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 19 by William]

It appears you are arguing from a Christian pantheist perspective. Is that correct?

[William]

[Replying to post 21]

bluegreenearth: It appears you are arguing from a Christian pantheist perspective. Is that correct?

William: Yes, that is correct. I am responding to the OP call for assistance, in the capacity of that position.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to William]

So, you believe we are not separate from God but that we are all roles that God is playing?

[William]

bluegreenearth: So, you believe we are not separate from God but that we are all roles that God is playing?

William: That is the gist of it, although I don't see it as 'belief' so much as I see it as that is what the overall evidence so far is pointing to.

The Roles themselves are tremendously varied and not all of them are roles in which the Characters themselves are aware of this, even as an idea, let alone a confirmed actuality...

The Evidence points to The Earth Entity as having been in that position - Once Upon a Time - Herself...

[bluegreenearth]

bluegreenearth: So, you believe we are not separate from God but that we are all roles that God is playing?

William: That is the gist of it, although I don't see it as 'belief' so much as I see it as that is what the overall evidence so far is pointing to.

The Roles themselves are tremendously varied and not all of them are roles in which the Characters themselves are aware of this, even as an idea, let alone a confirmed actuality...

The Evidence points to The Earth Entity as having been in that position - Once Upon a Time - Herself...

I see where this concept borrows from early Eastern Philosophy but not understanding why you've only chosen to merge it with Christianity. It would seem to me that this form of pantheism would have to incorporate every religious tradition and not just Christianity.

[William]

bluegreenearth: I see where this concept borrows from early Eastern Philosophy but not understanding why you've only chosen to merge it with Christianity. It would seem to me that this form of pantheism would have to incorporate every religious tradition and not just Christianity.

William: You misunderstand. I am not merging anything with Christianity. Rather, it has always been a branch of Christianity, Just as Christianity is a branch of Paganism.
I am more the Panentheist than the Pantheist. In that, I do indeed incorporate all traditions as relevant, be they theist based or not.

In that way, a better picture is formed from the pieces, once sorted....

[bluegreenearth]

bluegreenearth: I see where this concept borrows from early Eastern Philosophy but not understanding why you've only chosen to merge it with Christianity. It would seem to me that this form of pantheism would have to incorporate every religious tradition and not just Christianity.

William: You misunderstand. I am not merging anything with Christianity. Rather, it has always been a branch of Christianity, Just as Christianity is a branch of Paganism.
I am more the Panentheist than the Pantheist. In that, I do indeed incorporate all traditions as relevant, be they theist based or not.

In that way, a better picture is formed from the pieces, once sorted....

Interesting...

So, I can understand where the simulation argument might not apply to a Panentheist perspective on Christianity but find the concept of Christian Panentheism to be unnecessarily convoluted. If every sentient creature in the universe is a character role being played by the Christian God for his own entertainment, then what would be the point of constructing an elaborate religious tradition based on the requirement for salvation for himself when God has no need for salvation? If that is a straw-man of Christian Panentheism, it was not intentional.

[William]

bluegreenearth: I see where this concept borrows from early Eastern Philosophy but not understanding why you've only chosen to merge it with Christianity. It would seem to me that this form of pantheism would have to incorporate every religious tradition and not just Christianity.

William: You misunderstand. I am not merging anything with Christianity. Rather, it has always been a branch of Christianity, Just as Christianity is a branch of Paganism.
I am more the Panentheist than the Pantheist. In that, I do indeed incorporate all traditions as relevant, be they theist based or not.

In that way, a better picture is formed from the pieces, once sorted....

bluegreenearth:Interesting...

So, I can understand where the simulation argument might not apply to a Panentheist perspective on Christianity but find the concept of Christian Panentheism to be unnecessarily convoluted. If every sentient creature in the universe is a character role being played by the Christian God for his own entertainment, then what would be the point of constructing an elaborate religious tradition based on the requirement for salvation for himself when God has no need for salvation? If that is a straw-man of Christian Panentheism, it was not intentional.

William: I might have unintentionally put you wrong in regard to my comment that "Rather, it [Panentheism] has always been a branch of Christianity, Just as Christianity is a branch of Paganism."

What I mean by that is That Panentheism naturally forms from out of any branch of human imagined construct.
Thus, in reality, Paganism, Christianity et al - including non-theism - are all branches of Panentheism. There is only one Source for All Things.

My take on the God of The Abrahamic Religions is that he represents what people want to believe in and becomes a construct, imaged both here in this Reality Simulation and also in a particular area of a Greater Reality Simulation - which I call The Realm of Judgement.
Jesus is King of That Place, and seems to have acquired it by stealth. The word I want to use escapes me right now...
So in answer to your question, overall I would say that this construct was made necessary in order to deal will misconceptions of The Idea Of GOD which were creating some horrific Simulation Realities as a result. Jehovah aka Allah and known by many names, sometime realized that Judgmentalism was the actual problem, and devised Jesus as a means to assist us in letting go of Judgement.

[bluegreenearth]

My take on the God of The Abrahamic Religions is that he represents what people want to believe in and becomes a construct, imaged both here in this Reality Simulation and also in a particular area of a Greater Reality Simulation - which I call The Realm of Judgement.
Jesus is King of That Place, and seems to have acquired it by stealth. The word I want to use escapes me right now...
So in answer to your question, overall I would say that this construct was made necessary in order to deal will misconceptions of The Idea Of GOD which were creating some horrific Simulation Realities as a result. Jehovah aka Allah and known by many names, sometime realized that Judgmentalism was the actual problem, and devised Jesus as a means to assist us in letting go of Judgement. [/color]

I'm not going to pretend I understood that explanation, but thanks for making the effort.

[William]

bluegreenearth: I'm not going to pretend I understood that explanation, but thanks for making the effort.

William: No problem. If you are still interested, I am happy to try explaining it again. I simply thought that your obvious intelligence + my succinct points of explanation = adequate enough data in which to join the dots...