mike_decock

There is no flaw in my argument. You missed the point of the argument completely.

You're arguing along these lines:

1) People commit murder.
2) Punishment is a necessary evil to discourage people from murdering.
3) Evil is necessary for people to learn.

I'm saying

1) Murder is evil.
2) Life is good.
3) You don't need to be murdered to enjoy life.

Evil is unnecessary for good to exist.

-Mike...

Wiploc

Eternality reqires infinite duration. Being outside of time would give god no duration at all.
crc

Wiploc

If the atheist believes god doesn't exist, and the Christian believes god doesn't exist at any place or at any time, then there shouldn't be a hair's-breadth of distance between their positions.
crc

long winded fool

"In the beginning, God created..." seems to imply that God was the author of the beginning. At least that is the assumption of the rest of the Bible. If he was the author of the beginning, how could his existence be dependent upon something before the beginning? This raises an interesting point. If God created space and time, and space and time are both required for a thing to exist, how can God exist?

This can be solved by comparing the universe, or space-time continuum (a created system, for the sake of argument) with a program (a created system.) If the digitally created people inside the program are only capable of recognizing a thing's existence by it's inclusion in the program, (as is the case with the space-time continuum,) they can never possibly contemplate a thing existing outside the program. "Existence" is meaningless apart from the program. If the program is always a prerequisite for anything to have a property of "before" or "outside," then outside and before become meaningless when you take the program away. The people in this analogy can never logically comprehend the programmer, yet there is a programmer. The programmer cannot "exist" to its program, because the program is a prerequisite for existence to have meaning to anything inside the program.

Someone once asked me what conclusions could be drawn from this. As near as I can see, God doesn't have to exist to be the creator of the universe. IF the universe is a created entity, then that is all the logical proof that can ever be availible for the postulation of a creator God and that creator God must necessarily be non-existent. There is no other way of finding "Him." "He" cannot exist by our understanding of the word. Yet here we are. We are currently in possession of the only proof that can ever be availible for God, and paradoxically, it is more than enough proof. Divine intervention and miracles are no different than human intervention and leaps in technological advancement. All things which exist must correspond to the laws of the program/physics. Nothing defies the laws of the program, they only temporarily defy the understanding of those in the program. Things with as yet no explanation are no more miraculous than things which already have an explanation. God is illogical and not there, yet belief in him is completely logical once you assume that the universe is a created thing.

T. E. Lords

Thats a really intersting point LWF. While I've floated around that concept before I never hit the nail on the head in quiet that way.

So lets assume that your assertion that a creator exists out side of our known universe and that he can't enter our our reality any more than we can exit it. Then wouldn't it stand to reason that we would live our lives as if that creator didn't exist?

Spenser

This solves nothing, this gives you an idea of what it might be like if there was a God but is not comparable. The computer program postulated would still have to follow the laws of the universe (ours) that it was created in such as time (I hit new_universe.exe at 5:13pm, it been running 2 minutes now) and space (It's located on my hardrive). This suggests us as the role of programmers may know everything about our program but are not omni-max (my newly learned vocab word for the day). We, like God, become subject to what created us and what laws must we follow, what are limitations are, and why we would be proud to have children destined to never have sex.

Its (your theory) more like saying time and space always existed, God in it and at one point he decided to create the universe. It is this point we can't see beyond, yet could suggest that time and space are infinite rather than God who is subject to its laws, or time and space did begin, but before our universe and our universe was subject to being programmed in it.

If time and space were created with our universe as science suggests, then you are right about one thing, you couldn't possible know anything beyond it and any speculation of such is merely made up and can never rely upon logic and reason as they are bound by our universe. If you could never possibly know it then it is a waste of time to pretend it exists, much less pray to it, or subject yourself to rules so as to avoid such concepts as sin. How's that for long winded?

long winded fool

Seems that way to me. There would be no logical reason for life to be different at all were the programmer never postulated. Of course, if the digital people erroneously believed they needed to avoid imagined divine punishment by the programmer, they might make rules of conduct for each other which in an ironic way would make life easier for them by avoiding those actions which cause digital pain to others. The concept of the programmer could make life better. It could, also make life worse, but if the digital people are completely honest and logical, they would constantly change their perpetually erroneous concept of the programmer so that obeying him always resulted in good consequences.

You got nothin' on me! I'd agree with most of what you said, though the programmer would not be subject to the laws of his program, therefore God need not be subject to the laws of the universe, if the analogy holds. You are right that praying to the programmer can never change the program in a noticible way. IF the programmer did happen to change the program, the change by necessity would go unnoticed and correspond exactly to the now "changed" laws of the program, since to perceive any change in the syntax of the program would require independence from the program itself. Changing the way a program runs means nothing to anything entirely subject to the laws of the program. The program just runs the way the syntax tells it to. In other words, if God ever divinely intervenes, the intervention must be explainable by the laws of the program, i.e. physics, mathematics, logic, or whatever, in order to bring about a consequence that can exist in the program. If I want my program to behave a certain way that might seem miraculous to the digital people, I must code the syntax which will order it to behave this way. Upon examination, a digital atheist (or anti-programmer maybe?) would see that there is a perfectly logical explanation for why this thing happened and say with perfect rationality, "Look, no programmer did this. This is just the way the program naturally works." He might even be able to repeat the supposed miracle by closely examining the rules which made the thing happen and bring about a situation where it happens again. In this way, it is true that a digital A.I. can theoretically perform any miracles that the original programmer could in the context of their program. As Jesus said to His disciples who marveled at his miracles, "You will do all these things and more..."

And I agree that a digital skeptic would tell his digital friends who believe in an illogical programmer that it is far more reasonable to assume that the program has always existed, since time, space, and existence are utterly dependent upon the program. But if I'm the programmer, here it sit in spite of the logic of the digital atheists, right?

mike_decock

Is it logical to assume that the universe is a created thing?

-Mike...

long winded fool

That is indeed the question. I don't currently think so, however similar the universe is to a program. But if it were, then... see analogy. This is meant for those who grant, for the sake of argument, that there is a God and then proceed to point out contradictions from there. Once you've granted a creator God, I don't think that there are near as many logical contradictions as most infidels think there is. In fact, I can think of none off the top of my head that would clearly present a dilemma with the God described in the Bible and the analogy, as long as one allows for reasonable allegorical interpretation. In this analogy, free will could exist to the digital people in the syntax of the program, yet, being in possession of all the variables and having programmed each and every law and each and every variable which will interact with the laws, the programmer could theoretically have complete knowledge of the program from beginning to end. "Free will" plus predestination. From outside the program, it is obvious that the digital people do not really have free will because all their actions are determined entirely by the programmer when the program is constructed, but inside the context of the program they absolutely do. The things that they cannot do can never exist in the program, therefore they cannot perceive any direct barriers to any action. They are free to do anything they want to do at any time, (inside perspective) because they can never possibly do anything that they are not programmed to do (outside perspective.) The only thing they are not free to do is to violate the program. (Yet they cannot perceive this barrier, since a violation of the program to them can never exist because anything capable of any action must first exist in the program, and to do this it must follow the code exactly.) Since the digital people cannot be in complete intellectual possession of the laws and variables of the program due to their dependence upon the program, every action is taken of free will and corresponds exactly to their predetermined programming.

mike_decock

I don't see any reason to assume that the universe is a created thing, other than to provide a simple answer for anything we cannot (currently) explain otherwise. I don't think it's logical to provide, as an explanation, something that can never be fully explained or understood.

Let me separate two notions here:

1) A creator God.
2) The Biblical God.

1) If you make the assumption that the universe is a created thing, it follows that there must be a creator. I think that's fairly logical and I don't really have an issue with that concept. This, in and of it's itself, doesn't present any real logical contradictions.

I don't think you can logically defend much beyond Deism, though. Can the program decipher the nature of the programmer? We can look at the code (natural laws) and speculate, but it will never be more than speculation.

2) I think, for the most part, the infidels pick on the Biblical description of God since that is the one they are most familiar with. The Biblical speculation about God is inconsistent. Jealous and cruel in one part, loving and generous in another. Why is the speculation of the biblical authors any better than someone else's? Was God sending them Instant Messages, telling them what to write?

Also consider the logical contradictions of an interventionist God. One who hardens the Pharoah's heart or walks around the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.

How could the programmer enter the program as a programmer-program (God-Man)? How can the programmer die in the program and remain alive outside of the program?

-Mike...