http://www.gamedev.net/topic/629428-weird-thoughts-about-the-universe/

Thought the same thing about 4 months ago. Damn scientists stealing my ideas!

Anyway, if the universe were a simulation, it certainly wouldn't be a simulation surrounding us. The simulation would most likely have all of the fundamental laws of physics along with quantum physics programmed into it. Everything else would just be a result of the simulation.
A cellular automata takes simple rules and manages to create complex results. I think the universe would work exactly the same.

This is how this just went.
1. Argument assuming X is Y.
2. Argument stating X has grown to be inclusive of more than just Y despite it being commonly understood as just Y.
3. Argument that X is Y because it is commonly understood as Y.

It's totally ignorant of any number of writings by figures in the Catholic church.

No I'm aware that members of the catholic church have accepted some sort of "deistic evolution". That is not Intelligent Design. The core principal of intelligent design is that an intelligent entity designed all biodiversity, and specifically humans, and fundamentally, that species evolution through natural selection does not occur.

Your version of the argument is more like:
1 X.
2 Disproof of X.
3 Redefinition of X as Y.

It's akin to
1. "Fish only swim in the sea."
2. "No fish are also found in rivers"
3. "Ah, but I was including rivers when I talked about the sea"

No I'm aware that members of the catholic church have accepted some sort of "deistic evolution". That is not Intelligent Design. The core principal of intelligent design is that an intelligent entity designed all biodiversity, and specifically humans, and fundamentally, that species evolution through natural selection does not occur.

Whatever you have to do to convince yourself that belief in the universe being designed by a supernatural intelligent entity is not intelligent design.

Whatever you have to do to convince yourself that belief in the universe being designed by a supernatural intelligent entity is not intelligent design.

Oh FFS

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

The intelligent design (ID) movement claims that life as we know it could not have developed through random natural processes -- that only the guidance of an intelligent power can explain the complexity and diversity that we see today.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm

Stop trying to reframe the debate. ID is unscientific nonsense and rephrasing it as deistic evolution is disingenuous.

Regarding who would be right if such a thing were true -

Atheists (agnostics, etc) usually criticise/reject either specific religious beliefs, or the more general belief that everything was created by some kind of intelligence, or conscious "creator", as opposed to natural non-living means.

So for the former, the Universe being a simulation isn't something that most religious beliefs claim, and it would be quite some back pedalling to claim that they did mean that all along. For the latter, the problem is that you still have the question of whether the original Universe came from that we're being simulated in! Unlike belief in God, which is asserted to be the beginning (well, there's still the problem of where God came from, but theists believe this isn't something that's a problem), no one would think that the creators of this simulation are how _everything_ was created. So although profound, it wouldn't really be "God" in any sense meant by theists or atheists.

Also consider from the theist point of view: are religious people going to say "Oh, Christianity/etc is wrong after all", and then start worshipping these beings as new Gods? I doubt it. They'd probably make some kind of argument from design along the lines of "Since this Universe was designed, therefore everything must have had a designer", but that argument wouldn't be any more valid, nor would it make their beliefs right.

It's true there is the debate about how the Universe seems apparently "perfect" for life, but science doesn't have an answer, so it's not like scientists or atheists are proven wrong; rather the stance of atheists would be that lack of an answer doesn't mean that everything had to start with a creator, and the same would still be true.

And I agree with ChaosEngine that "Intelligent Design" generally means something quite specific. Sure, we can talk about something more general like "the space-time that we inhabit having been designed intelligently", but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that, and as I say, I doubt any other religious people would change their views to start worshipping these aliens. And it seems rather odd to pretend that such aliens would have been the Christian God/Jesus, or whatever, all along.

Perhaps an analogy would be the big bang - with the discovery that the Universe must have had a beginning, some religious leaders did claim this meant they were right all along, because they believed the Universe was created (had a beginning). True, they were right in that, because until then it wasn't known if the Universe even had a beginning. But being right in one thing, doesn't make the religious views in any way correct. If I believed in a Unicorn that makes the Sun come up every day, just because it turns out that the Sun comes up tomorrow, doesn't mean I'm right about my belief.

And I agree with ChaosEngine that "Intelligent Design" generally means something quite specific. Sure, we can talk about something more general like "the space-time that we inhabit having been designed intelligently", but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that, and as I say, I doubt any other religious people would change their views to start worshipping these aliens. And it seems rather odd to pretend that such aliens would have been the Christian God/Jesus, or whatever, all along.

Both of your posts are totally ignorant of a huge dialogue that's been happening through the catholic church in recent history. This is like listening to Rush Limbaugh telling a Shia what Islam really is.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1356011514' post='5012793']
And I agree with ChaosEngine that "Intelligent Design" generally means something quite specific. Sure, we can talk about something more general like "the space-time that we inhabit having been designed intelligently", but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that, and as I say, I doubt any other religious people would change their views to start worshipping these aliens. And it seems rather odd to pretend that such aliens would have been the Christian God/Jesus, or whatever, all along.

Both of your posts are totally ignorant of a huge dialogue that's been happening through the catholic church in recent history. This is like listening to Rush Limbaugh telling a Shia what Islam really is.
[/quote]
Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic). You don't get to redefine commonly understood terms to suite your argument and then attempt to call people out for not using your personal interpretation of the term. That's not how discussions work. When people mention Intelligent Design, funnily enough the commonly understood definition pops into their head, not the one you've arbitrarily decided to redefine.

Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic).

I imagine a lot of Americans view Islam as a movement with a very specific meaning too; that doesn't make it less ignorant. This is totally an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1356027744' post='5012867']
Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic).

I imagine a lot of Americans view Islam as a movement with a very specific meaning too; that doesn't make it less ignorant. This is totally an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
[/quote]

Christ you don't give up, do you? If Americans got their view of Islam from the Quran then that view is correct. It is the authoratvie source

Intelligent design has a specific meaning that is widely understood and accepted, as defined by the people who came up with the term. You are attempting to change that meaning because you realise the principle is unsound and trivially disproven.

You're engaging in both moving the goalposts and the no true scotsman fallacy.