Both beliefs are fine, but please realize the hypocrisy

You're viewing a single thread.

241 comments

Both are just as unlikely as the other and have as much evidence, I'd find anyone who possesed both beliefs to be weird.
- One is obviously made-up by ancient peoples who knew fuck-all about the world, but insists it's eternal truth beyond debate. Even the parts that contradict the other parts.
  The other is an openly hypothetical idea based on what we expect is just beyond our current capabilities... and it relies on that we're-just-atoms materialism.
- That's not true
  We have no evidence about either and both are non-falsifiable
  Living in a simulation is one idea. Each individual religion is a whole bunch of assumptions rolled into one system.
  Therefore “we live in a simulation” is just as likely as “there's some higher power”, while “the Matrix is a documentary, everything will happen exactly like in the movie” is as likely as “the Christian god is real, just as described in the bible”.
  
  We have plenty of evidence that were just a "random" assortment of atoms following natural laws. We see those laws around us everywhere. We manipulate them to build crazy things. We have no evidence were anything BUT that.
  
  Did you reply to the wrong comment? Nothing I said is incompatible with what you said.
  I'm just saying that the original meme makes no sense.
- Why being in a simulation is unlikely? How do you estimate the probability of that?
  
  I use the same estimation on the likelihood of vampires or the Norse gods, it's an interesting thought and I can't prove those things don't exist (nor do I have to due to the burden of proof) but since we have no good reason to believe they're true I don't have to entertain the ideas.
  That which is brought forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  
  Ok, so you also don't believe there's any extraterrestrial life in the universe, right? And it's as likely to exists as Norse gods? I mean, there's no proof for it after all.
  
  Nope. You're trying to make a false equivalence.
  Aliens aren't gods. If they exist, they're life forms in some capacity similar to us. We know life can exist, since we do, so it stands to reason that since life exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about aliens conceptually requires anything that we don't already have a scientific method for studying.
  Now compare that to gods. Do we have visible or verifiable gods on earth? No, we have a lot of conflicting claims about gods from various belief systems. If we don't have supernatural creatures/entities on earth, then there's no reason to believe they exist anywhere else. Whether that's Pluto or five galaxies away.
  
  You made the exactly same false equivalence between gods and computer simulations. That was my point.
  "We know simulations can exist, since we simulate things, so it stands to reason that since simulations exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about simulations conceptually requires anything that we don't already have a scientific method for. "
  Simulating entire world only requites different computational scale which we also know is possible because we keep improving our computational capabilities.
  
  "We know simulations can exist, since we simulate things, so it stands to reason that since simulations exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about simulations conceptually requires anything that we don't already have a scientific method for."
  This is still a false equivalence. The only way this argument works as a foil to mine is if we had already created a computer simulated universe where simulated individuals were convinced it was the real world. Under those circumstances we would have to accept that ours is possibly the same. Since we have no such technology we can't say for sure if it's even possible to emulate a sapient being in a computer, it's not just "time and computational power" as you suggest.
  Meanwhile the animals that prove life can exist on at least one world are walking through my apartment right now and give direct observable and testable evidence that life can evolve. Under that assessment based on observation and the knowledge of how many other worlds there are, we have no additional leaps in logic to believe in alien life. No further technology or understanding is required.
  However, you have to assume that it's possible to emulate a feeling, thinking entity as computer code to make your claim. We don't know if that's even possible, which is why it's the same as suggesting a god of some variety. You're basing your entire argument on something we haven't yet proven to be real, and your claim that it's "just a matter of time and computer resources" is flimsy as hell.
  Come back when Alicization from Sword Art Online exists, and then we'll talk.
  
  Yes, I agree but you see the difference between computer simulation of a single planet (you don't have to simulate the entire universe to simulate our civilization) and Norse Gods, right? You see how one is fairly reasonable extrapolation of our current capabilities and the other is fantasy? Of course we don't know if it's possible to create a conscious, intelligent being in a computer but we also don't know what actually makes as conscious and intelligent so we can't say it's definitely not possible. Similarly we don't know exactly how life on earth originated (complex life even less so) so we don't know how probable it it's it exists in other places. Simulation theory is definitely more similar to extraterrestrial life than Norse Gods. And when it comes to it's probability we simply don't know.

241 comments