Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Every time you create a world in dwarf fortress, or Conways Game of Life, or start up a game of Noctis, you are creating a Universe.

The programs mentioned still operate upon the rules of the current universe, and their creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of them is of this universe, so in what way are they different universes?

our univese still operates upon the rules of the  hypothetical higher universe, and our universe's creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of it is of the higher universe, so in what way are they different universes?

[Descan]

I've heard of a book where universes reproduce via black holes. With each black hole having a slightly different universe inside it, and the black holes of THAT universe having slightly different rules too.

... I've not -read- the book, but still! Cool idea.

[GlyphGryph]

Thinking that absence of evidence is no data is fallacious. Atrociously so. Absence of evidence is NOT absence of data. Now, the strength of evidence provided by absence varies, and absence of evidence doesn't imply evidence of everything, obviously. Would you seriously argue that if I gave medicine to a thousand people, and failed to find evidence that any of them got better, that this wasn't, in fact, evidence to the contrary?

If you were born in a windowless room, the absence of evidence of the truth outside IS effective evidence against any particular otherwise unjustified hypothetical. It's not full-proof evidence - you could be wrong. But the fact that there is no evidence to make one supposition stronger than another mutually contradictory supposition is, in fact, evidence against both of them. However, suppose one of those makes a prediction that it will  - especially if one of those suppositions implies evidence supporting it should exist. Perhaps that the outside is full of bullets, and there is a good chance one should hit and enter your room several times in your lifetime.  The alternative is that there are no bullets flying around outside threatening to enter your room. The fact that there is no evidence of the first case does not mean it's impossible, but it makes it less likely - it is evidence against it.

And you know what... I honestly don't even think you believe what you're claiming here. Let's test it, shall we? I make the claim that you are currently being poked in the back of the head by a burly Nordic man. Can you, without relying on absence of evidence, provide proof (of any strength) that this is not the case?

The fact is, most religions DO make ACTUAL predictions and expect ACTUAL results in the world as a whole - and for those religions, absence of any evidence of those results IS, in fact, evidence against them.

Let me offer a simple hypothetical:
You and a friend are in a room with a hundred near identical boxes. You know there is at most one red ball in one of the boxes, and have no additional information... except that your friend has no more information than you do.
Your friend points to one of the boxes and says "I believe the ball is in that box."
The lack of any evidence for this claim, combined with the number of possibilities where this is NOT true (potentially infinite, since there is no guarantee of a red ball, but at least 99) versus the number of possibilities that he is correct (1) means that said belief is, quite simply, wrong.

Note that this does not mean there is not, in fact, a red ball in the box. Under ideal circumstances, there is a 1% chance of this being the case. But the belief is still wrong, because there is no rational reason to belief that 1/100 chance over any of the others.

[GlyphGryph]

Every time you create a world in dwarf fortress, or Conways Game of Life, or start up a game of Noctis, you are creating a Universe.

The programs mentioned still operate upon the rules of the current universe, and their creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of them is of this universe, so in what way are they different universes?

our univese still operates upon the rules of the  hypothetical higher universe, and our universe's creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of it is of the higher universe, so in what way are they different universes?

I suspect we're getting into a semantic argument here, but yes, Askot's response holds. If we decide to define "Universe" in a different way, my approach still holds - it just means it's definitions shift appropriately. In this case, we could say we are in a created simulation, rather than a universe, if you prefer.

[kaijyuu]

I don't have time for a proper reply right now, so I'll just ask that you make sure you're not doing something:

Make sure you're not trying to build an inductive argument here. I assure you any evidence you preset to support it will be empirical, which won't work concerning questions about things outside our little plane of existence.

[Micro102]

"It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia  )

'Tis a silly quote. Burden of proof lies on whoever's making an assertion. If you claim any knowledge or belief, you have to back it up. Doesn't matter if it's "negative" or "positive" or whatever.

So, if someone's preaching to you, it's their job to prove to you their religion is correct.
And if you're trying to convince someone their religion is wrong, it's your job to prove to them.


Your strawman atheist douchebag goes up to a religious person unprovoked, insults them, and then says "I don't have to prove anything; that's your job!" despite being the one making assertions. Sorta like you just did

And it would be great if both sides didn't try to push their beleifs on others. The thing is, the government has been so congested with overly religious people that it has created a ton of discrimination against atheists. For example, in some states, you have to believe in god to run for office. It's sickening.

I also believe that part of the legeslative branch of government is reserved for Catholic priests. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Fenrir]

Every time you create a world in dwarf fortress, or Conways Game of Life, or start up a game of Noctis, you are creating a Universe.

The programs mentioned still operate upon the rules of the current universe, and their creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of them is of this universe, so in what way are they different universes?

our univese still operates upon the rules of the  hypothetical higher universe, and our universe's creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of it is of the higher universe, so in what way are they different universes?

I suspect we're getting into a semantic argument here, but yes, Askot's response holds.

All Askot’s response means is that, when you talk about “universes”, you’re talking about layers of abstraction over a base set of rules. It’s all the same set of rules operating on the same set of stuff.

If we decide to define "Universe" in a different way, my approach still holds - it just means it's definitions shift appropriately. In this case, we could say we are in a created simulation, rather than a universe, if you prefer.

Oh no it doesn’t.

Your argument depends upon calling arbitrary phenomena “universes”. If we call them simulations...

We know [simulations] are capable of creating additional less complex [simulations] through the intentional actions of sapient species. We know that the [simulations] we know about that has created sub-[simulations] has created many.

It stands to reason, then, that most [simulations] are artificial, and thus have deities - a race with a member or members responsible for the [simulation]’s creation.

...then you would have to first assume that this is a simulation.

[Glowcat]

I don't have time for a proper reply right now, so I'll just ask that you make sure you're not doing something:

Make sure you're not trying to build an inductive argument here. I assure you any evidence you preset to support it will be empirical, which won't work concerning questions about things outside our little plane of existence.

They only "don't work" if you presume the existence of things outside our reality... and deductive logic doesn't work there either. It's just an unfalsifiable assertion which leads us nowhere. That's not any kind of actual argument.

[GlyphGryph]

I don't have time for a proper reply right now, so I'll just ask that you make sure you're not doing something:

Make sure you're not trying to build an inductive argument here. I assure you any evidence you preset to support it will be empirical, which won't work concerning questions about things outside our little plane of existence.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about religions here. Obviously none of this applies to unknown clockmakers that have no interaction with our universe at all, but there aren't really any religions based around those guys - I mean, what would that sort of religion be about? It makes sense.

But Religions? The type real people actually believe in?

They very much concern themselves with questions relevant to our little plane of existence, and those bits (core bits for pretty much every religion on the planet) are perfectly in keeping with this argument.

Regardless, everything in my argument holds even for an unknowable outside force - because my argument isn't about truth (which is inherently unknowable in the situation you describe) but about belief which is a completely different thing.

Whether or not the thing you believe in turns out to be true later has nothing to do with whether your belief is right or wrong, just like how lying through your teeth doesn't magically become un-lying just because something happened and it turned out to be true instead of false.

And even beyond ALL of that, once you have three people with mutually contradictory beliefs about the unknowable, with identical evidence in your favour, any one of those beliefs are irrational and generally unjustified, because it is undeniably more likely you are wrong than that you are right. This applies even for things outside our universe that we can never know about.

(And before you try to argue how the rules could be different - for example, that perhaps they could all be true at the same time - note that any such statement will render all those beliefs void since they require exclusivity as a core tenant. This is a big part of why Christianity and the other Judeo-beliefs gets hit so hard by this sort of basic understanding of how evidence works.)

[Descan]

"It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia  )

'Tis a silly quote. Burden of proof lies on whoever's making an assertion. If you claim any knowledge or belief, you have to back it up. Doesn't matter if it's "negative" or "positive" or whatever.

So, if someone's preaching to you, it's their job to prove to you their religion is correct.
And if you're trying to convince someone their religion is wrong, it's your job to prove to them.


Your strawman atheist douchebag goes up to a religious person unprovoked, insults them, and then says "I don't have to prove anything; that's your job!" despite being the one making assertions. Sorta like you just did

And it would be great if both sides didn't try to push their beleifs on others. The thing is, the government has been so congested with overly religious people that it has created a ton of discrimination against atheists. For example, in some states, you have to believe in gos to run for office. It's sickening.

I also believe that part of the legeslative branch of government is reserved for Catholic priests. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that's in the British parliament, and it's Anglican bishops? I don't know, I'm Canadian. But the Americans are all discriminatory against Catholics that I doubt they would have a seat just for them. They're all descendants of Protestants, don'tchaknow?

[Leafsnail]

Considering that women still aren't allowed to become bishops in the Anglican Church (way to keep voting yourself into irrelevancy guys) it means all those seats for bishops are also guaranteed seats for men, making it a kindof sexist thing too.

[Micro102]

Isn't the most common religion in America Christianity?

[Descan]

Yes. It is. Protestant Christianity.

Just like Muslims have Shia and Sunni, and Hindus have... I don't know what Hindus have. And...

There's a lot of denominations in a lot of religions, OKAY?

Heretic: Same religion, different denomination.

Heathen: Different religion altogether.

[Angle]

Yeah, we Americans are mostly descended from protestants, although most of us are too ignorant to know it. Seriously, I was in school and like the entire rest of the class didn't think Catholicism was Christianity. And we do have some catholic presence, from Italian immigrants and such that have Assimilated.

[Micro102]

Yeah I know, I just fou

Yes. It is. Protestant Christianity.

Just like Muslims have Shia and Sunni, and Hindus have... I don't know what Hindus have. And...

There's a lot of denominations in a lot of religions, OKAY?

Heretic: Same religion, different denomination.

Heathen: Different religion altogether.

nd "Americans discriminate against Christianity " weird.