Lol

It just sounds like one specific example of an analogy to me. Maybe metaphor?

This is interesting. So, are you saying if you experience God in your prayers or however, you no longer have faith, you have proof of his existence (not empirical, obviously, but enough for you)?

I always wonder how people can claim that they KNOW God exists. I guess this could be one way. If you experience something, you're going to believe the experience was true (whether or not it was is another question).

Yeah maybe it's that simple. It's an analogy.

If that happened to me, I'd still look for more evidence. We're too prone to misinterpretation and a willingness to see what isn't really there.

Yeah, Plantinga is not the best source for the subject. A quick sketch:
Before the beginning of time there is just God. God being all there is and God knowing he’s the cause of his own being, makes God an all-knowing and all-powerful being, because there is nothing for God to know but himself and no power besides himself. Additionally, since God knows “I Am,” God’s being is the source of all truth, since “I am” is the only truth. And if the source of the good is the truth, then God is the source of all good as well. So God is all-power, all-knowledge, all-truth and all-good, and/or the source thereof. Hence, impotency, ignorance, falsity or evil are not from God. And since God is the source of all, that which is not from God is not. That is, if God is, then impotency, ignorance, falsity and evil aren’t substantially real—they’re just denials of what is real.

FSM is satirical parody. If you look at the history, the term was first introduced when the Kansas School Board wanted to introduce Intelligent Design into the science curriculum in 2005, a result of the Teach The Controversy initiative from creationist advocates. They wanted to allow equal time spent teaching ID and ToE, and one of the ways ID tries to appear legitimate is by distancing itself from creationism, in that the Designer is unspecified. The FSM was introduced as an alternative Designer, to highlight the absurdity of ID being different to creationism, and of being valid science, but it has become such a popular meme that it is probably being abused and misused in theological arguments.



(original drawing of FSM from the letter)

Oh my gosh, I completely forgot about that! Thanks for the link.

I'm happy for any theist to propose a better defender of the logical possibility of god (or maybe OrP will chip in) but your argument here doesn't address the issue in any way afaict

Too many words. The living truth is not conceptual.

No it has nothing to do with how many people believe. I think you are equating what I am saying to Christianity or something.

And how does a computer simulation create a universe?

Isn't it obvious?

Okay, I'll get to your point:
Saying God is omni-whatever is the equivalent of saying Buddha attained Nirvana—both statements are contradictions in terms and hence logical impossibilities.

So assuming we both agree with the above, then all we need to do is get theists to commit deocide by denouncing “I AM” and leaving only “_____”. I don’t see any way this could fail!

duffee can you dumb this down. not following you.

Yeah thats what im saying. Someone with no revelation from God would need more faith to believe then someone with a strong revelation. Though id imagine its more of a sliding scale of faith to no faith depending on strength of the experience.

You're probably joking, but afaik there isn't evidence that the Matrix actually exists. So now were back to the question of why a computer simulated universe is more likely than a supernaturally created universe.

This summurizes it all !



It's denying creator with no logic whatsoever.

This is recommended:

Darwinism Collapse !
Scientists talk about God, Is there a God? Evidence from universe that God exists

God Arises Read Online Download
In Search of God Read Online Download
The Reality of Life Read Online Download
The Concept of God Read Online Download


The Signs (Theism VS Atheism)
Islam between east and west: http://books.google.com/books?id=pc55-U ... &q&f=false

Answers to Questions Atheists Ask
God doesn't exist!

Atheism Reasonably Reasoned OUT!
Atheism (part 1 of 2): Denying the Undeniable

The Scientific World is turning to God
Scientists and Religion (part 1 of 2): Is Religion and Science in Conflict?
Scientists and Religion (part 2 of 2): Religious Scientists

Atheism (part 1 of 2): Denying the Undeniable
Atheism (part 2 of 2): A Question of Understanding



I hope this would help !

Not all Atheists deny 'creator', they just don't accept it without evidence when there are other possibilities. Making the blind leap from 'don't know what's going on' to 'must be a god' is irrational and frankly I think it's weak, it's desperation for an answer instead of having the patience to wait for genuine, objective study to reveal it.

Your 'nothing came from nothing' doesn't make sense at all, can you remove the bottom sentence please? Or if you want I can do the same too, it's not hard. (This one is for the monotheistic belief systems, I'll find one for the others later)

Why would you create a new account to post this rather than posting on your normal one?

I'm not following. In what sense is 'Buddha attained nirvana" a contradiction?

I'm not crazy enough to try to get theists to do anything. I'm just procrastinating and singing my song here, that's all.

My point was that reality manifests not in the truth or falsity of ideas, instead the true nature of reality is entirely non conceptual, it is the immediate experience in this very moment, that's what ______ refers to. Right now the living truth is to sit here typing on a black keyboard, hearing to the rain outside and the computer humming, experiencing thoughts, drinking tea, etc.

What I said was that I find it more plausible. The reason for this is that the scenario described in the simulation argument is more consistent with my priors than a supernatural god scenario. People with different prior beliefs will no doubt find the supernatural god scenario more plausible. So its higher probability is not really a result of some additional evidence that the simulation scenario is true.

I wasn't joking. Now, of course, there isn't any evidence that the Matrix exists, I would never suggest otherwise. However, there is life (here) and there is virtual reality programming (here). One would expect other parts of the universe to follow similarly given its size. One would also expect ~half of these to be more advanced than us, some significantly so. We can extrapolate from this and assume that there exists, somewhere, a virtual reality program that is indistinguishable from reality to its user. Therefore, the probability of a single 'Matrix' existing is "likely", while we cannot say the same of the supernatural.

EDIT: this argument only works when talking about a single universe, and not the universe (or, more accurately, the cosmos). I would think that's pretty obvious though.

We can’t say any being is omni-whatever or all-whatever. In the way the terms are used, ‘omni’ and ‘all’ mark qualitative, not quantitative distinctions. Meaning, when we say a being is all-knowledge, we’re not saying he’s really, really knowledgeable or that he exemplifies knowledge; we’re saying that said being is in fact that quality, knowledge. It’s the difference between saying, “Bob is honest,” and “Bob is honesty.” The former is possibly true, the latter impossible. So if a theist claims ‘God is omni-Os’ and thinks the term ‘God’ signifies ‘a being’ then he’s contradicting himself, because what the terms denote are contradictions, i.e. a being is a numerical quantity and the omni-Os are non-numerical qualities. So we can’t really say one is the other.

Nirvana is (loosely) defined as the permanent dissolution of the self and one’s identity with material reality. So to say that a material self, like that guy over there, Buddha, is in Nirvana is a (broadly) logical contradiction. It’s like saying Bob the bachelor is married. (And yeah, I get it’s the Buddha-state, but my point is we’re unlikely to find ‘Guatama’ there.)

Yeah, I know what you’re pointing to, albeit less intimately than you. My sarcastic point has more to do with my belief that most of the Christian mystics and a good number of its more historically significant theologians are pointing to the same thing as you. That, despite most religious followers thinking otherwise.

Now, I understand that you advocate a different path, and I’m not saying it’s not effective, but just that it hasn’t proved to be effective for a lot of people. And I don’t think that has to do with aspirants not trying in earnest. Like I said, I know you favor a different approach and aren’t saying exactly this, but starting someone off with (say) samyama, while okay for a few, doesn’t work for most. Most, I believe, need to get the antecedent limbs down, first. And that’s really what the practice of Christianity does. That is, for most Christians, their religious practice is basically yama and niyama. And granted, at some point the metaphor needs to be seen as metaphor, the avatar as an avatar, etc. But I think that comes about more through the experience gained, whether through contemplative prayer, worship or religious practice(s), than through the adoption of atheism.

I'm not a spiritual teacher. I don't presume to know who needs to do what. I'm just expressing my opinions and observations, that's all.

When the discussion is about a logical argument then I will treat it as such. When I want to point toward the living truth then I will try to make it in as clear a language as I can, so that even someone with no religious background can understand what I'm pointing to. I'm not interested in defending the fate and honour of religion.

Understood, but shouldn't probability be independent of prior beliefs? If I were to have been brought up to believe that an unweighted two-sided coin flipped heads 90% of the time this doesn't mean that the probability of it flipping heads is actually 90%.

So would this virtual reality program also create the natural laws of the universe it created?