There is no God PERIOD

[Baruch]

"Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?"

I already gave an example of transcendent elsewhere (see Intro).  And I didn't mean transcendental numbers either.  You are using a theology word to define something scientific ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

When I write software and execute it ... I am not transcending it ... the software and I are in the same universe (by definition).  To transcend means to be outside the universe ... where there is no time, no space and no cause/effect (which are properties of this universe, not attributes more general than the universe)

[Drew_2017]

This one is already repeating his material.

It was suggested I was making a God in the gaps argument which is not true. I make a God of the facts argument.

[Hydra009]

It was suggested I was making a God in the gaps argument which is not true. I make a God of the facts argument.

[Drew_2017]

"Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?"

I already gave an example of transcendent elsewhere (see Intro).  And I didn't mean transcendental numbers either.  You are using a theology word to define something scientific ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

When I write software and execute it ... I am not transcending it ... the software and I are in the same universe (by definition).  To transcend means to be outside the universe ... where there is no time, no space and no cause/effect (which are properties of this universe, not attributes more general than the universe)

Not according to definitions I have seen...

the state of excelling or surpassing or going beyond usual limits

a state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of material experience

I would say humans are transcendent to the animal kingdom. As sentient beings capable of making autonomous decisions we are also transcendent to the naturalistic mechanistic forces that are alleged to have caused the universe sentient beings to exist.

Granted the hardware and software used to create virtual universes are themselves subject to the laws of physics. The virtual universes themselves are subject to the human gods that caused them to exist and dictate the laws of physics within those universes. I think that qualifies for transcendence...

[widdershins]

To widdershins

I'm just not explaining it very well and I'm not talking about a point 3 inches away, I'm talking about arriving at this time in history. Most scientists believe the universe and time began about 13.5 billion years ago. Long time but wait long enough and 13.5 billion years will pass. What if it was 100 billion years ago...no problem wait a 100 billion years ago and  here we are again writing to each other in the year 2017. What it if the universe began an infinitude ago? Notice I'm using the word began which doesn't really apply. If it 'began' an infinitude ago it would take an infinitude of time to reach this time in history. We would wait forever...

Again, yes, I fully understand what you are saying.  The problem with that way of thinking is that if it were true, NOTHING could EVER happen.  There would be no events ever because you would have to wait an infinity of time to get to the point where they happened.  But also EVERYTHING would have happened.  With an infinity of time the chances become infinitely small that a given thing won't happen.

The problem is you're just saying, "This is the way it is" without giving any mechanism which would actually prevent anything from ever happening.  I understand that there would be an infinity of time before this and an infinity of time after this.  So yes, if you smoke a little weed and mull it over with your friends your idea does sound very clever.  But if it were true then an infinitely large amount of time would be functionally equivalent to an infinitely small amount of time in that nothing could ever happen.  In an infinitely small amount of time, that makes sense.  You are talking about "zero" time, so no time for anything to happen.  If you have "14 billion years" of time then you have 14 billion years for things to happen and you get quite a bit more going on.  If you have an infinity of time then you get infinitely more things happening.  That's kind of how time works.  So to say "X could not have happened because you would have to traverse an infinity of time to get to this point", yes, it sounds smart if you don't give it too much thought, but it's just not.

I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.

Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?

Scientists and gods are dissimilar.  Simulations and sentient beings are equally dissimilar.  Like your little statement for why an infinity of time is impossible, this is not something you have evidence for.  It's just something you got high and came up with one day.  Reaching a conclusion because the evidence takes you to that conclusion is respectable.  Reaching a conclusion simply because it supports other conclusions you've already reached is not.

[sdelsolray]

It was suggested I was making a God in the gaps argument which is not true. I make a God of the facts argument.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, aka "Says you".

[Blackleaf]

Assuming there was an infinite amount of time before now, let's use something simple to represent it. The number 0 is the present. Negative numbers are the past. Positive numbers are the future. Infinity extends in both directions, so how did we get to 0? It doesn't matter. 0 is a fixed point on the infinite line. Infinity doesn't change that the 0 exists.

[Mike Cl]

I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.

Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?

No, the scientist is 'not' transcendent to anything that scientist creates.  He may create a virtual universe, but that universe is still subject to all the physical laws of our universe.  The scientist is not creating anything new, only trying to make as close as possible an exact copy of our universe.  There is no such thing as a 'transcendent' creation in this universe--there never has been and there never will be.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?"

I already gave an example of transcendent elsewhere (see Intro).  And I didn't mean transcendental numbers either.  You are using a theology word to define something scientific ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

When I write software and execute it ... I am not transcending it ... the software and I are in the same universe (by definition).  To transcend means to be outside the universe ... where there is no time, no space and no cause/effect (which are properties of this universe, not attributes more general than the universe)

ich kann sie nicht verstehen.

[Baruch]

ich kann sie nicht verstehen.

No puedo entenderlo.

[Baruch]

Not according to definitions I have seen...

the state of excelling or surpassing or going beyond usual limits

a state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of material experience

I would say humans are transcendent to the animal kingdom. As sentient beings capable of making autonomous decisions we are also transcendent to the naturalistic mechanistic forces that are alleged to have caused the universe sentient beings to exist.

Granted the hardware and software used to create virtual universes are themselves subject to the laws of physics. The virtual universes themselves are subject to the human gods that caused them to exist and dictate the laws of physics within those universes. I think that qualifies for transcendence...

You are making a play on the ambiguity of English.  That is a fallacy in itself.  Stick to poetry, you suck at physics ;-)  I happen to agree that people are demigods, just not for the reason you list.  But you can't make a scientific argument for it ... because it is transcendent, and science is only for immanence, not transcendence.

See, to do a lot of things, you have to have a "human in the loop" somewhere.  Sometimes you can substitute other critters, a horse for a rickshaw guy.  But all robots are machines.  All computers merely execute the algorithms that are input to them (even if there is subsequent runtime input).  There is no god in the machine ... it was a god who made the machine, and keeps it working.  Bow down and worship your IT staff, puny humans!

AI is always fake ... but the human is better hidden these days ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk

[Solomon Zorn]

...What it if the universe began an infinitude ago? Notice I'm using the word began which doesn't really apply. If it 'began' an infinitude ago it would take an infinitude of time to reach this time in history. We would wait forever...

You seem to think, that proving time had a beginning, somehow strengthens your theistic position, when I see it as strengthening the naturalistic one.

[widdershins]

You seem to think, that proving time had a beginning, somehow strengthens your theistic position, when I see it as strengthening the naturalistic one.

Hell, I don't even believe time is infinite and I STILL don't believe in his God, so you bring up a very good point.

[Godis]

I've always wondered if Jesus is not God, then why do non-believers go so much out of their way to try and convince others it's not true? If something is "truly" false, then any human would know it to be self-evident through their own experiences.  And trying to compel others to believe something contrary to what God may have instilled in them to believe (which is a very private experience!) is a losing battle!

[FinalSomnia]

You wonder why people would try to tell other people something isn't true if that thing isn't true? That's basically what you're saying here.