Creation Answer Book

Originally posted by lausey
I cannot see how it is far more likely. For starters, the burden of proof will lie in proving this over a real universe. It also introduces more complexity, and violates Occam's Razor (as far as I can see).

After all, whom ever created the simulation would also have had an origin (maybe that is also a simulation, ad infinitum).

If the hypothesis says it is more likely, I would be interested in learning more about it.

It's a statistical argument really. Step one postulates that it will eventually be possible to accurately simulate the entire universe within a computer of some kind. If you accept this premise, then step two involves the suggestion that this is likely to happen more than once. If this is so, well, you and I could be existing in any of the simulations or in the one, real universe. Statistically, we're most likely therefore to be in one of the simulations.

Originally posted by Penguin
The universe is [b]at most evidence of a creator. Not of any specific creator. It could be your god just as much as the Hindu gods, the Muslim god, the Yin and Yang of Chinese philosophy, any of the other creation myths that have been dreamed up over the ages or any of the countless creation stories that have not even been thought of.

Why do yo ...[text shortened]... ink your god is more likely than the infinite number of other possible creators?

--- Penguin.[/b]

The creator God of the Holy Bible passes the the truth tests. The descriptions
of all other so-called gods exposes them as untrue. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have studied Physics and know the laws of thermodynamics probably
better than anyone on this website. So I think I will be able to judge
if he has a misunderstanding of them or not myself once I get the book.
If the book is very funny, as you claim, then it will not be a total loss of
money and time.

Reveal Hidden ContentYeah I'm calling bull$hit on that one

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It's a statistical argument really. Step one postulates that it will eventually be possible to accurately simulate the entire universe within a computer of some kind. If you accept this premise, then step two involves the suggestion that this is likely to happen more than once. If this is so, well, you and I could be existing in any of the simulation ...[text shortened]... ne, real universe. Statistically, we're most likely therefore to be in one of the simulations.

If I recall the argument they claimed it to be infinitely more likely.

It also relies upon the principle of never assuming a privileged position for us
(ie not in centre of universe or most important thing in it, or that it was built for our benefit ect)
In this case not assuming that we are in (one of?) the base universes that is 'real' that have to
come first and not in one of the (assumed) infinite simulations or simulations within simulations.

However I don't buy all the premises, certainly not the one about simulated universes infinitely
outnumbering 'real' ones.

The possibility of vast numbers of multiverses also alters the math.

Originally posted by Agerg
[hidden]Take 2: (sorry Lausey if you saw my original post - quoted you instead of our resident muppet)[/hidden]Yeah I'm calling bull$hit on that one

You must have a large pasture for your livestock where you gather
all the BULL$HIT you put out.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You must have a large pasture for your livestock where you gather
all the BULL$HIT you put out.

Did you not read all the posts pointing out in detail you total failure to comprehend
the second law of thermodynamics or did you just not understand them?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Did you not read all the posts pointing out in detail you total failure to comprehend
the second law of thermodynamics or did you just not understand them?

Accusations are not proof of anything. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Accusations are not proof of anything. 😏

you're right. but your own words prove you have no understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. this is something anyone with half a brain can reference and prove.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You imply the existence of only one god concept.

I said that even assuming that the universe was created by intelligence, how can you know if
the intelligence was singular or plural, god or gods?
How can you know if it was Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, Vishnu, or some deist god that
created the universe but either doesn't interact with it o to disprove evolution.

So you believe falsehoods, and don't even know what logic is.

You imply the existence of only one god concept.
Yes - why would I do otherwise if i am Christian?

I said that even assuming that the universe was created by intelligence, how can you know if
the intelligence was singular or plural, god or gods?
How can you know if it was Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, Vishnu, or some deist god that
created the universe but either doesn't interact with it or does but hasn't ever come here?
By faith I know that God Yahweh (singular) created the universe.

Even IF (and it's a really big IF that I am not going to concede) the universe was created by
intelligence you have absolutely no reason to suppose it wasn't one of the other thousands of
god concepts man has created or one that we have never even thought of.
If this is the case, you and I will receive a big surprise.

Even if the universe is evidence for the existence of a creator or creators that doesn't mean it's
evidence for YOUR particular version of god, or even evidence that it was a god at all.
If not God, why not God? I am saying that the universe is so big, that only a supernatural and omnipotence Creator could have done this, which we call God.

It is for example not completely off the cards based on current physics that future particle
accelerators could create new universes. Would that make us gods?
Those particles already existed since the existence of humankind. By claiming you created something which was already there makes you pathetic. To discover something which was already there and bringing it to the attention of humankind makes you an discoverer/scientist or something in that direction, but not an atheist who thinks he can become a god. A very poor argument.

It's also (and even more so) possible that we will in the future create virtual reality computer
simulations of worlds and universes that could themselves have simulate life forms form inside them
and that it's also possible that we ourselves are in such a simulation. In which case the creators of this
universe would be that universes equivalent of compute geeks. Are they gods?
This has already been done. Just take one of the major ones which is "secondlife". It is all about you and sex - which makes people creating such environments evil, not gods. Technically they can call themselves an evil god.
And trust me, I kinda think you are right in saying this life is a simulation, but I only say so cause the real life after death is with the Creator Himself in heaven, that is, if you are saved by accepting that the death of Jesus Christ was for you as well.

So even before I point out that you have no proof for and plenty of evidence against this being a
never ending universe, and that their is no reason to suppose that if it were created it would have to
be created by god. That the universe may not actually have a beginning or need a creator even if it did,
and that even if there is a god this does nothing to disprove evolution.
You make no sense here. How can, if there is a God, this not disprove evolution. If there is a God and evolution exists, then it really means that there is no God cause evolution is god. If there is no reason to believe God is the Creator, then would you want to believe the FSM is the creator? Or maybe the aliens?

So you believe falsehoods, and don't even know what logic is.
No I believe in truth and by having my heart and mind open, it made me see the truth in the Bible. I claim this openly that I have more logic than you think you may have. Who are you to assume I know nothing as it is clear you know less?

Originally posted by Penguin
The universe is [b]at most evidence of a creator. Not of any specific creator. It could be your god just as much as the Hindu gods, the Muslim god, the Yin and Yang of Chinese philosophy, any of the other creation myths that have been dreamed up over the ages or any of the countless creation stories that have not even been thought of.

Why do yo ...[text shortened]... ink your god is more likely than the infinite number of other possible creators?

--- Penguin.[/b]

Well, as a Christian it is obvious that my God is the choice. Not the aliens, not the FSM nor the evolution theory.

Originally posted by Barts
Your argument basically is:
1) If something created the universe then I'm going to call it God
2) In the Bible they have an omnipotent being and they call it God
3) They're both called God, they must be the same thing right ?

Are you sure you don't see a problem with this from a logical point of view ?

1) If something created the universe then I'm going to call it God
Yes because someone that is supernatural and has unlimited power is...... God 😉

2) In the Bible they have an omnipotent being and they call it God
Right.

3) They're both called God, they must be the same thing right ?
Right.

Are you sure you don't see a problem with this from a logical point of view ?
Yes, there is big problem.
You don't know nothing about God.
By referring to God as "it"? Seriously? We all know, even if you don't believe in God that God is a HE.
The first 3 questions asked to a Christian, did you really expect my answers to be different?

Originally posted by Penguin
There is a hypothesis that we are far more likely to actually be inside such a simulation than we are to 'really' exist in a 'real' universe.

--- Penguin.

LOL - and the same people/hypothesis support evolution.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Indeed, I don't myself buy that idea (that us being in a simulation is more likely than not),
but I accept that it's possible.
And it's certainly more likely and better supported by evidence and reason than any god
hypothesis.

Hell no! You believe that someone that creates a simulation is likely to be called a god, but you believe you could possibly be in one but yet you still then argue there is no evidence to support a god created it...

The reason you don't believe in God is because you assume you are in the simulation.

You would have wanted to be called god if you created the simulation.

Man, evolution has made you crazier than I thought. Hey look, we all have dreams right. Just glad I don't dream this stuff.

Originally posted by lausey
I cannot see how it is far more likely. For starters, the burden of proof will lie in proving this over a real universe. It also introduces more complexity, and violates Occam's Razor (as far as I can see).

After all, whom ever created the simulation would also have had an origin (maybe that is also a simulation, ad infinitum).

If the hypothesis says it is more likely, I would be interested in learning more about it.

If there is evidence that says God is likely to exist, would you be interested in learning it too?

Originally posted by Nicksten
[b]1) If something created the universe then I'm going to call it God
Yes because someone that is supernatural and has unlimited power is...... God 😉

2) In the Bible they have an omnipotent being and they call it God
Right.

3) They're both called God, they must be the same thing right ?
Right.

Are you sure you don't see a p ...[text shortened]... first 3 questions asked to a Christian, did you really expect my answers to be different?

So if that's a perfectly logical argument according to you ? Now what about this one.

1) If something created the universe, I'll call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster
2) There is this book where they talk about the FSM
3) They're both called the FSM, they must be the same thing right ?

According to you rules of logic, I just proved that the FSM created the universe. For an encore I could do the same for Zeus, Odin, Allah, Eru and Tim the Enchanter. Which is the point, even if there were proof that some being created the universe, there is still no way of knowing whether it is the God of the Bible or any other God(s).

And about the linguistics complaint, "it" refers to "being". As far as I know "being" is gender neutral, so I'm perfectly allowed to refer to it with the word "it".