The More We Learn About Our Universe, The More Experts Say We're Likely Living In A Simulation

Submitted by: fancylad 6 months ago in Science


We've seen videos of people like Elon Musk talk about a simulated universe, but the theory is gaining popularity with lots of experts and people much smarter than us.

So... thoughts on this theory? Does it comfort you that you might be living in a Matrix-like simulation or is it all BS? And if we are living in a simulated universe, are you happy with your "simulation?" 

As Max Tegmark (an MIT cosmologist seen in this clip) says, if you think you're living in a simulated universe, live an interesting life and do unexpected things.
There are 143 comments:
Male 31
Sorry people!  This idea only appeared after computers were invented. Because we resemble a computer sim, doesn't mean we live in a sim.  Reminds me of the Charlie Chaplin time traveler...the man is talking on a cell phone since that's how it appears, and it's what we do today, and we can't explain his actions (at the time), so the guy in the movie must be a time traveler.  It's the same flawed logic used in religion.  We are designed because everything we make is designed, and we don't like the current explanation, therefore, there is a designer.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Scientists Prove Elon Musk Wrong

http://www.newsweek.com/are-we-living-computer-simulation-scientists-prove-elon-musk-wrong-677251
0
Reply
Male 70
JoBlack Actually, the idea has been around in one form or another for a long time through religion, etc. 

The article you link to does not in any way prove that we aren't, all it does is hypothesize as to why we might not be, but that's due to current constraints and limitations in our understanding. Contrary to the article title, it actually leaves room for it to be correct by stating: 

 While achieving this on classical computers is impossible, the research does not entirely rule out that an effective method for massive-scale simulations might one day be possible through advances in ultra-powerful quantum computers, however the researchers note that currently no efficient simulation algorithms are known. 

This should be the appropriate scientific stance since there is no proof either way.

Individuals in the 13th century would not fathom the technology we have today. Actually, most people in the 50s and 60s and 70s would not fathom the exponential increase in technological advances that we are currently experiencing across all verticals (biotech, chemtech, material sciences, robotics, etc).

The estimated age of the universe is 14 billion years. Imagine if a civilization spawned within 6 billion years. Or even a billion years ago. Imagine if their advancement was as rapid as ours has been in the last half century except that they've had hundreds of millions of years of additional time.

0
Reply
Male 417
Nope. It is a thought exercise not a working theory. Hell not even a hypothesis.
0
Reply
Male 43,295
 From my perspective I have no reason to believe all of you aren't just a figment 
of my imagination. I have seen no real evidence you existed before I was born
nor any proof you will be here after I am gone. 
2
Reply
Male 1,017
Solipsism rules! It's all a simulation in Gerry1of1 's mind. 
0
Reply
Male 5,383
yeah come on. man all the so called science posts are a bit one sided on the derp side
0
Reply
Male 43,295
If this is all a game I WANT MY MONEY BACK! 


2
Reply
Male 43,295
Before computers the question was "Is this real or is it all a dream".

Same dance - Different tune.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
In essence, it is a simulation.  It's a temporary simulation to separate the wheat from the chaff, with lots of wickedness and righteousness going on in it.  God runs it, and it's sort of a dry run for the reality, which is absolute perfection.

The simulation ends when the righteous are taken from it, having passed the requirements for reality, and then placed in reality.  The wicked remaining in the simulation will be deleted with it, Simulation.Delete();

It's not too difficult to understand at all, and here's the kicker, for those who are wise enough, God allows them elevated privileges within that simulation, such as what Christ was given.  Granted, none will come close to His level of privileges in the simulation, that's reserved for reality, but there are certain privileges afforded to those who know and honor God, which may indeed appear to be quite matrix-like to those who aren't aware of how things are.

So, want to have the best time?  Want to see true reality?  Then do what ever it takes to honor God and love others, and you might find yourself in places the crowd has never seen, doing things the crowd has never known..
-5
Reply
Male 554
monkwarrior That's a pretty savage God you describe. I don't say this to poke at your beliefs, if you can believe that. However, if God has so much power and wisdom, why not make our world full of bliss and happiness and one in which God loves us unconditionally? Isn't that what a loving being would do? 
2
Reply
Male 11,071
mrsnowmeiser Not at all, that's simply your indoctrination into an anti-Christ mindset that's speaking.

Haven't you heard the saying "with great power comes great responsibility"?  Sin and iniquities have no place in the kingdom of God, nor will they inherit the kingdom of God.  The power that someone will have in the kingdom of God will make each person there look as if they are gods to us here today.  That's a lot of power to wield, and God knows that it requires a righteous mindset to wield sensibly, not a sinful one.

God does love us unconditionally, and wants us to share in all that He has, but wickedness has no place in God's presence, because God is holy, and asks us to be holy, and is love, and asks us to love.  Sin and iniquities go against holiness and love, which is why God says "The wicked will perish".

God wanted us to love Him freely, and that means that humans had to have a choice to do so or not.  God doesn't want mindless slaves.  You can learn of God's unconditional love for the world, as John 3:16-17 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whomsoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life".

You really should get to know your creator instead of assuming things about Him.
-1
Reply
Male 6,428
monkwarrior “...but wickedness has no place in God's presence...”

Some of the most wicked people on this planet are preachers. Manipulating poor people out of money, molesting innocent children, demonizing gay people, etc.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
markust123 You are simply speaking your own bias, and beside that, nothing indicates that your claim is true.  In fact you'll find some of the holiest people in this world are those who teach others of God's word,
-1
Reply
Male 6,428
monkwarrior Dude, serious? You don't understand the corruption and abuse that sometimes happens in religious organizations? Really? You can't be that blind. Yes, the majority of churches and their leaders are good but there are some very bad seeds. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. There are going to be some preachers that have a lot of explaining to do when they die.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
markust123 abuse and corruption can happen in any organization in this world of sin.  However it's your own bias that says "some of the most wicked people on this planet are preachers", because you can't gauge that.  As i previously mentioned, if there is corruption in the church, you can bet there is at least a 10-fold increase in other worldly institutions or organizations.
-1
Reply
Male 6,428
monkwarrior Actually I can gauge it from the massive amounts of church related child rape cases and also all the televangelists who prey on poor people for money. How can someone who not only believes in God but preaches the word of God, do these incredibly immoral acts? That is something I have never understood. Why should I believe in organized religion when some of the very people leading churches don't live the virtues they preach?
1
Reply
Male 11,071
markust123 then you have flawed gauges.  As stated previously,  if there is corruption in the church, you can bet there is at least a 10-fold increase in other worldly institutions or organizations. 

Most people of the church do live by the virtues they preach, that's part of the reason they join the church.  But as you said some people will use the position of authority to take advantage of others, however it's far worse outside the church.  we are in a world of sin
-1
Reply
Male 6,428
monkwarrior You're skirting around my question. How can someone (a preacher) who not only believes in God but preaches the word of God, do these incredibly immoral acts?
1
Reply
Male 11,071
markust123 Ever hear of a wolf in sheep's clothing?
0
Reply
Male 6,428
monkwarrior It is that exact reluctance of Christians to accept responsibility for their own that allows pedofile priests to continue their sick ways for years and years as they are pushed on to other parishes. It is that exact reluctance of Christians to accept responsibility for their own that allows television evangelists to rob poor people blind.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
markust123 you seem to have a fixation on pedophile priests who corrupt themselves, but ignore the huge number of people who speak of Christ and benefit others.
-1
Reply
Male 6,428
monkwarrior That was a pretty lame attempt at distraction. I was talking about the church protecting corruption. You are quickly working your way up to being the most dishonest debater on IAB.
1
Reply
Male 11,071
markust123 The church does work at removing corruption.  Just because you have a fixation on pedophile priests and listen to what the media tells you, doesn't mean there are people in the church working to remove corruption.
0
Reply
Male 554
monkwarrior You state the following:"Sin and iniquities have no place in the kingdom of God", "wickedness has no place in God's presence". Since God is all powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, God can eliminate sin and wickedness from human beings in a heartbeat. I ask you: why does he not do this immediately, then? I'd like an answer to this if you don't mind. 

Since God has the power to immediately cure humans of all of our ailments, I can only think of two main reasons why he doesn't: 1) he isn't as powerful as claimed or 2) he is either testing us or doesn't care about us, both of which are morally reprehensible as God presumably created us-in his image, no less, and purports to love us. 
0
Reply
Male 11,071
mrsnowmeiser God can and will do this any time He so wills.  Why doesn't He do it immediately?  Because there are still people who have yet to be saved from perishing, and while we have passed the point of no return, wickedness has yet to grow to like the days before Noah (rest assured it's getting there). God is the most powerful, and while it may indeed be a test, it's more about people learning the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth (B.I.B.L.E).  If you study them you'll be able to understand your Creator on a greater level, and understand His reasoning much better than you do now.
-1
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior So are you saying that your god allows those that don't love him to suffer?
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 Our God and Creator said "The wicked will perish", if you want to get to know your God and Creator, you should study His word.
-1
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior God creates everything, hence god created wickedness. Then god punishes the wicked, but he knew they would be. This simulation is a giant masturbation by your god. 

Your god is simultaneously a sadist, masochist, and evil. His "word" is fucktard, apparently, because he created you.
1
Reply
Male 11,071
BuckeyeJoe God did create wickedness, but God is Holy and knows the ultimate end of wickedness is death, and the end of holiness is life.  This is why God says "Be Holy", and "The wicked will perish".  

If you created nanobots and half of them malfunctioned and didn't do what you commanded them to do, and actually wrecked a few things you really liked, even tried wiping out the non-malfunctining nanobots that you loved and amazed you, wouldn't you destroy the malfunctioning nanobots?
0
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior If I created nanobots and several malfunctioned when I didn't want them to then clearly I am not all powerful. 

So you god is not all powerful. Either that, or he did exactly what he intended, and created malfunctioning humans KNOWING they would malfunction and he would punish them for it.

God is either impotent or evil. Pick one.
2
Reply
Male 11,071
BuckeyeJoe What if you decided "hey, i want to do a real test, i'm going to let them do whatever they want, anything!  Whatever they can think of they can do!  Sure, i could easily program them to do exactly what i say, but i want these nanobots to take on their own life and multiply, so i can weed out the good ones from the bad after 300 iterations"
-1
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior You don't seem to get it. 

In the scenario above, god does not know what the nanobots will do after 300 iterations. Hence, god needs to wait for them to "weed themselves out." If this was god, then god is not all-knowing. If god is not all-knowing, then why do you worship him as a god? He fails the definition.

If god IS all knowing, then he knew exactly which ones would be good and which would be bad when he created the test. Since he is all-powerful, he absolutely had control over the initial conditions. In fact, god knows the end result of every test he could possibly create (which is any test at all).

BUT, he specifically chose THIS test, the Universe where I am writing this right now. He also KNEW before he made the test that I would fail (be atheist). 

So why is there a test at all? Doesn't he know already? And why will I be punished for a test he made where he knew I would fail? He could have easily made a test where I succeeded. 

Plus, he is all-powerful. So he has the power to create a test with initial conditions such that everyone "passes." But he chose not to do so. 

He made a test knowing which ones would fail and be punished with eternal torture. He also had the power to prevent this. 

Either way you slice it, he is either all-powerful and evil, or impotent and not a god.
1
Reply
Male 11,071
BuckeyeJoe Yes God does know all things, but how loving would it be to deny the nanobots the choice to find their ultimate end without letting them make the choice?
0
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior They DONT make the choice. God created this Universe, the Universe where I am an atheist, and did so deliberately. If everything I do was determined beforehand, then I AM NOT CHOOSING.

Jesus, you are so dense.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
BuckeyeJoe We all make choices.  God does know what our choices are, but we don't know what they are.  You may be atheist, but before the end you will confess God, as everyone else will.
0
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior According to your model, we do not make choices. Every "choice" we are going to make was determined beforehand when God chose this particular Universe to exist. So we are not making choices, we are acting out a pre-defined destiny. It does not matter whether we are AWARE of this beforehand or not. The fact remains that we were always going to make the choices that God knew we would make when he created this Universe. That is not free will.

If we are not able to choose a path other than the one that was foretold eons ago, then we are not acting freely. If we ARE able to choose a different path than was foretold, then this was not known to God (by definition), and God is thus impotent, and not a God.

You can either have free-will, or an omnipotent God. The two are mutually exclusive. 

This is the third time I have explained this to you now. 

derp.


0
Reply
Male 11,071
BuckeyeJoe there there, son.  If you don't understand God don't try to explain the situations God has put into place, you only end up looking ridiculous like you did.  When you see how ridiculous you are you will probably regret it.
0
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior You are free to enlighten me if you are able. Go ahead and explain how free will is possible given your model. If all you can do sidetrack the conversation and call me ridiculous then that is too bad. Perhaps we have exhausted your abilities to discuss this matter.

Unfortunate, I was hoping to actually have a discussion with you.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
BuckeyeJoe It's not my job to build your faith, that's your job.  With everything you've mentioned, it would simply be a waste of time on my part to attempt to help you understand what you actively deny.  Your problem requires you to focus on addressing it.
0
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior Incorrect. You are bound to spread the word of god to all those willing to engage with you and honestly making an attempt to do so. That is part of your covenant. And to denounce your duty exposes your lack of devotion to your creator. It is an easy matter spreading the Word to those who agree with you. What did our Lord do? He walked among the beggars and whores; cast down the institutions and their monetary idols - he spread the WORD to those least wanting of it, and in doing so, erected that model for all those righteous enough to follow him.

You have failed in your duty to spread the Word of our Lord. Your ego has blinded you to the opportunities before you. You have not defended the Lord when presented with a basic challenge. Instead, you have left the building of faith to another. You are not one of us, you a false professor of the Word. A phony. 

Plus, saying "I know the answer, but it is a waste of time to tell YOU about it" is the most pathetic admission of defeat there is. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


0
Reply
Male 11,071
BuckeyeJoe Sorry son, when people like you, who have turned their back on the truths of God, it's simply a waste of time to deal with them.  As mentioned your problem requires you to focus on addressing it. 

(BTW, it seems like you have issues, son)
0
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior Incorrect, it is not a waste of time! You seem to forget that others read this thread. You have the opportunity of making persuasive arguments to many who might read this and become convinced by it. When given the opportunity to do so, you just go: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

0
Reply
805
Pop science. Nick Bostrum wrote Superintelligence, a self-contradicting book full of holes. I wouldn't hold his work up as the cornerstone of the definition of reality.

And in the video, they talk about "so if we're in a simulation, then we're just code and can be backed up". Seriously? You make this vast amazing declaration and then just box it straight back in with current definitions of computers?
0
Reply
Male 6,428
This theory is just like religion. You can't prove or disprove that we are not in a simulation. But because some people are so stupid, and lead such boring lives, I have zero belief that we are in a simulation.
0
Reply
Male 6,065
markust123 Do you appreciate how many simulated universes already exist?  Why do you think this one is "prime"?  Because you are playing on it? :P
0
Reply
Female 8,388
Define reality? I'm not a fan of cartesian duality- but you don't have to buy the soul stuff to get the basics- because really the God is perfect line was the ONLY way to get himself out of the fairly large hole he had dug for himself. 
1
Reply
Male 251
This theory shouldn’t be surprising at all to anyone.  It’s the next evolutionary step in our desire to understand existence.  It makes perfect sense as we’re in the midst of the age of technology.  As Rah made sense, then Zeus and God.  In 100 years, we’ll have priests of the Simulation Theory who’ll figure out how to use it to make money and control the masses.  
0
Reply
Male 11,071
Django doubtful, people have been trying to minimize God for 1000's of years, it's just not happening.
-3
Reply
Male 11,071
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
 Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
 Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
 Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?— The Epicurean paradox, ~300 BCE[177]

God is both able and willing, He created evil and has made it clear, that it will be among us for a time He wills.  God created both good and evil, knows the ultimate end results of both, and commands and shows us to live as He asks: "Be holy as I am holy". Remember with great power comes great responsibility, and since God has asked us "Know you not that ye are gods?", it indicates the great power God has in store for us.

That kind of power isn't for the wicked and evil, as God has said "The wicked will perish". 

So, you see, 'the problem of evil' is flawed, because it's born of ignorance, or poor understanding of the actual situation surrounding good and evil. It's simply a flawed argument used as justification for a rejection of God, and quite a feeble one at that.  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news to your great 'revelation'.
0
Reply
Male 43,295
monkwarrior Which god? You meant Zeus, right?  Or Oden?  Maybe Quetzalcoatl !
So many gods to choose from. And of course all of them claim to be right. 
Makes ya believe in simulation doesn't it.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
Gerry1of1 The only God.  The God who created all things.
-2
Reply
Male 5,383
Gerry1of1 shhh those "gods" doesnt exist. other people traditions and cultures don't exist only monkwarriors
0
Reply
Male 11,071
rumham it's quite a shame you prefer mockery to understanding, you miss out on a lot and make yourself look ridiculous.
-2
Reply
Male 5,383
monkwarrior you mock other people cultures brodeo
0
Reply
Male 11,071
rumham care to back that up?  I know you can't.
-2
Reply
Male 5,383
monkwarrior are you a fan of buddism or toaism or hinduism or jainism or rastafarianism. or shintoism. or is it just your jesus cult that leads to the one true spirital mountaintop.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
rumham I've studied every major religion on earth, and i can see all of them pointing to the only God; the Creator of all things.
-1
Reply
Male 43,295
monkwarrior It is not mockery. Those are the revered gods of cultures
other than your own. It is logic to question which one(s) are real.
Only a simpleton would look at a spec in front of them and assume
that is all there is to the universe. You are many things but not a simpleton.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
Gerry1of1 rumhamm was mocking faiths.  I've studied just about every major religion on earth.  It's no question to me that there is only one God, because if you look deeply into them, you will see God's hand at work.
-1
Reply
Female 112
monkwarrior    you've studied every major religion on earth and yet you still have time to disrespect others here who don't follow your principles.  it seems to me that such a 'learned' individual would be a touch more open-minded, no?
0
Reply
Male 11,071
chickenfarts When dealing with people who have irrational hate, as i frequently do on the internet, sometimes a hard love has to be exercised.  If people don't like seeing the err of their way, or want to refuse correction, then it's really on them to look for resolutions.  I make no apologies for being direct and gruff, as i've been trained to fight, not sugarcoat.
0
Reply
Male 5,383
monkwarrior i mocked your faith and you got all emotional, but you dont give a shit about the rest of worlds idea of the unseen spiritiual world. just your own little derp bubble. you troll yourself with your behavior.. yeah "monk"
wow
1
Reply
Male 11,071
rumham i'm not emotional by saying "It's a shame you prefer mockery to understanding, you miss out on a lot and make yourself look ridiculous."  That's pointing out your err by mocking.  But clearly you are getting emotional over that.
-1
Reply
Male 5,383
monkwarrior no i was mocking christians faith of mocking everyone elses religion you idiot. please dude.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
rumham sorry you were mocking every faith.
-1
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior So you put your faith in The Bible. The first commandment of The Bible is 

" I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. "

However you are saying that all religions point to one god. Buddha, Allah etc are all the same.
0
Reply
Male 11,071

lockner01 There is only ONE GOD

0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior But then why bother having a commandment saying "thou shall not have strange gods before me".  Would not any icon of any god be an icon of the one god if there was only one god?
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 study on your own, since you've demonstrated numerous times you don't want to learn and simply troll.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior That's not true.  I'm asking a sincere and honest question.  If you only deflect by calling me a troll you're demonstrating that you're not willing to discuss issues and only spout dogma.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 You have done nothing but troll.  If you want to prove you're sincere and honest, go study scripture to find the answer to your question.  Though you'll have to let go of your trolling mindset, as i can see you don't want to learn, but argue.  You claim to be sincere, but it comes across dishonest and insincere.  So do what it takes to resolve your problem.  
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior Philosophers for generations have been discussing "The problem with evil"; from Epicurus to Kant, Hume to Malthus.  I read their works and find the ideas interesting.  It's a discussion not an argument.  I'm glad you've solved a problem that not one philosopher has been able to solve for over 2000 years.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 Run along troll, "the problem of evil" was already discussed clearly with you, and the error was already noted, which you continue to ignore.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior I'm glad you've solved a problem that philosophers have struggled with for over 2,000 years.  It's interesting that when faced with a valid discussion topic you fall back onto calling people trolls.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 Run along and take your ignorance with you, along with your failed argument.  Peddle it elsewhere.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior Could you please explain what my failed argument is.  Seriously I would like to know.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 "the problem of evil"
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior This is one topic I've always been interested in and enjoy discussing. I've had many civil debates with people that hold similar beliefs to you.  I would be more than willing to have a discussion with you but I know that's not something you're willing to do.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 Sorry, "the problem of evil" was already discussed clearly with you, and the error it made was already noted, which you continue to ignore, as most people who deny God do.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior Can you remind me or point me to the thread we discussed it?
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 use google.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior So as I've said multiple times before is that I have read many books on the subject.  I just don't remember what error you think I've made with the problem.  And I don't feel like searching through hundreds of threads.  If you can't explain my error I understand.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
 Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
 Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
 Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?— The Epicurean paradox, ~300 BCE[177]

God is both able and willing, He created evil and has made it clear, that it will be among us for a time He wills.  God created both good and evil, knows the ultimate end results of both, and commands and shows us to live as He asks: "Be holy as I am holy". Remember with great power comes great responsibility, and since God has asked us "Know you not that ye are gods?", it indicates the great power God has in store for us.

That kind of power isn't for the wicked and evil, as God has said "The wicked will perish". 

So, you see, 'the problem of evil' is flawed, because it's born of ignorance, or poor understanding of the actual situation surrounding good and evil. It's simply a flawed argument used as justification for a rejection of God, and quite a feeble one at that.  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news to your great 'revelation'.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior I'm glad you actually responded.  I'm fairly certain that we have never had this dialogue.  You may have had it with someone else but not with me.  

We'll work on the assumption that god actually exists.  And that god gave humans free will -- otherwise we would just be puppets. John Hick has job good writtings on the subject

You're correct about the language of the Epicurean paradox.  The issue is with his use of the word "Malevolent".  Let's look at it from a different angle.

the belief is that god is:

Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnibenevolent

You say "god is both able and willing".  I have children -- I allow them to learn by making mistakes. However if the put themselves in serious danger I will stop them.  If we are god's children and he is unwilling to step in to prevent us harm then he is either not Omnipotent or not Omniscient or not Omnibenevolent.  

I'm not saying he's Malevolent, he's just not Omnibenevolent.

Do you think that your god is a good god?
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 You're simply trying to make your flawed argument work as it's a key justification for your rejection of God.  This is evidenced by your attempt to paint God as Malevolent, however you're doing your usual song and dance: ignoring the flaw in your argument as I've outlined above. You have nothing which is why you've attempted to shift focus.  Also, the difference between God and us and you and your children is this:  God has the final say over their their life, whereas you do not.  If they die, you can do nothing, whereas God can resurrect.  Your ignorance of God's power and position on this is why you won't learn, but continue to desperately make your flawed argument work as you have just attempted (and failed) to do.  

No questions will be answered to you until you make the effort to show you are willing to overcome your ignorance, and willing to discuss the flaw you ignore.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior actually I said "I'm not saying he's Malevolent".  Is there no grey area between good and evil?  

You say that my argument is flawed and that you've pointed out that flaw. Yet you haven't pointed out anything.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 So you continue to ignore the flaw in the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to, which was clearly pointed out to you (but that you want to ignore too). Gotcha.

Good luck with that.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior Hang on -- you haven't pointed out any flaw. You've just said there is a flaw.

You brought up resurrection as a Trump card.  How many times has your god resurrected someone?  And is this a demonstration that your god is omnibenevolent?


0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01  So you continue to ignore the flaw in the "problem of evil" argument, which was clearly pointed out to you, but yet you continue to ignore both.  All to continue your run around attempt to make your failed "problem of evil" relevant, when it's already sunk.  Good luck continuing to ignore the flaw of it.  It doesn't surprise me in the slightest you ignore it, most people who rely on it as their primary 'reasoning' for rejecting God also ignore the flaw in such ridiculous ways.  When you want to stop ignoring the flaw of the argument and face it, maybe there will be more to discuss, until then you are simply following the path of those who have failed with the argument before, and are only wasting time..
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior So you said "So, you see, 'the problem of evil' is flawed, because it's born of ignorance, or poor understanding of the actual situation surrounding good and evil." However I would disagree with this as I can provide multiple well respected theologians and philosophers that would back up my statements.

If your god has the power to prevent suffering -- you've even stated he is able and willing -- but refuses to do so he is not omnibenevolent.  I'm not talking suffering caused by the evil of man but things that are not caused by man at all.  Like a child who has terminal cancer.

I'm not claiming that your god is malevolent. I'm stating a case that he cannot be :

Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnibenevolent

at the same time.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 You're arguing how God is, without even knowing how God is. Again, "it's born of ignorance, or poor understanding of the actual situation surrounding good and evil."   even if you say " I would disagree with this", you still are arguing from ignorance.

What you are doing is like someone arguing what it's like to live on the moon when they have never done so.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior But your wrong.  I was brought up with your god  and I have studied the subject. So I would say I am not ignorant of the subject.   I'm not arguing how your god is -- the opposite. I am pointing out what he is not.  If he has the power and will to prevent suffering but does not then he is not omnibenevolent.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 Many people can be "brought up" with God, and still not know the truth of God, become ignorant of God because of what the world tells them (which hates God), and turn their back on God as you have.  It doesn't mean you know God, it means you didn't go far enough to get to know your creator. Again, you are arguing from "ignorance, or poor understanding of the actual situation surrounding good and evil." 
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior Ok you say my argument is based ignorance yet offer to proof to support that statement.  I can't just keep making the same argument -- as solid as it is because I know you will come back with the same baseless claim.

So let me ask you a question -- a Yes or No question -- an answer other than yes or no will be an answer of uncertainty so definitely be taken as "not yes":

Do you believe that your god is omnibenevolent?
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 Correction, Every single one of your replies has proven your ignorance.  Even your last one, where you want to ignore that you ignored that the argument was flawed, and that i said  we won't continue if you don't make the effort to show you are willing to overcome your ignorance, and willing to discuss the flaw you ignore.  Because you want to settle on your ignorance and ask questions.  

So again.   Make the effort to show you are willing to overcome your ignorance, and willing to discuss the flaw you ignore, perhaps then we may continue.  Otherwise you are simply following the path of those who have failed with the argument before, and are only wasting time..
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior you're making a lot of assumptions.  You've said my argument is based in ignorance but yet you can't support your statement other than to constantly repeat the statement.

 Just saying you refuse to talk to me unless I admit something is a form of bullying.

The question I asked was outside of my original statement. So you either can't answer the question or you're unwilling.  In which case I the answer is "not yes".

My beliefs have no baring on your answer.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01  The point is you continue to ignore the flaw in the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to, which was clearly pointed out to you (but that you want to ignore too). 
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior no I'm trying to have a conversation that you're not wiling to have.  We have differing beliefs. You aren't willing to accept that.

However you've made you're answer obvious that you're not sure if your god is omnibenevolent.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 no you're not, you're simply wasting time, being unwilling to face the flaw of "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to, which was clearly pointed out to you (but that you want to ignore too).    Which is why i said previously,  you are simply following the path of those who have failed with the argument before, and are only wasting time. 
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior So you are unable to answer the question.  The most logical reason is that you can't answer 'yes'.  So therefore you don't believe that your god is omnibenevolent.

So we've established that your god isn't omnibenevolent which means it's possible that he's a dick. Maybe, maybe not but it's a possibility.  Which means he's flawed.

It's a deductive logical argument -- unless of course you think your god is omnibenevolent but you refuse to say that.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01  So you're still unable to face the flaw of the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to, which was clearly pointed out to you (but that you want to ignore too), and demand questions be answered again (after ignoring that questions wouldn't be answered until you face the flaw of the 'problem of evil argument' (outlined above)))?

Well then, like i said previously,  you are simply following the path of those who have failed with the argument before, and are only wasting time.  Get back to me when you want to face the flaw of "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to, which was clearly pointed out to you.

Remember, before replying or making more assumptions, the discussion is dead and can't move forward until you can address the flaw in the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior your argument of the flaw is based on wrong assumptions.

I've laid out a logical argument and you've able to offer any evidence to refute it.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 Your assumption that it's based on wrong assumptions is simply born of your ignorance, or poor understanding of the actual situation surrounding good and evil. It's simply a flawed argument you are using as justification for a rejection of God, and quite a feeble one at that. 

Again, sorry to be the bearer of bad news to your great 'revelation'. 
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior It's too bad that you're unwilling to have a proper conversation.

If my arguments are flawed then you're saying that thousands of years of Western and Eastern philosophy are wrong.  This isn't my revelation -- these are arguments I learned in undergrad philosophy.  So you're also saying that what is being taught in 99% of universities around the world is incorrect.  Including theological schools.

I was hoping you would be able to have a proper conversation but I guess I was wrong.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 Oh, the problem isn't mine, but yours.  As it's you who is still unable to face the flaw of the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to, which was clearly pointed out to you (but that you want to ignore too).  The condition to continue the conversation is quite simple.  Since you've on many occasions proven your ignorance and desire to troll, and unwillingness to learn, i made it very clear for you:  no questions would be answered until you face the flaw of the 'problem of evil argument'.

Your problem was you wanted to continue to ignore the flaw, wasting time.

Better luck next time.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior I'm not ignoring anything you put forward. I've logically demonstrated that your "flaw" argument is based on incorrect assumptions. And you haven't had any kind of rebutal.

You could have quoted a number of scholars to refute my original claim. I'm not sure why you went right to a 3rd grade school yard rebutal.  You're being very close-minded.

AS they say "Close-mindedness is a clear sign of an uneducated imagination."  I think that statement holds true here more than ever.

I actually expected more from you -- I don't know why.,
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 So you're still unable to face the flaw of the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to, which was clearly pointed out to you (but that you want to ignore too), and demand questions be answered again (after ignoring that questions wouldn't be answered until you face the flaw of the 'problem of evil argument' (outlined above)))?

Well then, like i said previously,  you are simply following the path of those who have failed with the argument before, and are only wasting time.  Get back to me when you want to face the flaw of "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to, which was clearly pointed out to you.

Remember, before replying or making more assumptions, the discussion is dead and can't move forward until you can address the flaw in the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior I just watched the first episode of Waco and kept thinking that you're trying to be exactly like David Koresh.  Not that I think you could ever possibly get anyone to follow you.  But you're trying.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01  So you're still unble to face the flaw of the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to.  Gotcha.

Keep trying desperately.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior The difference between you and me is that I can respect your beliefs and that they are different from mine.  Ièm willing to discuss subjects even though you hold strong opposing beliefs.  You on the other hand offer no respect to anyone on this website.

Look at the post on evolution yesterday.  Everybody took you to town.  How many times were you called stupid?  Maybe if you weren't such an asshole people would treat you a little nicer.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01  So you're still unable to face the flaw of the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to.  Gotcha.

Keep trying desperately. 
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior I would be more than willing to "face the flaw" if you were able to put forward an actual argument.  Your argument of "It's flawed because you're ignorant of god's love" is invalid because it's based in belief and not logic.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 It was put up, but you ignored it because your desperate argument needs you to.  Gotcha.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior "So, you see, 'the problem of evil' is flawed, because it's born of ignorance, or poor understanding of the actual situation surrounding good and evil. It's simply a flawed argument used as justification for a rejection of God"

The basis of your argument is claiming my argument is based in ignorance.  It's not a logical argument.  You're trying to introduce a falsum where there is none.

I started with a very simply stated argument based on three statements.  You introduced a counter argument based on multiple complex statements.

You can't claim Gotcha if you're basing you argument in swampy dogmatic rhetoric.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01  So you're still unable to face the flaw of the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to.  Gotcha.

Keep trying desperately to make your failed argument work.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior well now that we're into a positive feedback loop (not that I think you know what that means) we'll have to leave it as is.

For now continue your trolling.  I'm starting to think that the other people on this site are correct about you.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 keep trying desperately to explain away the flaw of the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior So you confirmed that you don't know what a positive feed back loop is -- or you are doing the long troll.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 You're simply continuing your ignorance over the fact your argument is failed.  As i mentioned earlier, in form with other people who foolishly cling to it, here you are with insults, irrelevant statements, and changing the topic.

Like so many others who  are unable to face the flaw of the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to 
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior I'd hate to say it junior but you got your ass handed to you on a plate this time. You got knocked out for the count but maybe the fact that you could walk out of the ring makes it a win for you.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 Sorry,  continuing your desperate ignorance over the fact your argument is failed is not knocking anyone back.  Maybe in your own mind, but the reality is you are unable to face the flaw of the "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to..

better luck next time son.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior Sorry junior. I've used logic and pointed out that you're using invalid assumption on which to base your arguments. You refuse to even answer simple yes or no questions.

You've been labelled a troll by everyone on this website including Fancylad.  I'm done with you and your trolling.  Hopefully in real life you're not this much of an asshole.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01  Sorry son, continuing your desperate ignorance over the fact your argument is failed is simply you following the path of those who have failed with the argument before, and you are only wasting time.  Get back to me when you want to face the flaw of "problem of evil" argument you so desperately cling to, which was clearly pointed out to you. Otherwise, better luck next time, son. 

Protip: don't be ignorant and trollish, and maybe you'll have better success with future 'discussions' online.
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior You're so stupid that you don't realize you lost when you refused to answer a simple yes or no question -- which you still won't answer.  

I dare you answer the question.
0
Reply
Male 11,071
lockner01 I knew you  would be back desperately and dishonestly.  Instead of doing what you said "i'm done with you", here you are back to further your ignorance.  Not only are you ignorant over the fact your argument is failed (and getting desperate from it), but you ignored that the conversation would not move forward until you faced the flaw in 'the problem of evil'.  When you want to face that flaw, perhaps the 'discussion' may move forward. But i suspect (and have done so for a good while now) that you're simply too trollish and ignorant to do that, which is why you have to pretend you won (i have no doubt that in your mind you think you have), and continue to force your 'question'.

Good luck to you there, because until you face that flaw, anyone can see you have nothing.  Might want to consider not being ignorant or trollish in the future.  
0
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior Let me translate what monk is saying into engrish for everyone. What he just said was:

monkwarrior: "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
0
Reply
Male 11,071
BuckeyeJoe You have issues, son.
0
Reply
Male 651
monkwarrior REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
0
Reply
Male 11,071
BuckeyeJoe  You have issues, son. 
0
Reply
Male 1,017
Belief in a simulated universe is analogous to belief in God. Both are unknowable. I'd expect the type of conversation to be similar as well. 

Next thing, the "experts" will argue about the type of simulated universe; hackers (prophets) will claim to be able to break the simulation code (miracles); and then we'll have crusades for the one "true simulation"! Virtual Apocalypse is near! 
1
Reply
Male 5,383
boredhuman and btw, we all live "simulated" consciousness. we make our own reality. look at certain morons here on i-a-b, myself included
0
Reply
Male 4,974
boredhuman Gives an interesting meaning to the Creator\Creationist Theory...God ends up being Bob from IT Support...
2
Reply
Female 5,621
If that's the case, I have OBVIOUSLY not purchased enough loot-crates for upgrades.

EA is running things... bet.
0
Reply
Male 5,383
melcervini seems more legit :P
1
Reply
Male 9,127
melcervini ROFL!!! I hear ya, my Owner is too cheap to give me loot crates to advance me, wants to do it the old fashioned way!
1
Reply
Male 1,383
Does it actually matter?

Myself, I discount the "simulated universe" theory.  Basically, it is way too much work for too little gain.

Nature is all about optimization of energy usage.
0
Reply
Male 70
punko Is it though? What if it's the product of a civilization that is billions of years old? What else do they have to do with their time?
0
Reply
Male 4,974
This was broken down for me recently.  If there is the possibility that a quantum computer system can be created to simulate reality perfectly, than the likelihood of us already living in that simulated reality becomes exponential.  So unless we are living in the "Prime" universe where said simulated reality is born, we are just a bunch of 1s and 0s.
0
Reply
Male 1,017
kalron27 There's a flaw in that logic. Just because something can possibly happen, doesn't mean it happens. Math is a tool, which can be used to back up bad arguments. 
Have you heard this argument for god? The likelihood of a planet in the universe like earth that is conducive to life is minuscule (math as evidence). Life developing into humans randomly is also minuscule (more math evidence). Therefore, math proves God! Ironclad argument, right? 
0
Reply
Male 4,974
boredhuman Meh, you missed the simplicity.  If it is possible than it has happened...with the exception of the "Prime" Universe...which we could be in.
0
Reply
Male 6,065
Mathematically, its a practical certainty that this is a simulated universe.
0
Reply
Male 858
daegog Only if you assume it is possible to model an entire universe as a subset of another universe.  Although, it would do a lot to explain Fermi's paradox.  Much easier to simulate just a planet, and reduce the complexity of the rest of the universe.
0
Reply
Male 6,065
muert "complexity" is too relative here to give it much merit in this scope.

What we think of as complex is probably something a retarded monkey could solve in 5 minutes in a hyper advanced society.

I figure the vast majority of universes must be simulated (given that we are even simulating them ourselves), the idea that we are on the one "prime" universe that is unsimulated seems to remote to consider.
0
Reply