David Wolpert Proved Absence of Biblical God

https://plus.maths.org/content/inferring-limits-reality

basically, David proved, that there can't be two gods, both having free will to influence the universe anyway they want. That means, the biblical God is not all powerful, because he cannot create another God as powerful as himself. So if there is God, he will be very limited in what he can do and know.

it's possible for a programmer to make a complex system with cellular automata without controlling every aspect of it, and they might not be in full control of everything either

just saying

because he cannot create another God as powerful as himself

god is basically just a root user, and we are regular users
privilege escalation = hacking the universe and becoming god
but will people use it for good, or will they rm -rf --no-preserve-root /?

The idea of an omnipotent god is contradictory in many different ways.
If there is a god, it must be more like a programmer, who has limited time and resources, than an infinite being with perfect knowledge.

But a better explanation is that all religions are just mental crutches for brainlets.

>>3

all religions are just mental crutches for brainlets.

Essential NPC programming actually.

>>4
Mental crutches for qualialet p-zombies?

>>5
Without some moral programming, law and order doesn't exist as masses of NPCs lose their cultural restraints. Euphoric atheism/scientism is too weak, abstract and lacks "moral fiber". NPCs have to be guided by religion or ideology establishing concrete values and rules.

>>1

"There cannot be two gods, both of which can perfectly observe everything, or both of which can make anything happen that they want,

Consider that both gods share a mind-layer system, having equal "root-level" accounts.

>>6
Counterexample: anarchists
Those are very often NPCs, yet not religious and not following concrete rules.

>>8
Ideologies like anarchism,extreme libertarianism and individualist egoism, carry only enough moral programming to enable cooperation of its adherents and the "law and order" part is just reduced in scope.

>>7
Consider God that knows everything (biblical God by definition in the Bible). Such God must know himself too, so he knows what he will do in the future. That immediately contradicts, that God has free will, and not a deterministic computer, because its behavior is predetermined in advance by its first instance.

Bible (old and new testaments) explicitly state, that God knows future:
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-know-future.html

So yeah, your God is just a machine. You can as well worship that computer before you.

Check my fucking dubs

Reminds of the paradox in set theory with the set that includes all sets that don't include itself. To patch it, mathematicians had to introduce classes, instead of sets. And classes are severely limited in what they can include.

>>12
And there is another paradox about set of all sets not having a power set.

>>12

Reminds of the paradox in set theory with the set that includes all sets that don't include itself

Russell's paradox

mathematicians had to introduce classes

Universes?

>>13
In some type theories we have a hierarchy of types, like so:
\(Nat : Type_0
Type_0 : Type_1
...
Type_n : Type_{n + 1}\)

>>14
How do introduce surreal numbers inside type theory?

>>15
Monads.

>>15
Aren't floating point numbers sufficient?

>>17
there are converging and diverging sequences under lim. Real numbers are enough to study converging sequences, but to study diverging sequences properties you have to introduce these transfinitive surreal numbers. They were invented by Donald Knuth and John Conway, who are in fact both noted computer scientists. Conway invented Game of Life and Minesweeper, while Knuth wrote that book about algorithms. These surreal numbers popped up, when Conway tried to analyze the Go game. So yeah, floating point numbers are not enough, when you're trying to analyze stuff.