Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Irrelevance of God?

SydThatIsCalledSyd
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 6:27:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since conciousness is created by some arrangement of the neurons and electrical impulses in our brain (barring a 'soul'), consciousness can theoretically be recreated using a man-made computer. Matter and the laws of physics can also be described using a computer, to a degree of accuracy. If both these statements are true, I see no reason why a simulated 'Universe' - indistinguishable from the real McCoy, to its inhabitants - could not be created by a single person, naturally at some point in the distant future. My question is this: would the person (or people, for that matter) who built the computer and wrote the software be accurately described as God(s)? In other words, is the creation of the Universe, life and consciousness (as well as an assumed omniscience, in the computer program scenario) enough to be classified as God, or are omnipotence and immortality absolutely necessary? More importantly, would the creation of a Universe without pain, death - the usual drawbacks - make you objectively 'better' than, for argument's sake, the Christian God?

First timer here, feel free to rip my arguments to shreds.
~remember to add signature here later~
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 6:39:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One is not knowing everything no matter what our creations are: the two states are independent. However, that arguably isn't the definition of omniscient. We'd essentially get into problems of defining God. I'd rather use a secondary word, or use the example to highlight the inaccuracy of the word.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 8:32:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 6:27:45 PM, SydThatIsCalledSyd wrote:
Since conciousness is created by some arrangement of the neurons and electrical impulses in our brain (barring a 'soul'),

That hasn"t been established by any stretch of the imagination.

consciousness can theoretically be recreated using a man-made computer.

It"s highly doubtful, but even if consciousness was "created by some arrangement of the neurons and electrical impulses in our brain", it doesn"t follow that consciousness can "theoretically be recreated using a man-made computer."

Matter and the laws of physics can also be described using a computer, to a degree of accuracy. If both these statements are true, I see no reason why a simulated 'Universe' - indistinguishable from the real McCoy, to its inhabitants - could not be created by a single person, naturally at some point in the distant future.

I don"t think either statement is true, but why on earth would you assume that just because the laws of physics can be described using a computer that therefore an indistinguishable simulated Universe could be created. The laws of physics could be described using a pencil and paper too, that doesn"t mean you could write a simulated Universe on a legal pad and it would be indistinguishable from the universe does it?

My question is this: would the person (or people, for that matter) who built the computer and wrote the software be accurately described as God(s)?

No, I think they"d be called computer programmers.

In other words, is the creation of the Universe, life and consciousness (as well as an assumed omniscience, in the computer program scenario) enough to be classified as God, or are omnipotence and immortality absolutely necessary?

No, I don"t think computer programmers that write simulation games are Gods, if they were they would be able to get girlfriends.

" More importantly, would the creation of a Universe without pain, death - the usual drawbacks - make you objectively 'better' than, for argument's sake, the Christian God?

No, do you think you could describe a perfect thousand carat perfect diamond on a computer and sell it for millions?

First timer here, feel free to rip my arguments to shreds.

It isn"t even wrong.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater