Thread 16767513

Claiming that our reality was made by intelligent design doesn't add up, because it begs the question - who designed our designer?

It's a never ending infinite regress. So by using heuristics we conclude that this line of reasoning if fundamentally flawed, therefore maybe everything did indeed come from nothing

>therefore maybe everything did indeed come from nothing

this always gets me
how long was nothingness there for? always? how come a thing be there since always? it makes no sense. what does "since always" even mean

also why something even exists, why is there a need or reason to be something there at all, if nothing existed we wouldnt know we didnt exist, which would make more sense than something being here

>>16767534
I'M GOING INSANE

>>16767513 (OP)
Simulation hypothesis is that if you can't know whether you're simulated or not, you're probably simulated.

>>16767513 (OP)
Simulation hypothesis isn't usually hypothesized to explain why anything exists at all so your criticism is missing the point. The advocates don't need to explain existence itself in order to argue it's more likely than not that our reality is simulated rather than the "base reality". I'm not a big believer in the idea myself so I'm not going to defend it, but you should do basic research on it before criticizing it.

>>16767534
There is no scenario where the first thing to ever happen has a cause. Either time is finite, therefore there must have been a beginning of time, or time is infinite, therefore the universe always existed. There is no explanation for the beginning of the universe that doesn't require a "cause without a cause", whether that is the big bang, God, a primordial white hole, the big crunch of a previous universe, or whatever else you might consider plausible

>>16767513 (OP)
>this retarded shit again
<yawn>

>>16768031
Why did you screencap yourself to post this? You clearly are just some random guy that thinks you have discovered something rather than having discussed the philosophical topics you are only halfheartedly referencing.

>>16768017
How can something always have existed?

>>16768194
Because the notion that there was a time in which time did not exist is fundamentally absurd. Thus, from the perspective of an interpretation of cause and effect, time has always existed.

>>16767513 (OP)
your image isn't loading for me

>>16768250
Fucking kek.

>>16768250
It's supposed to mean nothingness

>>16768361
I always thought nothingness was white

>>16767513 (OP)
>who designed our designer?
We are our own designer. It's a game of forgetting and remembering who we truly are.

>>16768464
Absolute Cinema

>>16767513 (OP)
what has simulation hypothesis have to do with your post? Even if everything came from nothing in original universe we could still be in someones game laptop lmao

>>16768464
cool picture

>>16768436
No, transparent is the color of nothing.

>>16767534
>how come a thing be there since always?
Because it is an infinity of itself.

>what does "since always" even mean
It means that no matter how many times you divide 0, its still exactly 0 since 0/x=0.

>also why something even exists,
0!=100%

>>16768031
>You can't get something from nothing, therefore God is something from nothing and/or everything came from nothing.
You still don't understand how stupid and self-refuting that answer is?

>>16767513 (OP)
I agree with you but I just stopped by your thread to say you are missusing “beg the question”.
Please always strive for more formal exzact language

>>16768464
We would have designed something better, your post is just meaning tripe once you think it out

>>16768588
>We would have designed something better
How would you know this isn't better than the last iteration?
How would you know the next iteration isn't going to be even better?

>>16768464
I hate aislop so much bruh

>>16767513 (OP)
Something once came from nothing and everything after that was a mechanical consequence of such thing existing.
Analogous to how when you start a simulation, you set the initial conditions and everything after that is an algorithmic consequence of whatever function was probabilistically called.
Your mistake is thinking human logic applies to higher plans. A computer's logic alone doesn't constitute our plane, so why should ours constitute a higher one?

>>16767513 (OP)
philosophy is mental masturbation for mental midgets, it's of no use

>>16768694
Only when you do it the way you do it just so you can belittle others and pump your own ego instead of communicating things of value to others.

>>16768694
Except it isn't. Thinking is the default state of the greatest minds.

>>16768481
Never seen this with naked eye. How cool it actually is?

>>16768714
You can only see cgi through a digital device, not with the naked eye alone.

>>16768734
pretty sure analogic film can display the milky way in full color under the proper analog settings, like prolongued 3xposaure and/or aperture

>>16768464
I love aislop so much

>>16768555
it isnt, you are just stupid I'm afraid. someone had to tell you at some point

>>16768036
>reeeee
feel better? are you fulfilled?

>>16768708
>>16768712
thinking != philosophy, take some time to analize the usefulness of philoaophy, and you'll realize it's pointless time wasting, you might think I'm trolling, I'm not, you feel as if I'm personally attacking you, I'm not

>>16768464
this should be re-done by a top artist the concept in it is of extreme quality

>>16767513 (OP)
>who designed our designer?
we did

>>16767513 (OP)
Are you sure that is the only solution? Can you prove intelligent design needed a creator?

If each civilization on average is capable of producing millions of simulations, even if a small fraction of them do, it is more likely that most civilizations are simulated.

The only counterargument for this is that it somehow assumes that if we are in a simulation somehow the non-simulated world is similar to ours. It could just be that the non-simulated world is smaller than our galaxy for example, so that the theory that we live in a simulation from a larger world with many civilizations creating simulations is held up by evidence taken from our current simulated world and not the "real" world. I'm not sure where this holds up logically since:

>assume we're in simulated world because of characteristics of our simulated world
>this is a non-sequitur since we can't know the real world from a simulated world
>therefore we can't know we are in a simulated world

I suppose it's a reductio ad absurdum.

>>16768694
>thinking about important stuff is le dumb!

>>16769128
Taking our own civilization as a base, it is utterly impossible for us to simulate a universe with any level of complexity. The amount of complexity lost between the universe we live in, and the best simulations we can field, is tens of orders of magnitude

Even if we allow for this loss of complexity by assuming that our "parent universe" is far more complex than our universe, it sets a very hard limit to how many simulations can be neated. If we use a supercomputer with 10GHz processing speed to run a simulation at 100Hz (which is pretty unrealistically fast already) then a simulation running inside that simulation will run at what, 1mHz?

My job is running simulations. Some simulations are so complex than 1ms of time may take a whole day to simulate, and that's with simplified models based on mathematics, not simulating the atoms and their interactions from scratch. Even if you assume only the earth is simulated and the rest of the sky is just fake, or hell even if you assume you're a brain in a jar and nothing but (you)r thought processes are simulated, the drop in efficiency is ridiculous. Sure (you) won't feel the fact that one day for you is a year for the simulator, but why would anyone spend thousands of years just to simulate (you)r life?

Why would you want to dedicate a state of the art supercomputer to run a simulated universe? There are far more useful simulations we could run with that kind of magic hardware, like protein folding, molecular interactions, engineering property analysis, just about every NP problem would give us more insight than trying to recreate the entire universe at once.

The entirety of simulation theory is based on magic assumptions and handwaving. Even with hypothetical technology what it proposes is neither possible nor desirable for anyone to attempt. I'd be more inclined to believe in a divine omnipotent creator than one who is just some bloke running a simulated universe in his basement for shits and giggles

>>16767534
Universes are like videos.
If you load a video, you are starting a new universe starting at 0:00. What was the video's perspective before 0:00?
A progression that goes -0:01, -0:02 -> -infinity is absurd.
It's not that the video didn't exist for an infinite amount of time, it's that time itself only started being a thing after you loaded the video from the perspective of the video

So in essence, by inventing a universe, you're also inventing time.
If there is such a thing that transcends/ precedes the universe, it must be timeless.

But what's the law that governs all metaphysical laws? What came "first" in the sense of "everything comes from here"?
We obviously can't observe metaphysics, but we can speculate, e.g. "Something has to exist"
So if "something has to exist" is the originator law, then everything, including the laws of our universe stem from there.
We just need to figure out how to bridge the gap between "something has to exist" and our universe existing.

Some people use the word "God" for that, but it's important to state that almost all popular definitions for "God" insert culturally-derived noise, when all we know about "God", assuming the law "Something has to exist" is true, is that God is the originator.

>>16767513 (OP)
Simulation from inside the simulation appears exactly like reality. Physics within the simulated world are that world's physics.

Simulation theory is just creationism.
>but a priori
Fuck off retard.

>>16767513 (OP)
>therefore maybe everything did indeed come from nothing

The magic Goddesses approve this

>>16769726
And what can we attribute to God?

>>16767513 (OP)
what if the universe is infinitely old

>>16767513 (OP)
You will never know. Move to other things you can know and stop wasting your time with mental games.

>>16767513 (OP)
Everything coming from nothing is just as hard an idea to prove as Everything coming from God who always was
You are better off worshiping God because if you are wrong you lose nothing but have lived a nicer, more loving life
If you are right then you spend eternity in heaven while if you didn't live for God you could end up in hell for eternity

>>16770565
>You are better off worshiping God because if you are wrong
Which God? Which religion?
Pascal's Wager is a complete bait because the probability isn't just between the belief/disbelief of one single religion, but between all possible religions.
In this actual scenario the probablility of your single religion been correct is infinitesimal.

>>16770565
>because if you are wrong you lose nothing
Except for having a lifestyle, several beliefs, an irrational moral system etc. force onto you, retard-chama.

>>16770576
If you're assuming God loves his creation, the most popular one. If you're assuming he doesn't, we're doomed anyway.

It probably makes more sense if you aren't approaching it with the human conception of time, cause and effect, etc. Theres no longer some weird paradox about this if you understand that we are literally unable to perceive the logic behind foreign laws with our brains limitations

>>16770587
>assuming assuming assuming
Assuming there is an Infinite Creator then its purpose and method is beyond the comprehension of any mortal such as yourself.
Personification and anthropomorphization of a possible infinite being to the limits of human psychology is the biggest dead give away earthly religions are all rubbish.

>>16770596
Do you know what a conditional proof is?

>>16770600
Did God create human logics, or did human logics create God?

>>16770576
Well the Christian God has the most evidence of not only existing but having powers only a diety would have.
Christs biggest haters and neutral parties back in the day also concede with available eyewitness accounts that Jesus was a healer with powers

Aside from that you could always just pray to the creator without getting into specifics.
Live your life being as good of a person as possible(you should want to be like this anyways so it shouldn't be hard)

>>16770585
If your beliefs clash so much with Christianity that you find living a Christian life as a big loss you should probably question your life choices
Sure I get there being some things that are hard to accomplish or keep to but the whole point is to put your faith in the teaching and trying again when you fail or sin
Christ never said it would be easy.

>>16770604
We went from "You have nothing to lose" to "Well, your lifestyle probably sucks and needs to change anyway".
The intellectual honesty of this conversation motivates me to stop right here.

>>16770602
God created humans.
Humans created human logic by collecting empirically unprovable primitive premises that seems to be universally true (axioms) and expanding on it.
According to formal human logic, God created humans, that created human logic. Thus God created human logic. The conclusion may be right or wrong as it's built on unprovable premises that humans created empirically. Impossible to answer with certainty.

>>16770614
I said to rethink your life choices not that your lifestyle sucks.
You made that distinction on your own.
Weird that you're completely misrepresenting what I said while putting into question my intellectual honesty

>>16770615
If logics is a creation of God, then It is above logics and impermeable to your mortal deductions. Your feeble attempts at grasping the divine through human logics is an excerise in futility.

>>16770624
Human logic is literally an attempt to comprehend God's logic empirically. I don’t see how that would be futile.

>>16770628
For something to be comprehended by logics it must be limited by logics. If something is not limited by logics and can act outside of logics then attempts to deduce the properties of this said something through logics is futile.
For instance you can deduce the reactions of matter because it follows certain logics and insofar as we can observe it cannot do otherwise. If it can do otherwise then logics would be useless at deducing the properties of matter.
A hypothetical God who created logics is above it and would not be limited by its own creations. Your attempts at deducing God "must be this" and "must not be that" because of logics is futile because an Infinite Creator does not have to follow logics.
Only the limited can be deduced by its limits. For the Limitless the possibilies are simply..limitless.

>>16770639
>>16768680
Literally what I said. Your point?

>>16770645
I don't know, what was your point asking about conditional proof?

>>16770655
">assuming assuming assuming" >>16770596
You appeared to immediately dismiss conditional statements. That's why I asked.

>>16770656
Well, for a limitless being where no logics can apply conditional statements will also fall flat now wouldn't it.

>>16767513 (OP)
ignoring the fact that the simulation theory is a loosely veiled theism by the fact that asking the question who created the simulations begets a godlike entity, the definition of god is axiomatic to begin with as per the preamble so defining him as inferior to the initial cause yields a further beginning cause is a rather unfortunate denotation due to having this infinite recursion implicit. any "good" statement of god would fix this question

>>16768714
about like this except with the stars at a normal brightness, it's not that fancy

>>16770658
Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument, I just extended it using conditional proofs because that's valid in philosophy. Realistically it's kinda impossible to argue with our line of thinking because everything is a gamble and God is 100% unpredictable. I said "If God feels love, and he loves us, he'll be the most famous, so everyone has a chance to choose to know him.", but that's assuming God would act like a good human would, which may or not be true. It's ultimately a test of faith at the end of the day.

>>16770666
>by the fact that asking the question who created the simulations begets a godlike entity
That's often the case, but not necessarily.
If we treat "Something has to exist" as a brute fact, then we can derive other laws that eventually lead to the creation of our universe.
You don't need God to create a universe, just a law that every other law is derived from.

>>16770672
if you're talking about the simulation then it is inherently technologically based implying something had to create the technology to create the simulation
in the case of existence for the sake of existence then yes there need not be a first cause but again this definition and inherently an assumption evinces the recursive argument

>>16770604
>Christs biggest haters and neutral parties back in the day also concede with available eyewitness accounts that Jesus was a healer with powers
Bullshit, he never existed and there is not a single piece of actual evidence suggesting he did

>>16770680
>again this definition and inherently an assumption evinces the recursive argument
There is no recursion. We just presuppose that logical laws are brute facts, which if we didn't, there'd be no point in talking about it.
The logical law "Something has to exist" presupposes that the first object that everything has to be derived from also has to be a brute fact, accompanying the logical law.

That object created the universe and its inferior (physical as opposed to logical) laws, e.g. spacetime, that are possible, but not necessary.
I use the word "created" very loosely here. It doesn't have to be God, or be sentient.
It could be a random number generator for all we know.

>>16767513 (OP)
You babble. You try to emulate big boy philosophy you saw online.
You actually do a good job at babbling.

>>16767513 (OP)
Good argument, I respect it.

>>16768194
Because It can have an orthogonal relationship to infinity without any dependencies, complexities, or deprecation of its own.

>>16768833
It is, retard, if something else can't come from nothing, then even that one other thing you desperately want to come from nothing can't come from nothing.

>>16768837
No, I think you are a hypocritical retard who is trying to get people to adopt your philosophy of impotence in the most retarded way possibly.