What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation? — Benj96

It would take enormous amount of computing power to simulate such a vast universe to such a great detail.
and even if that's possible, computer simulation doesn't handle biology.

Thank you both, it makes sense since there is no specific formal fallacy in it.

the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

My personal opinion of "truth" is that it should unambiguously tell us whether we are animals or creation of god.

In respect to Jesus' saying of truth, I think good start is Lewis Trilemma:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lewis_Trilemma

knowing the "truth" is very powerful because either entire world becomes atheists or entire world converts, and truth if known should not cause any suspicions further.
Truth I think may not be personal thing.

But then, what is "truth"?

We make laws by electing politicians. Democracy is the best way imo. — universeness

Democracy just like any other form of government is nothing else but ideology, and just like democracy come so will other forms of governments come and then people will claim how good it is.

Every word of gods written by humans into books have been tested and found to be pretty poor guidelines. — universeness

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing.

Many proposed words of gods incite violence, justify ethnic cleansing, slavery, racism, autocratic rule, etc
They even suggest really repugnant ideas such as ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesars,’ even though he was an evil scumbag who destroyed whole peoples! — universeness

you mix morality of the OT with morality of the NT, I don't see anything wrong with NT morals.

They even suggest really repugnant ideas such as ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesars,’ even though he was an evil scumbag who destroyed whole peoples! — universeness

Which is money, Caesar made money and he controls the flow of money, and so is the case today and so will be forever.

I would not judge history because times today are better, there may be even better times tomorrow and then they will judge how today was bad.

What you consider humane someone else may consider inhumane, how do we then make laws?
I think laws need to be well tested and crafted and not depend on what majority thinks is right.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+30%3A5&version=NABRE


If there is no law then how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

for example:
you are forced to choose to either kill yourself or kill your friend.
there is no law for this situation, therefore what is right and what is wrong?

Which god and which set of god laws are you referring to? — universeness

All religions have in common to lay out laws or commandments or some set of rules.
and what all these rules have in common is recognition of evil because obeying rules implies good.

So do you think godless humans like me, are unable to label any act by another human, evil? — universeness

that's tough question because morality is subjective.
but what is sure is that you can't judge what's good or evil without some laws.

Is there free will in heaven? Yes? Is there evil in heaven? No? Then free will doesn't explain (or inevitably lead to) evil. — Art48

You have discovered nothing new because evil doesn't come because of free will.

It's rather God's laws that make us recognize evil.
I recently googled "what is purpose of religion" and come upon one interesting conclusion:

The essence of religion is to develop in us the sense of recognition of evil

You mean like a coincidence? — Metaphysician Undercover

I mean to be able to reproduce something with the goal to prove it, we need to be able to cause whatever to have an effect.

supernatural may have a cause, but we can't cause supernatural.

If "natural" things necessarily have a cause, and a cause is necessarily something other than its effect, then we must allow for a class of things which is other than "natural" — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is why things which are not caused can't be empirically proved?

God and Gods fill such a vast, and largely unexamined, need, that they will never go away. Their services will always be required, by some. — hypericin

New people are born on daily basis, there will always be fresh flesh willing to experience God.
What you or me learned or concluded, ex. such that there is no God or that God is something else or anything that would undermine God does not have any effect on new flesh being born.
There will always be new people.

That's John's opinion. It isn't a fact that the Revelation is ununderstandable. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The book may be understandable and for certain portions of it there is official interpretation, but you can't fulfill it, such as going trough personal psychological stages according to the book which is what you seem to be aiming for.

You can pretend only.

All of the 7 seals are unsealed (or fulfilled) by Jesus (ex. see Revelation 6:1), otherwise anyone could claim it has been fulfilled and destroy Christianity.

You can take the role of Jesus ofc. and suffer, but are you willing to take that psychological stress and suffering?

Would you say this dog and this cat were being cruel? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes and no.
Yes because they had fun killing the mouse or a rat, not because they were hungry.
No because it's nothing in comparison to what humans are capable to do to other people, like skinning someone a live or burning someone on the stake, animals don't do such horrible things.

So it's intelligence what makes people more cruel than animals.

This is not a theology thread. Shoo! — ZzzoneiroCosm

Whether you like it or not, Revelation 5:1-4 explains why it is impossible to understand the revelation.
first 3 chapters are self explanatory, the rest is "sealed".

How much does it make sense to ignore this fact, I don't know.

Wolves are notorious where I live for killing cattle without eating it. Killing for the sake of killing, it seems. — Tzeentch

Also there is a kind of dogs who kill a rat but do not eat it.
Also cats who kill a mouse but do not eat it.

I had both, such a dog and a cat.

This distinction divorces human aggression from animal aggression, in opposition to the widely accepted myth that 'malignant' human aggression has its roots in an animal past. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I would say, it's human intelligence which is the reason of "malignant" aggression.

thanks, interesting book.
this proves atheism with the help of science is forming a new religion.

Is time infinite — Paul S

If time is infinite then this means there is infinite number of past events.
if there is infinite number of past event then how is it possible that we have reach the present?
Therefore infinite time is impossible.

Since infinite time is impossible the universe is not infinite because otherwise there would be no time for manifestation of all events in the universe infinite in magnitude.

Therefore universe is infinite only if time is infinite.
Therefore logically space is finite.

Are the Jesus miracles doable with modern (bio)tech?

For starters...

Healing lepers: Dapsone + Clofazamine + Rifampicin

Curing blindness: LASIK/Cataract surgery/Corneal transplants — Agent Smith

If you define "miracle" as something that only God can do then you might have a point.

otherwise the closest you can get with this is that somehow Jesus was a doctor few thousands year ahead of others or that there was treatment that is now lost in time.

New Theology has no use for the concept of the supernatural — Art48

What do you consider "new theology"? is there an example of a new religion?

Until we know for certain the limits of the natural universe, we cannot know if something is beyond its limits — Art48

sounds logical, but we know it's impossible to reach the ends of the universe and fathom beyond smallest thing which is singularity.

Your argument proves only that supernatural does not mean unknown natural.

@universeness
...Therefore you are wrong because you limit supernatural to undiscovered natural without knowing the limits of natural, no?

When considering philosophical arguments for and against god it may nudge us a further 10% or so, one way or the other? — Down The Rabbit Hole

If you're trying to turn this pool into average % that's a clear bias because the result will be positive regardless of how many people vote for 0% :smile:

The most common objection to ID seems to be that it does not produce any testable hypothesis, and thus is “outside” of science (thus perhaps it would better be argued in a philosophy class). However, what bothers me about this is if science must be testable, then much of cosmology would also be considered inappropriate for a science classroom (no multiverses, no accounts for natural laws-all those would similarly be outside of science and therefore not belong in a science classroom either).

What do you think? — Paulm12

Agree, you can't argue on lack of ability to test for one thing but get over for another thing.
If lack of the ability to perform tests is what determines what is science and what is not then a lot of the mainstream science is not science at all.

A more appropriate argument against intelligent design is that ID is not perfect, or that we (humans) see how to make it more perfect.
or that ID is somewhere in between 2 extremes: order and chaos.

Then we could argue where in between ID is, and why is it where it is, why not more toward chaos or why not more toward order?

I think the most reasonable percentage is 50%
Because there is neither proof nor the other way around.

That is, does God exist? maybe.

I believe no mans's word, ever. — Ken Edwards

society functions on belief between people.
it would be extremely difficult for society to function with zero belief if not impossible.

first of all nobody would believe into government therefore it must be removed which leads to anarchy.

this is extreme ofc. but if there is zero belief that's extreme.

If we turn monkey pox into hysteria as we did with COVID then we are really monkeys.

1. It is necessary that something is self-explained.
2. If something is self-explained, there are no prior rules that explain why it existed.
3. Because there are no rules that limit why or how a self-explained existence can be, one cannot put a limit on what could possibly be self-explained when one does not know the origin(s) of the universe. — Philosophim

Your first premise is false because it should start with "IF" rather than "IT", that is, under assumption that something is self-explained rather than claim that something is self-explained.

We know nothing in the nature is self-explained, do you have anything that is self-explanatory?

You have a strange sense of humour and I think your viewpoints on a balanced human system of justice is more driven by revenge than it is by rehabilitation. I remain conflicted between the two but I would fight vehemently against any system based on competing extremities of punitive evils. — universeness

If you're so much about rehabilitation over revenge then you should favor torture over death penalty.

if you favor lifetime prison instead of death, that's is not rehabilitation either, it's waste of time for the prisoner and waste of resources for society since that person will not be able to return to society.

Capital punishment by lethal injection does not fit the kind of deterrent punishments suggested by SpaceDweller. My dialogue was about his suggestions for a future human justice system. — universeness

It's not only about deterrent, but you seem to be suggesting that it's inhumane to perform torture as a punishment, Cangue ie. as a punishment is perfect to let us see how humane are those seeking for justice.
If relatives who lost their family decide to stop the punishment we can call the society humane, but I'm sure most won't be humane when it touches them.
It's easy to be humane If some evil doesn't touch you or me, but what if you seek justice because someone killed your family? would you be humane instead of seeking fair justice?
maybe you would, but we are all different. someone else would not.

They are placed alive in the same coffin as one or more of their victims. But they will be constrained to an apparatus around the body... — universeness

Your imagination for punishment methods is funny, but some facts about most severe evil must be taken into account:

1. We learned from history that excess use of torture to deal with evil is counter productive because it leads to false accusations and public unrest.
Serious evil like war crimes, child rape or mass shootings happens on rare occasions therefore harsh punishment would be used only is such rare cases causing no problems for society.

2. Using evil such as torture to punish evil doer should be reciprocal, that is not more evil than evil that the evil doer did.

3. It is up to debate how to measure evil and what asymmetric evils to apply for evil as punishment.
For example if someone killed 15 people it would be stupid to perform symmetric evil such as to kill 15 members of his relatives in return, killing the person who killed 15 as a punishment is not ideal as well since that's 1 life for 15 and is not painful at all compared to pain of the people whose relatives were killed by him.
Instead asymmetric evil of equal weight may be Cangue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cangue leaving the person to the mercy of those who lost their relatives, let them decide and let everyone know what will happen if such evil happens again.

Do you really think that encouraging competitive evil is the way forward for a future human justice system? — universeness

Yes as long there is guarantee that such punishments are not abused and used only for most serious and most disgusting crimes.

I never heard of a church believing that. — Jackson

it does, go ask any priest if you don't believe me.

Many people, however, see the promise of Christianity as a threat, not as good news. If you don't join this religion, you are going to Hell, no matter how good a person you may otherwise be. — javi2541997

This is far from truth, if I recall correctly epistle to the Romans says one can be saved by good deeds if it never had a chance to hear the gospel or become Christian.

But it exists in the very basics of the universe. To get rid of it means to get rid of the universe and humanity. The evil is part of all of us. That's why science is scary. — Hillary

evil part of universe?? maybe, but then your understanding of what is evil is not same as mine.

Why should evil be punished or prevented in the first place? — Hillary

because nobody wants evil.

Could evil exist as a quantum field or as a consequence of subatomic interactions or as opposite magnetic poles such as positive and negative attractions, as proposed by Hillary? — universeness

No, definitely not.

But my question was why do you think pure undiluted evil could be defeated by torturing it? — universeness

I told you, because it would scare sh**t out of potential future evil doers.

So what forms of earlier punishments would you recommend bringing back? — universeness

All of them, including most horrible such as crucifixion, skinning a live or greek bull.

Would you bring back the death penalty for all evil acts or just some — universeness

I would bring or judge death penalty only for evil acts which cause death of whomever.

how do you prevent the death of the small minority, who are later discovered to be innocent? — universeness

you can't prevent any death that is later discovered innocent because who ever is in question is already dead.
What is possible is to investigate what misjudgement happened and then apply adequate punishment.

I thought I may as well ask you about this one as well.
Are you suggesting that if I was an evil deranged serial killer in the house of my next intended victim and I was ready to strike, that I may be dissuaded for my evil act if my indented victim lit some incense?
Certain smells can cause evil to run away in fear? Is that what you are suggesting? — universeness

You don't use incense to deal with serial killer or to defend against him :smile:

-----------------

I know this sounds horrible but the evil that we're talking about is things like mass killings in the US, war crimes, raping a child and similar.
to prevent such evil punishment must be severe.

So human laws that deal with human evils which have been labeled as such by other humans.
So do you agree that evil does not exist as a fundamental force/power outside of sentient lifeforms? — universeness

Yes agree, evil is unique to humans, ex. saying that a Lion or Tiger are evil because they eat other animals is nonsense because animals are driven by survival instincts and animals also do not know good and evil unlike humans.

Do you think evil has a metaphysical existence? — universeness

If by existence you refer to the devil or the devil tempting people to do evil then I would rather say that this is spiritual existence of evil.
but otherwise evil is product of people rather than thing or a being which could exist.

Why would evil be scared of torture? is evil not masochistic? Why would evil be afraid of one of its own manifestations? That of torturing others. — universeness

Torture is more effective than laws because one is less likely to commit evil works knowing the consequence.

Compared to all times past? Compared to early tribal cultures? Compared to during the holocaust? — universeness

Yes because punishment for evil in earlier times was more adequate than it is today.

Let's face the fact. The evil is undeniably with us. It's an undeniable part of us. Of me, of everyone, of the universe, of the eternal gods.

The question is, what shall we do with it? — Hillary

To deal with evil we have laws but laws do not stop more evil and new kinds of evil.
Evil can be chased away only with incense and torture but issue is that evil today has run out of control not by amount of evil but rather by count of people tolerating evil.

Incidentally, Lucifer ... is both Prince of Darkness and Bringer of Light. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Wrong, Lucifer was the bringer of light but become prince of darkness.
Lucifer never was both.
Isaiah 14:12-15

So even if the past is finite, we can still use the term "eternal" to refer to something that exists at all times. — Relativist

I disagree because usage of the word "eternal" here for universe which has a beginning brings only confusion into discussion.

For universe it's more natural to say finite vs infinite, eternal vs non-eternal, termporal vs timeless etc. at least everybody can understand what one means by this.

I'm still chewing on this — jgill

From video I posted...
Consider a sequence of an infinite number of dominos representing an infinite number of past events that happened.
The last domino is current event, the present or today.
If you knock down earliest domino so that dominoes start to fall down then today cannot be reached because there is infinite amount of them to fall down until today (present) is reached.
Which is an impossibility.

Wittgenstein gave a simpler (less technical) argument to the same end — jorndoe

Do you have a link to his argument somewhere, I don't know what I'm looking for.

Two independent problems with that:
1. Existing at all times means it never DIDN'T exist, so how do you infer it was caused? Seems a nonsequitur.
2.By definition, nothing existed prior to it, therefore no prior causes are possible. — Relativist

I think you need to decide whether universe exists since ever, that is the universe is eternal or infinite or not?

It's impossible to argue anything unless you put straight what you mean.

How is watching a video doing philosophy? I thought it was about presenting an argument? — Jackson

I present you my argument but it seems you do not understand it, the video elaborates my argument in detail.

Not going to. Fare thee well. — Jackson

You disappointed me as a philosopher. :sad: