The Instigator
AllUnpowerful
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheRealSpassky101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is a simulator or god.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 148 times Debate No: 97167
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

AllUnpowerful

Pro

Today I will try to prove that there is a simulator or god. Anyone might contend.

Imagine you've won a few million dollars in the lottery. If this happened, would it be correct to believe that appearing to win millions of dollars in the lottery was extremely unlikely, or would be correct to believe that appearing to win millions of dollars in the lottery was not very unlikely? Now imagine that you're conscious. Is it correct to believe that being a conscious thing was incredibly unlikely, or that it was not very unlikely.

If a simulator or God does not exist, to be a conscious being in a universe that seems as void of life as ours is incredibly rare. This means that, like winning millions of dollars in the lottery, it is very unlikely because it is very rare. We know people win millions of dollars in the lottery, but those people are not you. You can almost guarantee that.

So if it was so unlikely to win millions of dollars in the lottery, you didn't win millions of dollars in the lottery. If it was so unlikely to be conscious, you are not conscious. However, you clearly are conscious, so it must not have actually been so unlikely for you to be conscious.

What could make it seem so unlikely, or make it more likely to be conscious? A simulator or god. One of the two must be responsible for that.

In conclusion, a simulator or god exists.
TheRealSpassky101

Con

You have the burden of proof.

Just because something is unlikely, does not necessarily mean that something else exists; that can be called spurious data, because there is no direct proof of it, only no refuting evidence. Many people say that there has to be a god or simulation do to the "perfect" location of our planet, which I like to point out that the chances of a world like ours is one in a billion, however, there is over a trillion planets.
Debate Round No. 1
AllUnpowerful

Pro

You're right. But because something is incredibly unlikely, it is false. This is usually true. Because it is false, the alternative is true. So, therefore, a simulator or god exists. I didn't think I would need to elaborate on my explanation like this. If something is false and that means the opposite is true, the opposite is true. Also, if there is no direct proof of this, there is no direct proof of anything. You can't be rationally absolutely certain of anything unless there is something supernatural that allows it.

Also, yes, there are over a trillion planets, but you have not proven that those planets are natural. If something makes something incredibly unlikely seem incredibly likely, doesn't that seem suspicious? I don't believe nature is doing an impersonation of a bad Hollywood writer pulling a severe arm pull on the biggest question ever for attention. Do you? It reeks of something faking the data or logic, don't you think?

Why reinvent the wheel? There's not enough space to fit these arguments here, so I'll provide a link. Here are 20 arguments for the existence of God. (http://www.peterkreeft.com...) Some of them may be applicable to proving other gods or simulators, as well. Viewers, please check it out.

Why would those arguments exist without God existing? And what's stopping him from creating lots of arguments against hi existence on top of human bias to deceive you people?

Also, compare the real world to the production costs of Grand Theft Auto V and see that if random chance just happened to have the solution to circumvent the whole production process with the universe, it's a literal miracle. I doubt random chance can do all that arm pulling randomly, but a god or simulator could. And could also, in theory, deceive you into being absolutely certain that they don't exist, so whatever disproof of their existence you have may be part of the deception that they don't exist. Nature could not have created a deception of a god/simulator existing and the illusion of no god/simulator existing, because it isn't intelligent, but a god/simulator could have created the appearance that they exist and the illusion that they don't exist, but that would mean that they exist. I'll let you reach your own conclusions. Think on it without bias, please. Reread it as many times as necessary, please.
TheRealSpassky101

Con

I believe life is like binary; either something happened or it didn't. As for that link, it serves very little use. Pascal's wager is not sufficient evidence of God. It does not factor in the existence of other gods.

Also, your logic is flawed when you say that something exists because of an action. That is the definition of spurious data.
Debate Round No. 2
AllUnpowerful

Pro

1. Fair enough, you don't believe that Pascal's wager is not convincing, however you have not proven that all the arguments are invalid.

2. It's the other way around. The result of the action happened because something is true and would not have happened if that something was false.

3. Please think for yourselves, readers; please go over these arguments as much as necessary and independently reach an informed conclusion.
TheRealSpassky101

Con

Thank you. In your second topic, you have no evidence to back up your evidence. This is your argument in a nutshell:

We exist because God exist.

That is obviously flawed for many reasons.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by madness 2 weeks ago
madness
@Furyan:
The guy thinks he is a wise showlin monk, but really doesn't make any sense. trust me, read some of his debates, it's kinda funny.
Posted by madness 2 weeks ago
madness
Pro's argument at a basic level this:
We can never be certain of anything, therefore God or simulation.

What created the simulation? Maybe the simulation is just simulated by another simulation that's simulated by another simulation.
Pro's argument is just a dumb paradox.
Posted by Furyan5 2 weeks ago
Furyan5
There must first be something to simulate? So you imply unicorns must exist before we can create a simulated unicorn? Your logic is flawed. The only limitation on simulations is the imagination of the creator.
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
vi_spex
you have only made a case that it can be, which is to say it is not
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
vi_spex
there must first be something to simulate for there to be a simulation
No votes have been placed for this debate.