That doesn't make sense.You could say "It not necessary for the the universe to be a simulation", but that's meaningless.Science can discover everything about the simulation apart from the fact that it is a simulation.Unless i'm failing to see your point.
Simulation and god are very separate ideas.If technology advances to the point where we know everything about the universe except for whether or not a god exists, then we can say "the universe does not require a god". Occam's razor would then point out that if the existence of god is superfluous to the requirements of the universe, then it is logical to assume that there is no god.
If technology advances to the point where we know everything about the universe except for whether or not a god exists, then we can say "the universe does not require a god". Occam's razor would then point out that if the existence of god is superfluous to the requirements of the universe, then it is logical to assume that there is no god.
Welcome to the forums Dante.
The creators of the simulation would be Gods by definition. How are they separate ideas?
The creators of the simulation would be Gods by definition. How are they separate ideas?God is most often view of as the creator and overseer of the universe, Exactly what creator of a simulation would be.Correct me if i'm wrong, but by my understand you are saying that if the universe does not require a god to run, it logical to assume that there is no god. I understand though that it would make no diffrence to assume that there is no God. However there is no advantage to it, and as you would be unable to convince others, it would only lead to more discussion on the subject.If God created the universe so it would run independently without intervention, then of course it doesn't need a god to run. But it would be pointless assume there is no God, but it wouldn't matter if you did assume so.Same came be said of a simulation, if it was only created by the simulators and not interfered with after that.However you can't say "the universe is not required to be a simulation, thus it's logical to assume it's not a simulation". Well you could say that, but it wouldn't mean anything.Occam's razor is flawed, it's obvious in many cases that the simplest solution is not the correct one. Occam's razor has no logical base, it's just a way of thinking. It's also flawed in the assumption of what is the 'simplest' solution. One could say "God did it' is far more simple then evolution, which is quite complex. However evolution is correct despite being complex, imo.
I don't think the fact that we may sometimes perceive it that way has any applicable basis to an objective reality though.
Atheism(moar like Gaytheism, amirite?) is a religion for people who worship themselves instead of God. As a Christian will typically quote the Bible during an argument, most atheists will quote The God Delusion. Since nearly every forum on this series of tubes we call "Internets" has a 90 page long religion thread, it is clear that much drama and BAWWW is had with such a sensitive topic. In this article we'll take a look at the atheists side of this eternal argument and attempt to glean important facts regarding their position. BEHOLD!
If technology advances to the point where we know everything about the universe except for whether or not a god exists, then we can say "the universe does not require a god".
Read up on Godel's incompleteness theorems which explain why we'll never advance technology to that point. No system can be fully knowledgable of itself, and therefore our knowledge of the universe will always be incomplete.
...millions of years of advancement.
Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathreadConsider the possibility that Godel may be incorrect. The hypothetical I used was millions of years of advancement.
I'm willing to bet you haven't looked into it though and are blindly believing what you've already decided upon - much in the same way someone would blindly follow their religion, right?
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Atheistcheck the site for me lulz.
nice i havnt read that much bullshit since i read the bible, amirite?
apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania and the Comoros.
Junichiro Sawaguchi believes he is descended from Jesus, but 'as a Buddhist it's just not all that important'
According to the document, Jesus arrived in Aomori at the age of 21, where he took the name Daitenku Taro Jurai, studied the Japanese language and developed a deep affinity for the country and people. Eleven years later – conveniently the same period in the Bible that his whereabouts cannot be accounted for – he returned to Judea but fell foul of the Romans.Instead of being crucified, however, the Romans got the wrong man and nailed his brother, Isukiri, to the cross. Carrying his brother's ear and a lock of hair from the Virgin Mary, Jesus fled across Siberia to Shingo, where he grew rice, married a local woman called Miyuko and had three daughters, it claims.At the ripe old age of 106, Jesus died peacefully and was interred in the mound that sits on Mr Sawaguchi's land.
Were they Rabbis or Mullahs?Japanese who say they are the descendants of Jesus
Faith is, quite simply, a belief which is void of evidence - sight, sound, smell, feel, or taste. A belief which can not be verified - only believed by inferior means. Is it not strange that such an attribute would be considered good in our modern society? Of course the main culprit of this is Christianity, believing that it's a good thing not to have evidence and to simply accept what was written down thousands of years prior and translated multiple times. Whether you consider it good or bad, it certainly is not logical. The Circle of Faith I understand the circle because I was a part of it for several years. Having faith in nothing - to see it come alive in the mind and grow on itself - with no concrete bases whatsoever. The circle of faith is a self affirming belief in nothing in an attempt to make it something. Each time you pass another lap on this circle, your faith grows, but why it does, nobody knows - except for psychologists, that is . The Effects of Faith We know today, through psychology, that the mind can be very adept at creating false realities. Having faith in something will eventually cause the mind to look for it and, upon not finding it, create it (in some sense). There's an old computer saying: Garbage in, garbage out. The mind is very similar - whatever you feed it will grow and become real in your mind. Is it any wonder that if you continue the circle of faith for years you will eventually start having 'personal experiences'? If anything, this is a testament to the mind, but if not verified by scientific means, it truly means nothing. So at the simplest level, we see that you must have faith in faith - in effect having faith in a faulty portion of the mind which has power to create whatever reality it sees fit. What sense does that make? Deny Ignorance - Deny Faith Faith can easily be linked with ignorance. Faith denies evidence and facts in order to continue a belief. The denial of facts is ignorance. The lack of understanding of how evolution works, followed by calling it "ridiculous" or "evilution" - which is, in fact, to spit in the face of some of the greatest minds of the past century, IS ignorance. To have enough guts to actually learn what evolution IS and then to debate it in an intelligent manner is not ignorance - but faith rarely allows such an honest attempt to understand what does not support the faith. Any belief you have should be sound enough to stand on it's own merrits. If a belief system requires you to have faith, then that should be a warning sign to you right there - that the belief system has it's flaws which must be ignored through faith. Deny Ignorance. Deny Faith. There's a quote by Dan Barker who says it better than I could: "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits."
