Cyprus-Forum.com

[Atheist]

Who is the "God" of that "artificial life in a computer"? More likely the creators of this "software" are more than one. And those that are using the "software" don't even have to be the same as the creators. In fact many different copies of that "artificial life" universe could simultaneously be run on many different computers by different users.

And what would be the purpose of this software? If you create something it is more likely that you create it to serve your needs or the needs of those who use your creation. You don't create an object in order to serve the needs of the created object. So if we were purposely created, then our more likely purpose would be to fulfill some needs of the creators and we are nothing but disposable objects who are being used.

And even if humans were to run some "artificial life in a computer" this wouldn't mean that Humans are immortal and all powerful. A human would have the power to "turn off" a universe running in his computer or affect it in various ways, but he still wouldn't have the power to make himself immortal.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the theists make a lot of baseless assumptions. The "Intelligent Design" is just one baseless assumption. Then they make a lot of other baseless assumptions, like that the creator has to be a single entity, that the creator is also an active "operator" ( a creation can exist apart from its creator), that the creator still exist (a creation can outlive its creators), that this creator cares about each and every one of them on an individual level and that this creator has as a purpose to reward them and serve their needs.

So it is a chain of baseless assumptions because the "Intelligent Design" theory on its own is not enough to serve the psychological needs of the theists.

You seem to have taken my comparison literally and gone off tangent, what I was simply trying to point out was, how the difference between life in the computer and life in the universe would be similar in scale to our differences with any such God, if we were to think of God’s existence as a logical possibility. I’m not going by religious belief but by looking at the universe and thinking if God were to exist - how could the possibility be described from a logical perspective.

I used that example to demonstrate that a difference in scale would still not make the "bigger" thing a "God".

To counter your argument with that logic, it would be much more likely that God needn't be born…it's existence and living conditions would not be derived from any truths or any characteristics of existence as found within the universe. God could be immortal and there may be a simple explanation to it’s immortality which makes sense within the reality of it’s own existence but does not translate as any formula that could be understood to anything living in the universe.

Why "it would be much more likely that God needn't be born" and not "it would be much more likely that the universe needn't be born"? Why does the universe need a creator but "God" doesn't?

And if there is something "outside our universe" that something could be anything and only our imagination is the limit to what that something could be. I think it would be really boring if there is something beyond our universe and that something is just one "God" who is concerned with earthly matters! In an earlier post you claimed that Atheists are lucking imagination, but I think it is your imagination which is lucking, constrained by your religious beliefs We have plenty of imagination, but we just know to distinguish imagination from facts while it seems that you confuse the two. There is no problem in believing in just the facts while also using your imagination for things that we can't scientifically prove yet.

[Paphitis]

I have already explained the difference between pantheism (the "scientific" God) and theism (the personal God) so I'm not gonna go over that again.

Oh yes of course, and humanity is able to give this creator a label in order to fit in with their own wishful thinking. Seriously, if this creator does exist, it would be so offended that germs like us would even see fit to be thinking of it and that somehow it is here slaving away to build universes for our existence.

That's a new one mate.

Welcome back O’ shallow one… let me be the first to inform that during your absence nobody remembered or missed you and I need not explain why!

Well you see you are very good at making assumptions.

I'm sure that not many missed me bar maybe one or two. Nor do I really care apart from of course the one or two or three nice people who do remember me and miss me.

You will be happy to know, that during my absence, I had far bigger and more important life changing issues to deal with. This forum hardly even crossed my mind. Not withstanding this, I am destined to leave this forum in my dust once again probably by the end of this day. Got a lot on my plate mate.

Now the question you should ask yourself is this. Should you leave this forum, who is going to miss you? I would say not many, but let me be the first to admit that I would miss you quite a bit. So you can count at least one.

[Paphitis]

There are also some "sociological" reasons.

Forget the baloney... just give it up!

The notion of GOD was borne not out of psychological or social reasons but because... the universe was THERE!

What will it take to get this through your thick head?

It must be all the evidence you inundated him with!

So far, all you seem to be selling is that the universe and our existence is 100% irrefutable evidence of the existence of this supreme creator or GOD! Oh yes, this is what seems to be bashed over our heads all the time for thousands of years, but we're not buying anymore!

And your sense of our self importance in the greater scheme of things in this universe is mind blowing. That's what i would call "shallow"

Sorry mate, but I think there is more evidence of the existence of Area 51 and aliens.

[Paphitis]

Who is the "God" of that "artificial life in a computer"? More likely the creators of this "software" are more than one. And those that are using the "software" don't even have to be the same as the creators. In fact many different copies of that "artificial life" universe could simultaneously be run on many different computers by different users.

And what would be the purpose of this software? If you create something it is more likely that you create it to serve your needs or the needs of those who use your creation. You don't create an object in order to serve the needs of the created object. So if we were purposely created, then our more likely purpose would be to fulfill some needs of the creators and we are nothing but disposable objects who are being used.

And even if humans were to run some "artificial life in a computer" this wouldn't mean that Humans are immortal and all powerful. A human would have the power to "turn off" a universe running in his computer or affect it in various ways, but he still wouldn't have the power to make himself immortal.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the theists make a lot of baseless assumptions. The "Intelligent Design" is just one baseless assumption. Then they make a lot of other baseless assumptions, like that the creator has to be a single entity, that the creator is also an active "operator" ( a creation can exist apart from its creator), that the creator still exist (a creation can outlive its creators), that this creator cares about each and every one of them on an individual level and that this creator has as a purpose to reward them and serve their needs.

So it is a chain of baseless assumptions because the "Intelligent Design" theory on its own is not enough to serve the psychological needs of the theists.

You seem to have taken my comparison literally and gone off tangent, what I was simply trying to point out was, how the difference between life in the computer and life in the universe would be similar in scale to our differences with any such God, if we were to think of God’s existence as a logical possibility. I’m not going by religious belief but by looking at the universe and thinking if God were to exist - how could the possibility be described from a logical perspective.

I used that example to demonstrate that a difference in scale would still not make the "bigger" thing a "God".

To counter your argument with that logic, it would be much more likely that God needn't be born…it's existence and living conditions would not be derived from any truths or any characteristics of existence as found within the universe. God could be immortal and there may be a simple explanation to it’s immortality which makes sense within the reality of it’s own existence but does not translate as any formula that could be understood to anything living in the universe.

Why "it would be much more likely that God needn't be born" and not "it would be much more likely that the universe needn't be born"? Why does the universe need a creator but "God" doesn't?

And if there is something "outside our universe" that something could be anything and only our imagination is the limit to what that something could be. I think it would be really boring if there is something beyond our universe and that something is just one "God" who is concerned with earthly matters! In an earlier post you claimed that Atheists are lucking imagination, but I think it is your imagination which is lucking, constrained by your religious beliefs We have plenty of imagination, but we just know to distinguish imagination from facts while it seems that you confuse the two. There is no problem in believing in just the facts while also using your imagination for things that we can't scientifically prove yet.

I think Atheists have gone way beyond religious texts these days. It simply doesn't pass the pub test. And TC might want to reboot his entire existence.

Atheists are more likely to think in universal and scientific terms, and what a mind boggling area of discovery that is. We are no longer talking about the existence of our universe alone but the existence of a multiverse and other parallel universes where even Physics as we know it in our own universe might not exist. For example, the absence of gravity and electromagnetism.

It takes a lot of imagination to even come up with such hypothesis. I only wish I had more time to delve into this in far more detail because it is interesting to me. Astronomy and Physics are very interesting subjects for me. There are some great books to be read from some of the most interesting minds on the planet.

Another area I would like to look into is Greek Philosophy.

[Paphitis]

...do (can) Atheists believe in flying saucers?

BTW, I thought you might be interested in this.

http://www.space.com/28665-seti-astrono ... rview.html

https://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_ ... anguage=en

Literally billions are being spent in an effort to discover other intelligent and non-intelligent life forms. So quite clearly, some of the top scientists believe we are not alone.

[supporttheunderdog]

...do (can) Atheists believe in flying saucers?

BTW, I thought you might be interested in this.

http://www.space.com/28665-seti-astrono ... rview.html

https://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_ ... anguage=en

Literally billions are being spent in an effort to discover other intelligent and non-intelligent life forms. So quite clearly, some of the top scientists believe we are not alone.

The presumption of many religions is that humanity is the pinnacle of Some other being's creation, also that their particular view is the correct one. I simply fail to see why I shoud belive any on of them. As for ET, rather more likely than the religious opinion about a deity.

[repulsewarrior]

...the word, transference, comes to mind.

...science or religion, it is not the systems they create that have the capacity to act, and it is the weakness of the individuals who see in it their satisfaction that abuse.

...in my mind the last refuge of such corrupt individuals is the stark accusations they make in judgement, derived from their own denial of the fears they have within themselves.

...in my mind, reason, is the 'flaw' that makes us 'inferior', and like a default mechanism if we go too far, we will destroy ourselves.

...who has the courage to ask, is their God, is there no God, not me; but i do believe that where we come from we return to, i believe that Love has infinite power, if God is Love, the way, is not an unreasonable way of living.

...indeed we know so little of what is around us, even the reality of what we think exists carries the question, does it?

[Get Real!]

...the word, transference, comes to mind.

...science or religion, it is not the systems they create that have the capacity to act, and it is the weakness of the individuals who see in it their satisfaction that abuse.

...in my mind the last refuge of such corrupt individuals is the stark accusations they make in judgement, derived from their own denial of the fears they have within themselves.

...in my mind, reason, is the 'flaw' that makes us 'inferior', and like a default mechanism if we go too far, we will destroy ourselves.

...who has the courage to ask, is their God, is there no God, not me; but i do believe that where we come from we return to, i believe that Love has infinite power, if God is Love, the way, is not an unreasonable way of living.

...indeed we know so little of what is around us, even the reality of what we think exists carries the question, does it?

Your mind doesn't function properly so forget it.

[miltiades]

...the word, transference, comes to mind.

...science or religion, it is not the systems they create that have the capacity to act, and it is the weakness of the individuals who see in it their satisfaction that abuse.

...in my mind the last refuge of such corrupt individuals is the stark accusations they make in judgement, derived from their own denial of the fears they have within themselves.

...in my mind, reason, is the 'flaw' that makes us 'inferior', and like a default mechanism if we go too far, we will destroy ourselves.

...who has the courage to ask, is their God, is there no God, not me; but i do believe that where we come from we return to, i believe that Love has infinite power, if God is Love, the way, is not an unreasonable way of living.

...indeed we know so little of what is around us, even the reality of what we think exists carries the question, does it?

Your mind doesn't function properly so forget it.

Yes RW, in order for your mind to properly function, like GR's for instance , you have to accept mythological nonsense created by pre historic man, in those days as we ...very well know man had access to a huge array of search engines , encyclopaedias, many libraries and a plethora of scientific texts, so man set about creating the biggest nonsense in human history.
Not only absolutely irrational and extremely absurd but divisive and bloody cruel.

[repulsewarrior]

...ironically, if GR was to take the time, he might enjoy my take on this topic because we are not at all, far apart.

God is Love

...i hardly think that GR can disagree with that.