Logic of chance

[CoxRox]

: to have a complete and wholly accurate model of the universe, your computer would have to be at least as complex as the universe. I then realised that this might be the universe itself: a computation running in a much larger universe. Trippy.

I immediately thought of 'god' being applied to the same argument: to have a complete and wholly accurate model of a god or supernatural being, your computer (or mind) would have to be at least as complex as the said 'being'. You seem to be saying this in your next statement:

''But, this makes assumptions about the nature of knowledge, consciousness, and power (of the omnipotent variety): how do we know that a being can't be knowledgeable and powerful and simple? I'm even tempted to bring out the old theistic argument and say that such a Creator wouldn't necessarily be bound to the same intuitive models as us ^_^

......And therein lies the million pound question: what is a 'god'? The only consistent definition I have heard from modern theists is that 'god' is an intelligence that created the universe. Though its methods and intentions vary from religion to religion, this seems to be constant.

But, of course, this is thrown to the dogs when one introduces pantheons and the Graceo-Roman concept of 'numen' :p

''

I'm already worried that Stenger in 'God- The failed Hypothesis' proposes a 'god model'. He says: 'If we accept this procedure (hock:, then we can eliminate a whole class of objections that are made to types of logical and scientific arguments forumulated in this book.' page 39. I will hold fire and read his book and comment in the book review.