Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
It just feels strange to me and inconsistent (not necessarily wrong, we're in the unknowables here) to say you believe in God (as I do as well) without demanding evidence for that but to then say we need evidence for other things.
|
Personally, I don't need evidence for God because I accept on faith. And because I accept God on faith, I do not try to prove to others it is true or highly likely.
If someone is trying to prove something to me (or tell me its highly likely), then I do need evidence. Simulation theory, at this current stage, is one of those because I don't see much evidence other than an exercise in logical reasoning/deduction/extrapolation based on (in my mind, questionable) assumptions. Back in the old days, and probably still now, of similar exercise in logical reasoning/deduction/extrapolation about why there was, or needed to be, a God. And pretty much has still come to naught. I suspect it'll be the same for simulation theory.
Quote:
|
I don't rely on Bostrom or Tyson or any other person, as much as I do the other items that have been mentioned.
|
Maybe this is why we disagree in the fine details. I assumed Bostrom and his trilemma assumptions is the basis of your belief in simulation theory. My dissension have been targeted toward Bostrum's theory that I baselined per post #97.