yes but look at Point 1. It is the foundation of the argument.

well I tried to find the picture but it's bured in the surch engine.

There's a problem with your source, it seems to only cite it self and Wikipedia.
It sounds like pop science.

Not saying it wrong just find me a different sources with the same concussions

true but you can do whatever you want in a simulation as long as you set the rules.

all his theory says it a creator may not be needed for life to become more diversified and complex.

Ok, I gess I always heard this and the big bang together and thought they were one.

The presentation however was against the Idea that life could add complexity because there was no evidence of it. Not Wether or not there was a creator.

but Darwin's theory wasn't about that,.

I know that was not what the theory was about. the last point is not about his theory. It simply stated that Darwin gave us an Idea that if true could allow for the absence of a creator. This was a ground breaking idea a at the time of it's creation.

That is why I used the word "legacy" and not theory.

As a wetlyan I treat the bible as a history book

You need to consider that
A. The technology is possible
B. Beings that powerful want to run programs like that

So plausible but not as likely as some others.

actually economics teaches as resources get low they raise in price. When this happens it does two things.

1. Make alternatives more affordable.

2. Prompts people to come up with alternatives

For example as price rises solar and wind power more affordable then co2

Secondly we have no clue why the earth is warming up.

ok, if I understand correctly your saying that if something makes art it should be able to call it art instead of a nother entity.
Am I correct. (It is a convincing argument so I want to make sure I understand correctly)

In the words of viktor frankl
“Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.”
So as long as we don't lose hope we should be fine. Yes, I know how hard that might be.

I will be honest, this idea came from are morals come from the God of Abraham (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). Then when the "secular era" came we keep the idea but change the arguments (wich happens more often then people think). Thinks like all people matter, but if you push enough for most people the argument will not stand up on its own like people believe it does.

Besides according to the modem people defending this principle say racism is when you offend a minority. The problem with this thinking it is subjective.

Racism is supposed to be unfair or unethical treatment based on genetics that you can't control.

So why it's unethical variety from person to person but are based in the idea that all people matter.

ok, I miss that in point 5 my mistake.

C. So spontaneous matter/energy creation happens (eg by quantum fluctuations / Big Bangs)

Whenever this comes up there is always a question in my mind though, we're is all the negative mass. Yes spontaneous matter/energy creation happens but there is always positive and negative side.

We humans think of things needing a beginning and an end. However you can always go back this leads to the idea of an infinite regress. Personally I think infinite regress is possible but not for matter. Thus is such a being dose exist it is not composed of matter.

It's mostly the legal department trying to work though cultural problems. Like how are you supposed to make sure you don't get someone unfairly stronger or weaker. Because on average men tend to me more athletic and wemon tend to be smarter (tend being a key word).
Two common sections in every sport male and female because of the difference, so what do you do when someone who would be considered male identify as female. Do you let them compete with there unfair (genetic) advantage or not.

well 100% if you strip everything away.
After all he human mind is perfectly flawed.
How do we even know if our logic is even logical

nd apparently I am the smartest human for saying this because of evidence in this thread.

No this idea your having is of the lesser branch of the septic class of thought, and is far from original.
You thought comes from the lesser branch of the two septic brances, the doubting for doubting sake.

The other branch doesn't have this problem, as it's founder René Descartes said Pairafaesed

there are 2 type of skeptics thought how doubting for doubting sake than thouse that what to get to know what is actually true or can we even know that.

well I'm trying, there a theory called authority theory, by Max Weber's.
Then there are the rules for rulers

The Dictator's Handbook, by Bruce Bueno De Mesquita & Alastair Smith.
And the video rules for rulers based of the book.

This should help figuring out power structures. Wich may not be exactly what your looking for but it may be a good start for how a such a world may exist interested of devolve in to caos

dependes who you talk to, me I the answer is no. Because if you believe your free you can't know how restrained you are.

However some person said

I think that yesterday was a crisis in my life. I finished the first part of Renouvier's second Essais and see no reason why his definition of free will — 'the sustaining of a thought because I choose to when I might have other thoughts' — need be the definition of an illusion. At any rate, I will assume for the present — until next year — that it is no illusion. My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will.

--William James

To be free you need to have another choice, but as a determinisest I can say that if you feel free you it is a illusion of free will. Is the illusion of flight the same as actual flight. Of course not because one your still on the ground the other you in the air.

Am I straying too far from the subject here?

No you still in the realm of aesthetics (the philosophy of art) and not estemelyolgy wich I was leaning towards.

How ever you did put you answer to is there something that makes something inheritly beautifully?
And/or in this case creative.

At this point it might be a good idea to define creativity.

The dictionary says
the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work.

To me creativity is not subjective because subjective is to the individual, when I believe we need a group of people to say yes or no. Secondly it does need to be original.
Lastly if one person sees differently he is "wrong" like how I know someone who says baseball is not a sport, he has the right to his opinion and the right to say it's not a sport but that will not stop everyone else from saying it is one.
I think you can say the same principle to are when applied to art.

And anyway, who is going to declare that, yes, the A.I. has been creative, an artist or a scientist, or god help us, a critic.

In short we are going to. As it looks to me you agree on that though, please say otherwise if I'm wrong.

Maybe what is an essential point here is that man alone owns art and does not understand it.

We don't need to understand something to use it, the Roman engineers are prove of that. All we can do is try to make sense of it in the long run.
Most of the logistic class has a hard time with art because it not logical,

the question boils down to this do you believe art needs to be understood, or do you believe that we are as humans responseable for defining what is art.

I go with the second one.

that is the answer is get from most people. My question is more focused on agency (can a robot be human) but that question is probably for a different thread

it because athens culture and government encouraged more freedom of thought than many other nations at the time.

Like how spartan culture and government encouraged creating the best army.

it is not genocide just mass killings.

Genocide must at some point make the people seem less than human.

I get you point though. You probably think all killing is wrong. I have no clue of your opinion on self defense

For sure, as well as genocide. He defines that as good while I define it as evil.

We're you get that idea.

God defines love differently than you do. God loves us as a father, he want us to be content not happy. It works for me.

what you have described is sympathy.

Plenty people use the word sympathy and empathy interchangeable were is probably were you got your definition.

True empathy is requireds no imagination because it only can occur when you have gone through something similar.

Empathy is one of the things that we actually have a hard definition for, it is

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another

What you described sounds like, this

feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
Or
understanding between people; common feeling

Wich is the definition of sympathy. A key part of sympathy is

Even in seemingly unambiguous contexts, you have no idea how other people perceive things or what it makes them feel or think. You can understand sentiments but not people.

True empathy doesn't have the problems you listed. However it is also far more difficult.

I'm wesleyan orthodox (a type of Christian).
Jesus simply his laws for us. This simplification is prifrased, love God then love others. So the answer to your question is God is more important.

Yes, I know the question that come with divine command theory.

this is all about the question what is reality/consciousness?
Thruth is you could be right because we don't have an answer.

I say our reality is real but this is an assumption. However before you disregard me, we need to start somewhere, and we need an assumption that works.

Is it an illusion, no. However I get you point. I say democracy is a dictatorship. Not because it a dictatorship but rather dictatorship tactics are used to mantian power. In the same way democracy is an illusion, not because it is an illusion but rather you feel you have less or no say.

yes, it was past in 2004 but I didn't know about it and its affects till 2014.

a quote from
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm

The legislation was strongly opposed by religious conservatives. They warned that Christian pastors, Jewish rabbis, Muslim Imams, or other religious leaders could find themselves in jail if they were to preach that homosexuality is evil or sinful.

now yes the law has its Protections

now looking at this
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading

even if not successful it is bad that it is being considered. if successful this will end with any Christian that dose not comply will be in jail. to my knowledge mostly pastors.

as I know your atheist, I know your have different opinion. Christians we told not to support people like the LGBTQ and what they stand for is sinful. Christians have no problem with LGBTQ existence as long as they don't interfere with Christians existence. which it looks like they are starting to.

also in Canada it is becoming easier restrict speech for being offended because people complain to the right people and they give in. which it regulating speech without the court. That is my biggest problem.

the reason C-250 is a problem is it help lay the ground work. your right there is scaremongering, but I like to attack the roots before there's a tree.

you are right it is not the exact same. these are the traits that people use to label a education system are: discipline, obedience, subservience, conformity, grading, rigid curriculum, mindless memorization, and state funded. the U.S. remade the model to make it more humane than the actual Prussian system. they have made changes to try to make students independent thinkers but will little success. it dose teach obedience just not enforced.

well that is the best I herd on the subject in years, I live in Canada which has a different political landscape.

I have include an article on the Prussian education system. I send you this to let you decide for yourself if you use this model. because most don't call it by its name

https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-prussian-education-system.htm#didyouknowout

Those are right-wing

Yes but everyone has a bias in politics

These articles are probably what your looking for

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/the-end-of-religious-liberty-in-canada-1264412.html

The second one is by extension if you didn't get it.

I think they can be. My question is who is the artist the computer or the programer.

Those are two different things though.

I gave that definition for just the sake of argument. In my country you almost need to commit murder before being convicted of hate speech. In realty though I treat it as something that needs no definition because we all know what it is.

Does anyone on "the left" actually say this or is this just something "the left" is accused of?

The frist part of what I said is what people on the left say. They have arguments to back them up as well, most of them I find are doggy.

The second part about a secular society is something that some university professors said on the topic and when you look at this and others evidence it is convincing.w

Insults are not protected speech in many countries, but I have not heard of any initiative to make "offensive" speech illegal.

Right now the movmemt is limited but growing rapidly at least in my country. They cover it up with the words political correctness.

I'm not talking about protecting insults thought. I'm talking about protection of my right to express my opinion on a topic that may be sensitive to some.

Here are some articles that may help with understanding

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5115128/snowflake-generation-meaning-origin-term/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4009843/justin-trudeau-peoplekind-piers-morgan/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9842384/This-Equality-obsession-is-mad-bad-and-very-dangerous.html

And there are plenty more examples.

education is suppose to teach us how to function in society. however it no longer serves that function because we are using the Prussian system which was meant to create conformity. this worked in the industrial economic system but in the information economic we need the exact opposite set of skills. however we don't fix this because democracy.

I think anarchy would run better because if I think people have some morals. Also at least in anarchy the people have motivation to do something. Communism is a dream that one Mrk's came up with and thought people were carbon copys, because that is the only way it can work.

Luke 16:19-31 New Living Translation (NLT)Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

19 Jesus said, “There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. 20 At his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus who was covered with sores. 21 As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores.

22 “Finally, the poor man died and was carried by the angels to sit beside Abraham at the heavenly banquet. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and he went to the place of the dead There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side.

24 “The rich man shouted, ‘Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. I am in anguish in these flames.’

25 “But Abraham said to him, ‘Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish.26 And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there.’

27 “Then the rich man said, ‘Please, Father Abraham, at least send him to my father’s home.28 For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them so they don’t end up in this place of torment.’

29 “But Abraham said, ‘Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote.’

30 “The rich man replied, ‘No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.’

31 “But Abraham said, ‘If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

And will I believe the bible is not evidence, it is till good for uncovering God's nature.

only sensible option we've got. 

That is my point.

I'm saying your right. To most people don't think a God would change anything

But if you want an argument here it is. Is God exists for all intended peposes. Then only thoughts who look for him would have any benefit. God has a plan, this plan gives purpose. Purpose make us able to get thought the bad (man's search for meaning). God is a guide, not a force. He can actually as one but he wants us to trust him despite that. He may go for an intervention but only if it's a part of his plan.

To the outsider it would look like a blind fath but God would have earned there trust. Those who leave him did not have enough fath.

He is not irelivent just not visible to the hole

I agree, God exists but that is clearly not a viable argument. Why? Because you made a suggestion to the solution of a problem. Wich I'm sure anyone could see.