This has nothing to do with the proverbial barn doors.

I closed the barn door as soon as the patch was available, and for debian I had the patch available even before I got the news about heartbleed. If other people sell systems which are not as easily patchable as debian, they are the other problem.
The first problem, that openssl was not all that great, was known. Read this story.

> So God creates the game of life. God has the convenience of being free of time.
More than a convenience, it follows from being the creator: the time of an abstraction is never the same time of the plane where the abstraction is thought up in our universe, after all.
Time, in a game of life can be defined as the discrete sequence of generations. How long it take to compute them is not relevant to the abstraction.
Time in a game of chess can be defined as the sequence of moves: even if the rules refer to timeouts, time annotations are just metadata.

I say can be defined because time is not in any of those abstractions.

> The presupposition however in the "who created god" rebuttal above is 'creation requires an antecedent'.
Not really, the rebuttal is "the term creation is undefined in the domain of the hypothetical god", "who created god" does not make sense. We can only define god, by exclusion. By attributing any property to the concept we already stepped out of the domain of logic. This is why I prefer staying in the universe and talk about abstractions we create, instead of the hypothetical domain in respect to which we are the abstraction.

The fact that creation IN OUR UNIVERSE is impossible without unidirectional time is just a proof of the link between the concept "creation" and "time" in our universe, so that any attempt of redefining it in the dimension of a hypothetical god must define the equivalent of an unidirectional time axis in which he operates. Of course such definitions are equivalent to all the assertions made about objects outside this universe AKA religions.

> However claiming that creation implies an antecedent makes no sense if God is 'free' from time.

This is a narrower assertion. The term "creation" needs to be defined for an objection to be made.

> It is therefore self-contradictory and we exclude it and move on..
whatever.

> to your ontological argument.

Well, it is yours, you called it an ontological argument.
To me it is an example that proves the OP claim as inconclusive.

>To get there the first implication: immediately 'infinite assumptions' requiring a 'unidirectional time axis' is not a rebuttal--if creation doesn't rely on time, neither does existence.

It is not a rebuttal, it is an automatic implication IMO, but of course if those talking about creators of creators have some interesting alternative models those can be discussed. Still belonging to the field of religions of course.

(...)
> Your argument makes an example of a universe where your definition of God is possible and if you read carefully you will see that never did I contest the analogy itself, I demonstrate that it exists in an
infinite sea of possibilities.

You can go further, after all there is no way to prove numbers or infinity has any meaning outside of this universe.

Anyway you derived an argument from an example, the argument in your opinion would be "if the universe is an abstraction itself...". And that is indeed an assumption, a supposition.

I'd rather say: "how the universe got formed according to a cosmological theory has no influence on it being an abstraction or not".
Proof: just simulate the universe with the same rules of the universe as modeled by the cosmological theory. Does not matter how well. You end up with two universes. This one and the simulated one. They have the same rules, as far as the cosmological theory is concerned, but one is surely an abstraction and has a plane originating it. QED.
If I had an argument it would rather be something like "the way the universe is formed might be in the future discovered as one without external intervention, beyond all doubts, and logically proven as the only possible one, or even proven as the only conceivable one. But that's empty circular reasoning, because the proofs have modeled the universe in terms of concepts which we have derived from our understanding of it. So all we have proved is that the universe is a closed system"
But that's outside the topic.

Unfortunately, patent offices have ample prior art for awarding BS patents.

OTOH any game whose ability peaks at 24 is insufficiently complex compared to a real job or a real life.

This is not math, this is engineering, which is a field I care about even less, yet:

Given the nature of the cubit unit (whose forearms were used? how many people contributed to the measure?) and the way of measuring (how straight was the line of forearms? did they use marks? were they really perpendicular when marking and looking at the marks?....) the results are:
Shotgun Pi = 99.67%
Bible Pi = 80% to 110%, and those who claim that thing approximated Pi to a billion decimal places can't be proven wrong.

OTOH the exact value of Pi in the Bible and the universe collapsing over the mass of an infinitely long book would have been quite a sight.

I hate to break it to you, but the ancient term "America" refers to the whole continent, Canada included.

I am intrigued by your theory and wish to subscribe to her newsletter.

> But what about sites that don't have any other comms channel with their users?

They never have been secure and they will never be, because an early enough MITM attack renders checksums, certificates, and certificate authorities potentially irrelevant. You got your certificates from the internet or from a preinstalled OS which has likely been vetted by some agency. Your packets travel along thanks to routers with closed source OS. Your cellphone is designed as to permit the modem to do what heartbleed did. And so on.

In other news, 100% of facebook users have never booked a face.

> while others are making 'infinite assumptions' when they provide a counterexample

- "15 is a prime number"
- "what about 3x5?"
- "oh yes sry."
The counterexample had the same scope of the assertion, else it's not even definable as example.

In the case of "who created god" two words out of three are undefined, out of their scope. Creation is dependent on the concept of time, time is defined as a property of THIS universe. Thinking that "creating" can be applied to god is plainly a logic trainwreck. Do you use variables out of the scope where they are defined in your programs? Then why do you apply time to a hypothetical god's dimension? Are the conway's game creatures logical when arguing about how many cells make up their supposed god?

Your counterexample sounds like:
"15 is a prime number"
"nope, no green number is prime"
"WTF?"

The assumption must be made infinite times, else:

"who created god?"
"pffft. a god, obviously"
"and who created that other god?"
"pffft. another god, obviously"
"Ah, ok then."

But the first time is already flawed.

> Ironically the only person here who keeps bringing up the word 'proof' is you

And this is a problem, I guess. So if somebody says Dare X and I punch your face! is not implying that a rational discussion about X has been proven impossible. He might want to practice boxing. OK.

About the rest of your post, the assumption vs. assumption is, I say it again, a mere arbitrary choice of words. There is one meaning of assumption vs. another one that can be called assumption but is quite more often called supposition.

- "I borrow mom's car so I will be in time for my appointment"
- "do not assume you will, mom never fills the tank much"
- "well, you are assuming there is not enough gas in the tank, assumption vs. assumption"

Now, if you are thinking that the initial implication borrowing car => arriving in time has not been rendered false, it is not strong anymore, we have a problem. If you think it has, it follows that we agree and the guy punching in the face is wrong as outlined in my very first comment.

U mad.
There is no premise. There is a counterexample. One guy said one cosmological theory with sound math behind it puts the words GAME OVER to the debate about god, so anybody who brings a god again into the discussion deserves to be punched.
I made an example of a universe without intervention and freedom which is still not godless. I made another more general example in another comment where proving that the universe arises from complete nothingness AND that no other way for the universe to exist is rational, would be a great achievement for science but still not sufficient because the assumption that what is inconceivable for us is meta-inconceivable everywhere, even in the scope of universes' creation.

A counterexample is not an assumption, it is the exploration of a particular case to see whether an assumption somebody else made has any worth. Picking a particular case assumes all other things do not happen, but that is not an assumption because we are not ending up with an implication. If you read my comment like it is a proof, it is your problem.

Whitehead and Copleston sounds like a good name combination for alcohol related products BTW.

well if the programmer made many of them they would be assumed as the normality and creatures' logic theories would take them into account. Because a theory that does not model their reality would be crazy.

My theory is that if there are twelve socks in the drawer and i take two, twelve remains in the drawer.
It is crazy here.
What if I designed a universe with an "always 12 things in any container" patch? then logic principles would have to be built according to this or they would not model the truth.

> A god would be pointless. Unless, of course, the programmer takes part in the virtual world
OK, let's assume this and follow it to the consequence, which is the absurd that the programmer does not exist at all. Since we are wrong we have made an error somewhere. Easy to spot.
You cannot define the usefulness of a supernatural entity, especially from the inside, even if you have bet succesfully that the concept of "useful" exists at all in the programmer's world, and derive anything by it. If you did, you would have created a metagod called Usefulness and said whatever is supernatural must abide by it. You went beyond religion, you entered metareligion.

If the creatures in the example had been more conservative they might have said it still cannot be ruled out that something supernatural exist, well, that was the entire point of the comment in the context of the story.

>The atheist is pointing out that there are plenty of assumptions happening either way

An alternative scenario disproving assumptions is not an alternative set of assumptions.
- "I can buy you dinner with these 100 dollars"
- "what if I want dinner on that 300 dollars restaurant?"
- "why couldn't you choose a cheaper one?"
see? it is a cop-out. Atheists say proof, religious men say belief, they have more experience and it shows.