by almost any meaning.

Worship, broadly IMO, can be a series of actions derived by conscious decisions based on a particular worldview. Whether a mythical text of revelation worldview, an I.T. G_d worldview derived from valid logical empirical science, or trying to emulate Arnold Palmer's decisions the worldview is critical to the concept of worship. But when there is no recognition of a particular worldview base appetites and desires seem sufficient to keep one alive. Is it such a stretch to allow that my concept of worship applies at the altar of hedonism?

But back on topic. Your speculation might be confirmed if we can make the virtual worlds sufficiently immediate that attention on survival there over-rides that of where the body itself resides. In the dream there is a blockage of the output neurons such that the dreambody's movement is not translated to that of the physical body. If the dream body can be considered the physical body's overbody and the physical body can be considered the underbody of the dream body, then can we find any evidence for the existence of the physical body's underbody? That would be the equivalent of Neo's attention under the influence of the red pill that released the inhibiting functions over his physical body. You'll have to find the red pill equivalent to allow the existence of other than this body that is typing these words. It is this physical body that resolves the conflicts in the moments of our existences. Show me one beneath this and I'll think you've got something. You'll have to show this reality.

[Runge]

It is more logically feasible that "creation" is a simulation in a computer...as opposed to an arbitrary Christian god that commits genocide and has a favorite tribe I'm the ancient world. Does this not make more logical sense to you? While neither philosophy can be proven, at least the IT tech god doesn't mythically interfere in human affairs and slaughter first born children for the actions of a single pharaoh.

If this world was merely a computer simulation, then no minds/persons exist within the simulation. Thus if this was true, then you do not have have a brain, Night. (Now, if minds exist, but they are somehow wired to a computer that generate a virtual world like the Matrix, then that's a different story.) So, the IT tech god doesn't interfere with human affairs, because humans don't exist to mess around with? Also, if this word is a computer simulation then everything is determined strictly by the IT Tech god's coding. So, all the suffering and events (killings, genocides, the bible) in his world is because some IT Tech god put it into the coding. So much for a god who doesn't interfere. Lastly, what explains the existence of the IT tech god and computer which simulated our IT tech god? Another one? There can't be an infinite regress of IT tech god's with computers. This silly idea, which I believe you think is a silly idea and means to mock the Christian God can neither ground being itself, nor the existence of human minds and will in our world.

[Night]

If this world was merely a computer simulation, then no minds/persons exist within the simulation. Thus if this was true, then you do not have have a brain, Night. (Now, if minds exist, but they are somehow wired to a computer that generate a virtual world like the Matrix, then that's a different story.)

That is simply not a logical train of thought. Our conscious minds are created by particles, right? Just atoms. Why can't a computer do the same thing? What is unique about consciousness making it the only thing which can't be simulated???

So, the IT tech god doesn't interfere with human affairs, because humans don't exist to mess around with? Also, if this word is a computer simulation then everything is determined strictly by the IT Tech god's coding. So, all the suffering and events (killings, genocides, the bible) in his world is because some IT Tech god put it into the coding. So much for a god who doesn't interfere.

Do you see my point now? This is less an actual belief...as a metaphor for religion. It shows that the creator is responsible for everything in his creation.

Lastly, what explains the existence of the IT tech god and computer which simulated our IT tech god?

Good question, but it's actually irrelevant. I am not putting forth an actual theory, it's just to show how ridiculous Christianity and other religions are. If they called this theory ridiculous, they'd have to ask themselves what exactly makes it any more ridicukous than their own beliefs. Because every issue they have with this theory can also be brought against Christianity as well.

Another one? There can't be an infinite regress of IT tech god's with computers.

Why not?

This silly idea, which I believe you think is a silly idea and means to mock the Christian God can neither ground being itself, nor the existence of human minds and will in our world.

I do believe it is a silly idea. But no more silly than any other arbitrary belief, including religion.

[Jack]

All you're doing is substituting one creator for another more of your liking.

Isn't that precisely what religions have done all along for the most part; take an existing belief system, add a new element that makes it more acceptable and/or appealing and start a new religion? That's certainly how Christianity and Islam began as well as monotheistic Judaism from the earlier polytheistic beliefs in the Middle East.

I must say that if we are all just characters in a computer simulation, the computers being used must predate any we have here now. That means they are older than IBM mainframes, older than SPARC from Sun, older than Babbage's analytical engine. You know what that implies. We're running on machines in turn running software that hasn't been upgraded in millions of years. No wonder there are so many bugs.

[Runge]

That is simply not a logical train of thought. Our conscious minds are created by particles, right? Just atoms. Why can't a computer do the same thing? What is unique about consciousness making it the only thing which can't be simulated???

No, you are assuming naturalism to be true. Moreover, if naturalism was true, then our minds are merely the non-purposeful movement of atoms in space, which give no reason to believe that our minds our uniform, credible, or rational. And regardless, even if our mind were merely atoms in motion that is very different then intelligent and purposeful computer coding.

Do you see my point now? This is less an actual belief...as a metaphor for religion. It shows that the creator is responsible for everything in his creation.

Yea, this doesn't seem like this was your idea in the original post since you did say this God wouldn't be interfering in human affairs. Anyways, granted if God exist, then all things are preordained by God; however, this does not mean man is not responsible for their actions. In a naturalistic word everything is determine by the mechanistic movement of atoms, leaving man without a will, or in other words, the power of choice and thus no human responsibility. However, with a proper understanding of will, that is, the power of choice, human will and responsibility can be established with a Sovereign. Man chooses what he wants most in every given moment,and because man makes choices and chooses what he wants, his actions properly reflect and belong to him and thus he is responsible for them. So, yes, God is able to orchestrate all things to fulfill his purpose and this includes the true choices of men. One must understand primary and secondary causes in regards to the will of God and the will of man God. Thus, with God, there is an explain for the self and for human responsibility, where naturalism is lacking.

Good question, but it's actually irrelevant. I am not putting forth an actual theory, it's just to show how ridiculous Christianity and other religions are. If they called this theory ridiculous, they'd have to ask themselves what exactly makes it any more ridicukous than their own beliefs. Because every issue they have with this theory can also be brought against Christianity as well.

It is irrelevant, it shows that your idea is fundamentally lacking and incoherent, whereas the idea of God is not. You do not have a proper idea God. God by definition cannot be created; God by definition is eternal. An infinite regress of causes makes no sense because it makes the movement from cause to effect impossible. However, the eternal God, who is the source of all power is capable of willing into being a temporal and contingent reality.

I do believe it is a silly idea. But no more silly than any other arbitrary belief, including religion.

This is incredibility presumptuous. You are assuming that belief in God is arbitrary, which is very arbitrary of you. If God exists, then God can reveal himself and thus give all the reason in the world for rational belief in him.

[Jack]

Moreover, if naturalism was true, then our minds are merely the non-purposeful movement of atoms in space, which give no reason to believe that our minds our uniform, credible, or rational.

Why does a natural origin rule out uniformity, credibility or rationality?

...granted if God exist, then all things are preordained by God; however, this does not mean man is not responsible for their actions.

How so? If all things are preordained by god then how can any mere mortal presume to act in any way contrary to god's plan? I'd say that makes mankind totally irresponsible for themselves, they're only behaving according to god's predetermined plan, not their own volition.

...then God can reveal himself and thus give all the reason in the world for rational belief in him.

Then we non-believers would be justified in asking why he doesn't.

[Night]

No, you are assuming naturalism to be true.

Do you have a logical reason to explain why everything science observes completely supports naturalism???

Moreover, if naturalism was true, then our minds are merely the non-purposeful movement of atoms in space, which give no reason to believe that our minds our uniform, credible, or rational.

Our minds are not uniform, credible, and generally are rational very rarely. Our minds are the purposeless movement of atoms.

And regardless, even if our mind were merely atoms in motion that is very different then intelligent and purposeful computer coding.

But why??? You seem to think that there is some special difference between consciousness and matter. There isn't.

Yea, this doesn't seem like this was your idea in the original post since you did say this God wouldn't be interfering in human affairs. Anyways, granted if God exist, then all things are preordained by God; however, this does not mean man is not responsible for their actions. In a naturalistic word everything is determine by the mechanistic movement of atoms, leaving man without a will, or in other words, the power of choice and thus no human responsibility. However, with a proper understanding of will, that is, the power of choice, human will and responsibility can be established with a Sovereign. Man chooses what he wants most in every given moment,and because man makes choices and chooses what he wants, his actions properly reflect and belong to him and thus he is responsible for them. So, yes, God is able to orchestrate all things to fulfill his purpose and this includes the true choices of men. One must understand primary and secondary causes in regards to the will of God and the will of man God. Thus, with God, there is an explain for the self and for human responsibility, where naturalism is lacking.

It seems that you need a lessen in physics. Even if the universe is deterministic, that doesn't mean that we don't have free will.

It is irrelevant, it shows that your idea is fundamentally lacking and incoherent, whereas the idea of God is not. You do not have a proper idea God. God by definition cannot be created; God by definition is eternal. An infinite regress of causes makes no sense because it makes the movement from cause to effect impossible. However, the eternal God, who is the source of all power is capable of willing into being a temporal and contingent reality.

Firstly, there is no god. There is absolutely no evidence that this loving-but genocidal, righteous-but jealous, creator of man-and killer of children, even exists.

If anything here is lacking, it is your argument. You still have not come up with one credible reason why my argument is somehow worse than an argument for god.

And you see what happened there? You said god is eternal. Why can't the universe be eternal too? Why did it need to be created? Just because there was a big bang didn't mean that something existed to cause it beforehand. Any argument that you use to justify the eternal nature of god can also be used to demonstrate that the universe could also be eternal, and not need a creator at all.

God does not exist. And if you think he does, prove it.

This is incredibility presumptuous. You are assuming that belief in God is arbitrary, which is very arbitrary of you. If God exists, then God can reveal himself and thus give all the reason in the world for rational belief in him.

Certainly, he could reveal himself, but he seems to enjoy this millenia-old game of hide-and-seek.

God is a concept by men, for men. The idea of god is ridiculous and illogical. The very idea of god doesn't make sense.

1. Did god create every single particle in the universe?
2. Did god set every particle in the universe in motion?
3. Can god see the future?

If you answered yes to all three questions, then humans cannot have free will if your god exists. That is because god knew every sin and decision you'd ever make before you even existed. How is that free will, if god know's he'll send you to hell before you're even born?

[Night]

I must say that if we are all just characters in a computer simulation, the computers being used must predate any we have here now. That means they are older than IBM mainframes, older than SPARC from Sun, older than Babbage's analytical engine. You know what that implies. We're running on machines in turn running software that hasn't been upgraded in millions of years. No wonder there are so many bugs.

Hahahaha! If only Apple made the computer that runs the universe, then everything would be great! :)

[Runge]

Why does a natural origin rule out uniformity, credibility or rationality?

Because there is no order or intelligence behind our mind or any of reality for that matter. Naturalism is a strong deterministic system and thus even our thoughts are determine by non-intelligent forces, that is, naturalistic ones.

How so? If all things are preordained by god then how can any mere mortal presume to act in any way contrary to god's plan? I'd say that makes mankind totally irresponsible for themselves, they're only behaving according to god's predetermined plan, not their own volition.

Our volition aligns with God's predetermined plan. Yes, God's predetermined plan is primary; however, that does not mean we do not have the power to make choices. The libertarian view of freewill is nonsense. (If you disagree I can explain why) With that being said, yes, we cannot make choices contrary to God's plan, however every choice we make is us acting on our wants at that moment. Thus, God is able to order and govern things, so that the choices we make according to our desires are choices that are also according to his plan. For example, men chose to murder Jesus; however, that was God's plan from the beginning. The intentions of the men who murdered Jesus were evil, but the intention of God for death of his Son was good, namely, to save people from their sin and to give them eternal life. Now, if you cannot understand how God could possibly order this word and how we could still make choices according to our nature and desire and thus be accountable, then it may just be the degree of finiteness of your intelligence. Please do not take this as an attack. I do not nearly comprehend it fully myself. I am merely pointing out that we as a race lack perfect understanding. If my three year old does not understand how the earth is spinning, since it seems to him that the ground is stable and fixed, it does not mean that the earth is then indeed fixed, nor that it is impossible for the earth to be spinning. Now, some my state that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is a logical contradiction, but it is not; rather, it is like my three year old concluding that the ground cannot look still and be moving at the same time.

Then we non-believers would be justified in asking why he doesn't.

God has, and not just some general view of God, but his very own divine nature and eternal power has been made plain to all men by what has been made. In order words, God has implanted the idea of himself into us through creation. The fault is not with God, but with man, for man by nature suppress the truth and thus are without excuse.

[LetThereBe]

Hahahaha! If only Apple made the computer that runs the universe, then everything would be great! :)

I am going to exercise the greatest restraint of my life and not turn this into an OS fanboy debate.