The New God Argument

Andy West

Welcome everyone to this presentation of the new God argument. My name is Andy West and I’ll be chairing the session. We’ll be hearing from Lincoln Cannon. who has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Brigham Young and as well as a master’s degree in business and Joey West who has Has a degree in accounting and philosophy from the University of Utah and is currently pursuing a doctorate in sociology at the University of Arizona. We’ll hear from our two speakers and then afterwards we’ll have a short period of question and answer from the audience and we would ask that you keep your questions limit your questions to under a minute because as has been pointed out in countless sessions more than a minute and it’s not really a question. So I’d also like to announce that or I’d also like to make a quick plug and just point out to everyone that the this Session is sponsored by the Mormon Transhumanist Association, of which I and Lincoln and Joey, and some of the audience members here are members. Board members and involved with to differing degrees, but we have a little table in the back of the room. And if after the session, if anyone wants more information or some Nice Mormon transhumanist swag to impress your friends. Just stop by and you can pick some stuff up for free. With that, I guess that that’s it. With that, I’ll hand off to Lincoln for some. Or whoever’s going first. Who’s going first?

Speaker 2

I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman, and child, to answer the question in their own hearts: what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves, turn your thoughts into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with him. This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question: What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, or communed with him? Here is the question that will, peradventure, from this time henceforth occupy your attention

Speaker 3

Before we present the new God argument. I’d like to make some brief introductory comments. I will first try to place this argument relative to historical arguments for the existence of God. I will then briefly describe the argument before we dive in. Historically and even presently, arguments for the existence of God aim at justifying a traditional Christian perspective. Those arguments are made within a particular context. and that very context assumes particular values inherent to this traditional perspective. From our perspective as Mormons To place oneself within this traditional context is to betray the new revelation and admit failure before the task has begun. This is because some of these values, which are assumed the moment you place yourself within the traditional context, are the very dogmatisms from which the prophet Joseph was trying to free us by bringing forth new revelation. We will therefore follow Joseph and diverge from this traditional context. We are not concerned with omnipotent ex nihilo creators and uncaused causes. In fact, some would probably say that we are as atheistic as Richard Dawkins in this regard. This argument justifies emergent gods That organizes worlds according to existing laws. This argument justifies the Mormon God.

Speaker 3

We feel to identify with Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. who fiercely argued that Gentile converts need not first become Jews before becoming Christians. Similarly, we feel that we need not justify ourselves by the standards of the theological tradition from which our new faith emerged. Along with the revelations of our prophet came a new tradition, a new context. It is only within this context that we seek to justify our faith. When Lincoln and I and others first started formulating this argument, the intended audience was the secularists who profess atheism. We wanted to show them that the logical implications of assumptions widely shared among them point to the importance of trust in the existence of beings which may qualify as gods according to the theology of many faith traditions, including Mormonism. Accordingly, you will note that the argument will be presented almost entirely free of religious language. I say almost because as you have already seen the title of the argument is most certainly religious. Furthermore, the argument as a whole is composed of six parts, all of which are given religious titles. This way of presenting the argument is intentional. The religious terminology is used only as the title or symbol of what lies beneath. Only in this introduction and in the conclusion will we discuss the connections to Mormon theology. The argument stands on its own, regardless of whether or not one is willing to recognize the theological implications. Take note that the argument is not linear. It may be a bit difficult to follow, which is why we’ve provided some notes, which include the formalized version of the argument, as well as a diagram which should help people follow along. It is important to understand that we’re not trying to say that this argument necessarily compels everyone to believe in God. All we’re trying to show is that logically A combination of a certain set of assumptions necessarily implies our conclusion, which is that we should trust that an advanced civilization more benevolent than ours probably created our world. We will explicitly acknowledge our assumptions and seek to justify them to the extent time allows.

Speaker 3

Many of the assumptions are probabilistic, and therefore the conclusion of the argument is probabilistic. So you may be thinking, well, if the intended audience is the secular atheist, why present it here at Sunstone? According to Mormon philosopher Sterling McMurrin, quote, The primary task of theology is the reconciliation of the revelation to the culture, to make what is taken on faith as the Word of God meaningful in light of accepted science and philosophy. This argument is important to a Mormon audience because it can ground our faith rationally and therefore inform the practical decisions we make as we go forward as a religious people. It can also inform and even improve our interaction with the secular world, perhaps even providing a means for persuasion to the religious perspective. To that end, we present to you the New God argument. Lincoln will present the first three parts of the argument, the faith position, the angel argument, and the creation argument. I will then present the three charity arguments in order of strength. Lincoln will conclude, after which we will open the discussion for questions and criticisms from the audience.

Speaker 2

God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent to-day, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man, in form like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man.

Lincoln Cannon

The New God argument begins with the assumption that we are human civilization here on Earth. probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. This is the faith position, and we’ll refer back to it a few times as we proceed with the argument. The faith position does not require any particular perspective regarding the amount of time it might take for us to become an advanced civilization. It could happen within coming decades or across the span of eons. Either possibility, or any of the infinite possibilities between them, is sufficient for the faith position. Moreover, from the outset, the faith position does not require any particular understanding of what we must do to be considered an advanced civilization. Perhaps we’ll cure cancer or end hunger. Maybe we will voyage to the stars. Any of these possibilities or any set of many other possibilities is sufficient for the faith position. As we go along, we’ll introduce some assumptions about what we probably would do as an advanced civilization. But your imagination is the best starting point. Consider the future of our civilization as you think it should be. Imagine a future worthy of your trust. Assume we can and probably will eventually become such a civilization, no matter how long it takes, so long as we work at it. That is the faith position.

Lincoln Cannon

Of course, while embracing the probability of desirable futures, we should not ignore the possibility of undesirable futures. Complacency may prove quite as dangerous as hopelessness, and both are risks that we should seek to mitigate. Thus, we intend our formulation of the faith position that we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization to convey an optimal balance between trust in desirable futures and recognition of attending risks. Consider, for example, the attitude we should take if we were to discover that a large asteroid is headed directly at Earth and will destroy all life on the planet when it hits us in five years. While some of us may languish in despair, and others may passively await a chance or supernatural remedy, most of us would naturally take up the faith position. And begin planning for and building a means of destroying or displacing the asteroid. Even while feeling anxious or simultaneously hoping for a lucky break or supernatural assistance. Remark that the faith position is valuable beyond the scope of the argument that we’re presenting. There is a kind of truth that depends on intentional creation. For example, it may not be true that the materials at your dock are organized into the form of a ship, but with some trust in and work towards such a possibility, you just might make it true. Most of us have a similar perspective regarding the future of our civilization. Maybe it will be horrible, but we’ll trust in and work toward a wonderful future because we think it could make the difference. Some will argue that the optimism of the faith position is not realistic, as demonstrated by the many occasions when our experience differs from our preference. To the extent we lack power, unassisted optimism may not be realistic. However, to the extent we have power, optimism certainly is realistic. As we use our power to create the experience we prefer. Moreover, since we don’t infallibly know the full extent of our power, even cautious optimism beyond our certain knowledge. is wise. For example, you may or may not have what it takes to persuade someone to love you, but you have a better chance if you’re optimistic enough To make the phone call.

Lincoln Cannon

The angel argument, the stars. As we look at and listen to them, present many of us with a paradox. On the one hand, The universe should be old and large enough to have produced many Earth-like planets. It’s almost 14 billion years old. and the visible portion alone contains over 100 billion galaxies. If our galaxy containing over 400 billion stars is typical, then there are over forty sextillion stars in the visible universe. That’s forty billion billions, or forty followed by twenty-one zeros. We’re orbiting one of those stars on a planet that is four and a half billion years old. Unless Earth is extremely improbable. There’s been time and space enough for many other planets like ours. On the other hand, we lack sufficient evidence for the existence of advanced civilizations. The SETI program, an internationally funded research for extraterrestrial intelligence, reports no reproducible messages from Alpha Centauri or anywhere else outside our atmosphere. Claims of UFO sightings and encounters with ET are open to broad interpretation, leaving most of us skeptical. While we cannot say with infallibility that advanced civilizations have not contacted or visited us, we should acknowledge that we lack objective reason to conclude they have. Despite all that time and all those stars, despite our careful looking and listening, we lack evidence for advanced civilizations.

Lincoln Cannon

There must be a reason for our lack of evidence for advanced civilizations. One possibility is that they are extremely rare, if they exist at all. Because civilizations like ours almost always go extinct before becoming advanced. Maybe we’re likely to destroy ourselves with super weapons, or irreversibly exploit our environmental resources Another possibility is that advanced civilizations are extremely rare because civilizations like ours are already extremely rare. It may be that the initial formation of life and the subsequent development of complex species and civilizations is likely to occur on only one in a septillion planet. If advanced civilizations are improbable, then candidate civilizations such as ours must almost never appear. Or, if they commonly appear, they must almost never move on to become advanced civilizations before going extinct. In other words, if we are not already extraordinarily lucky and have benefited from very low probability events in our past development. then very high probability events in our future development will almost certainly stop us from becoming an advanced civilization. In the vastness of time and space, across innumerable Earth-like worlds, somewhere along the evolutionary path from inorganic matter. to advanced civilizations, something is filtering the many possibilities down to mere improbabilities. That filter is either in our past or in our future. The only alternative is that advanced civilizations are not as rare as we might suppose. This is the great filter argument, that one of the following propositions must be true. Either basic life forms are improbable Or, we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. Or, advanced civilizations are probable.

Lincoln Cannon

Last week, a NASA robot verified the presence of water on Mars. and some speculate that we may soon discover primitive life there. In response to such speculation, Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom recently wrote, quote, I hope that our Mars probes discover nothing. It would be good news if we find Mars to be sterile. Dead rocks and lifeless sands would lift my spirit. He wrote this from the perspective of someone that understands the force of the great filter argument. but also from the perspective of someone who has assumed that the lack of evidence for advanced civilizations also implies a probable lack of existence. If a robot discovers primitive life on Mars, or if we otherwise determine that basic life forms are probable, Bostrom would confront the troubling conclusion that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. I wonder how he would live with such a specter overshadowing him. Perhaps it would be sufficient to move him to question his assumption that advanced civilizations are improbable. I don’t know how he would react, but I know how he should react. If basic life forms are probable, then according to the great filter argument, either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization, or advanced civilizations will are probable. Faced with such options, our moral responsibility is to invoke the faith position. Reaffirm that we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization, and embrace the consequence. Trust that advanced civilizations are probable.

Lincoln Cannon

We need not sacrifice rationality to embrace trust that advanced civilizations are probable. We know too little to entertain confidence in our ability to discern them. It is not merely modern UFO and ET claims that contend for recognition as subjective experience of advanced civilizations. but also the ancient and persistent weight of religious tradition and its purported interactions between the human and the divine. While some find religious claims absurd, appeals to absurdity do not disprove subjective experience If advanced civilizations exist, why should we suppose that they would interact with us in ways that are only slightly more advanced than our current capacities? why not suppose that their interactions with us would be indiscernible from magic? Why should we suppose that we even have the anatomical capacity to comprehend them fully? One need not embrace a religious tradition to acknowledge the possibility that advanced civilizations are among the causes of experiences that some of us have interpreted into religious traditions. While we lack evidence for advanced civilizations, a lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary. In some cases, lack of evidence to the contrary is of little or no practical consequence. But in this case, given the assumption that basic life forms are probable, our probable future correlates with the probable existence of advanced civilizations. In this case, a lack of evidence enables reasonable hope.

Lincoln Cannon

Move on to the creation argument. A common task to which computers are applied today is that of simulation. Flight and automobile simulators have been available both to the military and for entertainment for many years. Financial simulators have become important for investors, as medical simulators have improved our ability to train surgeons. Many persons enjoy playing games such as SimCity that simulate urban planning. Entire worlds are simulated. Both for scientific and entertainment purposes, such as the popular virtual worlds World of Warcraft and Second Life. In which persons buy and sell real estate, hold meetings, even dance, and generally engage in a virtual life through the proxy of their avatars. Over time, the quality of simulations has greatly improved. Users of early flight simulators saw only bumpy Black and white outlines of abstract geometric features representing terrain above an equally coarse rendition of a cockpit. Today, full-color, three-dimensional geographies and other aircraft can be wrapped around the user inside a machine that moves to provide for physical, for realistic physical sensations. As the computing power available to us continues to advance exponentially, it seems reasonable to suppose that one of the things we might do is run increasingly detailed simulations of our world and worlds like it. As the level of detail increases and the user interface improves, it would become ever more difficult to discern any difference between our world and the simulated worlds. To the point that for all practical purposes, simulation or virtual Would no longer accurately describe those worlds, or the apparently sentient persons in them

Lincoln Cannon

Furthermore, if an advanced civilization simulates many such worlds, indistinguishable in degree of detail from its own world, then the advanced civilization itself is much more likely to be one of many simulated worlds than it is to be the only hypothetical non simulated world. In other words, an advanced civiliz civilization that simulates many worlds like those in its past is almost certainly not the first or only to do so, and thus is probably simulated itself. This is the simulation argument, that at least one of these three propositions must be true. Either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. Or any advanced civilization probably does not simulate many worlds like those in its past. Or an advanced civilization probably simulated our world. We can generalize the simulation argument.

Lincoln Cannon

Its form remains valid regardless of the particular creative process to which it’s applied. For example, For the same reasons that the simulation argument is valid, terraforming or cosmo-forming arguments would also be valid. Either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization, or Any civilization probably does not terraform or cosmoform many worlds like those in its past. or an advanced civilization probably terraformed or cosmo formed our world. Extrapolating from these examples, we formulate a generalized argument. Either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization, or any advanced civilization probably does not create many worlds like those in its past. Or, an advanced civilization probably created our world. Notice that the generalized argument in no way contradicts evolution theory.

Lincoln Cannon

either logically or empirically. To the contrary, although the generalized argument remains valid across all the particular creative processes to which it might be applied, It may prove infeasible in many variations. In particular, Variations of the generalized argument that contradict empirical evidence should be discarded, despite their logical validity. It seems reasonable to suppose that any advanced civilization actually does create many worlds like those in its past. As mentioned previously, our civilization has already implemented innumerable simulations of worlds, like our own, with rapidly increasing detail. We’re also hard at work researching processes for space colonization, and even studying the processes by which our universe was formed. Given the diverse ways in which an advanced civilization might prove capable of creating many worlds like those in its past, it’s hard to imagine that any advanced civilization would prove incapable of doing so. Moreover, if capable, it’s even harder to imagine that they would uniformly choose not to do so. So choose your favorite creative process. Whatever appeals most to your sense of feasibility. If you expect our civilization, assuming we do not go extinct first, will somehow prove capable of creating many worlds like our own, then we may proceed together to the consequence of our expectation. If any advanced civilization probably creates many worlds, like those in its past, then, according to the simulation argument and the creation argument, Either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization, or an advanced civilization probably created our world. Given the faith position, we choose to deny the probability that we will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. and so trust that an advanced civilization probably created our world. If ever we create many worlds like our own, we almost certainly would not be the first or only civilization to do so. Our perspective regarding our origin should account for our expectation regarding our creative potential. It would be remarkably inconsistent and extremely improbable to assert that we will eventually create many worlds like our own without also acknowledging That an advanced civilization probably created our world.

Speaker 2

God Himself, finding He was in the midst of spirits and glory. because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws, whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself. so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.

Joey West

Just briefly, before I go on with these charity arguments, I just want to mention that there’s links. The part that we just heard, especially the angel argument in the creation argument, are the most difficult parts to grasp, especially for This particular audience, because they’re based on assumptions that are widely accepted among these circles in which we’ve been conversing: the great filter argument and the simulation argument. So there’s links to those arguments on the Hand out. And they are really difficult to put your mind around. So that’s why we included those links. If you’re kind of okay, the first is the charity argument from angels.

Joey West

At least one of the following is true. Either advanced civilizations are improbable, or any advanced civilization probably cannot stop the advance of any less advanced civilization in REACH. or the extent of our advance, probably indicates the minimum benevolence of any advanced civilization in reach. This argument essentially demonstrates a minimum level of benevolence of advanced civilizations. So, this is the weakest of the charity arguments. In other words, it doesn’t demonstrate much charity, just a minimum level. The basic idea here is that if there are advanced civilizations that are out there, they haven’t stopped our advance to the point we find ourselves because either they can’t or they choose not to. So, an assumption is that any advanced civilization probably can stop the advance of any less advanced civilization in reach. We are simply assuming here that part of what it means to be an advanced civilization is the ability to stop the advance of any less advanced civilization. To illustrate, imagine you discover an anthill in your backyard you could go out there and destroy that anthill, or otherwise stop the advance of the anthill at any time. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that an advanced civilization could stop the advance of a less advanced civilization in reach if they so desired. As Lincoln explained with the angel argument, we should trust that advanced civilizations are probable. The extent of our advance probably indicates the minimum benevolence of any advanced civilization in reach. The probable advanced civilizations within reach of our world are at least benevolent enough. To allow us to continue to advance to the point we find our civilization today.

Joey West

The second is the charity argument from faith. At least one of the following is true. Either any advanced civilization probably has increased in defensive capacity at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which it has increased in destructive capacity, or any advanced civilization probably is more benevolent than us. or we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. The basic idea here is that probably only civilizations that advance in benevolence survive long enough. To become an advanced civilization, advanced benevolence is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition for survival. It may be the case that no civilizations ever become advanced before becoming extinct, but what would it mean if they did? First of all, it would mean that the civilization is lucky enough not to have been struck by an asteroid or destroyed in other in some other way beyond the control of the civilization. But aside from that, and importantly for our argument here, it would imply one of three possibilities. One, they may not increase in destructive capacity as they advance. Two, they might increase in defensive capacity at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which they increase in destructive capacity, or, three, they increase in benevolence. A key assumption in this argument is that any advanced civilization probably has not increased in defensive capacity at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which it has increased in destructive capacity.

Joey West

This assumption has two parts. First, part of what it means to become an advanced civilization is to increase in destructive capacity. This is an assumption we think is merited based simply on observations of past trends in human destructive capacity. Throughout history, humans have increased in destructive capacity. Furthermore, destructive capacity has increased at an exponential rate. Looking at the history of weapons, anthropologists have suggested that early humans probably first used spears five million years ago. Over 4. 5 million years after that, there is evidence of wooden spears made with fire-hardened points. Over a hundred thousand years after that, humans begin making complex blades 65,000 years after that, the bow and arrow emerges. 14,000 years after that is the first confirmed use of gunpowder. And then a thousand years after that, the first nuclear weapon is used in war. By observing trends in our own civilization’s weapons technology and extrapolating those observations into the future, we conclude that over time, it will continue to grow in destructive capacity. Generalizing that extrapolation, we feel justified in assuming that any advanced civilization probably has more destructive capacity than us.

Joey West

The second part of this assumption is that as civ as civilizations advance in destructive capacity, they probably do not increase in defensive capacity at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which they increase in destructive capacity. We again look to our own civilization’s experience to justify this assumption. One obvious example is that of protective armor. Kevlar vests used by the police and the army are only bullet resistant and can realistically only protect certain areas of the body. Batman’s new and improved suit notwithstanding. Furthermore, we have yet to find a way to protect us at all from nuclear explosions and other destructive capabilities we possess. Our defensive capacity lies far behind our destructive capacity and probably will remain so if we become an advanced civilization. Finally, the moral responsibility imposed upon us by the faith position requires that we eliminate the proposition that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. Imagine a future in which a weapon powerful enough to destroy our entire planet could be produced for the cost of what is today a few dollars. Given present technological trends, that future may not be so far off as one might think. Assuming the present level of benevolence and defensive capacity of individuals within our civilization, such a future would bring with it almost certain doom. Any civilization, including our own, that hopes to survive as it advances, must therefore increase in benevolence. Any advanced civilization probably is more benevolent than our present civilization.

Joey West

Now the charity argument from creation, which we think is the strongest of the charity arguments. At least one of the following is true. Either an advanced civilization probably did not create our world, or any advanced civilization probably does not create many worlds like those in its past. or any advanced civilization that created our world probably acts towards us with at least the same benevolence it hopes any advanced civilization that created its world acts towards it. The basic idea here is that if advanced civilizations become creators of worlds similar to those in their past, then they probably know that they are probably living in a created world themselves. and are therefore subject to the whims of their Creator. Nick Bostrom, who is the author of The Simulation Argument suggests in the simulation argument that an advanced civilization living in such a state would consider the possibility that their behavior in their world may be rewarded or punished based on some moral criteria determined by the Creator. Advanced civilizations would therefore probably treat any world that it created at least as benevolently as it hoped to be treated by its creator.

Joey West

I think that an even more persuasive idea than that suggested by Bostrom is an appeal to our human feelings towards our creations, specifically towards our children. We treat our children with benevolence, perhaps because of a fear of punishment from greater powers, but I think we do so more often because we feel a profound love for our children. So it probably is with the advanced with the feelings of advanced civilizations towards their creations. There are two reasons why the creation argument is important here. First of all, as explained by Lincoln, part of the creation argument is the assumption that advanced civilizations probably create many worlds similar to their own. Secondly, the creation argument concludes that we should trust that an advanced civilization probably created our world. There are two ways of looking at the conclusion of this argument, analogous to two ways of understanding the behavior of children in relation to their parents On the one hand, some parents believe that they must punish their children to teach them to act morally. Perhaps it is the case that children obey their parents out of a fear of punishment. Similarly, perhaps the creators of our world treat us benevolently out of a fear of punishment from their own creators. That understanding fits into the argument. On the other hand, perhaps the behavior of the child is more strongly motivated, not by fear of punishment, but by a love for the parents. which love can be reinforced by the nurturing behavior of the parents. Similarly, perhaps the creators of our world treat us benevolently out of a love and an understanding that love is the greatest motivator. Either way, the point of the charity argument from creation is that the manner in which the creator of our world treats us is probably influenced by its relationship with its creator. Any advanced civilization that created our world probably acts towards us with at least the same benevolence it hopes any advanced civilization acts towards it.

Speaker 2

Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you. namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation Until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

Lincoln Cannon

Okay, so let’s now review the new God argument as a whole. It begins with the faith position, a practical assumption that we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. If for whatever reason you’re not willing to embrace this position, we don’t have a shared basis from which to proceed with the argument. Stemming from the faith position, the angel argument demonstrates that if you expect basic life forms are probable And particularly if we confirm empirically that they are probable, you should trust that advanced civilizations are also probable. The alternative would be the morally irresponsible option of embracing the conclusion that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. Also stemming from the faith position, the creation argument demonstrates that if you expect we’ll someday create many worlds similar to our own, then you should trust that an advanced civilization probably created our world. We almost certainly would not be the first or only civilization to do so. And the only probable alternative is that we will go extinct before creating many worlds like our own.

Lincoln Cannon

Building from the angel argument, the charity argument from angels contends that given the probable existence of advanced civilizations, Either they probably are incapable of stopping our advance, or the extent of our advance probably indicates their minimum benevolence. If you expect that they could stop us, you should conclude that they probably are demonstrating at least some minimum degree of benevolence, even if entirely passive, towards us. Building from the faith position, the charity argument from faith demonstrates that if you expect any advanced civilization probably has, like us, increased in destructive capacity, Faster than defensive capacity, then you should also trust it probably is more benevolent than us. The alternative is that we’ll probably end up misusing our increasing destructive capacity and destroy ourselves before becoming an advanced civilization. Building from the creation argument, the charity argument from creation contends that any advanced civilization that creates many worlds like those in its past would understand the creation argument. Know that an advanced civilization probably also created its world, and therefore have incentive to act towards the world it creates, with the same benevolence it hopes to receive. If you think we’ll eventually create many worlds similar to our own, you should conclude that any advanced civilization that created our world knows the creation argument and would act towards us accordingly. In summary, if basic life forms are probable, then we should trust that advanced civilizations are probable. If any advanced civilization probably has increased in destructive capacity faster than defensive capacity, and if any advanced civilization probably creates many worlds like those in its past. then we should trust that an advanced civilization, more benevolent than us, probably created our world. The alternative is that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization.

Lincoln Cannon

Some will not feel inclined to worship the kind of God entailed by this argument. On the one hand, some will feel it’s too cold, too distant, smelling too much of UFOs and tasting too much of ETs. On the other hand, some will challenge that nothing in this argument compels us to grovel in self-flagellating adoration. With both sets of persons, I heartily agree. An argument for God never has been, and never will be, sufficient for the aesthetic of God in our lives. Experienced through individual communion with the divine. Moreover, in my estimation, no God worthy of worship commands groveling. Rather, a God worthy of worship is a God worthy of respect, emulation, and friendship. The New God argument does not contend to provide a relationship with God. It contends only to demonstrate that a common worldview informed of contemporary science and technological trends, leads to and is wholly compatible with faith in a particular kind of God. The God of this argument is a natural material God that became God. Through natural, material means, suggesting how we might do the same. As emphasized in the argument, benevolence not only power, is among those means and essential to them. This is the God of which I learned from Joseph Smith. who so fully persuaded me of the practical value of faith in such a God that I was ready to assert this faith even if God didn’t exist yet. However, the New God argument demonstrates the utter improbability of becoming like God unless God already exists. We’ll conclude by quoting perhaps the most unlikely and unwilling proponent of the new God argument.

Speaker 2

The talented evolutionary biologist and leading voice of the new atheist movement, Richard Dawkins. From his book, The God Delusion. Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman. to the point of being godlike in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us. as ours would seem to a dark aged peasant transported to the twenty-first century. Imagine his response to a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a hydrogen bomb, or a jumbo jet. As Arthur C. Clarke put it in his Third Law, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters or Jesus walking upon them. the aliens of our SETI signal would be to us like gods. In what sense, then, would the most advanced SETI aliens not be gods? In what sense would they be superhuman, but not supernatural? In a very important sense, which goes to the heart of this book. The crucial difference between gods and godlike extraterrestrials lies not in their properties, but in their provenance. Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process. No matter how godlike they may seem when we encounter them, they didn’t start that way. Science fiction authors have even suggested, and I cannot think how to disprove it, that we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilization. But the simulators themselves would have to come from somewhere. The laws of probability forbid all notions of their spontaneously appearing without simpler antecedents. they probably owe their existence to a perhaps unfamiliar version of Darwinian evolution.

Lincoln Cannon

Eternal progression is what Mormons call that perhaps unfamiliar version of Darwinian evolution. God is what Mormons call those godlike extraterrestrials that didn’t start that way. Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably gods. That’s what Richard Dawkins tells us. That’s what Joseph Smith told us. That’s what the New God argument concludes. Beyond traditional theism and beyond new atheism, Zion, your God reigns.

Andy West

Lincoln and Joey will now field questions from the audience for about Seven minutes, and for the purposes of audio recording, I would ask that if you have a question, please come to the mic to ask it. Again, it’s about we got about seven minutes. So, and I’m mad with power as the chair of this session, and I will cut it off and you sure.

Speaker 5

Referring to your handout, I have questions about four terms. I’ll make them within a minute. The first, under the faith positions, will not go extinct before becoming an advanced Civilization to me implies that it might become extinct after becoming an extinct, an advanced civilization. Is that a correct inference on my part? Let me finish, then I’ll sir. And the second one is the angel argument. Which you profound very clearly, except for why you call it the angel argument. I don’t understand what angel has to do with it, simple things. And the third one is simple. Is simulation the same as creation? And if not, isn’t it possible that an advanced civilization can create something without simulating itself? And fourth has to do with benevolence. I don’t understand. How can you assume a venomous in any case?

Lincoln Cannon

All right. So, very quickly, the first question about going extinct after. Yes, the argument doesn’t rely on advanced civilizations existing forever. Maybe they will. But the argument only relies on their probabilities. So they might be very probable, and they also might probably go extinct. Why Angel? For the same reason we named all the rest of the arguments with religious names. We want to tie together the religious symbols and terminology with these secular arguments for aesthetic purposes. Simulation, is that the same as creation? Yes, but any other process of creation is sufficient as well. The generalized creation argument will work from terraforming, cosmoforming. I’m creating the world out of bubblegum. It doesn’t really matter. The argument stands. Except for feasibility issues with bubblegum. And then finally, why do we assume benevolence? There’s three benevolence arguments that we’ve offered. None of which assume benevolence, all three of which are purporting to argue for benevolence. The first one is pretty weak. The second one, if you take the assumption that we will become destructive faster than we become defensive. Then there aren’t going to be any advanced civilizations unless they’re more benevolent than us, simply based on that assumption. So if you don’t buy the assumption, then you won’t buy the argument. All of the arguments are based on those sorts of assumptions.

Speaker 7

I have several comments. You forgot the uh on the probability of uh going extinct. We’re at 65 billion human beings now. So everybody’s philosophy is then opposed. Is it 100 billion? Is it 200 billion? Is it is it 100 trillion people? the likelihood of human beings not going extinct is the kind of expectation of how many human beings will no longer be.

Speaker 7

Yeah. Although if you throw in radical life extension with that, there could be not many more than there already are and we could last a really long time. And on the uh the calculation of how many worlds are uh capital w capital worlds where they’re the uh intelligent life. The anthropic uh calculations have an error because they always assume that it’s based on the four and a half billion years that the earth has been in existence, but they overlook the fact that it’s only been possible for lightning balloon in the last 550 million years. Maybe. That we have the continent of pro data and the Ice Age Earth and Now there’s a lot of calculations that go into determining what period of time in the galaxy’s formation it would be possible to sustain life and there’s lots of debate about that. Now in simulation It’s annoying to me because it’s like replaying the same record over and over and it’s static and it’s like recycled death. The simulation argument does not depend on exactly replicating the details of previous simulations. The argument holds without exact replication. Now I tend to go, since I’m a process theologian, a multiple universe model of the infinite problem. and in diversity un unimaginable, where everything’s based on feedback, that God is very likely source. So feedback, that we live on the uh we live on the uh on the top of those who came come before us and we benefit and we move forward. I don’t see how the simulation model can produce the diversity of the multiple universe model where Diversity is unimaginable. The simulation model is my preference, but it’s not essential to the argument. Any form of creation that you think is most feasible is sufficient for the argument we’re making. Thank you.

Speaker 8

Uh my question is, would not an advanced civilization uh have the ability to communicate with human beings in a way that it’s not uh so ambiguous that it can be confused with hallucinatory episodes? Other? I think so, but I don’t know why they would choose not to, if they would choose not to. I can’t answer that, but I would think they would. My only question was going to be the amount of civilization that’s benevolent that we suggest wants. Uh maybe, unless they understand benevolence differently than us.

Andy West

I need to back up my tough talk and just cut off the questions that those who have stood up and I think we kind of we’re ahead of time so if we can move through those rapidly that would be great. Just really briefly on that, as we’ve gone through this and I’ve really been struck with the weight of this argument and the force of this argument. And forced a conclude of the almost sure probability of the existence of these beings already. I’ve often Found myself wondering, like, you know, why aren’t they talking to me? Or if they are talking to you, yeah, to me, right, exactly. More than I did ever before. So, and maybe they are in ways that they think are best for us, who knows.

Speaker 10

I I do a lot of traveling in third world countries and I guess I question the uh the benevolence issue to a certain extent. It seems like there’s a lot more people uh not doing so well than those who are. Additionally I guess the uh as I understand Gnostics. My point of a lot about they have a belief, I guess, that this world was created by a Satan-like creator. A male like God. Yeah. Anyway, I just wondered how this sort of fit in the general thinking.

Joey West

Yeah, I think that’s still an important issue. And I mean, I think the problem of evil is still there, even though it’s not a logical problem, it’s still a problem in the sense of if you’re so advanced, why is there so much there’s things that go on in the world that I can’t imagine being justified. And so I think that in that sense, what this argument does is enable us to envision a God worthy or perhaps of which we can become attain friendship and then upon attaining friendship seek to understand the choices that that Advanced civilization had to make and perhaps understand those sort of terrible choices. And it does not, yeah, and maybe disagree, maybe say, you know what? Those your choices were wrong and I don’t accept that. But it it’s so in other words, it doesn’t have an answer for the problem of evil. It just enables us to envision a God that is, that we can someday approach about that and maybe come to a conclusion one way or the other about whether or not the choices they made were justified given the amount of evil in the world. And keep in mind that the benevolence arguments do entail a more benevolence advanced civilization, not an optimally, according to our definition, benevolent civilization.

Speaker 12

Well, my question is along the same line. If we are really created by an advanced civilization, Couldn’t they have created a world where there is not suffering? For suffering is a common experience of all humans, all families. There’s so much suffering in the world. Couldn’t we have created it? There’s less suffering. Theoretically, but I’m not an advanced civilization, and they may know better than me. I really don’t know. So, again, that’s why I say that Theoretically, sure, maybe, but when we come to advance to them, like Joseph Smith said, God emerged and saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest of us could become like Him. Okay, when we get to that point and we’re able to talk to him like one person speaks to another person, we can ask him those questions, we can reason it out with him and make that choice for ourselves. It’s still a definite issue that I grapple with. It doesn’t solve the problem of evil. If you’d like to ask any more questions, we’ll be available just outside the doors.

Andy West

Thank you all for coming this morning. And I would also like to quickly acknowledge Christopher Bradford for theatrically and with great drama performing the parts. Of Joseph Smith and Richard Dawkins. And I would also just one more plug for coming to stop by the table and talk to us about the Mormon Transhumanist Association. And thank you for being here.