>> Write a short paragraph explaining whether the existence of evil poses a challenge to belief in God. From my engineering perspective, it suggests a creator that can't predict the future (lacks omniscience) if such a creator exists. It's similar to the way human engineers run simulations to figure out what happens when we can't predict the results in advance. In those cases, we might know the parameters to build the simulation, but don't know the outcome of the simulation. So we run the simulation to see the results over the course of the simulation. It doesn't challenge the relative omnipotence of such a hypothetical creator to intervene with the simulation. For example, we're relatively quite omnipotent when we're engineers building and running a simulation over the simulation it. We can forcefully stop it and change parameters on the fly, e.g. However, we can't predict the future results of the simulation (otherwise there's no point in running it). >> How would you, as a theist, respond to the argument from non-belief? If I pretend I'm a theist, I might point out that there's epistemological variability of all sorts. For example, we've barely scratched the surface of understanding the optimal human diet. Even expert nutritionists widely disagree. Yet that doesn't mean an optimal human diet is nonexistent, and we seem to be gradually converging towards a solution via a process of elimination. For example, virtually all nutritionists agree nowadays that excessive consumption of fructose is unhealthy, especially absent fiber to slow down absorption. God might be this way. We may have to arrive at the true/optimal one through a process of elimination, similar to a detective narrowing down a culprit from a massive list of possible suspects by eliminating the implausible ones. And -- as with the imperfections of the justice system which can sometimes convict the innocent and frequently frees the guilty -- we're likely to make some type-1 and type-2 errors along the way. Also it's possible such a God doesn't want us to know about It. If I use the simulation analogy, we don't necessarily want agents in a simulation to become aware that they're inside the simulation with us running it (i.e., red pilled). That might corrupt the results of the simulation, like breaking the 4th wall in a story. Or perhaps if the God does want us to know about It, it might be analogous to building a tower which reaches the metaphorical heavens. It might take many generations to do it. Perhaps we have to replace ourselves with a superior version of ourselves via genetic engineering, or replace our species entirely with a superior species such AI, and that AI then creates a new superior AI while the predecessor goes extinct, and so forth. Each major advancement might be like an extension of this tower, until the ones at the top of the tower are basically gods in their own right able to now meet their universe's creator as equals. >> Do these logical challenges undermine belief in God? If God is outside the simulation, then I don't find any contradiction. God wouldn't be subject to the constraints of the simulation (the laws of the universe). As agents inside the simulation, we can't subject the God to the rules of the simulation we're in. For example, we ourselves can whip up a simulation right now where an agent could be married and a bachelor. It might be a single autonomous agent that is existing in two parallel universes at once while aware of and controlling its states in both universes simultaneously. We can't do this and be married and bachelors at the same time given the constraints of our linear, non-parallel consciousness relative to the laws of our own universe. Even if we hypothetically exist in two or more parallel universes at once while sharing state between them, the other agents would effectively be different people relative to our limitations since we aren't aware of them and consciously controlling their decisions for them. As another example, it's simple to create a simulation where a single agent controls two or more distinct physical bodies at the same time in the same universe. One body might be married, another a bachelor, but they would be unified by a shared state and singular decision-maker (effectively a single consciousness) so effectively multiple bodies owned and controlled by a single entity. The simulation would adhere to the basic concepts of ours such as marriage rituals, but would deviate in that a singular mind can control multiple separate bodies at once. That makes the idea of being both married and a bachelor, or even simultaneously a husband and a wife, a logical non-contradiction in this simulation; it's only counter-intuitive since we intuitively assume each separate body and associated identities of a separate body belongs to a separate mind. We could even make 2+2=5 in this simulation. If we add 2 apples to a basket and another 2 apples to the basket, we can make the basket contain 5 apples, for example. If an entity with 5 fingers tries to sum 2 and 2 together counting on their fingers, perhaps they would grow a 6th finger on their hand. It'd be extremely confusing to us and I can't even begin to imagine the results, but the simulation can operate by whatever arbitrary rules we impose on it. If the agents use machine learning, they might even come up with new mathematical rules that make sense of it all, with a different meaning for our analogue of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, modulo, square root, sine, cosine, etc. All such mathematical rules and functions would likely change wildly if we make the universe operate by the idea that computing the sum of 2 things and another 2 things together magically produces a 5th thing out of thin air. >> Do you think philosophical arguments can ever settle the question of God's existence? Using the engineer analogy, I do find these arguments refuting the idea of a God that can predict the future and one that's easily -- if possibly -- discoverable, at least according to what we can possibly understand as human beings. So it should at least eliminate those types of gods from the list of possible suspects. Also just because an engineer can intervene with a simulation doesn't necessarily mean he will; it would also corrupt the results of the simulation. So I would also add that it's unlikely that such a God would intervene with the universe.
In the beginning God existed and he created man and then after man was kicked out the Garden of Eden and found himself with a lot of time on his hands began developing philosophyand at a certain point these questions began to be asked and since God can only operate in a logically consistent framework it was at that very moment that God ceased to exist
Say: He is Allah, the One! (1) Allah, the eternally Besought of all! (2) He begetteth not nor was begotten. (3) And there is none comparable unto Him. (4) Surah AL-IKHLAS
>> Write a short paragraph explaining whether the existence of evil poses a challenge to belief in God.
From my engineering perspective, it suggests a creator that can't predict the future (lacks omniscience) if such a creator exists. It's similar to the way human engineers run simulations to figure out what happens when we can't predict the results in advance. In those cases, we might know the parameters to build the simulation, but don't know the outcome of the simulation. So we run the simulation to see the results over the course of the simulation.
It doesn't challenge the relative omnipotence of such a hypothetical creator to intervene with the simulation. For example, we're relatively quite omnipotent when we're engineers building and running a simulation over the simulation it. We can forcefully stop it and change parameters on the fly, e.g. However, we can't predict the future results of the simulation (otherwise there's no point in running it).
>> How would you, as a theist, respond to the argument from non-belief?
If I pretend I'm a theist, I might point out that there's epistemological variability of all sorts. For example, we've barely scratched the surface of understanding the optimal human diet. Even expert nutritionists widely disagree. Yet that doesn't mean an optimal human diet is nonexistent, and we seem to be gradually converging towards a solution via a process of elimination. For example, virtually all nutritionists agree nowadays that excessive consumption of fructose is unhealthy, especially absent fiber to slow down absorption.
God might be this way. We may have to arrive at the true/optimal one through a process of elimination, similar to a detective narrowing down a culprit from a massive list of possible suspects by eliminating the implausible ones. And -- as with the imperfections of the justice system which can sometimes convict the innocent and frequently frees the guilty -- we're likely to make some type-1 and type-2 errors along the way.
Also it's possible such a God doesn't want us to know about It. If I use the simulation analogy, we don't necessarily want agents in a simulation to become aware that they're inside the simulation with us running it (i.e., red pilled). That might corrupt the results of the simulation, like breaking the 4th wall in a story.
Or perhaps if the God does want us to know about It, it might be analogous to building a tower which reaches the metaphorical heavens. It might take many generations to do it. Perhaps we have to replace ourselves with a superior version of ourselves via genetic engineering, or replace our species entirely with a superior species such AI, and that AI then creates a new superior AI while the predecessor goes extinct, and so forth. Each major advancement might be like an extension of this tower, until the ones at the top of the tower are basically gods in their own right able to now meet their universe's creator as equals.
>> Do these logical challenges undermine belief in God?
If God is outside the simulation, then I don't find any contradiction. God wouldn't be subject to the constraints of the simulation (the laws of the universe). As agents inside the simulation, we can't subject the God to the rules of the simulation we're in.
For example, we ourselves can whip up a simulation right now where an agent could be married and a bachelor. It might be a single autonomous agent that is existing in two parallel universes at once while aware of and controlling its states in both universes simultaneously.
We can't do this and be married and bachelors at the same time given the constraints of our linear, non-parallel consciousness relative to the laws of our own universe. Even if we hypothetically exist in two or more parallel universes at once while sharing state between them, the other agents would effectively be different people relative to our limitations since we aren't aware of them and consciously controlling their decisions for them.
As another example, it's simple to create a simulation where a single agent controls two or more distinct physical bodies at the same time in the same universe. One body might be married, another a bachelor, but they would be unified by a shared state and singular decision-maker (effectively a single consciousness) so effectively multiple bodies owned and controlled by a single entity.
The simulation would adhere to the basic concepts of ours such as marriage rituals, but would deviate in that a singular mind can control multiple separate bodies at once. That makes the idea of being both married and a bachelor, or even simultaneously a husband and a wife, a logical non-contradiction in this simulation; it's only counter-intuitive since we intuitively assume each separate body and associated identities of a separate body belongs to a separate mind.
We could even make 2+2=5 in this simulation. If we add 2 apples to a basket and another 2 apples to the basket, we can make the basket contain 5 apples, for example. If an entity with 5 fingers tries to sum 2 and 2 together counting on their fingers, perhaps they would grow a 6th finger on their hand. It'd be extremely confusing to us and I can't even begin to imagine the results, but the simulation can operate by whatever arbitrary rules we impose on it. If the agents use machine learning, they might even come up with new mathematical rules that make sense of it all, with a different meaning for our analogue of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, modulo, square root, sine, cosine, etc. All such mathematical rules and functions would likely change wildly if we make the universe operate by the idea that computing the sum of 2 things and another 2 things together magically produces a 5th thing out of thin air.
>> Do you think philosophical arguments can ever settle the question of God's existence?
Using the engineer analogy, I do find these arguments refuting the idea of a God that can predict the future and one that's easily -- if possibly -- discoverable, at least according to what we can possibly understand as human beings. So it should at least eliminate those types of gods from the list of possible suspects. Also just because an engineer can intervene with a simulation doesn't necessarily mean he will; it would also corrupt the results of the simulation. So I would also add that it's unlikely that such a God would intervene with the universe.
In the beginning God existed and he created man and then after man was kicked out the Garden of Eden and found himself with a lot of time on his hands began developing philosophyand at a certain point these questions began to be asked and since God can only operate in a logically consistent framework it was at that very moment that God ceased to exist
Say: He is Allah, the One! (1) Allah, the eternally Besought of all! (2) He begetteth not nor was begotten. (3) And there is none comparable unto Him. (4) Surah AL-IKHLAS