Actually, not much has to be simulated. Only your (that’s right! I’m talking to YOU!) current moment needs to be simulated. The rest of the world might not exist, other than as simulated inputs for our simulated consciousness.
Your consciousness is the one thing that has to exist (thanks, Rene!) Everything else (including everything you remember) could be simulated.
Regardless, there are things I need to get done today, and I better get them done in case the simulation continues, and they continue to simulate my wife, my boss, the government, etc.
BTW, your consciousness is real, not simulated, even if you’re a simulated being. (Well, from my point of view, MINE is real. But remember, I’m talking to YOU!)
I don’t think the statistical analysis is sufficiently rigorous. It’s akin to the creationist arguments that the first protein of length N has a probability exponential to -N. The fact that we don’t know how it happened means we also can’t count the sample space.
True, but see above. All that really needs to be simulated is this one moment, for one observer. I mean, if we’re going to be absurd, let’s go for it.
I suspect that the real problem with this type of argument is that we can come up with an infinite number of similar but contradictory arguments. Which one is correct? Perhaps none of them!
It’s quite possible that this is true, if by that we mean “this reality” (which I assume is what is meant.)
I’m confident that’s true if we’re talking about simulating the whole world and all the phenomena that everyone is experiencing: a physical model, that is. The computation resources required are pretty easily calculated as astronomical.
Anyway, it’s not hard to imagine #1 being true.
It’s also easy to imagine that even if we are capable of it, we don’t bother creating millions of them.
Says the guy sitting around on the Internet… Wasting time… Reading pointless philosophical threads… threadshitting.
Because yeah, that is like so much more necessary and relevant and isn’t a waste of time at all.
No, you’re not close enough. You’re so far from being close enough that it’s insulting to even suggest that you’re close enough.
For thousands of years Religious people have told us all about God, what God wants, what God is, etc. Religious people today are happy to tell other people what to do, craft laws restricting our rights, deny people the rights others get, all because it’s what God wants.
But, when “proving” God’s existence, all that shit gets thrown away, and we’re presented with a nondescript, formless, faceless, anonymous GeneriGod, that has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments, Moses, Noah, Leviticus, Jesus, Mohammed, and nothing to do with any existent religions.
Once they’ve “proven” God’s existence, the GeneriGod idea vanishes and they go right back to thumping their Bible and fucking with everyone else’s lives in the name of God.
The problem isn’t the existence of a Creator, it’s the fictional bullshit in the Bible that gets thrown in our faces on a daily basis. Prove that stuff is real.
In real life, whether someone advocates (or opposes) an ontological argument for the existence of God, such in the OP, does not dictate whether they are tolerant of those with opposing views.
As a small data point, I took a college seminar in Philosophical Theology taught by a philosopher whose abstract proof of God is summarized (and refuted) here:
Roughly half of the required reading consisted if published works by the instructor. And, as I recall, half, or more, of the class time consisted of students arguing with Prof. Ross that his proof was wrong. Arguing against his view did not result in him somehow, as you say, fucking with lives, or prevent anyone from getting an A.
The OP summarizes (fairly? I’m not sure) a proof of God written by a philosopher who has taught at both Yale and Oxford. It is inconceivable to me that he insults atheists the way you insult theists.
These two professors are just two data points, but I think it is typical of people interested in such abstract proofs which, as you say, don’t narrow down God’s nature. They mostly realize that, and it could contribute to their being religiously moderate.
Hopefully your post isn’t typical of what atheists think and feel.
Note that Bostrom’s Simulation Argument is not a proof of God; it is just an argument that we are probably subject to the whims of entities which have god-like powers over our continued existence. These entities (if they existed) would be infinitely less powerful than a true omnipotent being, but that would be of little consolation to ourselves.
Depends on where you live, doesn’t it? Red States seem to be pretty happy restricting access to abortion and refusing gay marriage, based on scripture, I don’t think they are the minority. There are plenty of countries around the world where religion is front and center as part of official policy.
My son was taught to say “under God” every single day at the government run public school he attends. Every single coin and bill he has, printed from the government, says “In God We Trust”.
Try to get the legislature to get that shit eliminated, and we’ll see what your substantial minority looks like.
This thread really isn’t a about red states or Republicans or dogmatic religion, or what’s on coins, or the pledge.
As should be obvious, and as you’ve noted earlier the type of “God” we are talking about here bears little resemblance to the traditional one that the adherents you are frustrated with espouse. If you want to debate that kind of religion, maybe you could start another thread. You’re kind of off topic.
The trouble is, if you use the word “God” you can’t help but invite questions about established theologies.
If you just want to call him “The Master Programmer,” then you’re on safer ground. The word “God” has way too much connotative baggage.
When you dilute a word too much, it loses its value as a specific word. Am I a “God” to my pet doggie? I have pretty much total power over him, including the power of life or death, suffering or happiness. But what kind of dork would say, “I have a pet dog, so I am a God?” Nobody. It’s…dorky!
The kinds of gods atheists don’t believe in are very, very different from simulations programmers. Even if you could prove the existence of a master programmer, why should we attribute to him any theological powers? He programs our bodies, but not our “souls.” (The word “soul” remains undefined, in the real world or in the sim.)
You asked if you were close enough for government work, and I tried to explain why I thought you weren’t.
You’ve stripped away any identifiable (and falsifiable) attributes from God, “proved” his existence, then asked atheists about
As Trinopus alluded to, that isn’t the deity I claim does not exist. The deities I claim don’t exist have attributes.
Your deity is nonfalsifiable, by design, thus I can’t make any evidence based claims as to His existence. I also don’t care at all if He exists, because every deity based problem I have has everything to do with dogmatic religion, and nothing to do with the creation of the universe.
But you don’t have to focus on the nasty stuff god supposedly wants. Anything any theist does that he claims god wants has the same problem, even good stuff. The deists who give reasons for a god but who admit god never interferes in the universe don’t have this problem, but any theist does.
Speculating on God based on this type of argument is like wondering about the social constructs of an alien society five galaxies away. Amusing but rather pointless. And building edifices based on this is silly.
I don’t do that…but often, when I’m about to enter a vital instruction at my computer at work – like, “System Shutdown” for evening backup – I’ll wave my arms up in the air like a conductor or impresario or wizard. Like Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.