Godless Apostate

[GGG]

I think the simulation theory is “atheists” looking for meaning. Essentially creating a Deist God for which their is no eveidence.

[Dion]

nm

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the simulation theory is “atheists” looking for meaning. Essentially creating a Deist God for which their is no eveidence.

Weird post. First of all, there's plenty of evidence to support simulation theory - you're typing on a piece of evidence right now. Not suggesting that it's adequate evidence, but the argument is certainly based on observable facts about the universe and what we currently understand about intelligence.

But also, why do you think this would give atheists "meaning"? Why do you think they're lacking "meaning"? If anything simulation theory is a dystopic vision, not something anyone would hope for.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the simulation theory is “atheists” looking for meaning. Essentially creating a Deist God for which their is no eveidence.

A Deist God provides no meaning though, that's pretty much the point of Deism

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Saying god could still exist is like saying unicorns could still exist (not being a dick, just pointing that out)

How could a person accept the facts and science and still believe a god exists without a shred of proof, ever? Blind faith or something more?

Not exactly.

If unicorns exist (or did exist), they would be part of the physical realm with numerous pieces of evidence to support the claim. However, I would still allow for the possibility of their discovery in the future. We haven't investigated every square inch of this planet yet (especially in buried layers), so one day we might find something. Just as an example, we don't have a great ability to explore the bottom of the oceans, and there could be countless lifeforms down there that have yet to be discovered.


But it gets more complex when discussing god or any other deity. If it/they exist they would likely do so on another plane of existence separate from the physical one you and I experience. That makes the possibility of finding physical or observable evidence to support the existence of god problematic, or downright impossible. Science can only answer questions about the physical reality, not the supernatural world or any other plane of existence that we can't directly experience. Science only deals in observable facts and evidence, and god may never be directly observable. That makes science the absolute last tool you could use to uncover the existence of god. Even science has its limits.

In general, it's not wise to say with certainty that something is definitely NOT real. In science, you would simply say that there isn't any empirical evidence to support the claim, and therefore it's extremely unlikely to be true, and you reject the claim until evidence is presented to support it. There are lots of things historically that people said were absolutely not true, only to be disproven by scientific discovery. We only knew of the existence of bacteria and other single-celled organisms dating back to the mid 17th century. Yet, not only did they exist, they were quietly the most populous life form on the planet at that time, and throughout all of history.

Basically, the absence of evidence doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of something. It makes sense to allow for the possibility of something to exist, rather than to say with certainty that it doesn't.

We are not omniscient, not even close to it. We are still in the early stages of understanding the universe around us, and so we must be prepared to be wrong about a lot of things that we think are true right now.

[Lanny_McDonald]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-trump/602749/

The subtext of this kind of says it all. Living your life by a 2000 year old standard (okay, the gospels were scribed ~100 years after that) is kind of ridiculous. It is hard to believe in something that demands you maintain a standard that modern society makes obsolete. It makes maintaining faith in something that conflicts with the very common things that bring us together (shared values and experiences) extremely difficult.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Not exactly.
.

In either case, unicorn or god were born from peoples imaginations making the discovery of them nonsensical, which isn’t the case with bacteria.

Also, how do you know there is another plane of existence that unicorns could exist In? More imaginary notions come to life.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Weird post. First of all, there's plenty of evidence to support simulation theory - you're typing on a piece of evidence right now. Not suggesting that it's adequate evidence, but the argument is certainly based on observable facts about the universe and what we currently understand about intelligence.

But also, why do you think this would give atheists "meaning"? Why do you think they're lacking "meaning"? If anything simulation theory is a dystopic vision, not something anyone would hope for.

There is no requirement for the simulation to exist. There is no experiment one can do to prove or disprove it.

The simulation like all religion is an answer to the age old question of Why do we exist and what is the meaning of life. It’s based on faith rather than any experimental evidence.

Religion is part of the human evolutionary condition. Perhaps part of the shortcuts our brain takes to make sense of things and establish rules to successfully pass on genetic material and ensure the survival of young or perhaps critical in establishing the in groups and out groups that we still are today.

The simulation is just an extension of filling this evolutionary need to fill in gaps.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

In either case, unicorn or god were born from peoples imaginations making the discovery of them nonsensical, which isn’t the case with bacteria.

Also, how do you know there is another plane of existence that unicorns could exist In? More imaginary notions come to life.

Unicorns did exist though provided you define them as a four legged animal with a single horn.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-trump/602749/

The subtext of this kind of says it all. Living your life by a 2000 year old standard (okay, the gospels were scribed ~400 years after that) is kind of ridiculous. It is hard to believe in something that demands you maintain a standard that modern society makes obsolete. It makes maintaining faith in something that conflicts with the very common things that bring us together (shared values and experiences) extremely difficult.

Jesus. No, they weren’t. The four canonical Gospels were all written before 100 C.E.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

In either case, unicorn or god were born from peoples imaginations making the discovery of them nonsensical, which isn’t the case with bacteria.



Also, how do you know there is another plane of existence that unicorns could exist In? More imaginary notions come to life.

Scientific thoughts are born from imagination too. Einstein spoke of gravity as a distortion of the space/time continuum, with no direct evidence to confirm it at the time. Later we found definitive evidence to support that model.

Imagination is part of the soul of science. It’s how we come up with hypotheses in the first place to even test. Many advances in technology come from science fiction writing originally.


I really don’t understand the points you’ve made here. It seems like you are intentionally avoiding engaging in the arguments I made.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Most of those are scientific facts, while the others are simply debunked pseudoscientific claims.

That does not preclude the existence of a god. It simply discounts the creation/afterlife myths of countless faiths. God may still exist.

It's not an unreasonable position to accept the facts and reality that science brings and still believe in a god. The two are not mutually exclusive, and never have been in truth.

And I say that as a strong agnostic.

Yes but what would that god look like?
and what reason would you have for suspecting its existence?

I suppose any fact based claim that there still could be a good is reduced to the moment of creation and the need for cause. But that would leave the claimant with the burden of explaining the cause of this proposed creator. It's an overly complex claim that doesn't really explain anything, when we can just say we do not yet understand the cause of everything. The null hypothesis is just better and should be assumed.

Personally I am a fan of the theory that there is some kind of negative energy inherent in a state of void, and some day we be able to explain why something is physically required to burst forth from nothingness, but that is speculation (just better speculation the the idea there could be a god).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

There is no requirement for the simulation to exist. There is no experiment one can do to prove or disprove it.

Well, this isn't quite true. It's currently unfalsifiable. It seems possible that once we know more about the nature of consciousness, it will be something that can be disproved. You could make a similar argument about the existence of God, I suppose, but in that case, it's not clear what we would need to know that we don't know now in order to finally determine that question.

Religion is part of the human evolutionary condition. Perhaps part of the shortcuts our brain takes to make sense of things and establish rules to successfully pass on genetic material and ensure the survival of young or perhaps critical in establishing the in groups and out groups that we still are today...
The simulation is just an extension of filling this evolutionary need to fill in gaps.

Simulation theory doesn't fit in this box. It's not a system designed to give purpose to existence or create a way for everyone to function as a moral community, it doesn't create ties between people. If it was taken seriously, the most you could take from it is "existence is meaningless", which isn't a belief system anyone's going to sign on for.

I really think you're misunderstanding what Bostrom was going for here. It's just a fun yet somewhat disturbing thought experiment. You're ascribing a whole ethos to the guy that doesn't exist. It's a logical game, not a system of belief anyone is being asked to treat as the organizing principle for their lives. As far as I know, no one (well, maybe some weirdos with youtube channels) are preaching to people about being part of a simulation. I mean, did you watch The Matrix and come out aghast that the Wachoskis could preach such an evidence-free dystopic vision to their audience?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Jesus. No, they weren’t. The four canonical Gospels were all written before 100 C.E.

True, between 66 and 110 years AD, but it took until AD200 or so to assign the Gospel names to them.
Still, any way you shake the tree, it was a long time.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, this isn't quite true. It's currently unfalsifiable. It seems possible that once we know more about the nature of consciousness, it will be something that can be disproved. You could make a similar argument about the existence of God, I suppose, but in that case, it's not clear what we would need to know that we don't know now in order to finally determine that question.

Simulation theory doesn't fit in this box. It's not a system designed to give purpose to existence or create a way for everyone to function as a moral community, it doesn't create ties between people. If it was taken seriously, the most you could take from it is "existence is meaningless", which isn't a belief system anyone's going to sign on for.

I really think you're misunderstanding what Bostrom was going for here. It's just a fun yet somewhat disturbing thought experiment. You're ascribing a whole ethos to the guy that doesn't exist. It's a logical game, not a system of belief anyone is being asked to treat as the organizing principle for their lives. As far as I know, no one (well, maybe some weirdos with youtube channels) are preaching to people about being part of a simulation. I mean, did you watch The Matrix and come out aghast that the Wachoskis could preach such an evidence-free dystopic vision to their audience?

But it is a system to explain away an problem we find to be in explainable, with an unfounded story that can't be tested. Or as some call it, religion.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cheese

True, between 66 and 110 years AD, but it took until AD200 or so to assign the Gospel names to them.
Still, any way you shake the tree, it was a long time.

And they all contain substantial differences of fact that make the whole written by God and inerrant a foolish arguement, if God wrote the Bible then God's memory is clearly suffering from something serious

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I really don’t understand the points you’ve made here. It seems like you are intentionally avoiding engaging in the arguments I made.

Well, you’re equating science with fairy tales.
You’re saying goldilocks and the 3 bears could exist the same as gene splicing eventually existed because someone, somewhere dreamed it up.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

True, between 66 and 110 years AD, but it took until AD200 or so to assign the Gospel names to them.
Still, any way you shake the tree, it was a long time.

Nope. Anti-Marcionite polemics in the mid second century were already identifying Gospels with their traditionally accepted authors.

Of course, you are correct that the quibbling about dates does little to affect the time frame in terms of how reliable the text may or may not turn out to be. I tend to think that the Gospels as we have them are predominantly textually accurate compared to their first editions. Of course, the synoptics at least stem from older source material which has since disappeared, and all of them contain non-historical or exaggerated aspects of the Jesus story.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

And they all contain substantial differences of fact that make the whole written by God and inerrant a foolish arguement, if God wrote the Bible then God's memory is clearly suffering from something serious

The modern conception of inerrancy is actually an invention of the post-Enlightenment puritan movement which occurred first during the Great Awakening, and then in the early twentieth century with the publication of The Fundamentals.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Well, you’re equating science with fairy tales.
You’re saying goldilocks and the 3 bears could exist the same as gene splicing eventually existed because someone, somewhere dreamed it up.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something.

I think a better analogy to the possibility of the existence of god comes from literature and history, not biology and science.

It's closer akin to the history of the Trojan War, the existence of the Anatolian Hittite Empire, the neo-Babylonian Empire, or the Judean Davidic Dynasty—all of which were considered complete fabrications until archaeological excavations and surveys beginning in the 19th century. So, if there is eventual compelling evidence for something like a "god" it will enter the realm of whatever it is we at that point consider to be the natural world, but will almost certainly bear little if any resemblance to the stories and ideas about god from history.