Arguments for God

Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Arguments for God

Re: Arguments for taking them up the Khyber

by Jamiet99uk » Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:25 pm

Octavious wrote:
Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:53 am
Oh? Intriguing... Are you using the Carry On application? You ask for an innuendo and it gives you one?
Oooer, matron!

Re: Arguments for God

by Octavious » Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:53 am

Oh? Intriguing... Are you using the Carry On application? You ask for an innuendo and it gives you one?

Re: Arguments for God

by orathaic » Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:26 am

One of the assumptions is incorrect. I am not úsing English for my autocorrect.

Re: Arguments for God

by Octavious » Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:03 am

orathaic wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:43 pm
Freudian slip/autocorrect, you decide!
Thank you for the invitation. Very well, let's look at this in a bit more detail. :-D

I don't know of any autocorrect that would add a T to an already perfectly good word, especially when simulate has been used before without alteration. Simulated is also a commonly used word, thanks mainly to football discussions, so it won't feel at all unusual to your typical English speaking autocorrect program. It will not want to correct it.

So let's consider instead the typo. The letters around T on a qwerty keyboard are RFG and Y, none of which are in simulated, so we can rule out fat finger syndrome. Stimulated seems too unusual a word to be jumped on by predictive text... hmmm... we should probably test this...

OK, I've done a little experiment with typing extremely poorly spelt attempts at simulated and the only way I've been able to encourage the autocorrect to consider stimulated is by adding a T after the S, which as we've established is simply not a mechanical typo anyone would make...

Yeah, balance of probabilities is pointing heavily at Freudian

Re: Arguments for God

by orathaic » Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:43 pm

Octavious wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:00 am
orathaic wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:06 am
There's simply no upside in denying that Gods und Dieties exist and risk on the downside.
Are you familiar with Roku's Basilisk argument? It proposes an AI so intelligent that it can simulate you, and can threaten to torture (stimulated) you unless you do everything in your power to help create the Basilisk, and release it into the wild (in some AI discussions the AI is isolated from the rest of the world to prevent it taking over).

Now you might be the real you, or you might be the simulation, but why risk eternal torment? Oh and the AI can simulate 100 million copies of you, so chances are you're a simulation.

Now that you know about the idea of the Basilisk, you should clearly give up all this God worship rubbish and deal with the real (hypothetical) threat of infinite torture.

At least, based on the same logic...
And yet it apparently can't simulate a version of me that believes I just happen to really want to create the Basilisk because Basilisks are cool? Seems a tad unlikely... :?

What’s more interesting is your Freudian slip that suggests you associate torture with stimulation ;)
Freudian slip/autocorrect, you decide!

Re: Arguments for God

by Jamiet99uk » Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:47 pm

Pascal's wager is flawed because an omniscient God would know you were wagering and that your belief was not completely sincere.

Re: Arguments for God

by Octavious » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:00 am

orathaic wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:06 am
There's simply no upside in denying that Gods und Dieties exist and risk on the downside.
Are you familiar with Roku's Basilisk argument? It proposes an AI so intelligent that it can simulate you, and can threaten to torture (stimulated) you unless you do everything in your power to help create the Basilisk, and release it into the wild (in some AI discussions the AI is isolated from the rest of the world to prevent it taking over).

Now you might be the real you, or you might be the simulation, but why risk eternal torment? Oh and the AI can simulate 100 million copies of you, so chances are you're a simulation.

Now that you know about the idea of the Basilisk, you should clearly give up all this God worship rubbish and deal with the real (hypothetical) threat of infinite torture.

At least, based on the same logic...
And yet it apparently can't simulate a version of me that believes I just happen to really want to create the Basilisk because Basilisks are cool? Seems a tad unlikely... :?

What’s more interesting is your Freudian slip that suggests you associate torture with stimulation ;)

Re: Arguments for God

by orathaic » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:18 am

PS the Basilisk had no interest in simulatd torture of anyone who didn't know about it. But once you read my previous post you are now at risk.

PPS this is indeed the AI techbro equivalent of Pascal's wager. You now have the option of dedicating all of your wealth, time and resources to AI research. Good luck.

Re: Arguments for God

by orathaic » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:06 am

There's simply no upside in denying that Gods und Dieties exist and risk on the downside.
Are you familiar with Roku's Basilisk argument? It proposes an AI so intelligent that it can simulate you, and can threaten to torture (stimulated) you unless you do everything in your power to help create the Basilisk, and release it into the wild (in some AI discussions the AI is isolated from the rest of the world to prevent it taking over).

Now you might be the real you, or you might be the simulation, but why risk eternal torment? Oh and the AI can simulate 100 million copies of you, so chances are you're a simulation.

Now that you know about the idea of the Basilisk, you should clearly give up all this God worship rubbish and deal with the real (hypothetical) threat of infinite torture.

At least, based on the same logic...

Re: Arguments for God

by Octavious » Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:52 pm

MajorMitchell wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:47 am
My point is this, if you allow the existence of one God then it's an allowance that many God's and Dieties exist.
Why, though? Belief in higher powers tends to be divided into those who believe in a single all powerful god (sometimes backed up by lesser supernatural creatures) and those who believe in a race of gods. Those who believed in the latter were often not at all troubled by believing others may exist. Those who believe in the former are often not troubled by the idea that their God may appear to others in different ways. But there's no logical reason why someone who believes in a single God should accept that other Gods may exist.
MajorMitchell wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:47 am
There's simply no upside in denying that Gods und Dieties exist and risk on the downside.
Taking the Philosophical position that allows the existence of numerous God's and Dieties and remaining relatively nuetral in adoration of any particular one is for me, the least risk choice.
You're assuming that a god prefers you to worship a rival than to remain neutral. I don't know what you're basing that assumption on. If I was a god (big if) I'd smite the worshipers of false idols over your average agnostic any day. There'd also be a special place in hell reserved for the sort of smart arse that tries to game the system ;)

Re: Arguments for God

by MajorMitchell » Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:47 am

As a practicing psychotherapist to a number of minor Gods and Dieties I would suggest that it's just not a winning strategy to deny their existence and annoy them.
If gods exist then denying that will only cause them to dislike a Chap and possibly inflict an eternal punishment, eg you're trapped for Eternity with Forty Fatimas nagging incessantly, something these Daffy Jihadists should consider.
If gods exist then ingratiating oneself with them might be useful in Eternity, but they're a sensitive crew and if you punt on praising one God over all others then you risk alienating the majority.

I note that Fluminator treats this as a "Does a singular God exist?" question and expresses his opinion that it is possible this single God exists.
In the example of the Christian God, it's as a single entity but with three personalities in one & a demonic protagonist in Lucifer & that's serious delusional schizophrenia which I am working on with that divine patient.

My point is this, if you allow the existence of one God then it's an allowance that many God's and Dieties exist.
There's simply no upside in denying that Gods und Dieties exist and risk on the downside.
Taking the Philosophical position that allows the existence of numerous God's and Dieties and remaining relatively nuetral in adoration of any particular one is for me, the least risk choice.

What I find most interesting is the behaviour of those who claim to represent a God as a means to manipulate others and enrich themselves. That's top level Machiavellian thinking and should be respected. No wonder that the Clergy dominate the top 200 Ghost Ratings spots.

Re: Arguments for God

by orathaic » Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:31 am

Again, bloody typos, *blackholes, not blackbodies.

And yes, I studied physics at university, but i don't think that alone qualifies me as an expert, rather than a webdip opinion haver.

Re: Arguments for God

by Crazy Anglican » Mon Aug 09, 2021 1:07 am

orathaic wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:49 pm
Yeah, again, presupposing the rules of existence applied before the creation of existence... but I am kinda assuming the opposite universe would see us as the outside force, so that just requires universes to self create in pairs...

But I don't really think this idea works. I mean, I'm not the first person to come up with something like this, I'm sure someone smarter than I am has looked at the maths and found an issue I can't intuit.

And don't get me started with blackbody interiors...
Surely, you have a dizzying intellect.

Re: Arguments for God

by orathaic » Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:49 pm

Crazy Anglican wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 7:39 pm
Wasn’t the opposite universe being required for creation an outside force?
Yeah, again, presupposing the rules of existence applied before the creation of existence... but I am kinda assuming the opposite universe would see us as the outside force, so that just requires universes to self create in pairs...

But I don't really think this idea works. I mean, I'm not the first person to come up with something like this, I'm sure someone smarter than I am has looked at the maths and found an issue I can't intuit.

And don't get me started with blackbody interiors...

Re: Arguments for God

by Crazy Anglican » Sun Aug 08, 2021 7:39 pm

Wasn’t the opposite universe being required for creation an outside force?

Re: Arguments for God

by orathaic » Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:38 pm

Crazy Anglican wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 3:45 pm
So, then all that is required to spontaneously create oneself is equilibrium?
I suppose yes. The expansion of space may indeed require a negative energy 'pressure' - where a positive energy (mass as we understand it) tends to do the opposite, resulting in gravity.

But the mechanism I was describing also requires a quantum field in the ground state to excite itself. I am not proposing that this is the same mechanism which the Universe used, as I believe the quantum field , background space-time, were all created in the same event.

I am only proposing that our intuitive ideas about things which exist needing to be created by some external action are not how the Universe works.

Re: Arguments for God

by Crazy Anglican » Sun Aug 08, 2021 3:45 pm

So, then all that is required to spontaneously create oneself is equilibrium?

Re: Arguments for God

by orathaic » Sun Aug 08, 2021 3:06 pm

Crazy Anglican wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:48 pm
Okay, so taking what I can from that. The general situation is that these virtual gluons and photons violate the conservation of matter / energy, but are very small, and the general rule is that the larger the mass the shorter the time it can exist before self annihilating? Then how can that be generalized to a hugely massive set of objects such as the universe (observable or just everything in existence)?

Let me proffer up front that this is one argument I don’t engage in. I am expressly not setting up a god of the gaps argument. I am simply curious.
Just one correction, I noticed a typo, the gravity virtual particle equivalent is the graviton.not as my phone auto corrected the gravity. I doubt the existence of gravitons.

OK, one the Krauss might argue is the the Universe on a grand scale has 0 energy (with equal amounts positive and negative contributions. That would allow creation from nothing. Unfortunately in most of science (I think general relativity excluded -and you really need to include general relativity for this kind of cosmological net zero energy argument) we don't actually care about the absolute zero point of energy, only relative changes in energy. So we can just define the zero point to be where ever we want (like zeroing my weighing scales when cooking, cause it is easier to not include the weight of my container).

If we are able to arbitrarily define the zero point, then yes the Universe seems to have precisely zero (net) energy. but also that seems less important a fact.

Re: Arguments for God

by Crazy Anglican » Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:48 pm

Okay, so taking what I can from that. The general situation is that these virtual gluons and photons violate the conservation of matter / energy, but are very small, and the general rule is that the larger the mass the shorter the time it can exist before self annihilating? Then how can that be generalized to a hugely massive set of objects such as the universe (observable or just everything in existence)?

Let me proffer up front that this is one argument I don’t engage in. I am expressly not setting up a god of the gaps argument. I am simply curious.

Re: Arguments for God

by Crazy Anglican » Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:36 pm

orathaic wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 9:59 am
It is not just gluons, photons also do it.

It violates conservation of mass/energy (they are one thing) but only for a short amount of time, as determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (basically the larger the mass/energy created, the shorter the time it can exist - ΔEΔt = ħ/2 )

This is why they are called virtual particles, they self annihilated after a short amount of time.but also govern the strong nuclear force (virtual gluons) and the electromagnetic force (virtual photons), and I presume the weak nuclear force... (gravity governed by virtual gravity should seems to be different, I doubt the gravity will ever be discovered, general relativity refused to be quantised).

Also, in the presence of a black hole, virtual particles, spontaneously created near the event horizon seem to fail to self-annihilate as one gets pulled into the black hole and the other escapes, creating a new real particle (and eventually destroying the black hole). This isn't creating particles from a black hole (which is impossible) it is creating real part from virtual particles by the nature of event horizons (separating the virtual particles pair into two separate space-times, distinguished by the event horizon).

It is like, creation is only possible if there is a separate reverse universe which exists on the other side of an event horizon (maybe the big bang?)
They spontaneously create themselves, but this quantum field still exists outside of time. So this quantum field would be timeless. Then the interesting part would be asking what is the nature of this quantum field.

Your Response
















Anglican’s head

Top