The Implantation Argument: Simulation Theory is Proof that God Exists

References

Bassett, P., and W. Greathouse. 1985. Exploring Christian Holiness, Volume 2: The Historical Development. Kansas City: Beacon Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Baudrillard, J. 1994. Simulation and Simulacra. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.9904Search in Google Scholar

Bostrom, N. 2003. “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation.” The Philosophical Quarterly 211: 243–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9213.00309.Search in Google Scholar

Bostrom, N. 2005. “The Simulation Argument: A Reply to Weatherson.” The Philosophical Quarterly 55: 90–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-8094.2005.00387.x.Search in Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 2005. “The Matrix as Metaphysics.” In Philosophers Explore the Matrix, edited by C. Grau. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311105.003.0013Search in Google Scholar

Chisholm, R. 1989. On Metaphysics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cohn, A., and A. Varzi. 2003. “Mereotopological Connection.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 32: 357–90. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024895012224.10.1023/A:1024895012224Search in Google Scholar

Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. New York: Touchstone.Search in Google Scholar

Dreyfus, G. 1997. Recognizing Reality: Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy and its Tibetan Interpretations. Albany: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Edgar, W. 1979. “Locations.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy XI: 323–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1979.10716253.Search in Google Scholar

Ehrlich, P. 2014. “An Essay in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum’s Ninetieth Birthday: A Reexamination of Zeno’s Paradox of Extension.” Philosophy of Science 81: 654–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/677978.Search in Google Scholar

Greene, B. 1999. The Elegant Universe. New York: W. W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar

Grupp, J. 2006. “Grünbaum Did Not Solve Zeno’s Measure Paradox.” The Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance 3: 44–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/latj.200790094.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffman, J., and G. Rosenkrantz. 1997. Substance: Its Nature and Existence. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203296707Search in Google Scholar

Hudson, H. 2001. “Touching.” Philosophical Perspectives 15: 119–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.35.s15.6.Search in Google Scholar

Kane, G. 2000. Supersymmetry. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.10.1142/4611Search in Google Scholar

Kawin, B. 1978. Mindscreen: Bergman, Godard, and First-Person Film. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1991. Parts of Classes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Markosian, N. 1998. “Simples.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76: 213–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048409812348361.Search in Google Scholar

McDaniel, K. 2003. “Against Maxcon Simples.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81: 265–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/713659753.Search in Google Scholar

McDaniel, K. 2009. “Extended Simples and Qualitative Heterogeneity.” The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 325–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2008.589.x.Search in Google Scholar

McDonnell, K. 1998. “Theological Presuppositions in Our Preaching about Spirit.” Theological Studies 59: 219–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/004056399805900202.Search in Google Scholar

Mounce, H. 1999. Hume’s Naturalism. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Perrett, R. W. 2004. “The Momentariness of Simples.” Philosophy 79: 435–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819104000361.Search in Google Scholar

Pines, S. 1997. Studies in Islamic Atomism. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pyle, A. 1995. Atomism and its Critics. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, J. 1977. The Mystery of Consciousness. New York: New York Review of Books.Search in Google Scholar

Sider, T. 1993. “Van Inwagen and the Possibility of Gunk.” Analysis 53: 285–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/53.4.285.Search in Google Scholar

Simons, P. 2004. “Extended Simples: A Third Way between Atoms and Gunk.” The Monist 87: 371–84. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist200487315.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Q. 1993. “The Conceptualist Argument for God’s Existence.” Faith and Philosophy 11: 38–49.10.5840/faithphil199411112Search in Google Scholar

Stang, C. 2012. Apophasis and Pseudonymity in Dionysius the Areopagite: No Longer I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199640423.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Stang, C. 2016. Our Divine Double. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674970168Search in Google Scholar

Steen, M. 2011. “More Problems for Maxcon: Contingent Particularity and Stuff-Thing Coincidence.” Acta Analytica 23: 135–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-010-0109-6.Search in Google Scholar

Steinhart, E. 2010. “Theological Implications of the Simulation Argument.” Disputandi 10: 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15665399.2010.10820012.Search in Google Scholar

Vernes, J. R. 1999. The Existence of the External World: The Pascal–Hume Principle. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.10.1353/book6599Search in Google Scholar

Watson, A. 2004. The Quantum Quark. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Webster, J. B. 1991. Eberhard Jüngel: An Introduction to His Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wittenkower, D. 2011. Philip K. Dick and Philosophy. Chicago: Open Court.Search in Google Scholar

Zimmerman, D. 1996. “Could Extended Objects Be Made Out of Simple Parts? An Argument for ‘Atomless Gunk’.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56: 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/2108463.Search in Google Scholar