# Indefensible position 1 Have Bad News for Atheists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 15, 2015, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080 "2015-05-15T00:41:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/21 "2015-05-15T01:40:33Z")
So, let me get this straight… This is an attempt to get around the teleological argument by making a teleological argument? I’m pretty sure this argument (or similar) pops up pretty much all the time by stoned sophomores. The argument is nowhere near as smart as it appears to the person who made it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/22 "2015-05-15T01:49:21Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > So, let me get this straight… > > This is an attempt to get around the teleological argument by making a teleological argument? > > I’m pretty sure this argument (or similar) pops up pretty much all the time by stoned sophomores. The argument is nowhere near as smart as it appears to the person who made it. Nick Bostrum who I linked to, and whose argument this is is a professor of philosophy at Oxford University, and he seems to have provoked some serious thought and debate with it. People who post condescending comments without bothering to check supporting links often find there sarcastic quips are nowhere near as clever as they thought. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/23 "2015-05-15T01:54:53Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If Hinduism is the real religion, then Christians were still wrong. If the claims made in Christianity are all utterly wrong because we live in a simulation, then Christianity is utterly wrong. > > A simulation doesn’t mean there is a God. It means there is a controlling entity that is Himself subject to whatever physical laws exist in the actual universe He resides in. > > So, I get that you think you’re being glib, but you’re utterly wrong and this thread is shitty. > > What have you demonstrated? > > When I lose, I’ll let you know. \<3 This is an awesome argument. Every religion can be right, but as long as at least one is wrong than God doesn’t look like what you thought he would and therefore as an atheist you are correct. You have just gone from conceding one God to conceding many (do the the rest of the atheists know you are arguing on their behalf? They are gonna pissed.) Congratulations you are now a polytheist atheist! I think that’s pretty cool and unique. It must be a proud and lonely thing to be a polytheist atheist. Ha ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/24 "2015-05-15T02:09:57Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > This is an awesome argument. Every religion can be right, but as long as at least one is wrong than God doesn’t look like what you thought he would and therefore as an atheist you are correct. My argument is awesome. But apparently you are having trouble understanding it. A religion is a set of assertions. If literally none of the assertions of Christianity is correct, aside from someone being really powerful somewhere, that’s not a point in favor of Christians. Your position is nonsense, and being smarmy isn’t a suitable replacement for intelligent debate. > [@](#): > > You have just gone from conceding one God to conceding man I’ve conceded nothing. You’re gratuitously asserting drivel and I’m pointing out that your thinking is muddy and incoherent. > [@](#): > > (do the the rest of the atheists know you are arguing on their behalf? They are gonna pissed.) I only speak for myself. And in that capacity, I point out that your position is fucking goofy. > [@](#): > > Congratulations you are now a polytheist atheist! No, I’m not. And don’t disingenuously congratulate me. > [@](#): > > I think that’s pretty cool and unique. It must be a proud and lonely thing to be a polytheist atheist. Again, nonsense assertions because you’re unable to follow the gist of the argument. This isn’t you winning. This is you standing, covered in shit, convinced that you just came out smelling like a rose. > [@](#): > > Ha For instance. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/25 "2015-05-15T02:17:37Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your position is nonsense, and being smarmy isn’t a suitable replacement for intelligent debate. It’s not my argument. It’s this guy’s > **[Nick Bostrom’s Home Page](https://nickbostrom.com/)** > > Oxford philosopher (videos, papers, interviews, bio, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/26 "2015-05-15T02:19:24Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > For the sake of argument, I deny all of them in favor of this alternative. There will be simulations in the future, but most not complex enough to quite pass as the world we know. The few that are will be incredibly expensive and almost monopolistic in administration, and will not have resources put into making nested credible sub-simulations. So we have a 75% chance at best of being in such a simulation. > > And that’s just as reasonable as any of the three you submitted. That’s a good objection. I’m introducing the idea here. Check the link and I think you’ll see this addressed. It’s a fun and interesting read. ---
**Author:** ![Teach-me-not](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a4c791/32.png) [@Teach-me-not](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Teach-me-not)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/27 "2015-05-15T02:26:20Z")
I haven’t read through the thread yet, so maybe this has already been mentioned. Even if we did live in a simulation, what difference does it make? It’s not like Mario prays to me for protection at the start of the game, or something. > [@Scylla](#): > > Leo Dicaprio might be God. Ya, he is the king of the world, after all. And, in that _Titanic_ scene, his pose vaguely resembles Christ the Redeemer. That’s it, [DiCaprio is Jesus!](http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ejc/jesus.html) 😉 ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/28 "2015-05-15T02:49:32Z")
If I don’t happen to believe in electrons, does this computer still work? If I don’t happen to believe in computers, have I still written this post? If I don’t happen to believe in **Scylla** , might he still read this post? If I don’t happen to believe in who- or whatever made this supposed simulation, do I need to in order for the simulation to exist? ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/29 "2015-05-15T03:23:50Z")
So…if I understand what the OP is saying, all reality is a simulation, so fine-grained that we are incapable of distinguishing it from reality. And the person running the sim is God. So that would be an non-falsifiable thesis. And we would have no way of knowing any of the attributes of God, so any statements about him, or her, or it, would have no truth-value that we could determine. **Trinopus** called it - the answer is “so what?” ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/30 "2015-05-15T03:38:35Z")
**Scylla** , you know better. You can’t just go eating any old mushrooms you find growing in the yard. ---
**Author:** ![buckgully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb9ed0/32.png) [@buckgully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buckgully)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/31 "2015-05-15T04:37:00Z")
The problem with Scylla’s interpretation of the argument is that the actual paper only discusses ‘god’ in one paragraph, and only in passing an aside in the discussion of stacked levels of simulation. So, while it is proposed that the creators of the simulation we find ourselves in (a point I’m not willing to concede, but am willing to entertain for the sake of argument) represent ‘gods’ to us, as they would be able to manipulate the simulation in ways contrary to the laws internal to the simulation (again, not something that’s obviously true, but for argument’s sake), they themselves may only be simulations in a yet larger simulation. So while Yahweh(N) might be, to us, a god that loves us, cares about our eternal souls, and wants us to burn witches, Yahweh(N-1) might be a collection of psychically linked rainbow trout who were trying to create a really cool simulation of a babbling brook full of freshly hatched mayflies, but failed miserably because rainbow trout suck at writing code. And the TroutGod might have a god above them, and another, and another, 20 goto 10. In other words, it’s simulations all the way down. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/32 "2015-05-15T04:53:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You want me to chew on Leonardo DiCaprio? > > I can get behind that. Funny, because that’s where he lost me. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/33 "2015-05-15T05:03:57Z")
To take the OP more seriously, the argument seems to require that a simulation be indistinguishable from the reality which contains it. And I can’t accept that as a given. The only way a simulation could indistinguishable from reality would be if the simulation contained the same amount of information. And how could a single reality contain a large number of simulations, each holding as much information as the reality? More plausibly, the hypothetical simulations described in the OP would function like all other simulations have - they would only contain a small fraction of the information that the holding reality contains. Enough to fulfill the purposes of whatever entity is running the simulation but no more. An entity who wants to simulate having sex on the beach with supermodels doesn’t need to simulate the entire universe. By their nature, simulations are just scaled down models of reality. So sentient beings contained within the simulation could search for and find the limits. If they look hard enough they’re going to run into a place where the simulation stops. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/34 "2015-05-15T05:18:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > To take the OP more seriously, the argument seems to require that a simulation be indistinguishable from the reality which contains it. And I can’t accept that as a given. The only way a simulation could indistinguishable from reality would be if the simulation contained the same amount of information. And how could a single reality contain a large number of simulations, each holding as much information as the reality? . . . But we don’t know how much information is contained in the next-level-up reality. If it’s just a typical spacetime continuum like ours, with so many chemical elements, etc., then, yeah, there’s a problem. But it might be a nine-dimensional hyperfractal place with a vastly greater density of information. They are to us, as we are to an 8-bit game of Mario Brothers. We’re not only a sim, but a dumbed-down one. It’s all nonfalsifiable nonsense, of course, but that’s part of the problem: we can’t really make any sensible conclusions about the land that is home to the simmers. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/35 "2015-05-15T05:22:05Z")
What if every atom is a universe? What if our entire universe is an atom in a giant’s finger nail? What if that giant is a bigger you and reality is one huge fractal? Then we’re all gods, man. Far out. Since when is the runner of a simulation a god? I know some people rather admire him, but I don’t think Gabe Newell is a deity under most definitions. I fail to see how a god making a simulation versus making a universe helps the theist’s cause. What’s the practical difference that’s supposed to make atheists fall on their knees and shout hosannas? Aliens aren’t gods either. As an aside, in these sort of debates it doesn’t really matter if the simulation is indistinguishable from reality or not. For all we know this is a shoddy, second rate simulation and reality is way more interesting and complex. How would we know either way? We’re just ignorant constructs who can’t step outside the program. Its fidelity only matters if you’re inserting people from reality who cares how faithful it is. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/36 "2015-05-15T06:16:09Z")
2003 thread on Bostrum paper: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=226502](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=226502) > [@](#): > > 1. The human race will never reach the point where it is capable of making a simulation indistinguishable from reality > > 2. Humans or post humans capable of such will have no interest in running historical simulations. > > 3. We are almost surely living in a simulation. ## I don’t discount number 2. Detailed historical simulations may be expensive and it may be cheaper to run simpler simulations that aren’t as granular as the world we perceive around us. (Crossposted!) Also, Christian and Islamic doctrine says God is mysterious. So if there’s a creator it’s a win for theism, if not for dogmatism. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/37 "2015-05-15T06:40:46Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Note: I think I remember reading somewhere a series of articles called “Indefensible Postion” where the author made fun, off the wall arguments. They were tounge in cheek but thought provoking. I can’t find them now, and they were so long ago I don’t know if I imagined them. Might [this](http://indepos.comicgenesis.com/d/20050201.html), by Remus Shepherd, be the series you are thinking of? It’s in the form of a web-comic. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/38 "2015-05-15T07:05:25Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > What if every atom is a universe? What if our entire universe is an atom in a giant’s finger nail? What if that giant is a bigger you and reality is one huge fractal? Then we’re all gods, man. Far out. . . . And then, like, when you transcend upwards, through the galaxies and higher scopes, you come back to where you were all along. Heavy, huh? (Marvel Comics did that once. Pretty groovy trip. But, then, I’m still trying to grok their “Living Tribunal.” At least the High Evolutionary makes sense…) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/39 "2015-05-15T07:06:56Z")
If we had the technology and resources to run world-simulations, I think it would be also within our purview to plunk down “real” NPCs in there to handle the shitty jobs. Unless post-humans are _really_ bored, I shouldn’t think people would want to play “slumdog non-millionaire slaving away 16 hours a day on 10 cents salary”, for example. Of course, the point is we can’t know that any of the other human beings out there aren’t very lifelike artificial processes. But we _can_ know whether or not we are (or assume we know, anyway - but if we’re just shell scripts thinking they exist then thinking about god, or anything, is sort of pointless). So ISTM that, assuming playing in the simulation is voluntary rather than a form of imprisonment ; and even assuming one has to agree to a mind wipe before joining the simulation for verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief, one’s life is a good yardstick for whether or not we are. My life’s not crappy, but it’s far from awesome and there are no explosions or supermodels _anywhere_. Ergo, I am not in a simulation I’d have chosen to play. So y’alls probably aren’t, either. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080/40 "2015-05-15T07:11:04Z")
Read about this a long time ago, about this bishop in Berkeley tripping this kind of shit. Made this dictionary guy so mad, he kicked a table and hurt his johnson. Maybe got the details wrong, college is kind of a blur these days. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indefensible-position-1-have-bad-news-for-atheists/720080.md?page=3)