So, since I observe that this universe has specific laws and is understandable by mathematics, and since mathematics can be argued that have only meaning in relation to a mind that understands them(nobody on Earth was doing math before man; not consciously) I very logically assume that someone with a mathematical mind set those laws. You on, the other hand, assume that it's just the way it is and always was. Evidence, in that regard, points to both directions. Tell me, why am I not irrational when I see the scribble on the sand and assume someone made it, but I am irrational when I assume that the specific laws of nature of the specific universe was a result of some entity with intelligence? Explain the difference.

This is ludicrous. Mathematics does not exist in the universe. We invented mathematics. Mathematics is a description. Mathematics is our description for what we observe to be reality and what we can rationally derive.

You are trying to equate the laws of the universe to a scribble in the sand? This is a very weak argument.

Can we prove that a scribble in the sand was made by man? No.
Is it possible that a scribble in the sand was created by coincidence/accident? Yes.
So why do we assume that the scribble in the sand was created by a man? It's called inductive logic. Every (or almost every) scribble we've ever experienced was made by man. We've never witnessed a scribble that didn't seem to have a possible human source. In fact, we can scribble in the sand. It's very reasonable to assume that someone like us scribbled in the sand. It is more likely that someone like us scribbled in the sand.

Now, the laws of the universe.

Can we prove that the laws of the universe were made by someone? No.
Is it possible that the laws of the universe were created by coincidence/accident? Yes.
Here's the difference. It is not rational to assume that the laws of the universe were created by someone, because inductive logic does not lead us there. We have never witnessed anyone create a natural law. As hard as I try, I cannot change the speed of light, or make gravity work backwards, or invent some law up that I can't even imagine. We have never witnessed a god create a natural law. We don't know if it can happen, we have no evidence or reason to lead us to believe it can. I can't invent mathematical rules, or change them.

The fact that the "law" in "natural law" is the same three letters as "law" in "son in law" doesn't mean that it's the same or at all similar to one of the laws that we have written down in rule books.

Can you really not see that laws of the universe are different from a scribble in the sand? I don't care what your ultimate belief is, but I urge you to prove you're at least intellectually honest by admitting that argument doesn't hold water.

Using logic, I would say this whole thing is undecidable. There definitely either is a god, or no god, but which one of those propositions is true cannot be determined. It is IMO irrational to actually pick one as being the truth, as it is picked for personal (psychological) reasons. This is true for both believers and atheists.

Yes, using logic we'd all have to agree that the existence of god is undecidable.

There remains a question as to whether it is rational to believe or disbelieve in the existence of god, however, and this is different from asserting to know the truth of the matter.

I argue that it's only rational to not believe in the existence of a god. Those that argue that it's rational to believe in a god cannot for the life of them find a good way to explain why it's rational to choose one from the many god options available. They also cannot explain why it's rational to believe in god but not fairies or santa clause, given that there is zero evidence for either one.

They'll claim there's evidence, but when backed into a corner they cleverly divert the argument It's amazing.

I am just going to reply to this one.

Can you really not see that laws of the universe are different from a scribble in the sand? I don't care what your ultimate belief is, but I urge you to prove you're at least intellectually honest by admitting that argument doesn't hold water.

Dude, I've had it enough with you. Quit with your 'holier than thou argument'. You're not smart, you're just repeating same old same old arguments, as everyone else. On the downside, you're coming off as a complete doucebag in the whole thread. No, the argument holds water. As I said, we have observed *minds* making mathematical *simulations* all the time. At some point, one could say that we can have a computer that can run a simulation as complex or even more complex than the current physical laws, and that simulation would be a universe itself(argueably, not as huge as our universe, but as complex, yes). It's not that hard to imagine. We could also imagine if the life forms that would emerge in that simulation, if any, would also wonder if there is a creator behind all this which, in their case, there would be. So no, I stand by my argument, and if you disagree, tough. Quit throwing around judgmental bullshit because two can play that game.

Dude, I've had it enough with you. Quit with your 'holier than thou argument'. You're not smart, you're just repeating same old same old arguments, as everyone else. On the downside, you're coming off as a complete doucebag in the whole thread. No, the argument holds water. As I said, we have observed *minds* making mathematical *simulations* all the time. At some point, one could say that we can have a computer that can run a simulation as complex or even more complex than the current physical laws, and that simulation would be a universe itself(argueably, not as huge as our universe, but as complex, yes). It's not that hard to imagine. We could also imagine if the life forms that would emerge in that simulation, if any, would also wonder if there is a creator behind all this which, in their case, there would be. So no, I stand by my argument, and if you disagree, tough. Quit throwing around judgmental bullshit because two can play that game.

A simulation? That's your argument for the equivalence between a scribble in sand and a the speed of light? Pretty weak.

If I said to you, "Why would you think that there are blue cats? Have you ever seen a blue cat? Inductively we can assume there are no blue cats."

Your argument amounts to, "Actually, we can assume that there ARE blue cats. You see, someone could easily make a blue cat in a simulation."

Is it possible we're in a simulation? Of course. If we knew we were in a simulation, would it be rational to assume that simulation had a creator? Of course. In our experience simulations have creators. If we did NOT know we were in a simulation, however, it would be completely irrational (though correct) to believe that we were. True beliefs can be irrational and rational beliefs can be false.

But we do not know we are in a simulation. It does not seem that we are in a simulation. Therefore, it is rational to assume that we are in reality. Therefore, obviously the natural laws we observe are part of reality. And since we have never observed a god creating or modifying a natural law, and since we don't have evidence that it may have happened, and since we don't have any deductive or inductive argument for why we should believe it happened, therefore it is irrational to assume that it happened.

This is ludicrous. Mathematics does not exist in the universe. We invented mathematics. Mathematics is a description. Mathematics is our description for what we observe to be reality and what we can rationally derive.

Mathematics isn't a description. It can be used to describe things, but at it's core it is truth, in large part because we have constructed it based off of things that we have defined rather than things that appear in nature. It exists apart from the physical universe and that is what makes it so useful and interesting.

So why do we assume that the scribble in the sand was created by a man? It's called inductive logic. Every (or almost every) scribble we've ever experienced was made by man.
[/quote]

I've seen lots of scribbles specifically on sand that I know for certain are not made by men.

I've seen lots of scribbles specifically on sand that I know for certain are not made by men.

I think it's obvious that we're talking about scribbles of the nature that a man would make. For instance, one that says "God is dead."

But we do not know we are in a simulation. It does not seem that we are in a simulation.

What is the difference? How would one inside the "simulation" know if it's a simulation? What does that even mean? Given enough accuracy and complexity, the simulation ceases to be a simulation and becomes "reality". For life forms that would emerge inside the simulation, it would be reality, as complex and rich as our own. What is the "qualitative difference", as you would say? And if we know that, theoretically, there is a way for a mathematical mind to create a world, isn't it rational to choose that as an explanation for any world, including our own? What would be the difference between an 'uncreated' and a 'created' world? And we know that 'created' worlds and lifeforms can exist.

Assuming you agree that we can simulate a world(small or large, doesn't matter) so complex that would allow intelligent forms to emerge within it(and you must agree, after that conversation about sapient AI we had), we can imagine these forms having the same kinds of conversation as we do about the origin of the world. Everything, *everything* you have said so far could be repeated by an 'atheist' lifeform to a 'theist' lifeform, but of course *we* know that the 'atheist' would be wrong. So?

Okay, I'll buy that it can be rational to believe we're in a simulation. I don't buy, however, that being inside a "perfect" simulation makes that simulation reality.

And since it's not reality, what you have is not "someone who created all of reality and the universe." All you have is "someone who created this simulation." That person may be god-like to anyoen in the simulation, but that person is certainly not god. That person is limited. And that person didn't create reality.

To posit that our universe is inside another structure is equivalent to expanding our notion of the universe to encompass that larger structure. Once you've figured out that what you thought was reality was really just a simulation created by some programmer, there remains the question of "who, if anyone, created reality?"

Okay, I'll buy that it can be rational to believe we're in a simulation. I don't buy, however, that being inside a "perfect" simulation makes that simulation reality.

I'm not saying we are necessarily "inside" a god-computer. Actually, I kinda do, my own thinking is that there is a mind(God) capable to "simulate","calculate","visualize","dream", if you will, the trajectories of all particles inside the universe, and we are just a certain finite structure inside that "dream"(I use the term very freely of course). In my head, without someone to do that, there is no way for the universe to exist...I don't know if you understand, there's no "canvas" to "draw" on. That's what reality is, and it is indeed real.

I'll use your own example of a human and the vaccum cleaner. What is the difference between a complex and accurate simulation, tracing the trajectories of a huge amount of particles with enough accuracy, and our own "reality"? Would nuclear fission be more "real" in either of those?

[quote name='A Brain in a Vat' timestamp='1312313528' post='4843729']
But we do not know we are in a simulation. It does not seem that we are in a simulation.

What is the difference? How would one inside the "simulation" know if it's a simulation? What does that even mean? Given enough accuracy and complexity, the simulation ceases to be a simulation and becomes "reality". For life forms that would emerge inside the simulation, it would be reality, as complex and rich as our own. What is the "qualitative difference", as you would say? And if we know that, theoretically, there is a way for a mathematical mind to create a world, isn't it rational to choose that as an explanation for any world, including our own? What would be the difference between an 'uncreated' and a 'created' world? And we know that 'created' worlds and lifeforms can exist.

Assuming you agree that we can simulate a world(small or large, doesn't matter) so complex that would allow intelligent forms to emerge within it(and you must agree, after that conversation about sapient AI we had), we can imagine these forms having the same kinds of conversation as we do about the origin of the world. Everything, *everything* you have said so far could be repeated by an 'atheist' lifeform to a 'theist' lifeform, but of course *we* know that the 'atheist' would be wrong. So?
[/quote]
If I'm not mistaken, he's not saying that it's impossible that you are right. He says it is merely possible, though not necessarily so. Proving that something is possible does not prove that it is actually so.


It is rational to choose it as an explanation, it is irrational to choose it as the explanation.