God the Programmer

[Meow Mix]

I recall my discussion with a particular Christian from an earlier thread where I was arguing for the ability of God to create a world where there is no suffering and his objection was that we can't conceive of what it would be like to create an entire world without suffering. At the time I conceded that we could only assert that there are no logical contradictions, but now I've had another thought that I wasn't concentrating on before.

Today I was toying around with some of the simulators in the physics department -- tweaking constants, watching simulated stars explode and birth new stars, changing the laws of physics absurdly for fun -- when I realized something important that I've always sort of known but didn't place enough emphasis on.

If we can program it, God can do it.

This has to be true. Why couldn't God the Almighty actualize something that we mere mortals can program ourselves? This is actually just a neat way to conceive of what is meant by "possible worlds" and "logical possibility." We obviously can't program a Euclidean square-circle (an ontological possibility), but for example we can program any kinds of laws of physics that we want since the laws of physics are contingent -- and so could God.

In fact, we have programs that already exist in which the characters (were they alive) don't suffer. Not only that, but many games have a "god mode" that can be entered in which the characters don't take damage or suffer pain.

If we can program it, God can do it! There's nothing inconceivable about it -- any possible objection that can be raised is met by simply adding more lines of code, and God has an infinite program size to work with.

Thus the objection, "God creating a world without suffering isn't something we can conceive" or "There could be some inexplicable problem with doing that" fades away.

 

[branson]

if u think about it we already have become our own programers, we are able now to manipulate genes , and clone animals an if we can clone animals we can clone humans. not to mention nuclear fusion and bombs. i beLIEve that if there is a god then it has the capability to produce a world without pain and suffering, i mean why not it is supposed to be all powerfull, right.

 

[Meow Mix]

if u think about it we already have become our own programers, we are able now to manipulate genes , and clone animals an if we can clone animals we can clone humans. not to mention nuclear fusion and bombs. i beLIEve that if there is a god then it has the capability to produce a world without pain and suffering, i mean why not it is supposed to be all powerfull, right.

In a sense, though we're living in the world we're affecting... we can ostensibly program a universe though. If a god exists, the universe itself can be seen like a program written by the almighty.

When I started thinking about that today I got way off topic wondering about silly things that I didn't want to pollute the main gyst of my post with, but I'll type them here just for fun:

I was thinking that if it's possible for AI to be advanced enough to be sentient (which I don't doubt, though can't verify just yet) then eventually it would be possible to program a universe with living beings and effectively be godlike: they may even wonder if I, the programmer, exist if I don't give them any indication that I do.

Then I corrected myself on the "godlike" aspect since we are in fact mortal and could die in this world. Then I mused on the idea that the programmed world might keep on tickin' so long as it had a power source, unaware that its god was dead. A programmed Nietsche in such a world might say, "God is dead" and be right.

Then I of course went the next step and wondered what it would be like if our world is a programmed world, and our programmers have died and we just don't know it!

Silly, whimsical stuff (especially towards the end) but fun to think about.

Edit: Also, I wondered what it would be like in a programmed reality if the machine it was running on had a virus.

I smell a science fiction novel begging to happen here, but alas it would draw the ire of Matrix fanboys who would just say they've seen it all before.

 

[branson]

how is most of our dna considered junk dna? about 95 percent, now doesnt that seem like a waste to you. scientists working on the human genome project state that only 5 percent of the information from dna is understood. of what they do know is that HAR 1 plays a critical role in the advanced development in the human brain that seperates us from other mamals. now if it was a program why so much repeating sequences? i understand that we only use some 10 or 15 percent of our brain power, an that there are sequences in our dna that have been rendered dormant through evolution, but it still seems like a waste to me in both brain power and dna information storage.

 

[branson]

that was off topic but i understand what ure getting at. say we were created by beings from another planet, they came down to harvest resources and found the work too labor intensive. finding basic ape like lifeforms too wild to tame,and altered them geneticly to produce us to do the work for them. figureing the only way to make us smart enough to handle their equipment and machinery was to splice in their own dna into ours. giving us the basics of civilization, and religion for control but after millenia of slavery we rised up and killed them. so then we became the writers of our own program from then on. but their original civilization lived on through us.

 

[Meow Mix]

how is most of our dna considered junk dna? about 95 percent, now doesnt that seem like a waste to you. scientists working on the human genome project state that only 5 percent of the information from dna is understood. of what they do know is that HAR 1 plays a critical role in the advanced development in the human brain that seperates us from other mamals. now if it was a program why so much repeating sequences? i understand that we only use some 10 or 15 percent of our brain power, an that there are sequences in our dna that have been rendered dormant through evolution, but it still seems like a waste to me in both brain power and dna information storage.

I'm not arguing seriously that this world is a program, first of all.

Secondly, we know why there's so much junk: because we evolved. Even if this world IS a program, it was programmed to evolve. Even we write programs meant to evolve on their own, for instance.

Also, there is some debate as to whether the size of the genome may be beneficial, meaning that even if the junk DNA doesn't code for anything it could still be an evolved (selected for) trait because of its size. I'm not a biologist though, I'm a physics student.

 

[Thief]

I recall my discussion with a particular Christian from an earlier thread where I was arguing for the ability of God to create a world where there is no suffering and his objection was that we can't conceive of what it would be like to create an entire world without suffering. At the time I conceded that we could only assert that there are no logical contradictions, but now I've had another thought that I wasn't concentrating on before.

Today I was toying around with some of the simulators in the physics department -- tweaking constants, watching simulated stars explode and birth new stars, changing the laws of physics absurdly for fun -- when I realized something important that I've always sort of known but didn't place enough emphasis on.

If we can program it, God can do it.

This has to be true. Why couldn't God the Almighty actualize something that we mere mortals can program ourselves? This is actually just a neat way to conceive of what is meant by "possible worlds" and "logical possibility." We obviously can't program a Euclidean square-circle (an ontological possibility), but for example we can program any kinds of laws of physics that we want since the laws of physics are contingent -- and so could God.

In fact, we have programs that already exist in which the characters (were they alive) don't suffer. Not only that, but many games have a "god mode" that can be entered in which the characters don't take damage or suffer pain.

If we can program it, God can do it! There's nothing inconceivable about it -- any possible objection that can be raised is met by simply adding more lines of code, and God has an infinite program size to work with.

Thus the objection, "God creating a world without suffering isn't something we can conceive" or "There could be some inexplicable problem with doing that" fades away.

Have you been playing Sims?

 

[Meow Mix]

Have you been playing Sims?

I was playing with universe simulators... does that count?

 

[jmvizanko]

I was playing with universe simulators... does that count?

Can you explain what a "universe simulator" is?

 

[Meow Mix]

Can you explain what a "universe simulator" is?

Something of hyperbole, the astronomy and physics dept. has some neat programs that simulate star formation and dark matter distribution in galaxies... not supercomputer simulations by any means; and I'm pretty sure they were written by grad students at some point in the last few years but they're still fun.

 

[jmvizanko]

Something of hyperbole, the astronomy and physics dept. has some neat programs that simulate star formation and dark matter distribution in galaxies... not supercomputer simulations by any means; and I'm pretty sure they were written by grad students at some point in the last few years but they're still fun.

I can imagine. Although I think whatever code is behind them is infinitely inferior to all of the complexity of physical law in play behind our universe. I really have to wonder if there is no end to the depth of complexity to theoretical physics, chemistry, and biology, much like a continual zoom into a fractal.

Perhaps god's capabilities are not omni for any quality, just very very impressive compared to our own. Given sensitivity to initial conditions, it might have been very hard to predict that eventually there would be something like AIDS that might arise, or even viruses for that matter. Of course, that means that god is a moron for creating a universe that can create beings in it that can experience pain without knowing what sorts of pain might arise. And on top of it, perhaps he is cruel for not destroying it if he has the capability. But in the highest testament to him not even being there, the worst is that he doesn't communicate with us at all, and you know, tell us what the cure to cancer is, or anything else useful for that matter (well, other than that some carpenter died to save your soul from hell if you believe he rose from the dead).

Perhaps god was just / still is drunk. It would explain a lot if he does exist.

 

[Meow Mix]

I can imagine. Although I think whatever code is behind them is infinitely inferior to all of the complexity of physical law in play behind our universe. I really have to wonder if there is no end to the depth of complexity to theoretical physics, chemistry, and biology, much like a continual zoom into a fractal.

Perhaps god's capabilities are not omni for any quality, just very very impressive compared to our own. Given sensitivity to initial conditions, it might have been very hard to predict that eventually there would be something like AIDS that might arise, or even viruses for that matter. Of course, that means that god is a moron for creating a universe that can create beings in it that can experience pain without knowing what sorts of pain might arise. And on top of it, perhaps he is cruel for not destroying it if he has the capability. But in the highest testament to him not even being there, the worst is that he doesn't communicate with us at all, and you know, tell us what the cure to cancer is, or anything else useful for that matter (well, other than that some carpenter died to save your soul from hell if you believe he rose from the dead).

Perhaps god was just / still is drunk. It would explain a lot if he does exist.

I don't find the idea of a limited god very convincing without severely distorting the meaning of the word "god..."

Recall my daydreaming about programming another universe with sentient inhabitants. That may be possible, but I'm clearly no "god." If something created our universe but isn't omnipotent/omniscient, why call it a "god?"

Anyway I don't find any reason to believe our universe is a program, though it can behave like one that doesn't imply a programmer. I'm just using that as an analogy as to why a nonomnipotent being being called "god" is a little silly to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Something of hyperbole, the astronomy and physics dept. has some neat programs that simulate star formation and dark matter distribution in galaxies... not supercomputer simulations by any means; and I'm pretty sure they were written by grad students at some point in the last few years but they're still fun.

I prefer Call of Duty myself.

 

[jmvizanko]

I don't find the idea of a limited god very convincing without severely distorting the meaning of the word "god..."

Recall my daydreaming about programming another universe with sentient inhabitants. That may be possible, but I'm clearly no "god." If something created our universe but isn't omnipotent/omniscient, why call it a "god?"

Anyway I don't find any reason to believe our universe is a program, though it can behave like one that doesn't imply a programmer. I'm just using that as an analogy as to why a nonomnipotent being being called "god" is a little silly to me.

Well I've seen people present arguments for why an omni-"whatever" god poses logical contradictions, although I never really payed much attention and I don't know any off the top of my head. However, much like carbon, or even atomic, chauvinism is why creationists generally look stupid spouting off the fine tuning argument, I really wonder if the same thing couldn't be said of god and all the omnis? I come from a predominantly Christian culture, and it was the religion I was raised in, but tradition and majority be damned. Who is to say that their requirements be correct?

Maybe the word omnichauvinism should exist as it pertains to belief about god's qualities.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well I've seen people present arguments for why an omni-"whatever" god poses logical contradictions, although I never really payed much attention and I don't know any off the top of my head. However, much like carbon, or even atomic, chauvinism is why creationists generally look stupid spouting off the fine tuning argument, I really wonder if the same thing couldn't be said of god and all the omnis? I come from a predominantly Christian culture, and it was the religion I was raised in, but tradition and majority be damned. Who is to say that their requirements be correct?

Maybe the word omnichauvinism should exist as it pertains to belief about god's qualities.

Those "contradictions" only come from misconceptions about what the omni's could be.

Omnipotence for instance is the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. "Creating a rock too heavy for God to lift" for instance is the same thing as saying "an immovable object and an irresistable force," which is a nonsensical/self-contradictory concept because if an immovable object exists then by definition an irresistable force can't exist, and vice versa. So, omnipotence is unscathed by that "paradox" because the paradox itself is meaningless.

So indeed, an omnipotent god would be limited by logic but not by physics. Logic is ontologically necessary, physics are contingent.

 

[jmvizanko]

So indeed, an omnipotent god would be limited by logic but not by physics. Logic is ontologically necessary, physics are contingent.

You don't think that it might be impossible to construct a set of physical laws that governs a universe that can create sentient life yet not provide for it being in a state of complete unpleasantness avoidance? I understand your point in saying "just add some additional code." But if you have to create a universe that allows freedom of choice, which in my mind necessitates the existence of the truly random, then might there not be a prerequisite of not being able to include such code? Hell if I know, as I am but a mere human mind talking. It just seems to me that if a god created the universe, there could be no ultimate perfecting of it at any point. But then, why create the universe to begin with? And why not intervene or solve problems if he is capable of it?

All easy to avoid answering, of course, if one assumes no god exists.

 

[Reptillian]

You don't think that it might be impossible to construct a set of physical laws that governs a universe that can create sentient life yet not provide for it being in a state of complete unpleasantness avoidance? I understand your point in saying "just add some additional code." But if you have to create a universe that allows freedom of choice, which in my mind necessitates the existence of the truly random, then might there not be a prerequisite of not being able to include such code? Hell if I know, as I am but a mere human mind talking. It just seems to me that if a god created the universe, there could be no ultimate perfecting of it at any point. But then, why create the universe to begin with? And why not intervene or solve problems if he is capable of it?

All easy to avoid answering, of course, if one assumes no god exists.

I agree, it might be that one can't create a sentient entity in a world without suffering...however, that doesn't bode well for believers in a perfect afterlife or a heaven without suffering...unless you think eternal hell is a necessity. I guess its also possible all sentient beings have to pass through a period of suffering in order to exist in a perfect world.

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree, it might be that one can't create a sentient entity in a world without suffering...however, that doesn't bode well for believers in a perfect afterlife or a heaven without suffering...unless you think eternal hell is a necessity. I guess its also possible all sentient beings have to pass through a period of suffering in order to exist in a perfect world.

Any instance where a sentient being would suffer in a program can be solved by adding more code -- easily.

The point is that it's conceivable and there are no logical contradictions, therefore God could do it. Why hasn't he?

 

[Reptillian]

Any instance where a sentient being would suffer in a program can be solved by adding more code -- easily.

The point is that it's conceivable and there are no logical contradictions, therefore God could do it. Why hasn't he?

I don't think you can make that claim without knowing the code needed to produce a sentient being. Eliminating suffering might lead to a logical contradiction (like defining the same term in two conflicting ways) or might change the nature or perceptions of the being you're trying to create. It could also conflict with your purpose for the being or the overall program. I can imagine a world without suffering, but perhaps thats only because my mind exists in a world with suffering.

Oh yeah, since you're playing around with simulated universes and changing constants...have you been following that "Laws of Physics Vary Throughout the universe" thread? If so, what do you make of that?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...69-laws-physics-vary-throughout-universe.html

 

[jmvizanko]

I agree, it might be that one can't create a sentient entity in a world without suffering...however, that doesn't bode well for believers in a perfect afterlife or a heaven without suffering...unless you think eternal hell is a necessity. I guess its also possible all sentient beings have to pass through a period of suffering in order to exist in a perfect world.

Well in my thinking I certainly wasn't considering the existence of a heaven or hell, just existence in this life as we know it (which is possibly all of the existence of human souls that there is). If a heaven can exist, and god does not send certain people, or most people, there, especially for arbitrary reasons, he might as well be the devil, and the whole argument is moot.

I can not see any plausible reason for why it would be necessary for "all sentient beings have to pass through a period of suffering in order to exist in a perfect world."