Is God a logical contradiction?

[Objectivist]

I think those that promote the notion that we live in a simulation are guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept.  Notice what those who promote this hypothesis are doing.  We are expected to know and accept that there is such a thing as computers, that computers can run simulations, that someone exists that could program such a simulation and that such simulated realities are absolute, but we aren't able to know whether the things we perceive are real.  They don't realize that all these higher-level concepts rest on much more fundamental concepts and ultimately axiomatic concepts that they are denying with their hypothesis. They don't understand this because they don't have a conceptual understanding of knowledge.

I tell you what, if everyone knew about and thoroughly understood stolen concepts, such notions as the simulation theory would be laughed off the stage.

---

What is the fallacy of the stolen concept? From its name and your response to Sungula, it sounds as if you're saying its wrong because its recycling/stealing the concept of the cartoon universe.

From the way you write it sounds as if you're into philosophy. I understand that most of these terms go beyond what I'm familiar with in science and have a life of their own in philosophy. This is interesting because the Simulation Theory seems to be born out of philosophy. I first heard of it in a podcast with David Chalmers, and I think Nick Bostrom is also one of the leading proponents. My point is this: I agree that if the proponents of Simulation Theory are scientists and/or computer scientists, that they may not have a conceptual understanding of knowledge, etc., since they're typically not trained in philosophy. But since the people that seem to play around with the idea the most are philosophers, I would assume they more than anyone else would understand these terms and avoid these fallacies.

The fallacy of the stolen concept occurs when one uses a concept while ignoring or negating a more fundamental concept on which it depends such as the way that calculus depends on the validity of basic mathematics.  So if you were to say that calculus is good but basic mathematics is invalid or useless you would be to steal the concept of calculus.  Some more examples:  Asking why there is something rather than nothing?  Cause presupposes existence so using the concept of causation in the absence of existence would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.  The notion of the supernatural commits this fallacy because no concept can transcend the law of identity.  The statement that all sex is rape obviously commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.  Here's a trickier one:  using the concept of morality while denying free will.   Here's one I hear all the time:  How do you know that your senses and reason are valid? People get tripped up by this question, even some atheists that I really admire because they don't have an understanding of concepts.  The proper answer is, by the way, that the question is invalid.  It makes use of stolen concepts.  Knowledge presupposes a means of knowledge and my means of knowledge are my senses and reason.  If they weren't valid then I could have no knowledge.  This is not meant as a proof that the senses are valid, only that the concept of knowledge presupposes the validity of the senses.  Such a proof would fall victim to the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Some stolen concepts are subtle and hard to spot while others are obvious once you understand the fallacy.  The one thing these examples all have in common is using a higher level concept while denying or ignoring that concept's roots.  Like all fallacies, it represents a breach of logic.  Logic is what gives knowledge its hierarchical structure.  Using a concept apart from its underpinning concepts amounts to the breach of logic.  

There's a lot of bad philosophy out there, and some of those bad philosophical ideas have wormed their way into the hard sciences and the humanities are riddled with it.  Most people start in midstream with philosophy and take a whole bunch of stuff for granted.  They never examine fundamental principles.  Everyone could benefit from a conceptual understanding of knowledge.  In fact if you want to change the world for the better this is what needs to happen.  Children should be taught what concepts are, how they're formed, how they're validated, what the relationship between concepts and percepts is.  What universality really means.  How concepts are integrated into more abstract concepts.  How to think in terms of essentials.  They should be taught the proper method of induction.  When they get older they should be taught the principle of measurement omission which is the key to understanding universality.  My kids had no trouble understanding these things.  One day my daughter pointed out a stolen concept in something we heard on the radio.  I was so proud.  You want to put a serious dent in racism, Teach an understanding of concepts. The whole time I was in school, both public and in college, I was never taught any of this.  I was never taught how to reason.  I was never even given a definition of reason.  Instead, I was taught what to think and to memorize a bunch of floating abstractions which I promptly forgot because none of it had any connection to reality, no objective meaning.  I wish I had been taught about all this stuff in school.  I would have been philosophically armed against irrational bullshit.  But the last thing the powers that be want is people able to think for themselves.  

 I think the reason this fallacy is so pervasive is that our education system is designed to stunt the conceptual faculty of children.  It's expressly designed to create anti-conceptual, concrete bound mentalities.  

Well, I hope this helps.  I'll be glad to point you to some more detailed information about stolen concepts if you'd like.