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]

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...

It seems to me that your theology is so far removed from every other Christian theology that it falls outside the scope of the Simulation Argument. Given your understanding of most other Christian theologies, would you agree that the Simulation Argument presents a problem for them?

[William]

bluegreenearth: It seems to me that your theology is so far removed from every other Christian theology that it falls outside the scope of the Simulation Argument. Given your understanding of most other Christian theologies, would you agree that the Simulation Argument presents a problem for them?

William: Can you provide some examples? I think the main difference between my theology and mainstream Christian theology is that Christianity has evolved the idea of GOD - as a Consciousness being separate from Human Consciousness , as human consciousness was created from 'something' outside of GOD. Conjured up from 'nowhere'.
This may have a lot to do with why Mainstream Christian Theology might have difficulty integrating the Simulation Argument with that.
But non-theism too, has a hard time integrating the possibility we are all within a Reality Simulation.

[bluegreenearth]

bluegreenearth: It seems to me that your theology is so far removed from every other Christian theology that it falls outside the scope of the Simulation Argument. Given your understanding of most other Christian theologies, would you agree that the Simulation Argument presents a problem for them?

William: Can you provide some examples? I think the main difference between my theology and mainstream Christian theology is that Christianity has evolved the idea of GOD - as a Consciousness being separate from Human Consciousness , as human consciousness was created from 'something' outside of GOD. Conjured up from 'nowhere'.
This may have a lot to do with why Mainstream Christian Theology might have difficulty integrating the Simulation Argument with that.
But non-theism too, has a hard time integrating the possibility we are all within a Reality Simulation.

The Catholic, Baptist, and Jehovah's Witness theologies are a few examples.

For the record, I could envision the possibility of existing within a non-theistic simulation.

[William]

bluegreenearth: It seems to me that your theology is so far removed from every other Christian theology that it falls outside the scope of the Simulation Argument. Given your understanding of most other Christian theologies, would you agree that the Simulation Argument presents a problem for them?

William: Can you provide some examples?

bluegreenearth: The Catholic, Baptist, and Jehovah's Witness theologies are a few examples.

William: As far as I can tell, from what I known about said theologies, none fall outside of the scope of the Simulation Argument. Can you flesh out why you think these theologies do not fall within the Simulation Argument?


bluegreenearth: For the record, I could envision the possibility of existing within a non-theistic simulation.

William: It isn't hard to do. It is part of the reason why this current Simulation was created. There were disagreements.

[bluegreenearth]

bluegreenearth: It seems to me that your theology is so far removed from every other Christian theology that it falls outside the scope of the Simulation Argument. Given your understanding of most other Christian theologies, would you agree that the Simulation Argument presents a problem for them?

William: Can you provide some examples?

bluegreenearth: The Catholic, Baptist, and Jehovah's Witness theologies are a few examples.

William: As far as I can tell, from what I known about said theologies, none fall outside of the scope of the Simulation Argument. Can you flesh out why you think these theologies do not fall within the Simulation Argument?

I must have misunderstood you. I am suggesting that those theologies do fall within the scope of the Simulation Argument. As such, the Simulation Argument demonstrates the versions of God depicted by those theologies cannot exist.

bluegreenearth: For the record, I could envision the possibility of existing within a non-theistic simulation.

William: It isn't hard to do. It is part of the reason why this current Simulation was created. There were disagreements.

I don't think there is any way to prove or disprove such a claim, though. Therefore, I must remain agnostic.

[William]

bluegreenearth: I must have misunderstood you. I am suggesting that those theologies do fall within the scope of the Simulation Argument. As such, the Simulation Argument demonstrates the versions of God depicted by those theologies cannot exist.

William: Simulation Argument means that there had to have been something involved in the Creation of said Simulation.
In that sense, ideas of GOD and Afterlife can be seen as a natural and necessary aspect of the Simulation Argument, therefore, yes - theologies do fall within the scope of the Simulation Argument.
The versions of GOD depicted by certain theologies cannot exist prior to this particular Reality Simulation, but can exist to be experienced as and after-product if one moves from a prior Simulation to the next Simulation...

• bluegreenearth: For the record, I could envision the possibility of existing within a non-theistic simulation.
  
  William: It isn't hard to do. It is part of the reason why this current Simulation was created. There were disagreements.

bluegreenearth: I don't think there is any way to prove or disprove such a claim, though. Therefore, I must remain agnostic.

William: That is besides the point as it is obvious that the agnostic position does not curtail ones ability to envision possibilities. Remaining agnostic simply refers to remaining in a position where belief either way does not develop.

One can indeed map out possibilities about ideas without having to ignore the agnostic position in order to do so.

[bluegreenearth]

William: Simulation Argument means that there had to have been something involved in the Creation of said Simulation.
In that sense, ideas of GOD and Afterlife can be seen as a natural and necessary aspect of the Simulation Argument, therefore, yes - theologies do fall within the scope of the Simulation Argument.
The versions of GOD depicted by certain theologies cannot exist prior to this particular Reality Simulation, but can exist to be experienced as and after-product if one moves from a prior Simulation to the next Simulation...

I understand this association, but those other theologies would not really exist outside the simulation. Therefore, the Simulation Argument I proposed demonstrates that the versions of God described by those other theologies could not really exist.

bluegreenearth: I don't think there is any way to prove or disprove such a claim, though. Therefore, I must remain agnostic.

William: That is besides the point as it is obvious that the agnostic position does not curtail ones ability to envision possibilities. Remaining agnostic simply refers to remaining in a position where belief either way does not develop.

One can indeed map out possibilities about ideas without having to ignore the agnostic position in order to do so.

Agreed.

[William]

bluegreenearth: Therefore, the Simulation Argument I proposed...

William: Can you give the main points regarding that simulation you proposed...

[bluegreenearth]

bluegreenearth: Therefore, the Simulation Argument I proposed...

William: Can you give the main points regarding that simulation you proposed...

If the classical Christian God exists, he had the capacity to run a maximally advanced simulation of humanity where he could have observed the free will choices they would make before choosing to create humanity in the reality we currently perceive.

God had the capacity to run as many simulations as would have been necessary until he arrived at the simulation which produced humans who used their freewill to obey God rather than bring sin into the world.

God could choose to transform this successful simulated reality into an actual reality like the one we currently perceive but where no humans would have used their free will to disobey God.

Our existence in the reality we perceive demonstrates that God did not choose to create the successful simulated reality when he had the option to do otherwise.

Therefore, the classical Christian God cannot exist.

[William]

William: Thanks for that. It is helpful.
Below I have slightly changed the wording of your original post #39 as part of the process I am trying in order to understand your argument...if that is acceptable to you, then would you now add the mains points as you see them, as to what you mean by "The Classical Christian God".

bluegreenearth: If the Classical Christian God exists, he had the capacity to run a maximally advanced simulation of humanity where he could have observed the free will choices they would make before choosing to create humanity in the reality we currently perceive.

bluegreenearth: The Classical Christian God had the capacity to run as many simulations as would have been necessary until he arrived at the simulation which produced humans who used their freewill to obey The Classical Christian God rather than bring sin into the world.

bluegreenearth: The Classical Christian God could choose to transform this successful simulated reality into an actual reality like the one we currently perceive but where no humans would have used their free will to disobey The Classical Christian God .

bluegreenearth: Our existence in the reality we perceive demonstrates that The Classical Christian God did not choose to create the successful simulated reality when he had the option to do otherwise.

bluegreenearth: Therefore, The Classical Christian God cannot exist.