"In the beginning God created ...."

[tillingborn]

Would you say that we are created in the image of God?

Genesis 1:27.

I'll cite the quote I was asking about for context:

Anyone who did not know they were in a "simulation" would never think to call it a "simulation." Anyone who knew it was a "simulation" would also have to believe there was something "real" that the "simulation" was "simulating."

The point I was making is that if the ontological argument has any merit, it is because the greatest thing conceivable has to be the most real thing. That is the rationale behind Plato's theory of Forms and the premise on which Kalam, Anselm and Descartes constructed their arguments. If the world is not a simulation, there is no logical proof of God.

[Ginkgo]

Well, empirical facts are premised on personal experience and testing. But if you haven't been to Boston, how are you going to do that? So you don't then actually have empirical facts available to you: you have testimony, secondary evidence (like maps and pictures), and so on, but not the ability to test empirically.

There is nothing wrong with secondary evidence. Your argument is a lot like those people who claim that man did not land on the Moon, they say the whole thing was staged in a studio. Weight of evidence (including secondary evidence) tells any reasonable person that man actually went to the Moon.

To test empirically, you would have to agree to go to Boston and see for yourself: touch the buildings, drink the water, breathe the air there, and so on. But what if you've already arbitrarily decided that Boston can't possibly exist? Then you won't go. A Boston-skeptic will just insist it's not there, but without evidence, and may even irrationally insist that because he doesn't believe in Boston, nobody else is allowed to either.

Like I said above your argument is like the Moon skeptic. One does not need to go to the Moon in order to say that man landed on the Moon.

Like Atheists do.

I'm an atheist and I don't.

[Immanuel Can]

If the world is not a simulation, there is no logical proof of God.

That doesn't even make sense. It's only if the world is real, and is a creation of a rational God, that we would expect to find logical proof for God's existence within it. No less a person than Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, discovered this principle.

Otherwise, we'd expect nothing but confusion, imaginings and incoherence to exist. A world created by chance or randomness would be not just "unreadable" in regard to the existence of God, but to science as well.

[Immanuel Can]

If the world is not a simulation, there is no logical proof of God.

That doesn't even make sense. It's only if the world is real, and is a creation of a rational God, that we would expect to find logical proof for God's existence within it. No less a person than Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, discovered this principle.

Otherwise, we'd expect nothing but confusion, imaginings and incoherence to exist. A world created by chance or randomness would be not just "unreadable" in regard to the existence of God, but to science as well.

[Immanuel Can]

Weight of evidence (including secondary evidence) tells any reasonable person that man actually went to the Moon.

But you don't have any personal evidence. The evidence you accept is second-hand testimony, pictures, common belief, and so on. You've not been to the moon, I presume; and you certainly weren't there when the first man actually did. So you took others' words for it.

I'm not saying you were unwise to do so. But in the matter of creation, 92% of the world's population believe in some kind of God or gods. And many people report personal experience with God, and there are rational and scientific evidences conducive to belief in God. So if you use the same evidentiary method, you'd have to be a Theist. But you're not.

So why are you using a very broad evidentiary standard in regard to the moon landing, but a refusal to accept anything but your own first-hand experience in regard to the existence of the Creator? Why is it you regard the moon landing as absolutely certain, but not the existence of God?

One does not need to go to the Moon in order to say that man landed on the Moon.

One can "say" anything, of course. But that doesn't mean one has empirical evidence of personal testing for what one says, in all cases. You were not on the moon. Your belief is an act of faith in those who say they went, and in the people who took the pictures, and the rocks you've seen in a museum that say "moon rock," and so on. It's not empirical for you.

That's why such conspiracy theories exist: because it's actually possible to insist on doubting almost anything. The question is how far rational doubt should go.

[VVilliam]

How did this thread derail into argument on the existence of a creator?

The Christian belief that we exist within a creation is fundamentally no different that the belief we exist within a simulation,

[Ginkgo]

But you don't have any personal evidence. The evidence you accept is second-hand testimony, pictures, common belief, and so on. You've not been to the moon, I presume; and you certainly weren't there when the first man actually did. So you took others' words for it.

You are playing the skeptic, yet you believe that man actually landed on the Moon

I'm not saying you were unwise to do so. But in the matter of creation, 92% of the world's population believe in some kind of God or gods. And many people report personal experience with God, and there are rational and scientific evidences conducive to belief in God. So if you use the same evidentiary method, you'd have to be a Theist. But you're not.

92% of the world's population can be wrong.

So why are you using a very broad evidentiary standard in regard to the moon landing, but a refusal to accept anything but your own first-hand experience in regard to the existence of the Creator? Why is it you regard the moon landing as absolutely certain, but not the existence of God?

Because there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God and the rational arguments are subject to falsification.

One can "say" anything, of course. But that doesn't mean one has empirical evidence of personal testing for what one says, in all cases. You were not on the moon. Your belief is an act of faith in those who say they went, and in the people who took the pictures, and the rocks you've seen in a museum that say "moon rock," and so on. It's not empirical for you.

We can regard those things as evidence of a moon landing. One does not need personal experience to know the truth of many things.

[tillingborn]

If the world is not a simulation, there is no logical proof of God.

That doesn't even make sense.

You should allow for the possibility that it does make sense, but that you don't understand. How do you think the ontological argument works? You mentioned Aristotle; as a syllogism, how would you state your preferred version of an ontological argument?

It's only if the world is real, and is a creation of a rational God, that we would expect to find logical proof for God's existence within it. No less a person than Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, discovered this principle.

What then is the scientific method, and why do we owe it to Francis Bacon?

Otherwise, we'd expect nothing but confusion, imaginings and incoherence to exist. A world created by chance or randomness would be not just "unreadable" in regard to the existence of God, but to science as well.

Do you have a logical proof that shows that readable order cannot arise by chance?

[tillingborn]

We can regard those things as evidence of a moon landing. One does not need personal experience to know the truth of many things.

The thing with the Moon landings is that they are not miraculous. That is not to belittle a fantastic technological and hugely courageous achievement, but the principles were 300 years old. All you need is a 110m long tube, fill it with rocket fuel, get 3 men to sit on top and aim it at a rock a quarter of a million miles away.

[Immanuel Can]

But you don't have any personal evidence. The evidence you accept is second-hand testimony, pictures, common belief, and so on. You've not been to the moon, I presume; and you certainly weren't there when the first man actually did. So you took others' words for it.

You are playing the skeptic, yet you believe that man actually landed on the Moon

As I say, I'm not saying you were unwise to do so. But you were certainly unempirical. So what it calls into question is your claim that empiricism is a prerequisite for believing something rationally. There is much you have not experienced which you still find it rational to believe.

...there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God and the rational arguments are subject to falsification.

We'll, "falsification" means something different than you're using it to mean in the sentence above. So I'll leave that bit alone, because I'm not trying to be mean and jump on any misspeaking here. There is plenty of scientific evidence for the existence of God...but I find that most Atheists are entirely uninterested in looking at it. Moreover, I find that Atheists don't want to be asked to provide rational warrant for their Atheism. They prefer to insist that they need none.

But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes. An Atheist should be able to provide evidence to eliminate the existence of God...or convert to mere agnosticism.

One can "say" anything, of course. But that doesn't mean one has empirical evidence of personal testing for what one says, in all cases. You were not on the moon. Your belief is an act of faith in those who say they went, and in the people who took the pictures, and the rocks you've seen in a museum that say "moon rock," and so on. It's not empirical for you.

We can regard those things as evidence of a moon landing. One does not need personal experience to know the truth of many things.

That is the point. The "empirical" prerequisite is not the only prerequisite for rational knowledge of something. It's a good one, but it's not the only one. It's even one that Theism can meet; but it's still not the only one. Nobody who believes in the moon landing has empirical evidence, except those who actually went there. The rest are relying on something second-hand...which doesn't mean necessarily untrue, but not verifiable empirically.

[Immanuel Can]

If the world is not a simulation, there is no logical proof of God.

That doesn't even make sense.

You should allow for the possibility that it does make sense, but that you don't understand.

I allowed for it, examined it, and rejected it in this case.

How do you think the ontological argument works? You mentioned Aristotle; as a syllogism, how would you state your preferred version of an ontological argument?

I'm not making an ontological argument. But you can read Alvin Plantinga on that, if you want one.

What then is the scientific method, and why do we owe it to Francis Bacon?

https://www.britannica.com/science/Baconian-method

Do you have a logical proof that shows that readable order cannot arise by chance?

Test it yourself, empirically. Take a bunch of pieces of paper...say the hole punches from a hole punch. Throw them up in the air, so they can descend randomly. What do you expect to find? Try it again. Then try it a billion more times. At what point will readable order emerge from your experiment?

[VVilliam]

How about instead of being rude ignorant pricks you take your argument elsewhere by starting your own thread.

[Immanuel Can]

How about instead of being rude ignorant pricks you take your argument elsewhere by starting your own thread.

I'm not sure what your argument is, VVilliam. I tried to see what it entailed, but it doesn't even make sense: a "simulation" is always a "simulation OF something." But you don't say you know there's an alternate "real" world, of which this one is a mere "simulation." And your claim that "creation" entails "simulation" is simply wrong...that's the best that can be said about it.

So where does one go from here, with a topic so hard to make cogent?

[Ginkgo]

How about instead of being rude ignorant pricks you take your argument elsewhere by starting your own thread.

I'm not sure what your argument is, VVilliam. I tried to see what it entailed, but it doesn't even make sense: a "simulation" is always a "simulation OF something." But you don't say you know there's an alternate "real" world, of which this one is a mere "simulation." And your claim that "creation" entails "simulation" is simply wrong...that's the best that can be said about it.

So where does one go from here, with a topic so hard to make cogent?

IC claims there is a scientific explanation for the existence of God so I am taking VVilliam's advice and starting a new thread.

[Immanuel Can]

IC claims there is a scientific explanation for the existence of God so I am taking VVilliam's advice and starting a new thread.

I doubt it needs one. There are certainly enough books on the subject.