The Simulation Argument for the Existence of God

Note: this is my attempt to articulate the simulation argument for the existence of God,and not necessarily an original rendition of it.  I don't believe it is conclusive either of its proof of a Deity or the nature of that Deity. But it is thought provoking and provides a reasonable foundation for belief in the existence of God.

In making the case that God exists, it is customary for apologists to make use of arguments from design and origins.  While some of these particular arguments thought-provoking, they tend to be slightly overused and their reiterations can bore the reader out of the subject.  So, in the interest of keeping the subject interesting, I have elected to present an argument for the existence of God by blending the significance of future technological advancement with philosophy in order to establish a a particular conception of reality that necessitates God as its Creator.

Nick Bostrom, a Swedish philosopher and futurist, has come up with the with the simulation hypothesis.  This hypothesis is predicated on three assumptions.  They are:

i. It is possible that an advanced civilization could create a computer simulation which contains individuals with artificial intelligence (AI).

ii. Such a civilization would likely run many, perhaps billions, of these simulations (just for fun, research or any other permutation of possible reasons).

iii. A simulated individual inside the simulation wouldn’t necessarily know that it is inside a simulation — it is just going about its daily business in what it considers to be the "real world.”

Simply put, the hypothesis amounts to  the extrapolation that if it is possible create simulants with conscious’ on par with our own, then it is very probable that we are actually in a simulation given the fact that such simulations would vastly outnumber the amount of “real worlds.” Look at our own world.  The quantities of virtual worlds produced by the video games we play are orders of magnitude larger than our single world they exist in.  It goes without saying that the particular designer and watcher over this simulation would be God.  And trans-simulation designer would virtually indistinguishable in kind than a supernatural creator. It would possess infinite power from our perspective, and could perform the various actions of the Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible.  The laws of physics could very well be the equivalent of software code, and the supernatural entities, such as angels or fallen angels,  whose existence have been recorded throughout history could either be a part of the same code that dictates our limitations, or a part of some other overriding code that intersects with this simulation. 

Note that this is not an argument that our universe is an illusion. It is an argument that our universe is a subworld that is on a lower plane of existence than the world containing the designer, in much the same way the world in World of Warcraft is a subworld of our own.  Our universe would still be very real in the sense that it exists independently from our minds and is the same for you as it is for me.  It would simply be the product of the trans-simulation mind that designed it. 

This is consistent with various Biblical themes.  Heaven is described wholly removed from this realm, and would be far more glorious than our own virtual world.

At this point, science fiction fans may point out that the simulation hypothesis is predicated upon the possibility of the singularity.  And many of my Christian readers may reject the idea of the singularity by pointing out that consciousness cannot be replicated by a computer, and thus requires the existence of a deity to instill one. 

I don’t disagree. But consider the following trichotomy, and the effect it has on my case that God exists:

A.The singularity – specifically, the production of conscious AI – is not only possible, but inevitable.  As processing power continues to increase, it is only a matter of time before we have conscious stimulants at our disposal. Thus, it is highly probable that we are in a simulation, as per the logic presented earlier.

B.The singularity is possible, but extremely improbable.  The processing power of the most advanced computers may be sufficient, but the software encompassing the computer is too crude to potentialize that processing power.  This difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that consciousness may not be replicated by an algorithmic system in a computer.  It could be something else that produces consciousness, like quantum wave collapses.  So Mankind may not be able to reach the singularity in time without destroying itself.  Alternatively, it may just not want to run simulations.

 C.The singularity is impossible due to the inherent limitations of the laws of nature.  Consciousness must be created via an external source, presumably by God.

Notice that both A and C are scenarios in which God exists and is the Creator of the universe. Scenario B cannot be discounted but its implications are neutral concerning the existence of God. Moreover, if the singularity happens to be improbable in this world, there is no reason it cannot be more probable in another conceivable world.

Too add on, quasi-simulations may not only be produced by a computer.  Something akin to dreams may be able to produce conscious agents – at least in another world.  In which case, the logic would be the same, thus bolstering my case for God by broadening the simulations logic’s applicability.

As the simulation hypothesis is taken into account, atheism becomes more untenable by the minute.  Its outright denial of the existence of God is unwarranted considering that mankind has already started to produce its own subworlds in which the designer is able to exercise god-like powers. 

Do I believe that we are living in a simulation? No. Believe is too strong of a word.  I speculate the possibility.  I believe it is just as if not more probable that God is the ultimate reality, the first cause, although I simply don’t know for sure and all we can do is play around with nonmathematical probabilities and good guesses. However, if humanity was ever granted access to the tunnel of truth on the matter, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that we are in a simulation.  But at any rate, the logic and evidence presented concerning the nature of reality should be sufficient to demonstrate that a belief in God, at the very least, is a reasonable one that has the potential of becoming the default position for any thinking individual.

The left, the decline, and the wanted

Awakened from, not argued out of. A self-confessed apostate of liberalism reveals the inner-mentality of leftists. More evidence that demonstrating their intellectual futility should be more for show and sport than for proselytizing.
--------------------------
More evidence of the West's economic decline, although not in the form you would expect it in. Sometimes you need a little of that to supplement dry economic statistics. Hey, its right-brain approved.
--------------------------
Two conditions is all Karl Denninger is asking for in the next president. Stop the looting and start prosecuting. And that the Constitution is a written document of enumerated powers and limited Government.

We have heard many odes to the constitution - no proof that they are genuine though - but we haven't even heard the kind of anti-banking sentiment that would demonstrate authenticity on the matter. Herman Cain is blatantly pro-bank, Romney supported the Bailouts, and the rest with the exception of Ron Paul have voiced nothing but silence on the matter. Their quietness speaks volumes.
---------------------------
Hedonism is not enough. Dennis Mangan searches for alternatives to the hedonism of the manosphere while avoiding the hazards of the feminist dystopia. I think there are. Hedonism is susceptible to the economic law of diminishing marginal utility; enough is never enough. Exercising discipline, being responsible, growing as a person, finding meaning in a higher power, and following your internal moral compass are still the most effective ways of finding fulfillment. The Church is still a prevalent and accessible force for good, both for society and the individual.And I think it would behoove the MRA to think of himself not as a victim of feminist injustice - although he certainly is - but as a real man that can strive to meet the challenge, and win it.
----------------------------
Probably one the most scientifically unwarranted tenets of Objectivism, Greg Nyquist: "Rand, in effect, implicitly suggests that man is not essentially an animal. His animalistic characteristics are mere accidents. Man's essence is his "reason" and his volition. These elements supercede the natural or animalistic characteristics. Man has no "instincts" or innate predispositions, only such acquired dispositions as he imbibes from the people around him or his own thinking."

The idea that human nature is devoid of any material predispositions is the philosophical opposite of the strict materialist model of Man, and even far less tenable. If I were a Randroid, I would be deeply embarrassed about some of Rand's views regarding human nature and would do my darn best to rationalize my way out of accepting them. And yes, Objectivism is a failed philosophy, its belief in free-market capitalism notwithstanding.

The Catholic philospher and the origin of sin

Edward Feser has an extremely interesting (well, at least for some of us) article about the catholic view of Original Sin. He apparently has dug deep into the issue of the human mind and the various explanatory inadequacies of the material-reductionist model of it. This topic has interested me for quite some time, but that interest has lead more to sporadic thinking about the issue than real research or inquiry, so I harbor no illusions of being able to match, let alone supplant, this Catholic champion. However, as I finally reached the end of the aforementioned article, I noticed a few gaps in his argument concerning the bi-human origins of Sin.
After summarizing the Aristotle-to-Aquinas dichotomy of the human intellect and its material operations (which is pretty much the mainstream Christian position), Feser finishes with this:

The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures -- even if there had been only two of them -- would not be “human” in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul -- that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “human” would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.

Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.

This scenario raises all sorts of interesting questions, such as whether any of these early humans (in the metaphysical sense of having a human soul) mated with some of the creatures who were (genetically and, in part, phenotypically) only human-like. (If any of the latter looked like Linda Harrison in Planet of the Apes, the temptation certainly would have been there.) Mike Flynn and Kenneth Kemp have some things to say about this, but it does not affect the point at issue here, which is that there is nothing in the biological evidence that conflicts with the doctrine that the human race began with a single pair -- when that doctrine is rightly understood, in terms of the metaphysical conception of “human being” described above.

I first have to note that Feser is arguing as a Catholic and for the reconciliation of Catholic theology with current genetic and evolutionary science (specifically that homo sapiens didn't descend from one couple). In contrast, I am not a Catholic, and I am not arguing that genetics is an any way contradictory to Catholic theology; I simply contend that his logic is uncharacteristically deficient. There are no problems with the first paragraph, but the illogic begins to show once he progresses from the dualistic nature of Man to theories about how Original Sin spread throughout humanity.

Take this statement: "only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair."

Although it is theoretically possible that all humans today share a taint of Adam's genetic material and are thus imbued with a soul, it is unlikely given that the various races split off from each other comparatively early in their history, and far earlier than any theologian would place as the date of Adam. So is Feser saying that not every human is made in the image of God?

While one could probably fit this view into a reasonably orthodox theology, the empirical test Feser proposes earlier in the article precludes such an interpretation. For if the soul is necessary for abstract thought, then it would elude those endowed without one. But since it is clear that every single human being on the planet - with the possible exception of a few cases of mentally retardation, a condition that is more the result of material malfunction than a lack of a soul - possesses abstract thought, everybody is thus an endowed with a soul.

Moreover, one wonders whether Feser believes that Man's fallen nature is a material property and not a spiritual one. I haven't read enough of his works, so I wouldn't know what his stated opinion on this would be, but it seems to follow from his contention that the soul, and by extension Original Sin, would only sprout from the biological descendents of Adam. After all, as he admits, God actively bestows his image during the creation of every human being, so there is no reason to believe that God couldn't do so on a non-Adamic descendent. The curse of Adam would still fall on the creature, as he would simply be a *spiritual* descendent of the dreadful apple-eater. I mean, its not as if the Bible has never used the term *descendent* in a non-biological way.

So, I propose an alternative, one that is wholly compatible with Catholic theology. I agree with Feser for the most part. Specifically that once mankind developed the neurological capability to sustain the soul-imposed abstract thought, God created Adam as the first metaphysical human being, as opposed to the first physical human being. (Whether Adam existed 50,000 years ago, marked by the period Jared Diamond dubs "the Great Leap Forward," or 6,000 years ago when culture developed and the agricultural revolution was in full swing can be debated. I am inclined towards the latter myself, but the theological implications between the two are few). However, I differ from Feser in that I believe it makes the most sense, especially in light of what Feser has himself argued, that shortly after Eve's seduction, God empowered the rest of mankind with gift only before given to Adam, the initial representative of humanity.

I really like Feser; the man is brilliant and I look forward to digging into his archives and books. And for the most part I agree with him; I just believe he ended a great post with untypically weak logic that could easily be remedied.