Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} I Don't Know Timmy Being God is a Big Responsibility by Sam Hughes The Reason for God. James 1:17 "Every good and perfect gift comes down from above . ", common grace. Religion has " fueled violence in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem and Bagdad" Christopher Hitchens "God Is Not Great!" "Religion 'transcendentalizes' ordinary cultural differences so that the parties feel they are in a cosmic battle between good a nd evil. " Atheist and communist regimes rejected God and all religion, and committed more murders than the Inquisition, Crusades and witchburnings of the entire history of Christianity. DeSouza "Alister McGrath points out that when the idea of God is gone, a society will 'trancendentalize' something else. in order to appear morally and spiritually superior." e.g. Marxism-the state, Nazis-race and blood. "The 20th century gave rise to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerance and violence of that century were practiced by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence." Alistair McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism. Fanaticism A fanatic is one who, having lost his sense of direction, redoubles his effort. "Perhaps the biggest deterrent to Christianity for the average person today is not so much violence and warfare but the shadow of fanaticism. Many non-believers have friends or relatives who have become 'born again' and seem to have gone off the deep end. " Is a fanatic the opposite of a nominal Christian? No, a fanatic is an intense moralist, like the Pharisees. Salvation by sheer grace is profoundly humbling. Karl Marx "was unoriginal in his criticism of religion - the Bible beat him to it. " It was a mystery to secular historians why Britain would commit "voluntary econocide" in 1833 by the Act of Emancipation. Doubt: Many people taking an intellectual stand against Christianity have a background of personal disappointment with Christians or churches. If Christianity is what it claims, shouldn't Christians be better than they are? But Christians understand Christian behavior differently. Christians believe that Christians grow in character, they are not instantly good. They understand that broken people who come to Christ might be much better than they were, but not nearly what they are going to become. And that finally, all acts of goodness have God at their heart -Christian or not. Keller admits that religion has the potential to "transcendentalize" ordinary cultural differences (to make more of them than one should). But Alister McGrath points out that without God, societies "transcendentalize" something else (think USSR, China, French Revolution, Cambodia etc.) to provide a basis for moral and spiritual superiority. We can only conclude there is something in the heart of man that produces violence and warfare - regardless of the society's beliefs. I Don't Know Timmy Being God is a Big Responsibility by Sam Hughes. I am a writer and software developer. I'm enthusiastic about time, time zones, time travel and calendars. I think Unicode is the best thing in computers and I believe that correctly structuring and normalising data is an important social issue. I was at one point the world authority on the true location of Springfield and may still be the world authority on destroying the Earth. If I appeared on Mastermind, my specialist subject would be Futurama. I was Time Magazine's Person of the Year in 2006. I created HATETRIS and Base65536. I occasionally write programming tutorials. I love JavaScript and I don't care who knows. Because I Said So. "Because I Said So" is another one of the Parental Issues tropes. It is known by a handful of Stock Phrases: "Because I said so." "Because I'm the mommy/daddy, that's why." "Because you're just a kid and you don't know any better." "Because you're too young to know what you want." "Because! That's why!" Essentially, this trope describes adults who believe that simply being the parent grants them the right to rule unquestioned over their child, so there's no need to explain anything to their child. The problem is that it is in the nature of children to test boundaries and ask questions. (Of course, it is also in the nature of children to be ignorant, so it kind of equals out.) So, when moms and dads see their child about to do (or encounter the child announcing their intention to do) something they believe or know to be a bad idea, their reaction happens like a bad, conditioned reflex. As a result of their belief that they should rule unquestioned, the parent will just say "No!" with increasing emphasis (and increasing ire the more the child questions the mandate). Mom and Dad's insistence on their unquestioned authority is a type of Parental Obliviousness, leaving them blinded by their disciplinarian attitude, unaware that they've just laid out a beautiful platter of Forbidden Fruit; that the "NO!" without explaining why they are dead set against their child doing the thing the child wants to do, or why they think it is such a terrible idea is what is driving the child's questions. Consequently, the child often becomes all the more determined to do what has been forbidden, often going to ludicrous lengths to do so. If the child does obey, it's usually with flinging themself on the bed, and possibly cries of: "I hate you!" "You're ruining my life!" "You never let me do anything I want to do!" Most frequently, the parent ends up regretfully confessing that they did the forbidden thing themselves as a child and they only wanted to protect their own children from the same mistake/misfortune. Other times, the parent just doesn't explain actions that make no sense to the child, and upsets or estranges them. But, the confession ends up about the same: the parent was trying to protect the kid, and it's always with the best intentions. Although, less ideal scenarios may feature varieties of Abusive Parents who use this as a means to dominate their children. Usual endings include: Someone commenting that the parent in question seems to have forgotten what it was like to be a child (even if the parent is actively remembering part of what their youth was like). Someone commenting, "You have to let the child make their own mistakes." The child in question beginning or continuing to think Adults Are Useless. Often a stock form of Conflict Ball. A type of Appeal to Authority. See also Screw the Rules, I Make Them! and My Way or the Highway. When the plot of a story itself seems to be doing this, you have the Theory of Narrative Causality and/or Because Destiny Says So. This saying will often be appealing to the Tautological Templar. An example of Truth in Television. Examples: Typical conversation between Thor and Odin. This dialogue from Mafalda : In the Star Trek: The Original Series fanfic Insontis II , at one point Kirk pulls out this phrase during an argument with the de-aged Spock about his diet, "only belatedly realizing he was turning into his own mother." The Little Mermaid : The Little Mermaid : After Ariel the mermaid meets a hunky human prince, King Triton forbids her from going to the surface of the ocean out of fear of humans, which prompts her to trade her voice for a human body to live on land and try to win the prince's heart. The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea : Ariel says this to her own daughter when Melody questions why she isn't allowed to go into the sea. In Erin Brockovich , the titular character reveals to a mother that a corporation has hidden the fact that her home and water supply are contaminated by deadly toxic waste. The mother looks outside in horror at her kids in a pool, realizing that they are literally neck deep in dangerously polluted water, and runs to get them out. When the kids ask why they have to get out, she yells, "Because I said so!" guessing correctly that explaining toxic waste poisoning to children under 10 years old is as counterproductive as it is pointless. Kat in 10 Things I Hate About You is dead-set against her little sister dating the Jerk Jock, but refuses to say why until late in the movie, when she reveals she dated him once and slept with him, upon which he dumped her . In the film version of Matilda , our amazingly precocious protagonist is made to do as she's told because "I'm big and you're small, I'm smart and you're dumb, I'm right and you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it." The cop in Moonrise Kingdom tells Sam, "I can't argue with anything you said, and I don't have to, because you're 12." In Zig Zag (2002) , this is Singer's explanation for why ZigZag can't have sex until he's eighteen. . And Your Name Is Jonah : When Anthony asks why Jonah doesn't have to eat his peas but he does, Danny says, "Because I said so." The real reason is that Jonah is deaf and knows no language, spoken or signed, so his parents have no way of explaining things or disciplining him. In The Dresden Files Action Mom Charity causes an egregious example. Charity is so ashamed of her own history with magic and knowledge of the Laws of Magic that she never tells anyone about it. Instead she engages in yelling matches with already rebellious teenager Molly about the use of her burgeoning magical talent. This results in the unwitting Molly breaking said laws, and Harry having to put his life on the line to prevent the White Council from killing her. She goes double time later on when she tries to forbid Harry teaching Molly to use magic; Molly tries to cite the parable of the talents note A man gives three of his servants some money; to one he gives ten talents, to another he gives five, and to the last he gives but one. The man who gets ten talents goes out and invests them, as does the man who got five talents. When the boss next comes around, they say, "Look here, we took the money you gave us and put it to work, and for our efforts the money has doubled." And the master praises them. But the man who got only one talent took it and buried it in the ground, and when the master comes around, he digs it up again and says, "See, I buried your money and kept it safe!" And the master berates him for his sloth. as an argument in her favor, and Charity tells her, "Don't you dare quote scripture at me, young lady!" Which is the last thing a woman as religious as Charity should ever be saying to her child. There is actually a legal precedent for Vetinari using this. It's called " Quia ego sic dico ", or "Because I say so." Dolores Umbridge does this in spades. At one point, she punishes Hermione for daring to form an opinion, saying, "I am here to teach you using a Ministry-approved method that does not include inviting students to give their opinions on matters about which they understand very little." Snape does it, too. When Hermione suggests he listen to Sirius and Lupin's story at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban , he yells, "KEEP QUIET, YOU STUPID GIRL! DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" The Dursleys have a "don't ask questions" rule for Harry before he goes to Hogwarts. Really, a lot of adults in the series do this, though most are well-intentioned and just trying to protect Harry and friends from the Awful Truth, which they tend to find out anyway. Played with at the end of Philosopher's Stone when Harry asks to hear the truth about some things and Dumbledore states upfront that the truth "is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution. However, I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, lie." So, for what it's worth, he explains not explaining in a non-condescending fashion. In Deathly Hallows , Harry, Ron, and Hermione do this to the adults (though they're technically adults in wizarding society by this point) when they insist their secret mission from Dumbledore must remain so, even from their parents. Played for Drama in Breaking Bad when Walt uses this to get Junior out of the house when Skyler has a breakdown and wants to keep the kids away for their safety, completely ignoring his demand to stop being Locked Out of the Loop. The Cosby Show : The pilot episode famously sees Cliff call out his son, Theo, for his consistently poor grades at school. Cliff tells his son, quite bluntly, that he is going to try harder at school "because I am your father. I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!" (This drew laughs and applause from the live audience.) This moment actually sets the tone of the show, as Theo tries to give a "why don't you just love me for who I am" speech that was a reliable trope at the time; this too drew applause before Cliff showed what mindset they should really cheer for, and it was not for the lazy kid unwilling to do better (although Theo eventually does have a valid excuse for his school trouble: he is dyslexic ). HRG forbids Claire from her Homecoming dance because he expects a Sylar attack. Claire, being a teenager, gives in to her friend's insistence she should go anyway. Further, Claire's mother knows full well Claire will rebel, and doesn't assist her husband in keeping Claire at home (HRG has not let her in on his reasons for keeping Claire home). She displays surprising insight and halfway subverts the trope. HRG, under the excuse of trying to stay under the company's radar, uses Because I Said So to keep Claire from dating because it looks like it will lead to his death. "And that's the bottom line, 'cause Stone Cold said so!" ODB was the first-ever OVW Women's Champion because she named herself that. WWESurvivor Series 1987 . During the Team Strike Force note Strike Force (Tito Santana and Rick Martel)/The Young Stallions (Paul Roma and Jim Powers)/The Rougeau Brothers (Jacques and Raymond)/The Killer Bees (B. Brian Blair and "Jumpin'" Jim Brunzell)/The British Bulldogs (Dynamite Kid and Davey Boy Smith) -Team Hart Foundation note The Hart Foundation (Bret Hart and Jim Neidhart)/The Islanders (Haku and Tama)/Demolition (Ax and Smash)/The Bolsheviks (Nikolai Volkoff and Boris Zhukov)/The New Dream Team (Greg Valentine and Dino Bravo) match, commentators Gorilla Monsoon and Jesse Ventura were arguing about the pronunciation of Islander Tama's name. In Eternal Sonata , a boy witnesses Polka using magic to heal a man (who promptly runs for his life as soon as he is able). He's amazed by her glowing, and his mother pulls him away, telling him not to go near people who glow like that. He asks why. Cue the trope. (In the world of the game, magic is almost always a side effect of a fatal illness. It's thought to be contagious, thanks to a rumor.) In a later mission in Assassin's Creed III , Haytham Kenway actually says this to his son Connor as to why he has to chase a guard. Digger : The Statue of Ganesh comments to the titular wombat that neither the statue nor the Knight Templar it was previously addressing want to have a conversation ending with "Because I'm a god and I say so." The Mysterious Mr. Enter brings up this topic in his video discussing swearing , and explains that this trope is swift to alienate the audience of any conveyed message because of the inherent lack of explanation that is often required. This video by DarkMatter2525 explores this trope pretty well. In Disney's The Replacements , Agent K tells Todd and Riley at some length that they are never to go to a carnival of any kind, under any circumstances, ever, on Earth. Todd pretty much reacts to this with "she pretty much dared me to go." It turns out that as a child K ran away to the carnival, herself, and didn't want her children to make the same mistake she made. Parodied in South Park , when Stan's Dad displays a ridiculously over-the-top hysteria about Stan's desire to form a boy-band with his friends, but refuses to explain why until the end: it turns out he was in a boy band once and ended up losing his fame as quickly as he gained it. Arthur : In an episode, the title character used a variant of this on his little sister: This is one of the lengths many parents will go to in order to prevent children from having any knowledge of swearing, and forbidding children from actually swearing themselves. This is a common reply when one's parent can't think of a comeback. Parents may have valid reasons but not want to give them. For example, it's generally not appropriate to confide in a child that the real reason the child can't go to the circus with Uncle Shaggy this afternoon is that Uncle Shaggy is stoned out of his mind at this particular moment, and none too bright even when he's as sober as a judge. It's also possible the parent is smart enough to realize that children in general and their children in particular are born Rules Lawyers, so giving a reason why will only result in a barrage of objections, each of which they're going to have to argue tooth-and-nail. Sometimes it's best to just refuse to play and go with the Unanswer, because this limits the possible objections pretty much to "It's not fair!" which has a built-in response ("Life Isn't Fair.") Whether this is a good parenting technique or really "best" to do is very YMMV. Video Example(s): I Am Sam. When Lucy refuses to read the word "different", Sam replies to her that he's asking her to because he's her father. The Simulation Argument. Here you can peruse the debate that followed the paper presenting the simulation argument. The original paper is here, as are popular synopses, scholarly papers commenting or expanding on or critiquing the first paper, and some replies by the author. The simulation argument continues to attract a great deal of attention. I apologize for not usually being able to respond to individual inquiries. I hope you might find what you're looking for on this page. Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? Original. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed. Discussion on the simulation argument with Lex Fridman. On anthropic selection theory and the simulation argument with Sean Carroll. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch. Article in NY Times. Explained by Elon Musk. Is Reality Real? The Simulation Argument. Video interview of Nick Bostrom on the Simulation Argument. The Simulation Argument: Why the Probability that You are Living in the Matrix is Quite High. Another popularization. (Has been translated into Spanish, Russian.) Do we live in a computer simulation? A very brief, popular synopsis. But please read the original paper (above) instead if you can. Why Make a Matrix? And Why You Might Be In One. Yet another popularization, for Matrix-aficionados. Are our heads in the cloud? Science fiction or fact? There is a powerful logical argument that they [simulators who constructed the reality we experience] could very possibly be science fact. The Simulation Argument FAQ. Answers to 16 common questions. How to Live in a Simulation. If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you. The Matrix as Metaphysics. On several Brains-in-vats and Matrix-like scenarios. Argues in support of what is also my contention, that the simulation-hypothesis is not a radical skeptical hypothesis. Innocence Lost: Simulation Scenarios: Prospects and Consequences. Those who believe suitably programmed computers could enjoy conscious experience of the sort we enjoy must accept the possibility that their own experience is being generated as part of a computerized simulation. It would be a mistake to dismiss this is just one more radical sceptical possibility: for as Bostrom has recently noted, if advances in computer technology were to continue at close to present rates, there would be a strong probability that we are each living in a computer simulation. The first part of this paper is devoted to broadening the scope of the argument: even if computers cannot sustain consciousness (as many dualists and materialists believe), there may still be a strong likelihood that we are living simulated lives. The implications of this result are the focus of the second part of the paper. The topics discussed include: the Doomsday argument, scepticism, the different modes of virtual life, transcendental idealism, the Problem of Evil, and simulation ethics. Are You a Sim? Weatherson is prepared to accept the Simulation Argument up to, but not including, the final step, in which I use the Bland Principle of Indifference. In this paper, he examines four different ways to understand this principle and argues that none of them serves the purpose. (For my reply, see the paper below.) Note that Weatherson accepts the third disjunct in the conclusion of the Simulation Argument - i.e. that there are many more simulated human-like persons than non-simulated ones. By contrast, I do not accept this: I think we currently lack grounds for eliminating either of the three disjuncts. Living in a Simulated Universe. We explain why, if we live in a simulated reality, we might expect to see occasional glitches and small drifts in the supposed constants and laws of Nature over time. The Simulation Argument: Reply to Weatherson. My reply to Weatherson's paper (above). I argue he has misinterpreted the relevant indifference principle and that he has not provided any sound argument against the correct interpretation, nor has he addressed the arguments for this principle that I gave in the original paper. There also a few words on the difference between the Simulation Argument and traditional brain-in-a-vat arguments, and on so-called epistemological externalism. Simulation Scenarios. Covers many related issues, but may be hard to understand without the oral presentation that is meant to go with these 79 slides. The Simulation Argument again. Short article by Brueckner in which he proffers "a new way of thinking about Bostrom's argument". (See below for my reply.) The Simulation Argument: Some Explanations. My response to Brueckner (above), in which I argue that he has misconstrued the simulation argument. I also argue that he is mistaken in his critique of the idea that simulated beings may themselves create ancestor-simulations. You Can Trust God When You Know Him. We might not know everything about God, but what we DO know is enough to trust him. One of my deep desires is to be a good ambassador for Jesus. Many Christians go head-to-head with nonbelievers, determined to win the argument. That is not my desire. I don’t want to win arguments, or point out someone’s faults, or make them feel less than deeply valued and loved. Instead, I want to be persuasive. There are so many wonderful reasons to know God. That’s what I want people to know. So, I’ve been reading a book by Os Guiness called, “Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion.” He ministers to my soul, because I’m so in agreement with him….let’s not win arguments, let’s win hearts and minds in drawing people to Jesus. I have a fascinating excerpt I want to share with you today. —- Harriet is on trial for murdering her husband with poison, though she is innocent. Harriet is also a mystery writer and had been researching information about poison at the very time that her husband died of arsenic (a deadly poison). Further, Harriet had reason to kill him, and there were no other suspects. All the known facts of the case were against her. A friend of Harriet’s believed she was innocent and was being framed. He was sure that the police had jumped to the wrong conclusion, and did not investigate fully. They quit too soon. He told the jury, “I have one big advantage over the rest of you…I know Harriet. There must be evidence somewhere to point to the real killer.” How similar this is regarding God. People look at life’s hardships, and jump to conclusions about God that are not accurate, and they blame God. However, there are others listed in Hebrews 11, who have viewed their life’s troubling events differently because they knew God. Speaking of those in Hebrews 11–Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses–“all these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance.” v 13. They knew God is there and that God is good. Knowing why they trusted God, they knew the known facts were never all the facts. So even when the known facts were against God, they trusted and they waited, they waited and they worked. In this way they called into question the ways of the world of their time and challenged even the impossible. The conclusion of the writer to the Hebrews…such faith was the very reason God was not ashamed to be their God. Their lesson is a challenge to us: time after time the known facts of our lives and of the world may be against God, but one day all the missing facts will be known. So our task as his people is to trust and prove him now, in the meantime, whatever the odds, whatever the opposition and however agonizing the suffering at the present moment. —- How important it is to know WHY we trust God. Our faith is as solid as our reasons. There are things you personally know about God that nonbelievers don’t know. Be ready to share it with them. It’s not an easy assignment, but an important one. Always be prepared to explain the hope that is in you. (1Peter 3:15).