See? I can post, but I won't post something dangerous. I know it's not a good idea now. I know it will really put people in danger if I post things that seem dangerous; God let me know that. I'm a Christian; a force for good, and I will leave dealing with terrorism to the officials and police from here on out.

I posted what I posted because I have autism; I don't have the boundaries others have. I posted it because I thought what I was doing was right, but now I know it wasn't right. I try to be safe, but I struggle; I make mistakes; I'm human. Should I be discriminated against for my autism? No. Should I be discriminated against for being a Christian? Heck no.

The most effective way for someone to start believing in God seems to be for them to ask on forums, look at proof and do the work themselves, while genuinely trying to find answers. That way, they don't instantly reject and gloss over the proofs you give them. One thing I think atheists (people who actually believe there is no god) tend to assume is that there is no god. I think that when they encounter proof of a god, they assume that there is no god and then conclude that because there is no god, the proof there is a god must be wrong. Assuming something is believing it without proof and believing something without proof is irrational. But now atheists might think this blog is wrong because there is no god. God has atheists like these wrapped around their finger; so well deceived by the god who fools them, it's comical. I think no proof could prove to these atheists that God exists. I think they have so much faith in what they could not prove to even most scientists, it shows what a good job God did at deceiving them.

By the way, God hides what he does with all sorts of excuses and has limitless power to do so. The only reason I know about some things that God does is because he chose not to hide those things from me. He may hide that he even let me know, with excuses, from you, though.

How do we know anything? We might be able to say that we know something because of a justification, but that justification also needs to be justified by a justification to even be a justification. Every justification needs its own justification, either to infinity (good luck with getting infinite justifications), or until the justifications are circular. Without using circular reasoning, it's infeasible for you to know anything, even whether or not circular reasoning is valid. So, how do I know anything? Simple, I know God lets me know through science and observation and God lets me know that he lets me know. I am justified in believing this is true because it must be true because it is true; it is true therefore it is true. If there's something wrong with circular reasoning, prove it or you don't know that. Good luck doing that if circular reasoning and assumptions are invalid in proving things.

What of the doomsday argument? It can be summed up like this. There is a bag of marbles. You take a marble from the bag at random. You know that the number of black marbles in the bag was chosen by the roll of a 1000 sided die. If the die rolls 1 (where almost every civilisation is wiped out before producing a lot of people), there will be few black marbles in the bag. But if the dice does not roll 1, almost all of the marbles will be black, because there are so many. If you exist before the 22^nd century, you’ve pulled out a white marble. If you exist after that, you’ve pulled out a black marble. If there are 15 marbles in the bag (these numbers are rounded) and the 1000 sided die rolls any other number than 1, all 15 marbles are black. If the die roll was 1, at least 1 marble is white. To get a white marble would be highly unlikely, but, there it is... or so you think.

The factor you didn’t take into account is that you might have been hypnotised to see a black marble as a white marble (this is the analogue of a future civilisation creating simulations of the 21^st century with simulated people occupying that simulation). You were under hypnosis during the session, so you don’t remember what you have or haven’t been hypnotised to see. Even if it’s a 1 in 10 chance that you’ve been hypnotised to see a black marble as a white marble, it’s still 100 times as likely as getting a real white marble. The odds of the marble you took from the bag being a real white marble is at least 1 in 100. 99% likely, when you see a white marble, it is really a black marble, so you rightly conclude that your marble is black (and therefore you live in the future).

The next thing to determine is the intentions of the simulator. Have they left any clues in the way humanity has been treated (in this simulation in the past)? Is our world like a weird sci-fi movie scenario; maybe a bit too fantastical to be believed? How many parallels can you spot? Good may lose battles in movies, but they never lose wars. Good always wins in the end. Is this the same in our world? Will we get a good ending, like in the movies? Is the world packed with drama, like in the films? Is our suffering real; are there any ethical hurdles to future generations faking unethical situations, like our world? Think about it.

I've seen it discussed that a friendly AI would make everyone omnipotent. My response is 'No, because a friendly AI would put its civilisation first, as per design, and its civilisation would want to simulate beings that are not omnipotent, so the friendly AI would make us be not omnipotent. Also, they might mess with our reasoning and perception to make it look like they wouldn't do that.

Here's the link:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ixp/does_the_universe_contain_a_friendly_artificial/

Let's consider the omnipotence paradox:
Premise 1: If God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift lift it then God cannot lift the rock.
Premise 2: If God cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift lift it then he is not maximally omnipotent.
Premise 3: If God cannot lift the rock then he is not maximally omnipotent.
Conclusion: God is not maximally omnipotent.

The premise 'If God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it then God cannot lift the rock' is incorrect. By definition, maximal omnipotence means that God can do anything that can be phrased, without limitation from logic. Even if the rock cannot be lifted by defying logic, because God is maximally omnipotent, he can lift the rock, while he cannot lift it, without it being true that he cannot lift it, if he makes that happen, which he can because he's maximally omnipotent. Even if the second premise was true, God could still be omnipotent because he could make it so that he is omnipotent while he is not omnipotent, even without it being true that he is not omnipotent. This is logically impossible, but, by the definition of being maximally omnipotent, God is able to make this, or anything, a reality.

Let's use an analogy:
I am narratively omnipotent. I can narrate anything. I'd wager that I can also narrate anything with ease. Watch: 'Something of anything happens'. Boom. Done. 'Everything happens, in exactly the right way for me, without any loopholes', just for good measure. I narrate 'I am not maximally omnipotent. There are things I can't do'. I also narrate 'Only one of two things are possible, either I am maximally omnipotent or I am not maximally omnipotent.' Then I narrate 'That is true and I am not maximally omnipotent, but simultaneously I am maximally omnipotent. I then do everything, including all the things I cannot do'. Yes, I really can and did narrate that. Screw the rules. If I can narrate anything and can narrate being maximally omnipotent, it logically follows that if God can do anything that can be phrased, he can, by definition, make himself maximally omnipotent even if he's not and make it false that he is not maximally omnipotent and therefore he would be maximally omnipotent and it would be false that he is not maximally omnipotent because he would have made it that way because he can because he is maximally omnipotent, if he is maximally omnipotent.

I can sum it up in three sentences: If God is maximally omnipotent, he can do anything that can be phrased. If God can do anything that can be phrased, he can do anything that can be phrased and it is false to say that God can't do anything that can be phrased. If God can do anything that can be phrased, he can do anything because 'God does anything' and its derivatives can be phrased.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer. If you disagree with me after that perfect logic, my guess is that you're either invested in my conclusion being false and are in denial or you're a moron.

The human brain has the overall processing equivalent of 60 * 86 billion bits per second, or 480 gigahertz. Its storage used is a few gigabytes, let’s say 10. Its RAM, working memory, less than a terabyte, especially if you simplify what is being processed, or only simulate in the brains what they notice, only having to live up to their limited detection of realism and you could condense it even further by making brains seem (to them) to have a better resolution/more detail in their simulation, even up to infinite, by controlling their perception and reasoning.

The ability to control these things means you can make their experience as simple, small and brief as you like and make them perceive and reason it to be however you like. Anything else would be wasteful. Its processing could, in the future, be matched by 192 cell-sized cores, with internal RAM and memory. Even if we were to say that we needed 1 terabyte of RAM and the same amount of working memory, all individually the size of a neuron and each of those was 10 micrometers, they could still fit in 140 micrometers cubed, less than six times the width of a neuron. In ten cubic centimeter, there could be over three hundred trillion brains, each with the usable storage, combined power and speed of a human brain, an entire universe in a small box.

You can then make it seem to them and to you, by manipulating your reasoning and perception using technology, and manipulate their reasoning and perception like there are any number of people, the universe has any degree of complexity and any nature and you could such manipulation to make their experiences seem, to them and each other, to reflect a real reality, technological progress and them doing the same thing (with universe made as simple as you want and made to seem more complicated to the brains through perception and reasoning manipulation), without them actually doing the same thing, except for some of them being in control of some others and some of them being in control of some other, etc, until it loops around. Do this and you can have our universe’s past and future.

Furthermore, you could make people perceive spending any amount of time alive and make them incapable of telling the difference. All the suffering could be illusory and their happiness/fulfilled preference could be set to the maximum value (infinity), without them knowing it, so no ethical quandaries are in the way. Maximum form factor and energy requirements: a desktop computer. “Timmy, stop playing with your universe and come down for lunch”, you could imagine. Lunch is probably obsolete by then. The aim here is not creating the universe you think you're living in, its creation a simulation of that universe that seems like the universe you think you're living in, then making you you think you try to distinguish your universe from that from that and think you fail.