If atheism is true, then we most likely live in a simulation.

Atheism denies the supernatural. Denying the supernatural leads to an inescapable conclusion: Your life is fake.

Simulation means that our world was created by another intelligent being or beings and that humankind and other live forms were also created this way.

Round 1

1 of 3

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #1

Atheism assumes God doesn't exist. Atheism assumes the world was completely an accident. Atheism assumes only the material world exists.

With these assumptions, we can say it is indeed possible to create life from non-life. It is possible for an intelligent being to come forth from a non-intelligent being.

If all this happened on accident, imagine how much easier it is to do it on purpose. It should be very easy for someone to recreate our world.

Since creating a world on purpose is possible, it is possible to create a world in a word or multiple worlds within one world. The possibilities are endless. These leads to the question of what chance it is that we live in the original world that actually was an accident. There is only one original world but many possible created worlds. The odds of being a simulation are extremely high.

GreatfulGoy

Con #2

I'll make this very simple.

If atheism is true, no simulators can exist properly. In other words, if we are in a simulation it massively increases the odds of at least deism if not panentheism or Theism.

There is even room for Pantheism and simulation if all the simulators are themselves simulated and it's a complex web of interrelated simulated matrices with levels to it where what we do here somehow even alters the simulator realm.

Atheism

a

: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b

: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

merriam-webster

If we are simulated this coincides far better with us being simulated by gods/deities that simulated us.

Round 2

2 of 3

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #3

Con seems to not even understand my actual argument. Con says that a simulation would make more sense if theism is true. Con seems to miss that we are supposed to assume atheism is true.

It was good that con did give a definition of atheism:

a. a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b. a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

This is exactly my point. In atheism, their is no creator deity, which means that our existence is more or less an accident. After all, if there is no creator, there was no plan.

My point is that since the world was an accident, it is possible to create things that exist in the world from other things in the world, i.e. no creation ex nihilo. This means the soul doesn't exist. Only the material world is real.

If the world, was created on accident, it is probably much easier to create it on purpose. This could be done any number of time and in multiple different ways. Since it is possible that our world could be created by a simulation and there are so many ways it could have been like this, it is highly unlikely that we live in the original world that was created on accident.

Atheism assumes intelligent life exists on accident and that our intelligence doesn't come from a higher intelligent being. This means that an intelligent being created on accident could purposely create a world using matter.

GreatfulGoy

Con #4

FORFEITED

Round 3

3 of 3

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #5

That’s probably it.

If the world was an accident, it must be pretty easy to make.

What is the chance our world is the original accidental world?

GreatfulGoy

Con #6

If the world was an accident, it must be pretty easy to make.

Okay? That requires a 'maker'.

What is the chance our world is the original accidental world?

Very low. This is why I support simulation theory and that we are simulated by a deity.

This is exactly my point. In atheism, their is no creator deity, which means that our existence is more or less an accident. After all, if there is no creator, there was no plan.

Okay, I agree that atheism necessitates a lack of intent to our reality's existence.

My point is that since the world was an accident, it is possible to create things that exist in the world from other things in the world, i.e. no creation ex nihilo. This means the soul doesn't exist. Only the material world is real.

Okay, I agree simulating things within reality is possile under atheism but the debate is about probability. It is more likely that Theism, Deism or Panentheism are true than atheism if we are simulated and that the simulator is the relevant deity/deities in that depicted reality.

It is less likely that a completely non-sentient non-thinking entity somehow emerged the simulation with consistent laws of physics and such. It seems absurd to me.

If the world, was created on accident, it is probably much easier to create it on purpose.

This is a concession. It renders atheism less likely if we are simulated as you just admitted a creator/simulator is very likely even if this simulation is accidental.

This could be done any number of time and in multiple different ways. Since it is possible that our world could be created by a simulation and there are so many ways it could have been like this, it is highly unlikely that we live in the original world that was created on accident.

It is possible. It is not likely. A simulation more probably has an original simulator of some sort or possible a group of simulators.

Atheism assumes intelligent life exists on accident and that our intelligence doesn't come from a higher intelligent being. This means that an intelligent being created on accident could purposely create a world using matter.

It does not exactly assume that, it concludes that. Even if it assumes that, it is viable that the deity simulated us to function as a high functioning AI of sorts which we would not be able to determine from inside. We may assume our level of emotions and subjective experience plus raw creativity are impossible for AI to achieve but it's entirely viable. We can absolutely be simulated by the deity.

GreatfulGoy

--> @Kohai, @whiteflame

Philochristos insufficient rfd report

SomeDebatePerson

--> @Kohai, @Savant

Honestly, you will probably have to remove this vote of fauxlaw too.

Fauxlaw literally proved I was right but voted against me. He ignored that the debate assumed atheism was true. My point was that our world can really only exist with an intelligent being. If we remove God, it basically makes our world a simulation created by something smarter but not all-powerful and omniscient.

He said I was arguing against atheism by allowing a maker. This is my whole point. Atheism means no ultimate creator, but I argued for a created creator of worlds. Even atheism would need a creator.

Just read it. He literally proved I was right but had his grudges.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @SatanLucy

Please vote. I know you are a huge opponent of atheism.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @fauxlaw, @Kohai, @Ultracrepidarian

Please vote

philochristos

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

I think the key premise in Pro's argument is the premise that it is easier to create a world on purpose than for a world to come about by accident. In the third round, Con appears to concede this premise. Since Pro gave a full defense of his main argument, and Con barely even responded to it, even forfeiting one round, Pro is the clear winner.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

This debate appears to almost completely miss, by both opponents, the conditional of the Topic, "If atheism is true, then we most likely live in a simulation." However, one of them does finally succeed with a logical argument.
Pro BoP: Atheism "most likely" = simulation
Con BoP: Atheism "most likely" ≠ simulation
The Topic does not include a design/purpose maker, but does not exclude it as a factor to consider. However, the Dscription, by Pro does allow: "Simulation means that our world was created by another intelligent being or beings and that humankind and other live forms were also created this way."

Pro's R1 begins with three propositions: 1. "Atheism assumes God doesn't exist." 2. "Atheism assumes the world was completely an accident." 3. "Atheism assumes only the material world exists." Then Pro claims: "With these assumptions, we can say it is indeed possible to create life from non-life. It is possible for an intelligent being to come forth from a non-intelligent being."
All three propositions are acceptable; they stand on their own as descriptive of atheism. However, one cannot draw the two conclusions from the three propositions. They are non sequiturs: Atheism does not accept the existence of gods who promise life after death or that life has purpose, but nor it does infer life derives from non-life, nor that intelligence derives from non-intelligence. Therefore, Pro's entire R1 is nonsense, and does not meet the Pro Burden of proof [BoP] that atheism "most likely" [the conditional of the Topic] can design [plan] a simulation

Con's R1 is equally nonsense: "If atheism is true, no simulators can exist properly." Simulation, according to Con, can only be by design, and does not allow that simulation can be accidental, therefore making the same general argument as Pro. Also does not meet Con's BoP, but for a different reason. Con is not speaking to a simulation, but to "simulators," i.e., designers or planners.

Pro's R2 blunders by saying "Con seems to miss that we are supposed to assume atheism is true." No, that is not a proper assessment of Con's BoP. Con's BoP is is noted above; opposing Pro's BoP. ProR2 blunder #2: "since the world was an accident, it is possible to create things that exist in the world from other things in the world." But if "creation" is a matter of accident, then Pro must offer the evidence that "creati0on" can be by accident, whereas Pro merely assumes accidental creation via atheism.

Con forfeited R2, but clearly offered an R3 argument, therefore, no deduction.

Pro's R3: "If the world was an accident, it must be pretty easy to make. What is the chance our world is the original accidental world?" What, indeed? Pro makes no argument, nor offers any evidence of the "chance," therefore, another non sequitur, and Pro has failed to meet his BoP, and did so by the cited Description above: "Simulation means that our world was created by another intelligent being or beings and that humankind and other live forms were also created this way." Pro does not disallow that "an intelligent being" could be a god, thereby arguing against atheism, a non sequitur by
Pro.

Con's R3 finally arrives at a conclusive argument: "What is the chance our world is the original accidental world? Very low. This is why I support simulation theory and that we are simulated by a deity." And then offers a "more likely" argument: "If the world, was created on accident, it is probably much easier to create it on purpose." Purpose = designer with a plan.

Con wins for offering a "more likely" scenario. Pro loses by allowing and making both sides of the argument, which mutually disagree.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

New comment