Philosophy Now Forum

Could our universe be part of a binary simulation? Could God be an Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Does the multiverse exist?

Could an AI God be the result of a technological singularity having occurred aeons ago?

Is God...panentheistic in nature?

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? ...an unnatural etymology revealed...

http://www.androcies.com

Maybe Shmaybe

Edit.

After taking a look.

What a bunch of crap.

You have confused the symbol for the object.
Your rantings are nothing more that random musings on the peculiarities on the English language.

OOoo... I am honoured and on you 7000th post...

I do love synchronicity!

...and just when im watching Alice in Wonderland

attofishpi wrote:Could our universe be part of a binary simulation?

Possibly. Would it make any difference?

attofishpi wrote:Could God be an Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

Depends on how you define God. Would it make any difference?

attofishpi wrote:Does the multiverse exist?

Possibly. Would it make any difference?

attofishpi wrote:Could an AI God be the result of a technological singularity having occurred aeons ago?

The problem with an artificial "god", is that it must have been created by somebody else, who would in turn be "god" of the "god". The usual notion of God (with a capital "G") is a being free from any such causality.

attofishpi wrote:Is God...panentheistic in nature?

God can't exist in reality, but reality could possibly exist in God. Would that make God pantheistic to you?

attofishpi wrote:Beyond Reasonable Doubt? ...an unnatural etymology revealed...

"Proving" the existence of God, "beyond reasonable doubt", no less, is a fool's errand if there ever was one.

Notvacka wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Could our universe be part of a binary simulation?

Possibly. Would it make any difference?

attofishpi wrote:Could God be an Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

Depends on how you define God. Would it make any difference?

attofishpi wrote:Does the multiverse exist?

Possibly. Would it make any difference?

attofishpi wrote:Beyond Reasonable Doubt? ...an unnatural etymology revealed...

"Proving" the existence of God, "beyond reasonable doubt", no less, is a fool's errand if there ever was one.

Do YOU make any difference?

Are YOU calling me a fool?

attofishpi wrote:Do YOU make any difference?

I suppose that my humble posts in this forum make at least some difference. You reacted after all. But that's entirely beside the point.

attofishpi wrote:Are YOU calling me a fool?

Not unless you want me to. But that's also beside the point.

I find the notion of God (with a capital "G") interesting because it's absolute in so many ways. Any lesser god (AI or not) who is not free from causality, is nothing more than a link in a chain of possibly infinite regression. The point is that the buck stops with God. But you may follow your turtles all the way down if you like.

attofishpi wrote:OOoo... I am honoured and on you 7000th post...

I do love synchronicity!

...and just when im watching Alice in Wonderland

I can see why you might want to have a bit of fun with words, but what has that got to do with god?

[quote="chaz wyman] I can see why you might want to have a bit of fun with words, but what has that got to do with god?[/quote]
Because god spelled backwards is dog.

attofishpi wrote:Could our universe be part of a binary simulation? Could God be an Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Does the multiverse exist?

Could an AI God be the result of a technological singularity having occurred aeons ago?

why not?
it would be funny story if god evolved, somehow. and if we have hard time to figure out how omnipotent and all-knowing god can be, then we can think about our intellectual limits to think like god and see inside (artificial) intelligent singularity, like ants have hard time to figure out iphone. why bother?
interesting questions.

Notvacka wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Could our universe be part of a binary simulation?

Possibly. Would it make any difference?

possibly? did the question made any difference in your brain?

attofishpi wrote:Could God be an Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

Depends on how you define God. Would it make any difference?

would it make us see another new possibility?
could there be then more possibilities available to think and choose "freely"?

The problem with an artificial "god", is that it must have been created by somebody else, who would in turn be "god" of the "god". The usual notion of God (with a capital "G") is a being free from any such causality.

there is more possibilities in that too. natural evolution could be the "father" of AI god, or if you dont believe in technological evolution like windows8 or mozilla 3.635 then you can think that man made technology just went autopiloted development and automatic manufacturing. and the "father" of AI god would be stupid little humans, hurray!

God can't exist in reality

you are telling to god what he can do? ok.

John Kelly wrote:[quote="chaz wyman] I can see why you might want to have a bit of fun with words, but what has that got to do with god?

Because god spelled backwards is dog.[/quote][/quote]

Woof!

And toidi can also be spelled backwards,

Mark Question wrote:

God can't exist in reality

you are telling to god what he can do? ok.

God is supposed to be the creator of our physical universe (reality). In order to create reality, God must exist outside reality. Simple, really.

Notvacka wrote:

Mark Question wrote:

God can't exist in reality

you are telling to god what he can do? ok.

God is supposed to be the creator of our physical universe (reality). In order to create reality, God must exist outside reality. Simple, really.

i.e. For god to create the universe, god cannot exist.

That clears things up!

chaz wyman wrote:

Notvacka wrote:God is supposed to be the creator of our physical universe (reality). In order to create reality, God must exist outside reality. Simple, really.

i.e. For god to create the universe, god cannot exist.

That clears things up!

For the record (and those not familiar with our prvious debates) I'd like to point out that unlike Chaz I'm a theist. I choose to believe that God exists outside of physical reality. While Chaz equates reality with the whole of existence, I don't. My point is simply that the existence of God can't be proved or disproved from within reality.

John Kelly wrote:[quote="chaz wyman] I can see why you might want to have a bit of fun with words, but what has that got to do with god?

Because god spelled backwards is dog.[/quote][/quote]

No, you need to go one step further.... There is a saying that '..a mans best friend is a dog'
So what is God?

chaz wyman wrote:I can see why you might want to have a bit of fun with words, but what has that got to do with god?

So you missed the entire point of the project...that these words are unlikely to have formed through natural etymological means. That they were guided into there current form by a panentheistic God.