God the Programmer

[Zadok]

One thing about computer programs - is that they are in reality 2 dimensional being hardware time and computer memory both of which are discontinuous. This is a nice theory for speculating intellectuals but unproven.

However, the parallels are interesting. And as with artificial intelligence we must determine if it is a simulation or emulation. Something already proven that cannot be determined.

Zadok

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

There's nothing logically insonsistent with a universe that has no suffering, so an omnipotent programmer could do such a thing if they so desired. Additionally, any "benefits" gained through suffering could also be programmed in without needing the suffering variable to trigger them.

Particularly since our senses and emotions are nothing but collections of particular electro-chemical reactions, it would be exceedingly simple for such a programmer to define the set of experiences for beings like us.

Only if such a programmer was restricted by rule-sets outside of its control would it not be able to create such a universe. Of course, in this case, such a being would no longer be omnipotent.

 

[PolyHedral]

One thing about computer programs - is that they are in reality 2 dimensional being hardware time and computer memory both of which are discontinuous. This is a nice theory for speculating intellectuals but unproven.

However, it is the opinion of most computer scientists that modern computers can model any solvable problem; The universe appears to be calculable, so a sufficiently powerful computer should be able to do it.

 

[Meow Mix]

There's nothing logically insonsistent with a universe that has no suffering, so an omnipotent programmer could do such a thing if they so desired. Additionally, any "benefits" gained through suffering could also be programmed in without needing the suffering variable to trigger them.

Particularly since our senses and emotions are nothing but collections of particular electro-chemical reactions, it would be exceedingly simple for such a programmer to define the set of experiences for beings like us.

Only if such a programmer was restricted by rule-sets outside of its control would it not be able to create such a universe. Of course, in this case, such a being would no longer be omnipotent.

Well said, and I agree.

It highlights the PoE in a way that's easier to digest, methinks: keeps most of those "But maybe there's some reason God had to create suffering / couldn't create it without it / (insert other special pleading fallacies here)"

 

[Thief]

And the idea so far is to deny the existence of God...because pain and suffering seem to be....useless?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And the idea so far is to deny the existence of God...because pain and suffering seem to be....useless?

No, the point is to deny the existence of a loving, benevolent and omnipotent God because such a being would not find it necessary nor desirable to create a system that causes or requires suffering. So, basically, either God is an evil monster for creating a system of suffering, a lousy designer for creating a system in which suffering is inherent or required, or God doesn't exist.

 

[Thief]

No, the point is to deny the existence of a loving, benevolent and omnipotent God because such a being would not find it necessary nor desirable to create a system that causes or requires suffering. So, basically, either God is an evil monster for creating a system of suffering, a lousy designer for creating a system in which suffering is inherent or required, or God doesn't exist.

It's still and argument of denial.
The pain and suffering indicate a God you don't like.

Actually, pain and suffering alter life.
Without pain, no reflex to harm would develop.

Not heard the expression..'the quick and the dead'...?

 

[PolyHedral]

...And a reflex to avoid harm is entirely redundant if harm doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[logician]

What do you mean? Physical size has very little relation to data storage.


How would you know?

Any system must be modeled to be programmed, in this case, the model would have to be as large as the universe, a best inefficient, at worst, impossible.

 

[PolyHedral]

The model of the universe would only have to be as large as the universe if the universe is "computationally efficient", which AFAIK, there is no evidence for. However, you need less information than that to store the starting conditions and the programming of the universe, and that's all you need to reproduce it.

 

[Thief]

...And a reflex to avoid harm is entirely redundant if harm doesn't exist in the first place.

Even top of the line predators have well honed reflexes.

And your wish and desire for a less painful life is cause to say there is no God?

 

[AxisMundi]

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.

At the risk of appearing stalker-ish...

Damn, you got a sexy brain.

 

[Meow Mix]

Even top of the line predators have well honed reflexes.

And your wish and desire for a less painful life is cause to say there is no God?

Thief, as I've explained to you succinctly before...

The argument is that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator-God existing while suffering is so prevalent in the world is contradictory and therefore one or more of those premises is wrong.

Either God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not benevolent, not the creator, not existent, or somehow suffering doesn't exist. Not all of those things can be true because it contradicts.

I doubt anyone will say suffering doesn't exist... so it must be one of the first 5 characteristics that is wrong.

My money's on "existence."

 

[Reptillian]

Thief, as I've explained to you succinctly before...

The argument is that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator-God existing while suffering is so prevalent in the world is contradictory and therefore one or more of those premises is wrong.

Either God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not benevolent, not the creator, not existent, or somehow suffering doesn't exist. Not all of those things can be true because it contradicts.

I doubt anyone will say suffering doesn't exist... so it must be one of the first 5 characteristics that is wrong.

My money's on "existence."

I'm for throwing out omnipotent or creator. Probably because I'm kind of a romantic at heart.

 

[Thief]

Thief, as I've explained to you succinctly before...

The argument is that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator-God existing while suffering is so prevalent in the world is contradictory and therefore one or more of those premises is wrong.

Either God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not benevolent, not the creator, not existent, or somehow suffering doesn't exist. Not all of those things can be true because it contradicts.

I doubt anyone will say suffering doesn't exist... so it must be one of the first 5 characteristics that is wrong.

My money's on "existence."

How about not interested enough to show Himself to you?
And will let you suffer for lack of interest?

 

[PolyHedral]

That's not "benevolant".

 

[Thief]

That's not "benevolant".

Benevolent as in benefactor?
God owes you something?

 

[logician]

The model of the universe would only have to be as large as the universe if the universe is "computationally efficient", which AFAIK, there is no evidence for. However, you need less information than that to store the starting conditions and the programming of the universe, and that's all you need to reproduce it.

If you're programming for "intelligent life", the model would have to be as large as the universe, since the underlying forces are both chaotic and random. In any case, one is bascially positing a "creator" here, not a "programmer".

 

[PolyHedral]

There is an automaton called Conway's Game of Life, and it is described like this:

Let there be an infinite grid of cells, and each cell can be either on or off. If exactly 3 of a cell's 8 neighbours are on, the cell will turn on. If 2 of the cell's neighbous are on, the cells stays in the state it was in last iteration. Otherwise, the cell turns off.

I think it's been proven that by varying the starting conditions, you can calculate anything, even the universe with the above rules. Despite the fact it only took me a paragraph to describe them.

 

[Thief]

There is an automaton called Conway's Game of Life, and it is described like this:

Let there be an infinite grid of cells, and each cell can be either on or off. If exactly 3 of a cell's 8 neighbours are on, the cell will turn on. If 2 of the cell's neighbous are on, the cells stays in the state it was in last iteration. Otherwise, the cell turns off.

I think it's been proven that by varying the starting conditions, you can calculate anything, even the universe with the above rules. Despite the fact it only took me a paragraph to describe them.

Starting conditions?

How about...
Let there be light?