Dismiss Notice
Bellator London YouTube Prelims: Link Main card begins at 5:00 PM ET on the Bellator App.

The Greatest Argument For God in the World (not joking)

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by jokerthief, Dec 20, 2011.

  1. jokerthief

    jokerthief No reason to get excited. Site Donor

    Reputation:
    1,963,535,507
  2. ATJ-Lucko

    ATJ-Lucko Champ-Champ MMA Pick 'Ems World Champion

    Reputation:
    21,012,447,968
    I get what he is saying and it's possible, but then again there is no proof to back up his theory.

    Then the question comes back who created the creator?
     
  3. jokerthief

    jokerthief No reason to get excited. Site Donor

    Reputation:
    1,963,535,507
    You are absolutely correct Freak, this creates an infinite loop and there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

    Personally I think it would be pretty cool if we were all just simulations.
     
  4. foundstarr

    foundstarr Inspector SpaceTime Site Donor

    Reputation:
    842,304,057
    I like the idea of us being part of the makeup in a larger organism in an infinite collection of smaller beings making up larger ones.
     
  5. unforgivn

    unforgivn Nunquam Fidelis

    Reputation:
    8,135,027,390
    As soon as he started his "argument" by stating a premise that has to be accepted without justification, he failed.
     
  6. jokerthief

    jokerthief No reason to get excited. Site Donor

    Reputation:
    1,963,535,507
    He didn't mean it the way you took it. What he meant by that is that it's not a theory because it can't be falsified. It's just like any other religious argument in that sense. It's philosophy, not science. He sums up that point at the end.

    Read the last link that I posted. It's pretty short (2 pages) and does a better job of laying out the idea.

    I'm not saying it's true by any means. I just thought it was clever.
     
  7. Krazikarl

    Krazikarl Cthulhu fhtagn

    Reputation:
    1,262,516,997
    I'm willing to accept his premise, but he still has several problems:

    1) Its not a novel idea on several levels. First off, as he himself points out, he isn't really introducing much that is new. All that he is doing is rephrasing a traditional religious understanding of how the universe came to be with the language of modern technology.

    So he stole his premise from Arthur C Clarke:

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

    And used that to transform this:

    ""God made the world through magic"

    to

    "God made the world through technology".

    So nothing has really been added to the conversation. I disagree that this simple rephrasing of the statement gives us any meaningful insight into a creator.

    Its also not a novel argument because lots of people have made it before, I mean, did he just see The Matrix or something? Plus, it wasn't exactly a new idea when The Matrix came out in 1999.

    2) He really has problems with the idea that because something could have been made one way, that its plausible that it could have been made that way. I mean, humans can make crystals, but this does not imply that its really plausible that a random crystal found in the universe was made by a human. Similarly, while you might imagine sufficiently advanced technology that could create something that looked like our universe, this does not imply that the universe was actually made that way. He seems to kind of be aware of this logical problem, but he overplays his hand in a lot of places.

    3) He makes some pretty big assumptions about how time works. Specifically, he assumes that time works for any supposed creator in basically the same way that it works for us. Thats a big assumption given that time began at the Big Bang (according to our best cosmological theories), so there is no real reason to assume that time would work like it does here in some sort of creator universe.

    4) Yeah, he does have the old Bertrand Russell problem - who created the creators? Infinite recursion = bad.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
  8. unforgivn

    unforgivn Nunquam Fidelis

    Reputation:
    8,135,027,390
    Even allowing for that, his argument still only really boils down to an argument for the possibility that a god exists (which is not something that gets seriously disputed) and not for such a god's actual existence.
     
  9. Harlem Hustler

    Harlem Hustler Dont argue, I'm always right!

    Reputation:
    36,552,912
    This is just one big fallacious God of gaps argument for the Multiverse theory.
     
  10. Malevolence

    Malevolence ...TESTING POSITIVE FOR TURINABOL

    Reputation:
    39,480,820,521
    The whole premise of belief in God (any God you can name) is faith,you need to have faith in something like God for any of the belief structure to work. If God is proven to exist then the faith that his/her organized religion is based upon becomes null & void & the whole basis of belief in him/her because you want to believe & not that you are forced to in order to avoid going to hell,ceases to exist. Everyone would have to believe in God because he/she has been proven to exist,we would all simply become faithless followers of a fact,IF God exists he/she/it would never allow its existence to be proven for the aforementioned reasons. It's all in the hitch-hikers guide,look it up.
     
  11. ILJO

    ILJO Member Site Donor

    Reputation:
    19,902,028,786
    lol that's what I was thinking while I was watching the video.



    But the problem that I see with this idea is the same problem I see with every god argument. It comes down to faith in the unprovable. I mean, I find it more plausible than any religious story of creation, but that's not saying much. I suppose for the sake of making comparisons, it might be the best argument for a god-type figure. But that still doesn't amount to much imo. (EDIT: The least smelliest pile of shit is still a pile of shit, so to speak)

    It's interesting to think about the possibility, but it's not likely enough spend too much time worrying about it IMO. At least not presently. Maybe in the future when technology has evolved enough to give us a better understanding of the possibility and necessities involved in such an endeavor. But currently, it is just grasping at straws imo

    ---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------

    So what you're saying is that God would never prove his(/her/it's) own existence because then everyone would know that he existed?

    What's the point of hiding your existence (and in turn, eternal salvation) from people that you created? That's just being a douche for the sake of being a douche.

    But yeah, I know... god works in mysterious ways... I cannot begin to understand his reasons blah blah blah... his douchiness is actually just tests of faith etc. etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
  12. Frag x 3

    Frag x 3 everybody's friend

    Reputation:
    11,223,814
    I was hoping this wasn't going to be some write-up from jokerthief.... I was going to tell you to get some sleep.
     
  13. Malevolence

    Malevolence ...TESTING POSITIVE FOR TURINABOL

    Reputation:
    39,480,820,521
    Pretty much,he doesn't want to save all the people he created just the ones with unwavering faith in his unprovable existence...talk about ego.

    Btw I'm going to tell God you called him a douche.
     
  14. ILJO

    ILJO Member Site Donor

    Reputation:
    19,902,028,786
    So the omnipotent and omniscient god that already knows what I believe/will believe, which is due to a combination of my environment and genetic factors (which he controls), is going to punish me because the world he created and the circumstances he dictated led to my disbelief of his existence.

    Like I said - Douche!... UberDouche!

    Kick him in the nuts for me while you're at it
     
  15. Malevolence

    Malevolence ...TESTING POSITIVE FOR TURINABOL

    Reputation:
    39,480,820,521
    HaHAA! :) Or Vagina if it's a she (hermaphrodite is also possible)


    The fact that God needed a rest after 7 days labour always made me sceptical,what sort of God needs to take a nap anyhow?
     
  16. ILJO

    ILJO Member Site Donor

    Reputation:
    19,902,028,786
    I looked all over for an embeddable sound clip or video of this but I couldn't find one.

    It's "the mole" from the south park movie lol

    http://downloads.southparkstuff. com/sounds/movie/blu_203.mp3


    edit: god damn it the link wasn't working so I had to put a space in there. It's at the ".com" part so just copy and paste and delete the space if anyone cares (which I'm sure no one does).
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
  17. jokerthief

    jokerthief No reason to get excited. Site Donor

    Reputation:
    1,963,535,507
    I'm big into transhumanism, so that's why this appeals to me. I could totally see a post-singularity AI run a simulation of a universe. Bostrom's idea (the guy who wrote the paper, not the guy in the video) is intriguing because if cosmological evolution always eventually leads to a technological singularity, and the AI always chooses to emulate a universe, the probability is that we are in fact in a simulation and we will create our own technological singularity, which will then run a simulation of another universe in which cosmological evolution will create a technology-creating creature that will create its own singularity which will simulate another universe, etc--this would go on indefinitely until the original universe suffers from heat death and all the simulations stop.

    Btw, this idea has nothing to do with spirituality or with god really. I think the guy in the video (and I definitely was) being a little tongue-in-cheek. The real question is will we destroy ourselves before we create a technological singularity or not. I think that one is a coin-flip.
     
  18. Malevolence

    Malevolence ...TESTING POSITIVE FOR TURINABOL

    Reputation:
    39,480,820,521
    Joker,that deep a level of thought is so far beyond anything my tiny brain can conceive of,it's actually scarey amazing & deeply humbling that someone thought that up. I guess that's why I work in a print shop instead of a philosophy factory.


    I care,I care a lot! That scene is Gold!!!
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
  19. ILJO

    ILJO Member Site Donor

    Reputation:
    19,902,028,786
    Well the whole concept of a singularity isn't really even accepted, yet. But given that it will happen, why is it that the AI must always "choose to emulate a universe?" And how could we know this already?

    ---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------

    lol I know, I love that part. Cracks me up every time
     
  20. jokerthief

    jokerthief No reason to get excited. Site Donor

    Reputation:
    1,963,535,507
    It's actually the other way around if I understand Bostrom correctly. Here's his conclusion:

    I've only just stumbled upon this and I've only read Bostrom's 2 page summery of his academic paper on the subject, so I haven't looked at the math in his paper--nor would I probably be able to understand it since I have only a cursory understanding of probability.

    ---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

    This is not true of physicists and computer scientists.
     

Share This Page