0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Gunnar_Zarncke · 2021-04-04T19:04:04.532Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A while ago I made the claim that
Arguments for the singularity are also (weak) arguments for theism.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tHv3gb3cwPg5EJxSx/baseline-of-my-opinion-on-lw-topics [LW · GW]
Note that I have updated since a bit on some of the points but not flipping the direction.
Replies from: Szymon Kucharski↑ comment by Szymon Kucharski · 2021-04-04T21:27:51.693Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks, interesting view, and work. I was hoping for that kind of material posting this.
comment by Ulises Valenzuela (ulises-valenzuela) · 2021-04-03T19:30:09.174Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Completely disagree. If we were to observe that miracles reliably occur under certain conditions, such as when a god is being called upon, then the simplest explanation is that that god is responding to people calling it. It is irrelevant whether or not our world is a simulation which that god is itself a part of, as it would still mean that, at least within our simulation, there does in fact exist a spiritual dimension. In this scenario it is actually the idea of a simulation which is the superfluous belief, as it contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomena observed and has no evidence in support of it.
Replies from: Szymon Kucharski↑ comment by Szymon Kucharski · 2021-04-03T20:19:11.172Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks. I think it is a sober objection. I think there could be situations when it is true, nevertheless as long as that god would seem logically impossible (although human logic could be false and God's one true). I think it is in the realm of possibility that some form of computer-simulated entities are conscious with enough of computing power and it is one of widely accepted assumptions, so I think it can for now be used as an argument in some discussions. I see the second option as simpler (when we think in terms of axioms, assume our logic is right and we understand it, and if God has incoherent properties)