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.
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)
A while ago I made the claim that
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tHv3gb3cwPg5EJxSx/baseline-of-my-opinion-on-lw-topics
Note that I have updated since a bit on some of the points but not flipping the direction.
Thanks, interesting view, and work. I was hoping for that kind of material posting this.
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.
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)