Tag Archives: God

Simulations and God’s Existence: Questions and Answers on Kimel’s Defense of God (An Interlude)

QUESTION: What is unique about your line of reasoning in the context of historical discourse on the subject of God? What is actually new here?

This theory places existing arguments about the likelihood and nature of future simulations into a specifically theological context by phrasing the question of belief in God in terms of the probability that the universe as we experience it is designed. The explanation of the likelihood of civilizations simulating their ancestors in order to upload their consciousnesses into a future data-bank might explain why we seem to live in what often proves to be an unjust universe; we are more likely to be in a simulation that spawned a simulation of itself (or at least in a simulation of some kind) than in a random and authorless universe. This is one of the first explicit endorsements of virtual reality as a meaningful actualization of the concept of heaven, including even the possibility for “resurrection” into the data bank at some point in the future. But even if someone doubts that he/she is in a simulation, the historical trajectory leading up to simulations can itself be meaningfully deified as a providential force.

Typical arguments about simulism and intelligent design make the error that the mere fact that our universe contains more simulations than originating civilizations is reason to think we ourselves are in a simulation. In fact, even if this were true, it tells us nothing about what the sum total of reality might look like outside of our experience of the universe–just because it is possible and common to dream in our world does not mean that the world itself is probably a dream. Moreover, the premise that there are more simulations than civilizations does not mean there are more simulations than “random” conscious experiences of reality. In fact, for every simulating civilization in this universe, there must be many more seemingly random experiences of reality in the form of individuated lives born into it just like ours, to say nothing of the “consciousness” of animals and lower forms of life.

As far as I know, my original and unique arguments are those about the implications of ancestor simulations simulating themselves, the Boltzmann Brain analogy, and the connection of simulations with the idea of being trapped within a specific consciousness in itself requiring a sufficient reason beyond the mere existence of that consciousness in a universe in which everything else seems to happen for a reason (simulation provides the reason–the analogy would be Mario thinking to himself, “even if there are many Marios in the universe, why do I in particular exist and act in this way?,” the answer being that he is being simulated and played). The idea that certain interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that the universe is a simulation in which only that which is consciously measured need be “resolved” also came to me spontaneously, but has likely been elaborated upon elsewhere.

QUESTION: In the first part of the argument, you define pure atheism as certainty that God does not exist and then reject the position as untenable. What about “atheists” who maintain that while God’s existence cannot be known for certain, they still believe that the preponderance of evidence goes against God? Are you falsely suggesting that because atheism and theism are both equally unprovable, it is most rational to be a pure agnostic?

I define pure atheism as certainty that God does not exist, and pure theism as certainty that God does exist. Since the issue cannot be known for certain one way or another, I dismiss both stances as an appropriate starting point for a debate and insist on beginning with some sort of an agnostic position. Someone who admits that he/she doesn’t know about God’s existence for certain is really a type of agnostic (even one who leans strongly in favor of God’s non-existence on the basis of the available evidence.) However, ultimately speaking, this debate over the definition of atheism doesn’t matter to the crux of the argument. The elegance of this defense of God is its insistence that there seems to be more evidence for a rational designer to our experience of reality than any alternative. At the same time, the very historical trajectory leading to simulation is similar enough to a doctrine of paradise and life after death to cause even those who doubt that they are in a simulation in the first place to be optimistic.

QUESTION: Why do you believe it is more likely than not that the universe as we experience it is designed? Isn’t this impossible to prove?

If a simulation ever simulated itself, a seemingly infinite loop would be created, and it is more probable that you are a member of this loop rather than merely the product of a single sperm and egg in an authorless universe. While data about alien civilizations is lacking, perhaps due to the fact that they are busy developing simulations rather than engaging in space travel, if one believes that human civilization is not unique and that simulations are indeed able to be developed, a whole battery of theological implications must follow. (According to the third point, there is reason to believe that the universe brims with very many civilizations committed to simulations as an extension of their rationalism, since simulations solve so many problems inherent to being social and rational animals, to say nothing of preserving the natural environment and conserving resources.) At the same time, even if we are not in a self-simulating ancestor simulation, the idea of being simulated seems a more reasonable explanation of the existence of my individuated consciousness than random chance–is Mario likelier to exist on one of millions of cartridges, or to be the single unique instance of his type? And does he leap over the pit randomly, or because he is “played”?

QUESTION: Is this really an argument for God?

Insofar as this is an argument for the existence of an intelligent designer being more likely than any alternative, then yes it is. Moreover, the fourth prong of the argument insists that an evolutionary process culminating in simulations can itself be meaningfully deified from a human perspective, insofar as simulations provide scope for solving many of the problems of the human experience.

QUESTION: Are simulations really inherently just? What about dystopian versions of simulations?

In the long term, it is possible not only to be distracted and entertained by simulations, but to learn from them and to enjoy great adventures unencumbered by the constraints and dangers of three dimensional reality. If the simulations are cooperative and sophisticated in nature, over time they will prove to be increasingly nuanced, fun, and interesting. Still, future civilizations must be vigilant when they construct simulations so that active learning continues to be fostered and world culture does not descend into a hedonistic turning away from reality. But insofar as future generations will probably be more intelligent on average than contemporary humans thanks to genetic engineering and the use of AI, it is likely that cooperative and interesting simulations will be preferred over the monotony of nothing but inane yet pleasurable simulations in the long run. Simulations enable great minds to explore the universe and probe the nature of reality at leisure rather than turning away from it. They allow limitless population growth and infinite wealth with no strain on natural resources. The horrors of the possibility of the creation of dystopian simulations are outweighed on a global scale, I believe, by the blessings of simulations in general. At any rate, since we inhabit a universe in which simulating technology is possible and in which technological evolution improves quality of life and fosters equality in the long term, we do not seem to be in a purely dystopian simulation.

QUESTION: Why don’t you argue that God is omnipotent?

Omnipotence seems to be a logically contradictory notion—insofar as an omnipotent God should be able to set limits to His own powers (for example, creating a rock He can’t lift), there seems to be a case of infinite regress. Moreover, could God make triangles and squares the same shape, or defy other mathematical principles? Or could He know the future but simultaneously be able to change it?  These sorts of paradoxes are avoided in this specific defense of God, which defines the deity as an intelligent designer working in the shadow of a providential force which can itself be worshiped.



Next entry 10/30/2011 (Sorry for the delay.)

Kimel’s Defense of God: Four Reflections

Consider this fourfold train of thought.

1. Consciousness after oblivion is surely possible because every human being’s existence proves that this is so. Probabilistically, your singular and individuated experience of consciousness is more likely to exist for a reason than to be the result of infinitely random chance.

Is life possible devoid of consciousness, so that something can be alive but not even realize it? The existence of plants proves that this is so. Is rationalism possible devoid of sense perception, so that something can make accurate calculations but possess no conscious will of its own? The existence of automatons and computers proves that this is so. Is experience possible devoid of three dimensional consciousness? The existence of dreams proves that this is so. Is consciousness possible after total oblivion? Our own existences as human beings prove that this is so. After all, we were all effectively dead before we were born.

Thus, to begin with, our vantage point on the universe gives us good reason to be hopeful that chaos alone does not govern it. Again, we know that plants can be very much alive in our three dimensional world with no awareness of this fact—and so we, too, can potentially exist within a world of meaning that is all around us and yet beyond us. The existence of computers teaches us that the possibility of virtual reality exists—artfully constructed alternate worlds governed by the imaginations of their designers. But even beyond computers, every symbolic narrative is a sort of simulation, and every deliberate representation of nature a kind of virtual reality.

Is it possible that we could experience a vivid three dimensional reality that is in fact, to some degree, an illusion or a simulation? The answer must be yes. All that we know about our consciousnesses is that we came to exist after formerly not existing for a very long time, over which entropy increased. And so, if we have anything to go by, it’s that life after death in the face of rising chaos is certainly possible, insofar as it happened to all of us. Still, your existence here in this time and place seems infinitely unlikely. At the same time, even if someone with your general biographical details and attributes should exist, this does not explain why your consciousness should be the one experiencing their life. But can it be that everything else in the universe with the sole exception of your being trapped in your individuated body has some cause? It seems improbable.

For now, we’ve established that consciousness after total non-existence is possible, and that plant-life, the existence of computers, and the fact that we dream prove that a being can exist in one realm but be completely unaware of its greater context and purpose in another. In a world of great randomness, the central Cartesian insight cannot be denied by your imagination—cogitas, ergo es.  It would seem more rational to assume that you exist for a reason, which would give rise to your existence, than that you exist for no reason, which is almost infinitely more unlikely. If chance alone governed the universe, the odds would be too highly stacked against life in general, let alone the evolution of your individual consciousness—I’ve read that even forming a protein would be (2) (10^-32) unlikely.

2. You are more likely to exist within a simulation than to inhabit a designer-less universe; a future simulation is a more likely cause for your experience of consciousness than sheer chance.

We know that it is possible (and likely common in the greater context of the universe at large) to create machines which simulate conscious experiences of reality. But could the universe itself be a simulation? How can we even begin to think about this question?

Cogitas ergo es. Yet you seem far likelier to have been born a bacterium on a distant planet than a rational consciousness reading this narrative. Your existence is against the odds. But what might increase the chances of being born as you are in a universe such as this,which must contain many simulations of itself once rational consciousness evolves? Now, some say that there must exist a far greater number of simulated realities than non-simulated alternatives within our universe, insofar as every civilization would produce several simulations for every one reality. Yet the logic is unsteady. Even if our universe contains many simulations, there is no real reason to think that there exist more simulated conscious experiences of reality than conscious experiences by agents randomly born into it. Moreover, even if the universe itself contains many simulations, this in itself does not necessarily mean that it itself is a simulation.

Nevertheless, I think that the preponderance of evidence still favors simulism. It could be the case that we are all born in a random and infinitely complex universe governed by no designer. But be that as it may, given that a simulation of a universe engineered by conscious design would by definition to be less complex than an entire “real” universe, it seems more likely to me that we exist in a localized simulation within the sum total of reality than that our consciousnesses are random accidents in a needlessly complex random web of causes in a single unique universe which contains the sum total of reality (shades of Boltzmann). In a simulated universe, all that would need to be programmed is that which is sensed by consciousness; that which is unobserved could remain in an ambiguous probabilistic soup of less complexity. The model of being in a simulated reality designed so that only that which is observed must exist in a state that can be measured seems simpler than the alternative. Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with such a view. Indeed, the very mathematical order and regularity of the universe, permeated throughout by order and progress and invariable laws, seems fully compatible with conscious design.

Yet for reasons even independent of these, I think you are likelier to exist in a simulation created by intelligent design than to exist alone and unique in the universe because of sheer chance. Consider Mario. He might imagine that he is completely unique in the universe and randomly came into being by a process of pixels spontaneously assembling (that is, he imagines that he is the one and only Mario on the one and only television set on the one and only game device in the entire universe, and all these devices came into being by random chance), or he might guess that he is one of a large number of similar beings conveyed on a large number of things called game cartridges that are deliberately designed. The latter is likelier than the former. Consider this scenario. If in the future, an archeologist discovers a single book from the lost civilization of 2015—and no other books survived—on what would you place a bet? That the book would be a popular one like The Bible or Harry Potter, or that the book would be someone’s single copy of a lost doctoral thesis? The former is likelier. For analogous reasons, Mario is right to begin to be suspicious that he is a unique thing. He is right to guess that he is likelier to be only a version of himself than the one and only version. And if he came into being by some process that worked over time, it is likely that the process would operate more than once and not only in his unique case. And the same is true of you—if you won the chance to be yourself, you are likelier to be one of many such winners than the one and only winner, because in any game of chance, the existence of more winners means more chances to win.

Remember, your possession of your conscious will in the form of an individuated consciousness is a separate fact from your mere existence. David Kimel might exist somewhere in time and space because a sperm and egg came together, but this fact is distinct from my actually being the one experiencing his consciousness as a singular rational entity. It would seem rational to assume that you exist as who you are for a reason, which would give rise to and raise the probability of your existence, than that you exist as who you are for no reason, which is almost infinitely more unlikely. If chaos alone governed the universe, the odds would be highly stacked against life in general, let alone the evolution of your individual consciousness—I’ve read that even forming a protein would be (2) (10^-32) unlikely. We need to begin imagining some kind of a process that could give rise to the experience of individuated conscious wills.

Now, think about Mario again. Even if he realizes he is more likely to be one of many Marios than the only version of himself, this would still not explain why he acts as he does–for example, why he leaps over a pit rather than into it. Of course, the answer why he jumps over the pit is that he is simulated to do it; someone is playing him. Simulism, or the ridiculous idea that Mario is basically a video game, doesn’t just explain why something called a “Mario” exists and that there are likely very many versions of him, but also shows why Mario is this particular Mario; why, for example, he grabs the coins that he does. The same is true of you. It could be the case that we are all born in a random and infinitely complex universe governed by no designer. But even if a sperm and egg came together to make you, this does not explain why you are experiencing your consciousness and not somebody else’s, or infinite other ones. Only simulism gives the answer. The only implausible alternative is that everything else in the world is something caused, except your possession of your own conscious will. The only answer to why you are yourself is either “this is the only thing in the universe that has no reason” or “I’m probably one of many versions of my consciousness, and I am being simulated to act in one way and not another, in the same way that Mario decides whether to grab a coin or not.”

The question arises, even if we realize that our possession of our individuated consciousness is a fact that is distinct from the facticity of my being (that is, the fact that David Kimel exists somewhere in the universe is a distinct fact from “my” (the author’s) actually being the individuated consciousness writing this document), and even if we concede that it is likelier than not the case that this fact exists for a specific regulated reason which increased the odds of my coming into existence as a member of a non-unique class rather than the unique result of random chance,(for the same reason that Mario should suspect he is a non-unique thing and that a random book from the world of 2015 is likelier to be The Bible than a random thesis), why should we suspect an intelligently designed entity is behind it all and not just some natural process we don’t understand (karma, etc.)

Now, imagine this possibility. What if in the whole history of the vast original universe, at least one original civilization existed that was so advanced, it started to deliberately construct simulations, even of its own past. Why would it do it? Perhaps to cure boredom. Perhaps to figure out all the secrets of the past. And perhaps even to download the conscious minds of all the poor suckers who lived in history before simulations allowed people live out their dreams. Regardless of the reason, imagine it happened even once in the whole history of the universe. What would happen when the simulation of history reached the point when the simulation itself was created ? The answer is, it would create a simulation of itself. Then, there would be infinite simulated realities. Now, what is likelier? That you are a single random combination of atoms that came together by chance and that you experience your specific life equally randomly, or that you are one of an infinite number of versions of yourself created when a single very unlikely simulation in an original universe simulated itself? The upshot of this is, that it is likelier we exist in a universe designed by a rational will than that we are alone in random space, and that life after death might really be possible. The original simulating civilization began an infinite regress; it itself came into existence by chance, or a regulated process beyond our knowledge that favors order over disorder and the rise of consciousness. But even if this kind of process operated at least once in the face of rising entropy in the universe, it’s likelier than not our own consciousness is in fact simulated; even the original simulating civilization would be right to guess the odds are against its being the originator.

What this implies about my “free will” is a separate discussion–for just as the eternal reflections of two mirrors facing each other fades away to nothing over time, each degraded version of the simulation might be a bit different from the previous one.

3. The existence of virtual reality can provide human beings with meaningful heaven on Earth.

If we can simulate intricate virtual realities in which individuals learn and interact as if in three dimensions, we can surely maximize happiness and minimize pain in the long run. Moreover, empowered by genetic engineering, we can, over time, produce a healthier and more able species less subject to the random brutality of the wheel of fortune. So, even if you don’t believe in God, technology promises you all the potential of heaven and even a kind of immortality if you believe in the power of computers to simulate reality.

We were not born against all odds into a world of chaos—we were born now, on the cusp of a great technological innovation that will come to change the very nature of human history. Unlike our ancient ancestors, we can declare confidently that the universe is not only scientifically tailored to allow for the possibility of conscious experience and the emergence of rationalism through evolution, but also that technological innovation equips consciousness in short order with the ability to effectively alter its own programming in accordance with its wildest dreams and concepts of the Good.

It could be that all this is random, but it seems more likely that we exist within a universe governed by a providential force that goes against the increase of entropy. This providential force, over millennia of evolution and centuries of technological development, can guarantee a kind of immortality in virtual paradises. Indeed, were society at large more rational than it is now, contemporary science should be frantically focusing on two goals—technology to allow bodies to be preserved awaiting the development of virtual reality, and the development of that virtual reality itself. On a universal stage, very many civilizations likely focus on just such goals, perhaps even more than on space-travel technology, providing a potential solution to the so-called Fermi Paradox.

4. Science itself can be meaningfully deified insofar as human experience can culminate in virtual heaven.

Ultimately, we do not simply inhabit a universe of random cruelty. In order for consciousness to evolve on planets in this reality we call the universe, generation, destruction, and change were necessary prerequisites, though these processes can result in heartache for individual human agents. But in short time geologically speaking, Nature equips consciousness with the means of its own salvation. Is the sole law of the universe that entropy increases? As humans, we know this is not the case. Atoms developed from their building blocks, stars formed, planets came into being, and life evolved, with complexity and the capacity for imaginative experience increasing rather than decreasing over the history of the universe. Insofar as this is true—since we were born after meaningful death, since virtual reality is possible and likely, since we are equipped to develop it, and since we know that we inhabit a universe in which all of this is possible despite the chaotic laws of thermodynamics, from the perspective of human consciousness, it is more likely that God exists in the form of a benevolent higher power than that we inhabit a truly random and aimless universe that exists for no other reason than a painful chain of endless cause and effect. What we call God can be synonymous with an advanced future civilization, the laws of science, or some greater force we can scarcely imagine. However we define it, though, it is surely a more noble entity than “nothing.”

So much for my defense of God, and so much for atheism—I now stand open to your cross examination.


Next Entry 10/1/2011 (Sorry for the delay…)

An Introduction to Kimel’s Defense of God: The Irrationality of Pure Atheism and Theism

“I can hear it now,” laughed the Red Horseman. “You’re about to feed me the old lie about God’s very perfection necessitating the fact that He exists. After all, part of being a perfect entity is perfect existence, so if we define God as the greatest of all beings imaginable, anything that does not exist cannot be God, because we could always imagine something greater (a God that actually did exist).”

“That’s not what I’m going to say at all. My line of argumentation is actually along altogether different lines.”

“Then stop dawdling and get to it.”

With a glance toward the Lamb, I took a deep breath and began.

“I will, of course, never be able to definitively prove the existence of God to you or to anyone else. But I can at least provide good reasons to think that though atheism and theism in their purest forms are both irrational, nevertheless if we consider the evidence for or against God, the evidence for Him is in fact greater than the evidence against Him.

We need to remember from the outset that atheism in its purest form—sureness that God does not exist—is just as improvable as theism in its purest form—certainty that God definitely exists.  For this reason, as I’ve said before, it’s most rational to approach the question from the point of view of some sort of an agnostic: someone who admits that he is in fact unsure about the existence of God.

Now, as I define the term, the purest sort of agnostic would believe the evidence for God is equal either way, and not lean in one direction or another. Some agnostics, though, are more persuaded of God’s non-existence than his existence, and this is because, admitting that they can never know the fact of the matter for certain, they still think that the preponderance of evidence goes against God; at the same time, others might lean in the direction of God’s existence, thinking that the preponderance of evidence is actually in God’s favor. (Thus, many people who call themselves atheists are in fact types of agnostics, though leaning strongly in favor of non-existence.)

Either choice seems more rational to me than the madness of claiming dogmatic sureness on the issue one way or another.

So, to be clear, what I am about to specifically advocate is a type of agnosticism that leans strongly in favor of God’s existence. From this starting point, I’ll show you why it seems to me that the preponderance of evidence is in fact in God’s favor.  Keep in mind, however, that I am not necessarily talking about God as He is specifically defined by any single religion—nor am I claiming that God is omnipotent (for how could He create a rock He couldn’t lift, or make a square identical to a circle?). I am, however, talking about a benevolent and wise higher power, and the possibility of paradise on earth.

Now, consider these four reasons carefully why, from an agnostic starting point, a rational man should lean toward being a theist rather than the opposite state of affairs…


Next Entry 9/11/2011

The Red Horseman’s Complaint (On Atheism)

Before I could say another word, the pale horseman barked at the red: “You’re no one to set conditions. If only I had my turn back again, there’s no question of what I’d do. I’d throw a stone at you myself and finish you off—as it was, I wasn’t sure enough about your guilt to execute you. But now you say that God is dead, which proves that everything you swore about believing in the Sacred Law was a lie. You began this game for no reason when you cast a rock at this innocent girl.”


Black Horseman

It’s a bit late for that realization! Why should I have suffered because I was persuaded by the white horseman’s reasoning from the start?

Pale Horseman

You have to forgive me for stoning you—every move is painful in this game. I loved the red horseman too much to kill him, though now I see what a hypocrite he is.

Red Horseman

You’ve misunderstood me entirely.

I acted completely righteously in this game. I followed the Sacred Law to the letter. Now, I’m about to be killed because my enemies are conspiring against me.  According to the white horseman here, logic is to be our guide rather than dogma. Well, if this is the result, then I curse God, and say that it’s preposterous to believe in Him.

In the first place, God can’t be omnipotent. Could He create a rock He couldn’t lift? Could He make pi a rational number?

In the second place, God can’t be benevolent. This universe is too evil for words. Why should the agony of this world be experienced by anyone? Why should the innocent suffer?

Finally, God’s nature can’t be singular. Everyone worships God in different ways, and people go to war self-righteously and die like martyrs for opposite beliefs. We’ve no way of determining what’s true or false, since the questions that matter come down to faith and intuition. There are no absolute values. Religion serves social ends–it’s all a great lie.

I always assumed that God couldn’t be described logically—that the limits of human language itself put constraints on our ability to find words for Him. The Law was the Law–I didn’t dare to question it. But if logic is to rule the day, then I’ll die an atheist. The world is probably as it seems. It’s a random, Godless place, and no one will prove otherwise, because sad though it is, you all know that I’m right. Now, let the white horseman stone me, and let him accept the consequences. I couldn’t care less.

May 8, 2011

Next entry May 15, 2011

The Red Horseman’s Plea (On Suicide)

The crowd began to disperse in all directions, and almost immediately, the lamb was lost in the throng. But as if nothing else mattered but the game of stones, the red horseman turned toward the woman and hissed,

“The white horseman thinks he’s being clever by championing your rights, but consider this. If you survive this game, I know for a fact that you’re fated to experience one of the most excruciating roles in the history of world history. Avoid this undeserved fate, and end the game for yourself now. Were you in love? Then you’ve been abandoned by your lover, and have learned that the world is a cruel place. Were you raped? Then why should you be cursed by the role of mother, or live with bitter memories that can’t be erased? Why would you choose to live in a world in which no one would love you, and your own mother would turn you out? Your era is random, and vicious, and awful, and there’ll be no end to your worries if you survive.”

The pale horseman immediately broke forward and said,

“Now that he’s spoken as he did, there’s no doubt in my mind that you must kill the red horseman. In this terrible game, you can at least self-righteously defend yourself with confidence. Consider this; if you let this villain survive, there is every indication that he’d kill you on the next turn. Even if you would end your own life, to allow him to survive to kill another woman like you would be wrong if you believe yourself an innocent victim. And besides, it would be criminal to kill the black horseman who defended you, or to throw a stone against me, who did nothing to harm you explicitly.”

“Disgusting sophistry, “ said the red horseman to the pale. “Even if the girl doesn’t kill herself, stoning you, the pale faced horseman, would be a better choice than touching me. At least then she wouldn’t be committing a murder, and the pain in this game would be evenly distributed among several participants. That’s rational too, isn’t it?”

The pale horseman turned to me,

“You wouldn’t let this woman touch me, would you, when I just spared you a rock in the face? Clearly the red horseman must be stopped, now, before he sheds more innocent blood.”

“I’m sorry to interrupt,” I said, “But I can’t quite get over the anthropomorphic lamb skull who just talked to me. Am I dreaming?”

“Well, how would you know you’re in a dream, if you’re in a dream?”

I’d forgotten the usual answers to the question—that writing doesn’t remain constant on a page in a dream, and that it’s difficult to turn electric lights on and off. But nothing was on hand to inspire the thought, I suppose. Instead, I said,

“You’re right. I can’t be sure of anything but my own existence…”

“Listen to me,” said the pale horseman. “Never mind philosophy for the moment. All that matters is, you must kill the red horseman. It’s the only just move if you believe the girl is an innocent victim. You wouldn’t let this child hurt herself, or me, would you?”

“You did throw a stone at the black horseman who defended her against the red horseman.”

“That’s between me and the black horseman.”

“Well, ultimately, it’s out of my hands. I gave my vote to this woman, here, and am bound by her decision.”

“You’re a fine actor,” said the pale faced horseman. “But remember this—should you throw a rock at me on this turn, in this woman’s name or otherwise, I will never forget the injury, and as far as I’d be concerned, death would be too good for you. Should you spare me, on the other hand, I will never forget your perfect justice. Act righteously, and carefully.”


The Child

What should I do? The Roman Lucretia stabbed herself to preserve her honor after the king’s son raped her. Even if she were innocent, she didn’t want to live as an example for unchaste women to cite when they didn’t end their lives after they were caught red-handed…

White Horseman

But weren’t the nuns who chose not to kill themselves after rape by the invading barbarians even better examples than Lucretia? This whole idea of women as damaged property in the aftermath of rape is too cruel for words, and is a reflection of sexist and old fashioned mindsets. If you were raped, you’d be innocent of adultery. And even if this child were conceived in passion out of wedlock, would even the wickedest judge insist that its mother deserved to be stoned before it was even delivered? The red horseman is a very dangerous man and must be stopped. In your heart, you know this is true, even though your decision is excruciating.

The Child

I’m afraid of killing him! I’d rather stone the pale faced horseman, who hurt my champion the black, and avoid killing anyone.

White Horseman

But then you’ll be signing my death warrant. Consider that the red faced horseman will kill his black faced counterpart on the next turn. The pale faced horseman will then stone me in self-righteous revenge for this throw. Then, I’ll be forced to retaliate against the pale, killing him, leaving the red horseman with the final move, to kill me, and then you, and others like you too. There’s only one thing to do—the fact that self-defense is righteous in a game like this makes your choice all the clearer. Do you know it yet?

The Child

To stone myself?

White Horseman

I’m afraid not…


The red faced horseman licked his lips.

“Well, well,” he said. “I can see the way the wind is blowing. But let me say this to you, now. You’re overturning this woman’s will and warping her mind with your strange logic. I won’t let you escape responsibility for what you’re about to do. Is this my reward for being a righteous player?” He clenched his fists. “Today’s events have convinced me that God is dead. Atheism is most rational. Convince me otherwise, and I won’t begrudge you my death in this game. Otherwise, let it be on your head, Doctor Kimel.”

“Now there’s a challenge,” I said, stepping forward.

May 1, 2011

Next Entry May 8, 2011

The White Horseman’s Move (The Right Decision)

White Horseman

Tonight on this Easter Sunday, I will be succinct. I give my vote to the poor, defenseless, pregnant woman here who had a rock thrown in her face and is being threatened with death for the “crime” of being raped. Madam, I will stone whom you tell me to stone. At this moment, I am ashamed of this world. It’s too evil for words.


Red Horseman

That’s cheating!

Black Horseman

No it’s not. Even if the woman doesn’t technically receive a stone by the terms of this ancient game, the White Horseman can still simply ask her advice and do her will. It’s unprecedented.

Anthropomorphic Lamb Skull

Doctor Kimel, I presume!


Now, a roar erupted from the crowd. The severed head of a black lamb, all that remained of their feast, had actually come back to life and begun to talk.

In my hands, the second seal on the scroll broke.

April 24, 2011

Next Chapter May 1, 2011

To Stone a Stoner Who Stoned A Stoner? The Pale Horseman’s Quandary (A Logic Puzzle)

The pale horseman began to wring his arms for what felt like an entire Friday. As he stood speechless with the rock clenched in his right hand, my eyes turned toward the crowd. Surprisingly, they were no longer paying especial attention to the stoning. Some sort of meat and wine were being served on silver platters by men in robes. Soon, everyone was in on the feast—all except the three horsemen, the woman, and I.

Now, sensing intuitively that it was gauche to hold a picnic at a stoning, and since I was beginning to grow bored staring at a barbecue to which I wasn’t invited, I decided to address the pale horseman directly in an effort to keep the game moving.


White Horseman

It seems you have a difficult decision to make, my friend. I know what I would do in your shoes, but let’s see your move.

Pale Horseman

This thought experiment is like a game of chess from hell. There must be a rational choice whom to stone, but I’m cursed for having to make the choice at all, since whatever I do, I’ll be acting immorally from certain perspectives. I suppose the best I can do is try to decide whom it would be least immoral to stone.  But on top of this, I have to remember—if I stone someone for a second time, that person dies; so, in this rite, throwing a second stone is a more serious decision than throwing a first, which horribly complicates this great question.

You told me once before, Doctor Kimel, that anything which maximizes happiness through the channels of agency and learning should be valued over that which maximizes unhappiness through the channels of exploitation and ignorance. But how can I use this standard to make a decision in a case like this?

White Horseman 

I’ll give you a clue. Try thinking about your potential victims one by one…

Pale Horseman

There’s the horror of this game; I see no clear choice. But, let’s consider the scenario, and perhaps I’ll realize the correct answer.

The Woman: 1 hit (if I stone her again, she will die)

The Red Horseman: 1 hit (if I stone him again, he will die)

The Black Horseman: 0 hits (if I stone him, he will suffer)

The White Horseman: 0 hits (if I stone him, he will suffer)

White Horseman 

I would think twice before stoning me…

Pale Horseman

All that I can do is consider every choice.

The Woman: 1 hit (if I stone her again, she will die)

Many people believe in our sacred book and condemn adultery as an immoral act. But you’ve convinced me that we must appeal to reason rather than assertions that our Scripture is God’s Truth with a capital T, since all cultures believe that they’re correct when intuitions are concerned, but reason is universal. At the point that the woman might have been raped, and at the point that the law mistakenly assumes a rape in the city is unlikely, and at the point that premarital sex might not be a sin in the first place, there is not enough evidence to throw a second stone and kill this woman. I can’t bring myself to choose her—happiness would be destroyed with no clear proof of any benefits or justice.

The Red Horseman: 1 hit (if I stone him again, he will die)

The red horseman claimed he took a leap of faith and believed that he was acting morally when he threw the first stone at the woman. Now, even at the point that the woman might have been innocent, he’d be rational to throw a stone at her insofar as he was compelled to do so by his understanding of God’s will, since the woman’s trouble took place in the city, and the Law is the Law. Now, perhaps the Leap of Faith was insincere, but I have no way of accessing his inner truth. Perhaps he was too stupid to understand your arguments about appealing to logic when constructing a universal morality rather than asserting a singe book is intrinsically holy—but generally, we find those people who are stupid or ignorant to be less morally culpable than those who are wise and know the consequences of what they’re doing. I confess, perhaps he was too hasty when he made his decision. Perhaps he even deserved the black horseman’s rock in his face. But I can’t bring myself to kill him, at least, not yet.

The Black Horseman: 0 hits (if I stone him, he will suffer)

Now, stoning either you or The black horseman would provide a benefit insofar as I wouldn’t be required to kill anyone; after all, this would be either of your first hit with a stone, so I’d simply injure one of you. I realize the black horseman DID cause pain to the red horseman, who might deserve revenge on him. But I have to remember, he was required to throw a stone by the rules of this ritual—the black horseman was his most rational choice, since the red horseman caused pain to the woman, and there is evidence that he was either hasty, ignorant, or fanatical. He acted rationally…and he deserves  no pain. So I don’t know what to do.

White Horseman

I’ll give you a clue. Consider this–my turn is next, and I also must stone someone by the rules of this game.

Pale Horseman

Praise God! Now I understand. I mustn’t dare to stone you. Not only have you caused pain to no one, but YOU ARE NEXT TO THROW. If I threw my rock at you, you would be justified in throwing it back at me. Rationally, I can’t let this happen. And so, my choice is clear…


The pale horseman closed his eyes and threw his rock at the black horseman. “Injustice!” the black horseman cried as he fell to the ground bleeding and spitting.

All were deathly silent as I, the white horseman, prepared to make my move …

April 22-April 23

Next Chapter April 24