On Simulation-argument.com Professor Nick Bostrom argues...
yes, and he also states quite clearly that he gives his proposition a less than 20% chance of being correct. when a chief proponent of a theory has that little faith in his own theory i see no reason to take it seriously.
i am in no way offended by the argument, i just find it laughable.
the only thing on which i am with him is that the human race will collapse before we reach our full potential. but there is no need for end time calendars or similar woo. you need only go as far as population demographics in the biological field of ecology to see that every observable population (and this is as true for planets as it is for species) displays three stages - exponential growth followed by a stable plateau before catastrophic collapse. humans are subject to the same rules. we have not reached our global plateau yet and maybe never will, and our consumption of resources suggests that it will at any rate be short lived and the collapse will come sooner rather than later.
nothing on this site constitutes evidence in any rational sense that i can see. for something to constitute evidence it has to be clearly observable and its nature able to be commonly agreed to be relevant correct and true by a range of impartial parties. very interesting that you included the quote about obsession leading to filtering - which is exactly what you are doing. what constitutes proof is a weight of incontrovertible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, preferably supportable by cross examination and reproducible experimental experimental data. this approach to evidence and proof has given us every decent-ish legal system on the planet and the unassailable scientific advances humanity has seen over the past 300 years. the approach you seem to be taking has given us astrology, homeopathy and scientology, none of which are of any real use to humanity as far as i can see.
Is it really so bizarre to assume that humans created an advanced technological civilisation more than 6,000 years ago, became immortal and made virtual realities like this one to entertain themselves? If you find the simulation argument a baseless phantasm then we have no basis for discussion.
yes, that is very bizarre indeed. if you really take something that far fetched seriously we probably do not have a basis for discussion. do you also believe in dragons, angels and the factual basis of the x-files?? what planet are you on?
The Bible is evidence of the existence of Jesus and God.
in your mind maybe, but no it is not. on that basis morte d'artur provides evidence for king arthur, and star wars provides evidence for the force. which of course they do not. evidence has to be im-par-tial. this is why i do not believe there is no reliable evidence for the existence of jesus. there is none outside the sphere of christianity.
psychology is a pseudo science with questionable foundations
psychology is a soft science in the sense that it does not have the predictive accuracy that physics has on the movements of planets. it is most certainly not a pseudo science in the sense that theology and ufology are. psychology has its basis in the likes of freud and jung, and has an analytical basis which although not as focussed as physics has given us massive advances into understanding the human psyche and has a proven track record of classifying and repairing human psychological states. you clearly have absolutely no understanding of psychology.
in comparison to the solidly based discipline of psychology the construct you are offering is just plain silly.
besides which if you read back through my post, my evidence for the internal nature of god comes not only from psychology, but neurology, which has provided hard facts by mri scan brain activity mapping. hard reproducible facts.
you clearly do not understand the nature of rational evidence and proof. i do - as i said i was a research chemist for some 15 years and therefore understand the criteria. what is your background that you have the ability to critique evidence and argument??
i have enough knowledge of psychology to know that what you are doing is projecting your inability to respond satisfactorily to my argument by claiming that my arguments are bogus. this is a very common response by someone who feels that their dearly held beliefs have been fundamentally undermined and they do not have a constructive argument to counter with as they clearly know they are out of their depth. look up freud, tversky, projection and cognitive bias.
as for the abrahamic religions coming out on top - nothing to do with god, more with the ottoman empire, crusades, and zionist fervour. tribal warfare. someone has to win and it happened to be them. if you think that history is evidence of god then you are in line with medieval justifications for war and royal birth right.
sorry, but the only mindlessness i am seeing in this thread is coming from you.
either have a proper conversation or fly back to whatever planet you came from.