The Natural Creator Argument, as well as similar arguments from which it is based,1 can be difficult to initially grasp, therefore, many questions are simply misunderstandings. For more responses specific to a virtual re-creation, see Nick Bostrom’s FAQ’s.
The argument does not conclude an all merciful, compassionate, all powerful God.
Correct. The argument simply concludes a Creator. Other arguments or experiences would be relied on to determine other beliefs about God.
If there is a Creator, we would be able to see and interact with them.
Many religious people believe they do interact with a Creator through prayer and religious experience. But there are many reasons why a Creator might not make themself completely obvious to those in a re-creation. For example, to give them space to learn and progress on their own without constant interference.
We could make a parallel argument that a tiny fraction of human populations would make many evil or absurd re-creations.
Any parallel arguments would still conclude a Creator. Other arguments or experiences would be relied on to determine what kind of a re-creation we would be in.
The argument assumes that other human populations like ours exist, but we have no evidence of any.
The argument does not assume that other populations like ours exist yet, but it does operate on the Copernican principle that we are nothing special. Given the vastness of the cosmos, the possibility of other universes and a potential multiverse, as well as a potentially infinite past and future, any claim that we are the only human population ever to exist, or ever will exist, is completely untenable.
No human populations would make any re-creations because of all the pain and suffering they would cause.
In the same way that we regard vaccinations as moral—despite the pain they cause—because they ultimately serve the long-term good of the individual, we can reasonably assume that a mature population might also have greater goods in view for those within a re-creation. Just as modern societies require rigorous testing before granting someone the right to drive, a technologically advanced population might, with full consent, require its citizens to demonstrate their character and competence within a more primitive environment before being entrusted with powers of immense creative or destructive potential.
If we are in a re-creation, then we cannot trust our observations needed to arrive at the conclusion.
The argument does not require our world to be created in a way that our laws of physics etc. are not the same as those of the advanced human population.
If we are in a re-creation, it’s unlikely we will go on to create a large number of re-creations.
The same confidence we place in humanity’s capabilities in our own population should also apply to humanity wherever it arises. In that sense, any human population at our stage of development should equally be granted the same confidence and charity shown towards our own population.
It is absurd to think we are in a computer simulation.
The argument does not conclude a computer simulation or any virtual creation, as it equally concludes a fully material creation, or perhaps a category that is yet undiscovered.
No-one genuinely believes we are in a re-creation.
Many Latter-day Saints would presume we are living in an age already overcome by others, if sympathetic to the idea that ‘As man now is, God once was.’3
From a secular perspective, the conclusion that we are in a re-creation of a former ascent is a possibility acknowledged by high profile atheists, as well as other notable people including the (sometimes) world’s richest man Elon Musk, and Nobel Prize winner George Smoot. Of couse, most would be persuaded by a virtual re-creation, as made popular by Nick Bostrom.2
Notes.
- See Bostrom, N. (2003). Are You Living In A Computer Simulation? Retrieved from https://simulation-argument.com/simulation and Cannon, L. (2008). The New God Argument. Retrieved from https://new-god-argument.com ↩︎
- See Bostrom, N. (2003). Are You Living In A Computer Simulation? Retrieved from https://simulation-argument.com/simulation ↩︎