Olorin

[Posted twice in error]

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Olorin ]</p>

Jayjay

The problem is that even though the programmer may have revised the simulation any arbitrary number of times, there are still an infinite number of possible simulations. So, there are always some simulations the programmer hasn't thought of, and therefore is not omniscient.

Maybe my definition of omniscience is a bit shaky: One can argue that omniscience is simply knowledge of all that's actually happening in the simulation, not of all possible events. Or if the simulation is limited in some way (there's a maximum number of program steps and maximum number of data storage), then it's possible to know everything within these boundaries.

He could have limited hardware resources. But then again, this would only be a deficiency outside the simulation, so I think you're right.

This is probably benevolent, but is it omnibenevolent? But that's also probably because of the absurdity of the concept of omnibenevolence, and not with the computer simulation analogy.

WJ

Orlin!

Looks like alot of these arguments are spin-offs from the original ontological argument, which, in the end, fail (see Pascal's Wager). Being is outside the domain of logical impossibility. Formal logic is not germain to Being because mathematics are timeless concepts [like the human concept of God], but our existence [consciousness and physics] is completely dependent on time. Quite an irony isn't it?

With regard to the *nature* of a thing(s) or Being, it is certainly possible that a some thing could be both green and red at the same time same respect. So the omnipresence, good/bad and all that [atributes/nature of God] though logically impossible (as it should be), they 'can' exist viz. Being using logic.

This is why folks like William James favors the inductive reasoning approach rather than deductive. And, is also why Pascal said what he said about postulating existence. And is why physicist' use inductive reasoning to uncover/discover the 'nature' of existence [things] because they can be tested empirically.

Aposterior and inductive reasoning is really the only way to attempt a logically sound explaination in a part-objective, part- subjective, world.

Another method or way of looking at this problem is thru the mind-body phenomena. What comprises conscious existence? If we cannot answer that [the nature of our own existence] with absolute certainty, then how is it possible to answer any questions about some other Being?

Walrus

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

naasking

1] he does know all possible futures though.
2] such as?
3] how?
4] the original poster said (paraphrase) "the programmer does what's best for them"
9] but not the "time" the AI's experience

naasking

[1] Omniscient
[2] Omnipotent
[3] Ineffable
[4] Omnibenevolent
[5] Omnipresent
[6] Perfect
[7] Invisible (immaterial, supernatural)
[8] Creator of the universe
[9] Outside of time
[10] Desires communion with humans
[11] Has free will

Contradictions that I see:

[5] [9]: if God is omnipresent, then he must be present in time.

[5] [10]: if God is omnipresent, then humans are merely a part of Him so why would He commune with himself.

[1] [11]: if He is omniscient, He knows what He will do, and therefore has no choice/free will.

[4] [11]: if God is all good, then he will always do good deeds and does not have a choice/free will.

[2]: can He create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it? (lame, I know)

[1] [3]: if God is indescribable, then even He cannot describe Himself, thus He is not omniscient.

[3] [all others]: God cannot be ineffable if we can describe Him with qualities. Said another way, if God has a nature, then we can describe Him. To be truly ineffable, God would have to have no attributes or nature of any kind.

[4] [5]: if God is all good and He is present in everything, then everything is good (ie. no evil)! Not really a contradiction though.

I'm sure there are more.

goody2shoes

I don't think that you should apologize. Your statements were fine.

First of all, I'd be prone to say that it is more than Christians who believe in a Supreme Being (SB) who created the universe. The characteristics you describe are believed by more than Christians.

I think that the difficulty with all of these arguments are they implicitly talk as though the SB were a part of the time and space that we inhabit instead of being external to it. The SB would be an entity who exists external to the space-time continuum and is the creator of it. There is no "now" or "future" to the SB, there is the creation containing all space and time before Him. Your future is the past to someone else and neither past nor future to the SB. If the SB wanted to change some aspect, He would be capable of so doing. In fact he could duplicate the entire universe with two different outcomes at some point in time.

The "Omni" words simply refer to the SB characteristics with respect to this universe. Outside of this universe, most religions make no statement. For example, the SB is often referred to as "one". That too would be with respect to the SB's control of this universe, not a statement that the SB is absolutely alone - wherever He is.

Anyhow, that is the way I see it.

Please excuse use of "He" for the SB.

Goody

Koyaanisqatsi

Actually, it's non sequitur and it means an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (or, more simply, a responsive statement that does not follow logically from anything previously said).

The whole point of the biblical God is that it is a deliberate non sequitur, or, better, logically impossible.

Logically impossible paradoxes cause what is known as "cognitive dissonance" (psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously), which is imperative for a cult in order to shut down otherwise normal critical analysis.

Amos' nonsensical posting is a perfect example.

The point is to keep a "doubt" plate spinning--always spinning--so that the mind never fully applies any kind of critical analysis of the cult constructs, because, of course, the second it did outside of cognitive dissonance is the second the mind recognizes the blatant fraud.

Stupidity like the trinity is deliberately conceived to induce this plate spinning effect in the cult member's minds (some call it "mystical thinking") for precisely this reason. The mind has nothing tangible or logicall to latch onto and since nature abhors a vacuum, the next best thing is latched onto; i.e., godidit.

It's nothing more than childish games of semantics; It cannot be known, which is how we know it kind of crap.

It's exceedingly effective, especially on the ignorant, like children, which is of course why both Jesus and Hitler said, in essence, "suffer your children unto me."

Nothing new.