Do you believe in God ?

[Kulindahr]

When they are so programmed by the program designer.

In other words there is a master designer of the program that enables a computer to self program.

So you concede that when the programmer so decides, a program can do things he didn't writs, didn't expect, didn't predict, and indeed write its own code that he cannot even fathom (I think ti was Wozniack who pointed out that last). This the programmer endows elements of a simulation with free will (or grants it to robots).

Thus, you admit that there is no difference between the universe as a simulation by a programmer and the universe as Creation by a Creator -- or at least none that we can detect.

 

[Kulindahr]

A computer's programming that enables a computer to program is the result of its master designer's programming enabling those functions.

No -- this contradicts your post above. When a designer writes code that allows the machine to learn, he has freed it from the constraint of being limited to functions he has enabled. This is generally done using algorithms that enable the machine to write its own functions and call them rather than being stymied when it needs a function the programmer has not anticipated.

And that is presently the goal of all high-level programming. Code has gotten too complex for any but superior geniuses to follow it, so the push is to let the machines learn and then write the code they need. This requires allowing them to determine their own functions, within limits -- which is exactly what's true of humans in this universe. Such coding is already in use, and not merely experimentally.

So when a programmer says that the universe is indistinguishable from a simulation, he is essentially saying it is indistinguishable from a Creation by a Creator -- leaving no room for atheism. Anyone really following science these days has to stand with Neil deGrasse Tyson and insist that God cannot be ruled out (even if God is just a super-master programmer).

 

[Kulindahr]

Note my other posts where I have stated that the master programmer (the original program designer), of a program is the enabler of a computer program, that is programmed, to program.

In other words, there is no difference between a Creator and Creation, on the one hand, and a programmer and simulation, on the other.

 

[Jacquemar]

If it can be construed as an insult it probably shouldn't be said... at least in a "no flame" zone.

 

[kallipolis]

In other words, there is no difference between a Creator and Creation, on the one hand, and a programmer and simulation, on the other.

I have clearly stated that the original designer of a program has endowed their simulation with features that enables the simulation to follow the designer's commands, evidence that the program is equipped with slave features.

Transparently there is a program designer, and there is that designer's program.

 

[kallipolis]

No -- this contradicts your post above. When a designer writes code that allows the machine to learn, he has freed it from the constraint of being limited to functions he has enabled. This is generally done using algorithms that enable the machine to write its own functions and call them rather than being stymied when it needs a function the programmer has not anticipated.

And that is presently the goal of all high-level programming. Code has gotten too complex for any but superior geniuses to follow it, so the push is to let the machines learn and then write the code they need. This requires allowing them to determine their own functions, within limits -- which is exactly what's true of humans in this universe. Such coding is already in use, and not merely experimentally.

So when a programmer says that the universe is indistinguishable from a simulation, he is essentially saying it is indistinguishable from a Creation by a Creator -- leaving no room for atheism. Anyone really following science these days has to stand with Neil deGrasse Tyson and insist that God cannot be ruled out (even if God is just a super-master programmer).

Simplicity of expression is a feature of an uncomplicated understanding...that a computer simulation is the result of its designer's program, there being no argument from my side that a program simulation can write programs.

 

[kallipolis]

So you concede that when the programmer so decides, a program can do things he didn't writs, didn't expect, didn't predict, and indeed write its own code that he cannot even fathom (I think ti was Wozniack who pointed out that last). This the programmer endows elements of a simulation with free will (or grants it to robots).

Thus, you admit that there is no difference between the universe as a simulation by a programmer and the universe as Creation by a Creator -- or at least none that we can detect.

This is what you state. Not what I have written.

Briefly... a program designer writes his programs, to achieve the result that his program design produces.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have clearly stated that the original designer of a program has endowed their simulation with features that enables the simulation to follow the designer's commands, evidence that the program is equipped with slave features.

Transparently there is a program designer, and there is that designer's program.

In other words, it's exactly like creation.

You're 'way in over your head here, kalli. Actual experts in the field say there is no way to tell our universe isn't a simulation; you're insisting they can't be right. But your reasoning fails as well as your knowledge: the above statement is true of Creation and the Creator told of in the Bible. You're arguing a difference where there isn't one.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is what you state. Not what I have written.

Briefly... a program designer writes his programs, to achieve the result that his program design produces.

So again you have conceded that there is no way to tell the difference between this universe being a simulation and it being the Creation of a Creator. Though really your statement is either a tautology or wrong, since programs these days can produce unintended and unimagined results but still be working properly.

 

[Kulindahr]

If it can be construed as an insult it probably shouldn't be said... at least in a "no flame" zone.

[Text: Removed]

And in this instance, the assertion that the elements of a high-level simulation are "slaves" is wrong, and that needs to be said (though I'm thinking that the universe as a simulation really ought to be its own thread).

 

[kallipolis]

So again you have conceded that there is no way to tell the difference between this universe being a simulation and it being the Creation of a Creator. Though really your statement is either a tautology or wrong, since programs these days can produce unintended and unimagined results but still be working properly.

You may discover that my offerings here on this topic, and your free choice to "rephrase" my words are futile.

 

[Priapus69]

If it's a god like this:

Sure, if not, no.

 

[Charon]

Nope, I'm a nihilist.

 

[shawnlx]

I've always been single and when I worked in law enforcement everyone else had families to go home to and that would allow them to switch gears or switch off from work and focus on what was at home, something to distract their attention away from the job. I didn't have that and long story short I relied on a form of belief that I felt helped deal with the job. I needed to believe in something. I couldn't believe in the fact that when I came home there would be the kids or a waiting meal or friendly, familiar face and such. That in its way was the type of belief system my coworkers had. And when they had personal family issues that was the test of those beliefs. At least that's how I saw it. I had my own tests but I went through them alone and again, I needed something to believe in. So I believed in God. Still do but I can't have someone shine a light on me and demand to know why. You just had to have seen what I saw and lived what I lived and done it all alone. Answering the question, well, why are you single would take longer and more thought.

 

[joesman]

No. I believe if you talk to God then that is all right but the answers you get are kind of silent. He is a good listener if he is there. If he is still around he would be for the Jews he certainly has let some terrible stuff happen to them as he basically has always done for them and for us. If you are up on the Bible then you know he is a very vengeful God and the least infraction can lead to taking your son out into the s=desert to sacrifice but at last minute changes his mind. Takes you out of bondage that Joseph led you into and then makes you wander the desert for 40 years. If you weren't a Jewish person in those days he allowed the Jews to tear down your cities and kill women and children because you can't leave behind a baby who may grow to hate you. And poor Job, the most faithful, had to prove his faith and lose everything. He got it back but suffered many indignities. He also had favorites who did bad things but were forgiven almost all. David, was a favorite and he sent a man to war in front lines so he could get killed and David could have his wife.


We invented Jesus, or the Jews did and followed him through many things. When Jesus died he promised he would return, and supposedly did but left again saying he would be back soon. Those followers still believed and were horribly persecuted because they thought he would be back soon. 2000 and some odd years later he has not come back, at least that we know of. And while we have waited those who think they follow his word have committed atrocities beyond belief down through those 2000 or so years and still do. If the words that are printed on pages about his teachings are true then a good heart and a peaceful mind is a redemption but it won't save you the horrors of mankind or mother nature. It does help some baseball players and football players, oddly enough as they give their thanks after every goal, home run, soccer goal, touch down or receiving a long football pass.

Me, I believe in being a good man, as good as I can and being as kind and gentle to those that I love and am surrounded by. Life ends for everyone and if Heaven is there it must be pretty empty because those that profess their good religion are the biggest monsters of all.

 

[Telstra]

I've always been single and when I worked in law enforcement everyone else had families to go home to and that would allow them to switch gears or switch off from work and focus on what was at home, something to distract their attention away from the job. I didn't have that and long story short I relied on a form of belief that I felt helped deal with the job. I needed to believe in something. I couldn't believe in the fact that when I came home there would be the kids or a waiting meal or friendly, familiar face and such. That in its way was the type of belief system my coworkers had. And when they had personal family issues that was the test of those beliefs. At least that's how I saw it. I had my own tests but I went through them alone and again, I needed something to believe in. So I believed in God. Still do but I can't have someone shine a light on me and demand to know why. You just had to have seen what I saw and lived what I lived and done it all alone. Answering the question, well, why are you single would take longer and more thought.

I don't really understand what you are saying.

 

[Rocky]

Third, I have had at least two experiences in life where I believe God was telling me something about my life by mental telepathy.

This intrigues me and I would love to hear about your experiences.

 

[xyxyxy]

I am agnostic, not really sure if I believe in "God" in the traditional sense though

 

[MusicMan321]

I do believe in God and I believe in after you pass awsy you'll meet up with your loved ones up in heaven

 

[Kyanimal]

You do not have a soul.
You have a body.
You ARE a soul!

HUGS!!
Chaz