Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ Kgp4life
Your "argument" is a misrepresentation of Nick Bostrom's Conclusion from his "Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?" article published in Philosophical Quarterly 2003 Vol 53 No.211, pp 243-255, which I understand is the basis of the "Simulation Argument" wherein he wrote:
I have to emphasise at this point that the term "posthuman" is a term borrowed from science fiction that literally means a person or entity that exists in a state beyond being human, like a robot or computer which really doesnt help to enhance any hope for a rational discussion about reality here. Anyway....
You wrote:
(1) all species are very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage and no species has gotten there before us.
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of games/simulations.
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
(This is almost certainly a deliberate misrepresentation, as per Bostrom, it is only true if the proposition "(3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.
You are ignoring the qualification of Bostrom's proposition beginning with the important qualifying word "if" is true without evidence. So really, all you are presenting is your personal opinion.
So regarding your irrefutable proof for god, your summary states that,
"if any species ever got/gets the power to run such simulations"
(Made impossible with propositions No.1 and No.2)
"there is a near 100% chance we are in one"
(Highly speculative and only true if "(3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one." How the hell do you expect to measure this?!)
"which means a near 100% chance it is a creation, which means it is a near 100% chance it was created, which means it is a near 100% chance there is a creator, which by default has 100% of God properties......"
(All of which is absolutely 100% pure speculation and opinion...and leaves you no closer to proving the existence of your god or anyone elses.)
I get the distinct impression you only wish we existed in a program so you could be right about your god. The Simulation Argument is simply a philosophical diversion full of qualifying "if"s and more recent research proves its no longer meaningful.
If you are honestly committed to finding truth you might want to consider this "physicists-say-we-definitely-arent-living-in-a-computer-simulation" where another Oxford team have concluded in 2017 that the whole idea of perceiving this reality as a computer simulation is simply physically and materially impossible.
For more obtuse and difficult to follow details I offer the original submission by Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi
And I advise you not to mess with the Zohar.
Further, nearly everything in your opening paragraph is mere uninformed theist opinion.
I am no intellectual and only consider myself an atheist with an honest layman's interest in evolutionary biology and my reading of the most recent research shows mutations are much more frequent than was understood several decades ago and much of it is much more conducive to beneficial adaptions than was originally thought. It has also been established through genetic studies that a beneficial mutation can be distributed throughout a population group within a few generations rather than billions of years. You should read up on that because I'm not writing you a book either.
The teleological concept and the argument for fine tuning are long defunct arguments that have no bearing on current understandings of biology or cosmology and now only serve as topics for theological philosophy discussion groups.
I personally don't "fall back to parrallel universes or something"(sic), such things are far too theoretical (like theology) and mathematical for my limited understanding. I am happy to consider anything up to Planck Time, beyond that everything else is pure conjecture (like theology).
edited...I forgot to mention you will never prove the existence of a god with arguments, even those way better than you offered here.
Go perform a miracle and get back to us with the media evidence or just be happy you think you are best buddies with the creator of the universe. i wont be jealous.
@killertricyclist
"Here is "my" irrefutable proof of god."
Not just opinion,...that is a clear god claim.
@ Grinseed
"do not mess with Zohar"....it seems that is very sound advice....on everything else we are agreed as well!
This KgP person is trying to make a silk purse from a very sad old sow's ear, and he has yet to learn to sew.
@ KgP
Which "top well known scientists"? I can't find any "Top Well Known Scientists" who claim this unpublished hypotheses is more accurate than any competing theory.
BTW Nick Bostrum is a Swedish philosopher....NOT a scientist.
Here is a quote from a well known philosopher (again NOT a scientist) (thanks to built in .com) New York University philosophy professor David Chalmers has described the being responsible for this hyper-realistic simulation we may or may not be in as a “programmer in the next universe up,” perhaps one we mortals might consider a god of some sort — though not necessarily in the traditional sense. “[H]e or she may just be a teenager,” Chalmers said, “hacking on a computer and running five universes in the background… But it might be someone who is nonetheless omniscient, all-knowing and all-powerful about our world.”
Note: NOT EVIDENCE FOR GOD as I have already explained.
Elucidate please your comment that "observable experiments are quite inline with theory"
Also explain (this I would love to see and applaud you when you claim your Nobel for science) how it explains "quantum weirdness"
Here two scientists (quite famous in their field have to say about the hypotheses...they debunk it :
Might as well just throw everything out the window if that is your measurement.
You are making the claims sunshine, up to you to back them up. So far you have only quoted what YOU say is an outdated website and merely quoted what you THINK you heard and saw on Youtube.
That suggests to me that you have utterly failed to research any of the YOUTUBE claims yourself but are merely excited at a half digested video you have a quarter understood.
EDIT: tabs
@ Tinman
I wrote
"I have to emphasise at this point that the term "posthuman" is a term borrowed from science fiction that literally means a person or entity that exists in a state beyond being human, like a robot or computer which really doesnt help to enhance any hope for a rational discussion about reality here. Anyway...."
I regret posting that, no offense, ok? I really don't think of you as 'posthuman' anymore than I think of Cog as "prehuman". Hope we're good.
Atheism isn't a belief, it is the lack or absence of belief in a deity or deities. I don't believe in any deities because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for the belief. I don't start by believing all claims until I have an alternative, that's absurdly irrational.
You seem to be starting with the belief and then moulding facts to fit it, when a rational honest intellectual approach (as you put it) demands the opposite, that we mould our beliefs to fit the available evidence.
Since you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity, and the claim it created everything has no explanatory powers whatsoever, how did you arrive at the conclusion that this belief is more probable than purely natural phenomena we don't yet understand, when we know for an objective fact that natural phenomena are possible and do exist?
It should be obvious that things we know are possible are more probable than those we don't know are possible.
This irrational cart in front of your horse approach, seems very much in vogue with religious apologists at the moment, but it's quite obviously just a facile attempt to reverse the burden of proof.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Start there...
No sorry, I don't understand this at all. We know for an objective fact that random mutations form part of evolution, and that the forces of natural selection mean mutations beneficial to surviving long enough to reach breeding age are by definition more likely to passed on. So you seem to be denying an objectively evidenced scientific fact.
I also don't see that this has anything at all to do with atheism, so you will have to explain why you are aiming this erroneous denial of scientific fact at atheists?
Well that's an unevidenced assumption not an argument, you'd need to evidence that those narrow parameters were fine tuned, and couldn't occur naturally, just because you are also assuming the odds make it unlikely (I note you offer nothing here to quantify how unlikely, or unlikely compared to what exactly?), this doesn't mean they are in fact fine tuned. Fine tuned by what exactly, a deity? Well this is pure assumption now, what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support that assumption? Natural processes are a fact, supernatural forces are not evidenced at all, so which of those explanation is more likely in your "honest intellectual" opinion?
The fine tuning argument as put forth by religitards goes like "the natural constants are such-and-such, if they were any different, universe as we know it here and now wouldn't exist, therefore god". This is the classic anthropocentric argument, in which the universe exists for us to live, to eat, to fuck, and to submit to a egocentric and tyrannical non-observable god-person. What they are missing here is that they are only ASSERTING that there couldn't exist life with the natural constants any different. It probably wouldn't be life *as we know it*, but it could be something different.
The real solution to the fine tuning so-called argument is to turn the causality arrow 180 degrees. We are here and can observe the universe because the natural constants are what they are. If they were significantly different, the universe would be another place entirely, and we wouldn't be here to make up religions. In short: We are here because the universe happen to be the way it is. Not that the universe came into existence with just the right parameters to enable life as we know it. In a hypothetical parallel universe with other natural constants hostile to life, there would probably not be any intelligent beings to ask such questions, and the whole "argument" would be moot. It's all a matter of causality, not statistics or improbability.
Another delusional crackpot that is the talking embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect.
In my experience it's never a good sign, when a theist uses your to mean you are.
@Kgp4life: Welcome to the Jungle. I'm late to the show but lets go back and look at what you have to say...
Well, you are not off to a very good start. Random mutation is not "random." but I digress and will endeavor to avoid the entire evolutionary argument by just giving it to you. YOU WIN EVOLUTION IS A FARCE. IT IS A COMPLETE LIE. SCIENCE IS PLOTTING AGAINST US. IT IS BULLSHIT FROM THE GROUND UP. NO GOOD EVIDENCE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION. NONE.
OKAY, what's next. Can you demonstrate that your god exists now that we have pushed evolution aside for you?
WELL, IT APPEARS YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT.... LET'S SEE.....
Simulation Argument 1 must be true (I have more don't worry)
(1) all species are very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage and no species has gotten there before us.
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of games/simulations.
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
1. HUH? Posthuman?? Posthuman or post-human is a concept originating in the fields of science fiction, futurology, contemporary art, and philosophy that literally means a person or entity that exists in a state beyond being human. What are you talking about? WE are not POSTHUMAN. Are you referring to all the other species of humans, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, or Homo heidelbergensis? *I think there are a couple more considerations as well.*
BUT I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT YOU WIN THE EVOLUTION DEBATE, HANDS DOWN. I DON'T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON. I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION. ITS ONE BIG JOKE. THE JOKE IS ON ME. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE YOUR GOD EXISTS.
3. 2 was a waste of time. WE ARE LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? Well FUCK ME! THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING. It has nothing to do with a GOD but it sure explains where my toilet paper has been vanishing to.
SO INANE BULLSHIT EXPLAINS GOD. AND WE ARE IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION. WELL THE FUCKTARD WHO'S CONTROLLING MY ASS IS GOING TO GET A REAL SHIT CHEWING WHEN I GET OUTTA HERE. FUCK THAT ASSHOLE. HE HAS RUINED MY LIFE AND I COULD HAVE BEEN AN UBERMAN! FUCKING FUCKTARD.
I ALWAYS LOVE THE 'ANY IDIOT CAN UNDERSTAND THIS' APPROACH TO PROVING GOD. " Anybody that has studied the subject understands the universe has been tested and found to be digital and not analog,"
The fucking universe is digital....... Oooooooo! I suppose that is going to be a lot more impressive after I smoke a few banana peels.
I will get back to you guys but answering a few questions you guys had. Frist off one God multiple Gods AI God Posthuman God.....I am not sure any of that matters, an entity of some kind with basic attributes of God, no magic but by default as a result of creation of a Game and being outside of that games time/space/matter. So lets say you evalute 1000 years of game in five minutes then tewind and playback a protion of the simulation....point is our simulated spacevtime has no coorelation to real space time. As for the claims it would be impossible, most of those aurguments assume you need/want to evalute every particle in the universe which I already said you would not have to do...all you would have to do is have an AI and control inputs and outputs. Also someone said eveloutionary processes make things, which they do not....Evolution or survival of the fittest just picks between 2 already existing things...2 species picks one mutation is actually the only mechinisum that would produce new different dna. So Evolution makes less of things that already exist and random mutation would make more diversity. I will try to reply after work more completely.
Please remove that plagiarized stuff from the AR website first, just replace it with a link to the original or something. If you don't remove it, I'll have to; and we don't want that.
@Nyar
"If you don't remove it, I'll have to; and we don't want that"
"We"?
Speak for yourself sonny. I've been bored with it since its first post.
Two warnings so far? Certainly much fairer than I've ever been treated on a Christian forum--all I did was ask a perfectly simple question.--- I think it was "Of course you can prove that?"
@Kgp4life
Well that was a painful tortuous read. I think I know the answer before I ask, as this pattern of posting is only too depressingly familiar, but is there any chance at any point that you will present any objective evidence for any of your bizarre claims?
That's a lie, it was you who used the word create not me. Here is your claim verbatim
I never used the word create in my reply, and here it is verbatim:
I even qualified my response with the words seem to be denying, emboldened for all to see. So your dishonesty is clear.
And what objective evidence can you demonstrate for this god like entity? How do you claim to know a deity possess such attributes exactly? So far you have offered absolutely no objective evidence, instead your arguments are filled with unevidenced assumption, and hubristic rhetoric.
No it doesn't, that's demonstrably incorrect, less complex organisms have over time evolved into more complex organisms, so it's an absurd claim. Though it's not clear why evolution is even remotely relevant to your bizarre claims.
@Kgp4life
Is your keyboard broken? I mean "aurguments sic" is bad enough, but "mechinisum sic" is just offensively execrable spelling.
FYI Evolution is an objective scientific fact, your denials of it are therefore meaningless.
I edited it for you...I was expecting to talk to someone already familiar with topic....I will reply later, not that you guys care.
@ Kgp4life
I do not care because you have made unevidenced proposals.
You state we live in a simulation. Prove it.
@kgp4life...
Let’s say you’re “right”.
OK - no objective proof in this simulation. No way of knowing. No way of arguing god into or out of existence.
Now what?
I still only have the “tools” this simulation provides. I still have to eat, sleep and interact with others within the system (I haven’t been programmed to consciously manipulate the quantum field).
I can imagine being only consciousness and this is all in my mind OR I’m a computer simulation OR I’ve just been brought into existence and all my “memories” have been programmed OR a god created everything in 6 literal days OR ...endless speculation.
You know what I do?
I rely on the tools in this reality to provide a grounding to “what is real” (ie effects me). I rely on the evidence provided in this reality to form my worldview (ie evolution, germ theory, gravity, technology, etc)... if this reality didn’t want me to form my “worldview” based on a high level/standard of evidence, then why is the simulation providing it?
You may be “right” and can’t prove it.
I withhold belief until there is a high standard of evidence AND an application to human society for such a worldview.
I withhold belief in a god/future scientists/aliens/timetravel/parallel universes, etc for the same reasons.
Therefore I am atheist (regarding god) and apply this same principle/skepticism to science (interesting hypothesis, but do not “believe”) UNTIL this reality offers up evidence.
What benefit is it to you, personally, to be a theist and believe you are in a simulation?
@ Kgp4
"I expected to debate with soemone familiar with the theory" It is NOT a theory it is a philosophical hypotheses. Invented by a PHILOSOPHER.
Once again you prove your unfamiliarirty with the correct terms.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the hypotheses in detail and it's many (though accidental rebuttals) by actual scientists.
Happy to debate the subject if you could answer my previous points....
NARRATOR: Well it's been and exciting night down here at the Atheist Republic.
@ Kgp4life asserts that "Atheists have beliefs" but then turns around and accuses them of all being too stupid to share his beliefs before bowing out, likely to never return considering the thrashing he has received. Still, his ego may prevent him from seeing facts and he may be dumb enough to believe his own inane assertion. We all may be too dumb to understand anything he said. Well, that's it from the streets, back to Tin Man in the News Room!
(Before reading any other responses...)
Re: OP
What the fluckity-fluck-flick-flack-flocking-foul-fart-flavored-flim-flam was THAT babbling nonsense?!?!?... *shaking head to reset the circuits*... For what it's worth, though, I think I've spotted a glitch in the Matrix... *discretely pointing toward writer of OP*.... Oh, and I do agree it is silly to believe in atheism. Personally, I believe it is hard not to believe that other people don't believe in the beliefs of others.... *suddenly holding sides of head*... *wincing in pain*... Ow... Dammit... Where are my aspirin?...
@Tin-man
Is our new little Friend K something:
(a) From the planet Kpax ? (The name starting with "K"is a dead give away)
(b) A stroke victim?
(c ) A common or garden variety apologist wilful ignoramus **?
(d) A common or garden variety troll?
My money is on a combination of at least two. Regardless, can't be bothered with it.
Think I'll have my third demitasse. (It's 0715 Saturday 6 June here, and I've been up for an hour.)
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
*** The term 'ignoramus' is purely descriptive, not a personal insult. Viz;
"ignoramus; noun
ig·no·ra·mus | \ ˌig-nə-ˈrā-məs also -ˈra- \
plural ignoramuses also ignorami\ ˌig-nə-ˈrā-mē also -ˈra- \
Definition of ignoramus
: an utterly ignorant person : DUNCE"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoramus
@Cranky Re: "Is our new little Friend K something: (a) From the planet Kpax ? (The name starting with "K"is a dead give away)"
No way he is from K-Pax. K-Paxians are actually intelligent. Prot was a good indication of that.... *thinking*.... Hmmmm... Unless, however, K-Pax also has its fair share of village idiots, and there is a K-Pax village recently missing its assigned idiot.
@Tin-man
"No way he is from K-Pax. K-Paxians are actually intelligent."
Yair but, old Kev Spacey has blotted his copy book since then. I was probably thinking of him.
Besides, I accept that it takes an average IQ to find your way here and to use a keyboard.Not sure about cutting and pasting the work of others then claiming it for oneself. I think that really only takes a certain innate dishonesty. You know, that which we see regularly with the apologist nitwits we get here. **
** I'm not saying all apologists are nitwits. But I must admit it's hard to over look William Lane Crane, Ray Comfort, Little Kirky Cameron, Ken Ham and of course Mike Pence. Saves so much time to assume they are all nitwits and apologise later if one is mistaken. Haven't needed to apologise yet.
PS I forgot to mention a kind of low animal cunning often encountered in apologists ,such as those I've just mentioned.
@Tin: I heard that when Village Idiots die they go to K-Pax.
@ Kpg4life
"(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation."
You need to prove this. It doesn't follow from Bostrom's argument. You have dismissed his qualifiers and taken only what fits your speculations.
Unless you can prove we are living in a computer simulation, you leave everyone with the impression you are just making stuff up.
I've worked with people who could perform very complicated mathematical equations in their heads and insist their solution was correct, without showing the work. They usually were, but in the end they had to show their proofs; its how maths, engineering and science work.
"So in summary if any species ever got/gets the power to run such simulations there is a near 100% chance we are in one which means a near 100% chance it is a creation which means it is a near 100% chance it was created which means it is a near 100% chance there is a creator which by default has 100% of God properties......"
Possibly, maybe, perhaps, if....who knows? This is so tenuous I can't even care because as far as I can see it has no bearing whatsoever on reality. It's a complicated fiction. And it's begging for a solid application of Occam's Razor.
'Computer simulation', 'brains in a vat', or even the old mediaeval 'demons in my mind', it has no value if I cant prove it or identify any meaningful application to my life. Descartes went through all this 400 years ago. Unless you're pushing something better, I'll stick with "dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum".
Maybe take this to a sci-fi or philosophy forum? In this reality, we're just godless atheists who use computers.
@cranky47 sorry I missed your original post.....objective reality as not just in your head. I could care less if you are not saying anything not outside of your head is what i meant. I am not making claims of "goodness" in this argument. I am simply saying how is the programmer of world of warcraft with real ai not the god of AI WOW. (he is out side of wow space time, he made it he can do what ever he like in WOW and can track anything he likes through logs and possibly playback for example, If it is simulation style he may be able to execute 1000 years of wow and then rewind and do whatever he likes.
@Old Man shoots also answer above as it seems like you are not getting The programmer of AI WOW has God like qualities. "And if it’s impossible to simulate a quantum computer, forget about simulating the universe"....all you are simulating is neural input to consciousness ie neural signals corresponding to video/sound/touch why would one need anything quantum for that....Not getting your point.
@sheldon "It should be obvious that things we know are possible are more probable than those we don't know are possible." so what are you denying we can simulate real AI even if we simulate every neuron in the brain? If that is not what you are saying what Part of AI WOW do we know is impossible. "So you seem to be denying an objectively evidenced scientific fact." no i am saying people use the word evolution as "magic to make thing probable" evolution consist of natural selection which is pointing a gun at 99 species and leaving one (not creating anything) and random mutation (ie monkeys rolling 4d dice over and over until something good comes out).....I am simply saying rolling dice to make a new dna beneficial sequence never seen before is a lot of rolling (I do not think there even evidence of a new beneficial sequence randomly created ever recorded, sure moving a sequence form here to there and manipulating gene expression based on breeding for example but I have not seen any paper claiming that a new gene sequence that did useful things was witnessed and recorded......my point is it is very very unlikely.
I tried to respond to all debate related comments. So it still seems to me big bang/evolution is still quite improbable can someone tell me why it is more probable than I am assuming and why it reaches a probability close enough the simulation argument to at least make the theories probabilistic equivalent?
Kgp4life...you missed my comment/question to you...
The “simulation” provides the evidence.
When I play Skyrim, my character, from his point of view, believes in dragons because there is tangible evidence for the character to believe (he can ride it; the dragon can fight; the dragon can speak/respond; other characters can engage it with my character).
Our “simulation” provides the evidence. Evolution evidence. “Big Bang” evidence. “Gravity”
evidence.
So unless you can prove from within the simulation, that we are in a simulation ... I’ll go with what is evident instead of imaginative probability.
Have you spent any time examining evolution evidence within the simulation?
@ Kgp
Yopu made several; claims that you have still not answered: Whic "Top scientists" and what experiments? Where are the published papers available? If you were making this up then admit it.
In your response above "And if it’s impossible to simulate a quantum computer, forget about simulating the universe"....all you are simulating is neural input to consciousness ie neural signals corresponding to video/sound/touch why would one need anything quantum for that....Not getting your point." If we are indeed in a simulation then quantum physics would be part of our simulation....and has been explained and debunked in the same paragraph of my first response you would need a computer at least the size of the universe that we know to track a mere 11 electrons. That's my point.
Yopu seem to think that this entire "simulation" nonsense is real. At what point will you actually realise that it is a philospher's brain exercise? IT IS NOT REALITY. It is the brain fart of a middling philosopher with time on his hands.
You have watched a Youtube video and failed to realise this. You also, evidently have failed to use the video as a signpost to the published documents where Nick Bostrum EXPLAINS THIS IN TEDIOUS DETAIL.
I am happy to debate you, but if you make claims you WILL BE CALLED OUT ON THEM. That is a debate!
Pages