The Testable Deistic God

[cal]

I gave the current definitions from an authoritative source.

Right, so read the definitions and note the difference in Capitalization. Calling all gods, God, is not appropriate. God and gods are different things. A deity, or a god, is different than God (of any of the three major world religions since they are all non-diestic) not to mention a god or gods are sometimes different than deities. You are telling me your sources are credible and that somehow makes your incorrect argument correct simply because you had good sources. Use logic. God and gods are different words and mean different things. Not to mention, deity and deistic vs. non-deistic are not the same thing to base your premise on. You place a definition for deity as if that covers deistic vs. non-deistic attributes when describing and entity. You're displaying a very fundamental misunderstanding of what world religions (especially the ones that aren't the three major ones) believe, as well as what most of the philosophical debates behind them entail. You are also masking your obvious holes by saying anything I say is wrong simply because I'm not giving a source on a thing that doesn't matter and is easily googled. This is a form of Argument From Ignorance. I'd also like to point out that in this very thread you posted this...

 

 

GAME, SET, MATCH.

 

Also, Moontanman pointed something out in the semantics of the definition as well; beautifully worded with, "Nothing unreal exists..."

[Turtle]

You are also masking your obvious

holes by saying anything I say is wrong simply because I'm not giving a source on a thing that doesn't matter and is easily googled. This is a form of Argument From Ignorance. I'd also like to point out that in this very thread you posted this...

 

 

GAME, SET, MATCH.

 

You wish. Your'e still warming the bench Son. You so conveniently left out the context of the whole post, specifically that I went on to find, post, and quote a link on the subject of tides.

 

Right, so read the definitions and note the difference in Capitalization. Calling all gods, God, is not appropriate. God and gods are different things. A deity, or a god, is different than God (of any of the three major world religions since they are all non-diestic) not to mention a god or gods are sometimes different than deities. You are telling me your sources are credible and that somehow makes your incorrect argument correct simply because you had good sources. Use logic. God and gods are different words and mean different things. Not to mention, deity and deistic vs. non-deistic are not the same thing to base your premise on. You place a definition for deity as if that covers deistic vs. non-deistic attributes when describing and entity. You're displaying a very fundamental misunderstanding of what world religions (especially the ones that aren't the three major ones) believe, as well as what most of the philosophical debates behind them entail. Also, Moontanman pointed something out in the semantics of the definition as well; beautifully worded with, "Nothing unreal exists..."

 

You are just spinning your wheels. Your thread title is nonsense and you have yet to give any references for your claims. As I say, you didn't come up with your ideas/assertions about testing for a simulation out of thin air. You read about it. So if you expect any discussion of those assertions/ideas then you must reference what you read. Anything less is slacking.

[cal]

You wish. Your'e still warming the bench Son. You so conveniently left out the context of the whole post, specifically that I went on to find, post, and quote a link on the subject of tides.

Yea, do it again if you want, it'd solve both our problems.

 

You are just spinning your wheels. Your thread title is nonsense and you have yet to give any references for your claims. As I say, you didn't come up with your ideas/assertions about testing for a simulation out of thin air. You read about it. So if you expect any discussion of those assertions/ideas then you must reference what you read. Anything less is slacking.

My thread title is not nonsense, there's no sense in nonsense, especially when the heat's hot. Also, I want to point out something very, very important here that you do not seem to be comprehending- IT DOESN'T MATTER. Who cares if scientists are testing for radiation? It doesn't matter since my questions in the original post stand on their own. Also, I don't remember the names of the articles and I feel unobligated to search for scientists testing for radiation because I already know it won't return to me what I want. But again, it doesn't matter. Let's say there isn't any radiation to test for, we can still flip over rocks about whether or not our universe is being simulated. Which is what I'd still like to do, but this thread seems very against discussing the topic of the thread (which is worse internet etiquette across the board, much ruder than not providing sources) and is against the site's rules as well...

 

Since your course of action is to cry to someone with more authority than you, keep in mind that if moderation power was invoked, all of your posts in this thread would be removed (since not a single one is on topic).

[Turtle]

Yea, do it again if you want, it'd solve both our problems.

 

Do what?

 

 

...

Since your course of action is to cry to someone with more authority than you, keep in mind that if moderation power was invoked, all of your posts in this thread would be removed (since not a single one is on topic).

 

I'm not crying. More like a suppressed giggling. No one has more authority than me. I'm the one pulling all the strings. I started the universe simulation and you are performing just as I programmed you to perform. You have no choice in the matter. Neither do the Germans or Kaku have any choice but to perform as I have programmed them to. Test that.

[cal]

You wish. Your'e still warming the bench Son. You so conveniently left out the context of the whole post, specifically that I went on to find, post, and quote a link on the subject of tides.

Yea, do it again if you want, it'd solve both our problems.

Do what?

Read it again...

 

I'm not crying.

Those down-vote tears sure look like crying.

 

No one has more authority than me.

Power drunk.

 

I'm the one pulling all the strings. I started the universe simulation and you are performing just as I programmed you to perform. You have no choice in the matter. Neither do the Germans or Kaku have any choice but to perform as I have programmed them to. Test that.

Nobody said anything about determinism. Again, you don't understand the fundamental arguments being presented here. Also, you can't start a deterministic simulation and be a part of it, that would imply an outside force starting you. So there's no test needed for that since it's logically impossible.

[Turtle]

Read it again...

 

 

Those down-vote tears sure look like crying.

 

 

Power drunk.

 

 

Nobody said anything about determinism. Again, you don't understand the fundamental arguments being presented here. Also, you can't start a deterministic simulation and be a part of it, that would imply an outside force starting you. So there's no test needed for that since it's logically impossible.

 

Apparently someone saw fit to turn that frown upside down. :)

 

Since you continue to refuse to submit a reference for your arguments, then other readers and I have no basis to judge whether what you are talking about someone else talking about, does or does not involve determinism.

[cal]

Since you continue to refuse to submit a reference for your arguments, then other readers and I have no basis to judge whether what you are talking about someone else talking about, does or does not involve determinism.

What you said, about a simulation in which I would have no control over my actions, is by definition deterministic. No reference is needed because that is the semantic definition of the term and your argument. In my original post, nowhere does it describe a scenario in which the simulation would be deterministic, unless you have a mathematical definition of "simulation", but since this is philosophy and not mathematics, it doesn't make sense to use a non-philosophical definition of that word. I would go even further to say that because this is philosophy, no reference to any outside sources are needed at all, since again, the premise I set up and the arguments around that premise stand on their own. Using formal logic, you should never have to look outside a philosophical argument to ponder it.

 

Also, out of boredom and potential for phuckery, I'm marking every single one of these posts (including my own), except for two of ours, for deletion. Because they are off-topic. And because maybe a moderator will see it, maybe.

[Turtle]

What you said, about a simulation in which I would have no control over my actions, is by definition deterministic. No reference is needed because that is the semantic definition of the term and your argument. In my original post, nowhere does it describe a scenario in which the simulation would be deterministic, unless you have a mathematical definition of "simulation", but since this is philosophy and not mathematics, it doesn't make sense to use a non-philosophical definition of that word. I would go even further to say that because this is philosophy, no reference to any outside sources are needed at all, since again, the premise I set up and the arguments around that premise stand on their own. Using formal logic, you should never have to look outside a philosophical argument to ponder it.

 

Also, out of boredom and potential for phuckery, I'm marking every single one of these posts (including my own), except for two of ours, for deletion. Because they are off-topic. And because maybe a moderator will see it, maybe.

 

As long as you give no reference for what prompted your idea, I will continue to discuss not discussing it.

 

PS Moderators virtually never delete posts. The only time I saw it done it wasn't because of a request but rather because a mod was personally cheesed. Who ya gonna call?

Edited February 28, 2014 by Turtle

[cal]

As long as you give no reference for what prompted your idea, I will continue to discuss not discussing it.

But no reference is needed. Forget about the scientists, can we just discuss the philosophical idea, since this is a philosophy board? If you need a reference, The Matrix. Or how about Ghost In The Shell? There's been plenty of scifi based on simulated realities, take your pick for what prompted this, it doesn't matter.

[Turtle]

But no reference is needed. Forget about the scientists, can we just discuss the philosophical idea, since this is a philosophy board? If you need a reference, The Matrix. Or how about Ghost In The Shell? There's been plenty of scifi based on simulated realities, take your pick for what prompted this, it doesn't matter.

 

Well -the German's notwithstanding- as I said early on, I find the subject rather boring. If you [Royal you ;) ] can't test a thing then it's all speculative and no better than science fiction. I no longer read any fiction. If some test or other means showed we were in a simulation, what good would it do us? :shrug:

[cal]

Well -the German's notwithstanding- as I said early on, I find the subject rather boring. If you [Royal you ;) ] can't test a thing then it's all speculative and no better than science fiction. I no longer read any fiction. If some test or other means showed we were in a simulation, what good would it do us? :shrug:

How do you know it cannot be tested? That's one of the questions that's been presented here (not by me, but it's still a good question). Also, what good would it do us? Besides radically changing or eliminating every current world religion, I don't know. Besides changing the way we approach contacting extraterrestrials, the way we view and study for parallel universes or the multiverse, or the way treat our own potential universe simulations... I mean it does us a lot of good to know if we're being simulated. Maybe the only thing stopping our puppet master from tearing down the curtains is a sort of Prime Directive, where only after showing we are aware of it's existence does it make itself available to us.

 

I see what you're saying, in that you think it's one of the many things that falls into the "cannot be proven or disproven" category and becomes impractical and detrimental to worry about, but that's only true if it cannot be proven or disproven and if it's less likely to be true than not true. I think you're wrong on both of those viewpoints. If we are indeed being rendered in real-time, there will be a way to test for it, much like code can test if an application is open, we just have to find the run-time language our software uses. I also think it's more likely that we're being simulated than not, mostly because of how simple our universe is (in comparison to how complex it COULD have been) and how easy it will be to simulate a universe just like our own (which actually has already been done a couple of times, NOT GOOGLING WOLFRAM FOR YOU).

 

Also, there aren't a whole lot of new topics so if you really hate talking about this one, too bad. :P

[Turtle]

How do you know it cannot be tested? That's one of the questions that's been presented here (not by me, but it's still a good question). Also, what good would it do us? Besides radically changing or eliminating every current world religion, I don't know. Besides changing the way we approach contacting extraterrestrials, the way we view and study for parallel universes or the multiverse, or the way treat our own potential universe simulations... I mean it does us a lot of good to know if we're being simulated. Maybe the only thing stopping our puppet master from tearing down the curtains is a sort of Prime Directive, where only after showing we are aware of it's existence does it make itself available to us.

 

I see what you're saying, in that you think it's one of the many things that falls into the "cannot be proven or disproven" category and becomes impractical and detrimental to worry about, but that's only true if it cannot be proven or disproven and if it's less likely to be true than not true. I think you're wrong on both of those viewpoints. If we are indeed being rendered in real-time, there will be a way to test for it, much like code can test if an application is open, we just have to find the run-time language our software uses. I also think it's more likely that we're being simulated than not, mostly because of how simple our universe is (in comparison to how complex it COULD have been) and how easy it will be to simulate a universe just like our own (which actually has already been done a couple of times, NOT GOOGLING WOLFRAM FOR YOU).

 

Also, there aren't a whole lot of new topics so if you really hate talking about this one, too bad. :P

 

:lol: Well, you got me on the bold one.

 

I don't have time tonight for much, but maybe you can tell me what exactly you see personally as evidence to make you think I'm simulating you. Meantime, here's a Wiki to skim that gives an historical basis for simulated life. Take note at least that it's an old saw.

 

Simulated reality @ Wicked Pedant

Edited March 13, 2014 by Turtle