Simulation Argument for a Non-Existent Christian God

[bluegreenearth]

Thanks to innovations in computer technology, we have the capacity to simulate a variety of real-world objects and events in virtual environments. One of the main reasons for utilizing this capability is to test the functionality and safety of a variety of things we've designed prior to constructing those things in reality where the risks are more costly in term of materials, labor, and human life in some circumstances. For example, engineers can test a bridge design in a computer simulation before it is built to determine if will remain sturdy or collapse under a variety of expected conditions.

We have also developed advanced computer software that can only be described as artificial intelligence which functions at a non-sentient level. Artificial intelligence is currently being used to make reliably accurate predictions in business, global politics, medicine, astronomy, and a host of other applications. It is possible that artificial intelligence could one day be programmed with an ability to make free-will decisions.

Given that we have been able to achieve these technological advantages using our own intellect and ingenuity, it is only reasonable to assume the Christian God must certainly have a far greater capability to create maximally advanced simulations that include artificial intelligence or even artificial life. As such, we must ask why God did not utilize his maximally advanced technology to test his design of humanity in the form of a simulation where no one would actually exist or actually experience suffering prior to creating humanity in the reality where we perceive ourselves to exist. By doing so, God could have chosen to bring into reality only those virtual people from the simulation that used their simulated freewill to satisfy God's plan without ever having to create those humans from the simulation who rejected him. From there, the virtual humans who met God's approval could have been brought into reality and sent directly to heaven with no one needing to be punished in hell.

One objection to this scenario might be that God is a perfect creator and has no need to test anything he designs in advance of creating those things. However, if God is a perfect creator, then it logically follows that anything he creates will be in perfect alignment with his perfect design. Meanwhile, humans are supposed to have been perfectly created by God yet do not exist in perfect alignment with God's perfect design. Apologists will argue that this was not a flaw in God's perfect design but a consequence of early human's misuse of their free-will to bring sin into the world. If this is true, then God could have tested for that outcome by first running a simulation of humanity prior to actually creating humanity. When the simulated humans used their simulated free-will to bring sin into their simulated world, God could have either restarted the simulation with an updated design or created in reality only those virtual humans who freely chose to obey him in the simulation.

There appears to be no logical justification for permitting humans to exist in a reality where they experience actual suffering and risk experiencing an eternity of additional suffering if they fail to be convinced by extraordinary and unverifiable Biblical claims when God had the option to run an elaborate simulation first. An all-loving and perfect creator God would be expected to utilize every advantage available to prevent every single one of his human creations from experience unnecessary suffering in a way that didn't compromise their free-will to obey or disobey to him. A simulation would have provided God with that capability, but he chose to create us anyway. As such, our actual imperfect existence demonstrates that the Christian version of an omnibenevolent God cannot exist.

The only other possibility is that the Christian God created humanity in this actual reality with the intended purpose of having all of them involuntarily experience suffering and for most of them to experience eternal suffering after they die since only a minority will be convinced by the Jesus story. Obviously, because God could have previously observed or predicted the negative outcomes of our free-will choices in the form a simulation prior to creating us in reality, any suffering we experience as actual human beings in this life or during our afterlife in hell must be desirable to God. Otherwise, if he truly cared about humanity, he would have only created those people whose simulations succeeded in freely obeying his commands. Since God is a perfect creator with maximally advanced simulation technology at his disposal to know that we would use our free-will to bring sin and suffering into the world if he created us, then our actual existence demonstrates that God must have intended for us to use our actual free-will to bring actual sin and suffering into our actual existence as a component of his perfect creation.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 9 by ]

bluegreenearth: Your scenario does not account for the fate of the simulated humans who fail to become convinced that God exists before transitioning to the next simulation where they experience an eternity of additional suffering.

William: My scenario does account for additional suffering in relation to individuals who demand Justice, but not for the injustice of an eternity of it.
I take the opportunity to remind the reader that not All Christians believe that people are going to suffer for an eternity

bluegreenearth: What is God's purpose for running those failed simulations for an eternity?

William: There is no purpose to that. If one does an in-depth study on stories relating to NDEs and OOBEs one will discover that while the next phase is not always pretty in places, those who are suffering do so by their own beliefs and there are Soul Retrievers who's task it is to bring those ones from out of their self created horrors - a complex undertaking indeed.

As I wrote;

• I see no problem in the idea that we can also influence The Machine in creating our own realities through what we regard as "Imagination" through algorithms which allow for the creation process to occur.
  
  As such, The "Christian GOD" and any other type GOD can be created - and sustained - in this way.
  
  He/She/They may not be 'real' in terms of this particular simulation, but that which is imagined within this reality can have the effect of creating another reality simulation somewhere else, through the Machinery.

This is to say, that it is possible that for every individual, there is a heaven or hell or other type place which they create with all the props they want to include for their experience.
In some cases this would amount to some Christians creating a scenario whereby they get to experience their own idea of Justice, complete with those who they think deserve to exist in everlasting suffering, and they will also have an image of their GOD enthroned in some way making sure that Justice is served.

Again, the role of the Soul Retrievers is to help convince that individual to dismantle their created illusion and replace it with a better reality simulation experience...

My argument against your own was to simply point out that it is possible to have simulations which make those different ideas of the Christian GOD, existent...for the believer at least.

Any unbeliever inadvertently creating suffering for their self, would have to do so because they believe somehow that they deserve it. Whether they actually do so or not, is besides the point.

So these simulations are allowed to continue to happen for those who require justice, for their own or for others because they themselves demand it. Not because a GOD outside of their selves demands it.

You make a compelling case, but there remains the fact that no simulated person would require justice for anything that occurs in a simulated world since nothing actually exists in a simulation. The entire purpose of this type of simulation is to identify potential failures in the design of something in a virtual environment where no consequences are actually experienced by anyone or anything.

[Divine Insight]

Any unbeliever inadvertently creating suffering for their self, would have to do so because they believe somehow that they deserve it. Whether they actually do so or not, is besides the point.

So these simulations are allowed to continue to happen for those who require justice, for their own or for others because they themselves demand it. Not because a GOD outside of their selves demands it.

This argument doesn't match up with observed reality. There are clearly many people who are suffering in ways that obviously have nothing to do with a desire for justice or because they personally feel that they deserve to suffer.

So the argument you are making simply doesn't make sense relative to the reality we actually experience. You would need to create an entirely different world for your argument to make any sense.

[William]

[Replying to post 11]

bluegreenearth: You make a compelling case, but there remains the fact that no simulated person would require justice for anything that occurs in a simulated world since nothing actually exists in a simulation.

William: Since I am arguing that this Universe is also a simulation, I would argue that either nothing - including suffering - exists in this Universe, or the simulation is set up so that suffering can be experienced as real by Consciousness within it. Likewise for all Reality Simulations.
Take your pick. Which are you arguing for?

bluegreenearth: The entire purpose of this type of simulation is to identify potential failures in the design of something in a virtual environment where no consequences are actually experienced by anyone or anything.

William: I already answered that. If you include that GOD is omnipresent and all-powerful and all-knowing, then you cannot state that any simulation is required to test something because everything about that something is already known.

Your protests about there being Consciousness within the Reality Simulations which are harmful to those experiencing them, is besides the point. Consequences are not lasting, or else no Omni-Sentient Entity would create them to experience.

That is a reasonable expectation is it not?

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by ]


William: Any unbeliever inadvertently creating suffering for their self, would have to do so because they believe somehow that they deserve it. Whether they actually do so or not, is besides the point.

So these simulations are allowed to continue to happen for those who require justice, for their own or for others because they themselves demand it. Not because a GOD outside of their selves demands it.

Divine Insight: This argument doesn't match up with observed reality. There are clearly many people who are suffering in ways that obviously have nothing to do with a desire for justice or because they personally feel that they deserve to suffer.

William: I am not arguing otherwise. I am simply pointing to those who do demand Justice, whether they are suffering or not. I am speaking to individual belief systems influencing the individuals next experience.
I personally have moved away from the need for Justice, and expect that my next reality experience will reflect that in what I will create for myself to experience then.
Also to note, the focus is specifically upon the idea of a non-existent Christian GOD. so that was where I was coming from, not making a sweeping statement about the fate of all non-Christians.


Divine Insight: So the argument you are making simply doesn't make sense relative to the reality we actually experience. You would need to create an entirely different world for your argument to make any sense.

William: It is not the reality we are experiencing which decides, but how we each respond to that experience which decides.
So that it makes no sense to you, isn't the issue and does not undermine my own argument in the least.
Besides, you give no example in which to assist the reader in understanding what exactly it is you are trying to say.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 11]

bluegreenearth: You make a compelling case, but there remains the fact that no simulated person would require justice for anything that occurs in a simulated world since nothing actually exists in a simulation.

William: Since I am arguing that this Universe is also a simulation, I would argue that either nothing - including suffering - exists in this Universe, or the simulation is set up so that suffering can be experienced as real by Consciousness within it. Likewise for all Reality Simulations.
Take your pick. Which are you arguing for?

Any God that would permit conscious suffering in either of those scenarios when he has the option to just immediately create the people he knows will obey him and send them straight to heaven fails to qualify as omnibenevolent.

William: I already answered that. If you include that GOD is omnipresent and all-powerful and all-knowing, then you cannot state that any simulation is required to test something because everything about that something is already known.

That is exactly why your concept of God contradicts itself. If God already knows which people will go to heaven before they are even born, then he should simply create those people and send them straight to heaven and not even bother creating anyone he knows will not obey him. He could even create his chosen people pre-loaded with the memories and relationships they would have otherwise acquired if they had actually existed prior to the moment God placed them in heaven.

Your protests about there being Consciousness within the Reality Simulations which are harmful to those experiencing them, is besides the point. Consequences are not lasting, or else no Omni-Sentient Entity would create them to experience.

That is a reasonable expectation is it not?

No, that is not a reasonable expectation for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God who has the option to simply immediately populate heaven with his chosen people.

[William]

[Replying to post 15]

bluegreenearth: You make a compelling case, but there remains the fact that no simulated person would require justice for anything that occurs in a simulated world since nothing actually exists in a simulation.

William: Since I am arguing that this Universe is also a simulation, I would argue that either nothing - including suffering - exists in this Universe, or the simulation is set up so that suffering can be experienced as real by Consciousness within it. Likewise for all Reality Simulations.
Take your pick. Which are you arguing for?

bluegreenearth: Any God that would permit conscious suffering in either of those scenarios when he has the option to just immediately create the people he knows will obey him and send them straight to heaven fails to qualify as omnibenevolent.

William: How does that answer my question regarding simulations?
If they are not really real, then what suffering is actually happening? If the amount of suffering compared to the amount of non-suffering is but a frame in an infinite reel of film, how is that an act of malevolence?


bluegreenearth: The entire purpose of this type of simulation is to identify potential failures in the design of something in a virtual environment where no consequences are actually experienced by anyone or anything.

William: I already answered that. If you include that GOD is omnipresent and all-powerful and all-knowing, then you cannot state that any simulation is required to test something because everything about that something is already known.

bluegreenearth:That is exactly why your concept of God contradicts itself. If God already knows which people will go to heaven before they are even born, then he should simply create those people and send them straight to heaven and not even bother creating anyone he knows will not obey him. He could even create his chosen people pre-loaded with the memories and relationships they would have otherwise acquired if they had actually existed prior to the moment God placed them in heaven.

William: My concept of GOD? It is not as you say.
You are speaking to a generalized Christian idea of GOD and reward/punishment, in relation to The Metaphysical. I am speaking of the Metaphysical responding to the individual's own beliefs and attitudes - conscious and subconscious - which creates their next Reality Simulation experience.
My concept (and underlying attitude) of GOD/The Metaphysical would not create heavens and hells as these are representative of Judgmentalism.

bluegreenearth: The entire purpose of this type of simulation is to identify potential failures in the design of something in a virtual environment where no consequences are actually experienced by anyone or anything.

William: Your protests about there being Consciousness within the Reality Simulations which are harmful to those experiencing them, is besides the point. Consequences are not lasting, or else no Omni-Sentient Entity would create them to experience.

That is a reasonable expectation is it not?

bluegreenearth: No, that is not a reasonable expectation for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God who has the option to simply immediately populate heaven with his chosen people.

William: Then you will take this Judgement with you and
your next reality simulation experience will unfold accordingly - reflecting exactly what you project onto it and creating for yourself exactly what your attitudes and beliefs dictate.

Is that not just?

[Divine Insight]

I am speaking to individual belief systems influencing the individuals next experience.

But that's clearly not the sole cause of pain and suffering in this world. So in this way your theistic ideas are not compatible with the world in which we live.

It is not the reality we are experiencing which decides, but how we each respond to that experience which decides.

Anyone who has experienced physical pain and suffering as a result of an unfortunate accident knows that this kind of philosophical talk is utter nonsense.

So that it makes no sense to you, isn't the issue and does not undermine my own argument in the least.

Trying to push the facts of reality off as being nothing more than my personal opinion doesn't work here. You'll need to do far better than this. The points I have made would still be true even if I had never been born.

Besides, you give no example in which to assist the reader in understanding what exactly it is you are trying to say.

I trust that most readers are intelligent enough to already know what I'm talking about it. If you are in the workplace and piece of equipment filled with a hot liquid breaks and you are severely burnt and end up suffering for months after this healing from your wounds, you know that this had nothing at all to do with what you might believe or your outlook on life.

Telling them that it isn't actually painful and that they aren't really suffering save for their own choice to believe they are suffering is absolute nonsense.

And telling them that it was their beliefs that caused this accident is not only nonsense, but it's also an outrageous claim being made toward them based on your own utterly absurd philosophical beliefs.

Try to think about this rationally for even just a single moment and surely you'll come to your senses.

Based on the absurd philosophy you are attempting to preach we would need to believe that the following situation was caused by the belief's of this baby.



If I were you I'd move on to better philosophical ideas before wasting too much time trying to defend your current position.

[Divine Insight]

Since I am arguing that this Universe is also a simulation

Who wrote a simulation that includes grossly deformed babies?

The question concerning what kind of a God would have done such a dastardly thing still remains.

[William]

William: The way I see it, if I were the creator of this particular simulated reality experience, I needn't be judged - or judge myself "malevolent" and "inept".

If simply a thought begins the creation of a Simulation which I can then experience as 'real', then what am I to do? Stop thinking just because some thoughts create experiences which simulate harm to me?

I see it as a fair-ride thrill. I leave one pleasant world and experience The Ride knowing full well that I will come out the other end, and once more it will be pleasant, and until that happens, I am still on that ride.

One thing about this Ride is that I can observe the simulated 'imperfections' as I move within it and these can inspire me to look for ways to 'fix' those while I am still on The Ride.

This allows me to use science for benevolent reasons.

This particular simulation obviously is one in which I made it that I had to discover my GOD-Self while being just a particle within it.

What use are the voices which try to tell me I am inept, and malevolent? I am far better off explaining to those voices that they need to relax and drop their judgments and enjoy the ride.

I would not have created this for particles of myself to explore, if I knew that there was no end to The Ride.

For some, that might mean The Ride is a long one, as they fight their good fight hacking and slashing at the darkness before them, fearful and judgmental and condemning.

They are particles of myself, and so they would have done things no differently. They judge me? No. They judge themselves. And I allow for the consequences of that, because I know that when they finally finish their Ride, they will thank themselves for it...indeed, that is how the ride always ends.

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

William: You have created a strawman. I never said those things.