Dear Resident Theists

[robvalue]

How did you rule out the simulation hypothesis Kingpin?

[Lucanus]

Christianity has a uniqueness in it.  In every other religion, you pay the price for your mistakes.  In Islam, your good deeds must outweigh your bad and you must follow the Five pillars.  In Hinduism every birth is a rebirth paying for the previous life until you achieve moksha.  In Christianity, Christ pays for all mankind's mistakes and one simply has to accept the gift of salvation by grace.

And if you don't accept Christ, are you not making a mistake that you'll have to pay for?

And another thing I loathe about Christian morality - you, as an individual are not responsible for your good or bad deeds... That is, as long as you believe in Jaaaaaysooos. You are not going to be held accountable if you subscribe to the sacred pile of bullshit. Also, there's the whole idea of "all men being sinners who require atonement" that is just like breaking your legs and then selling you crutches. It's repulsive, really.

---

Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

For me this one is logical.  Because consciousness as we understand is an outworking or byproduct of an intelligent mind and the world is intelligible (can be understood and has order and laws) then the first cause must be an intelligent mind and therefore conscious.  Only intelligent minds with conscious can bring forth ordered, purposeful complexity.

Meh. Consciousness as we understand it is an emergent property of an extremely complex neural network that has evolved specifically to understand (intelligere) how the world surrounding it works. Also, care to demonstrate your last assertion?

[Kingpin]

How did you rule out the simulation hypothesis Kingpin?

Are you referring to metaphysical solipsism?  To me that is a self defeating, to claim to know that nothing outside of ourselves can be known, as that statement is outside of ourselves and is claiming to be known.  If you don't know you really exist, may I ask who is asking the question?

[Kingpin]

Christianity has a uniqueness in it.  In every other religion, you pay the price for your mistakes.  In Islam, your good deeds must outweigh your bad and you must follow the Five pillars.  In Hinduism every birth is a rebirth paying for the previous life until you achieve moksha.  In Christianity, Christ pays for all mankind's mistakes and one simply has to accept the gift of salvation by grace.

And if you don't accept Christ, are you not making a mistake that you'll have to pay for?

And another thing I loathe about Christian morality - you, as an individual are not responsible for your good or bad deeds... That is, as long as you believe in Jaaaaaysooos. You are not going to be held accountable if you subscribe to the sacred pile of bullshit. Also, there's the whole idea of "all men being sinners who require atonement" that is just like breaking your legs and then selling you crutches. It's repulsive, really.

---

Touche lucanus.  Yes indeed.  That was the point of pascal's wager.  If you hold Christianity to be true and it turn out to be false, you've lost nothing.  If you hold it be false and it turns out to be true, you've lost everything.  

I understand where you are coming from on the Christian morality.  I know many that hold that view and have trouble with it, including Christians.  I mean how can we say that you could lead the most heinous life imaginable but if on your death bed you genuinely are remorseful and accept Christ, that you will go to heaven, but your sweet granny who just doesn't believe will be tortured?  I get it.  It's difficult to reconcile.  But one thing I know for sure is I'm not God and I cannot speak for what he will and will not do.

[robvalue]

No, I'm referring to the fact that our "reality" could be a computer simulation It's not the same as solipsism, as it would apply to everyone. We're all self-aware, but unaware we're in a simulation. We're not actually anywhere else.

It requires very few assumptions, and easily answers where our reality "came from". In fact, it's pretty much the same as God creating things, except it makes use of processes we already know happen. All that it further requires is the assumption that part of the reality can become self aware, which is also required for the God hypothesis. The God one just makes loads of extra assumptions about the nature of the creator.

Of course there are questions about where the parent reality came from, but there are the same questions about God. It's just people tend to make special unfounded rules for God that just ignore this part. We can as easily say the parent reality "just is".

This is of course assuming there really was an external first cause.

[Kingpin]

No, I'm referring to the fact that our "reality" could be a computer simulation It's not the same as solipsism, as it would apply to everyone. We're all self-aware, but unaware we're in a simulation. We're not actually anywhere else.

It requires very few assumptions, and easily answers where our reality "came from". In fact, it's pretty much the same as God creating things, except it makes use of processes we already know happen. All that it further requires is the assumption that part of the reality can become self aware, which is also required for the God hypothesis. The God one just makes loads of extra assumptions about the nature of the creator.

Ah like the Matrix.  But wouldn't that pose just as many issues?  What created the computer simulation?

Sorry, I see you edited your post to admit the same problem. You see "computers" as we understand them are physical and need an explanation outside themselves. The first cause must be non-physical, and thusly uncaused, because everything physical requires a cause outside itself.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I just added that bit in

A computer in another reality made the simulation. Like we make simulations in our reality.

God poses all those problems too; just saying "he doesn't" isn't much of an argument.

PS: not quite like the matrix. We don't exist anywhere else, we're just part of a simulation.

PPS: you're trying to define something into existence to fix what you see as a regression paradox. I don't know why you insist that whatever is "the next level up" has to be the final level. Why would it? We're only trying to explain this reality.

[robvalue]

Additional: refusing the computer as an answer because it itself is not readily instantly explained is not logical. We're only referring to this reality. Expecting to also understand everything about whatever parent reality there may be is unrealistic when we can't even determine that there is one. I think you're looking to answer every question at once, and we're woefully uequipped to even answer the first one.

God is just a series of statements which take care of all the uncertainty. Defining something doesn't make such a thing in any way possible. If there is anything that can "just be" then it may as well be our reality, or a parent reality with us as a simulation. To say otherwise is classic special pleading. Things don't "need" an explanation because we find them hard to understand. They do what they do regardless.

[Lucanus]

Touche lucanus.  Yes indeed.  That was the point of pascal's wager.  If you hold Christianity to be true and it turn out to be false, you've lost nothing.  If you hold it be false and it turns out to be true, you've lost everything.  

The same thing can be applied to Islam. You have submit to god and do whatever he prescribes, or else.

Pascal's wager is a bullshit argument anyway. "Hey, you have to believe in this character from this particular book, because he says that if you don't, you'll go to hell and suffer eternal torment. So, buy my story and say you believe, and you'll be saved! Just to be sure!". It's a just-in-case argument that has no validity whatsoever in someone's acceptance of a claim - not to mention a particularly utilitarian view of god.

I understand where you are coming from on the Christian morality.  I know many that hold that view and have trouble with it, including Christians.  I mean how can we say that you could lead the most heinous life imaginable but if on your death bed you genuinely are remorseful and accept Christ, that you will go to heaven, but your sweet granny who just doesn't believe will be tortured?  I get it.  It's difficult to reconcile.  But one thing I know for sure is I'm not God and I cannot speak for what he will and will not do.

Then why don't you cut all the cognitive dissonance and just admit that the story doesn't make sense? "Mysterious ways" aren't really an explanation, and you know it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

How did you rule out the simulation hypothesis Kingpin?

Are you referring to metaphysical solipsism?  To me that is a self defeating, to claim to know that nothing outside of ourselves can be known, as that statement is outside of ourselves and is claiming to be known.  If you don't know you really exist, may I ask who is asking the question?

Actually, the correct answer is that you cannot rule out metaphysical solipsism using the faulty tools of modern analytic philosophy. At the same time it does not matter. You have only introduced an unnecessary and intermediate cause that is invisible to experience or rational inquiry. It in no way negates the necessity of a primary cause.