3 ms·

You're misinterpreting what I wrote, so let's break it down. 1. If our hypothetical Simulationist believes we are certain to be in a simulation despite the hyp

by vidarh 3y ago

You're misinterpreting what I wrote, so let's break it down. 1. If our hypothetical Simulationist believes we are certain to be in a simulation despite the hypothetical Simulationist having seen no evidence, then it is my opinion they are just holding another religious belief. 2. If they expect me to consider their belief as anything but a religious belief, then it rests on them to present the evidence they have seen. They're free not to, and I'm free to dismiss their unsupported hypothesis. It's not my job to search for evidence for a claim made by someone else if I don't find it compelling. "No evidence" did not suggest no evidence can and/or does exist somewhere, someplace, but that I have not seen any. My assertion that I have not seen any is all the evidence that is needed for the claim that I have not seen any. But like Russel's Teapot, if someone claims to know that we are in a simulation, that is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof lies squarely on them.

mistermann 3y ago
> You're misinterpreting what I wrote Seems more like I interpreted what you wrote literally rather than ideologically (colloquially, as is current enforced fashion)...seems a bit unfair that religious people can't pull a similar trick and say scripture is metaphorical and nullify all criticism. Ok, so let's consider "then it is my opinion they are just holding another religious belief": For clarity: do you believe that it is necessarily true that there is no evidence for a God? Is there some important meaning contained in "just holding another religious belief"? It seems like a phrase that is conclusive about something in some way (the "just" accentuating it, at least to my interpretation). Does personal witness count as evidence for people who believe themselves to have witnessed evidence, and if not why not (I'm getting at what seems like at least somewhat of a double standard, and there's the thorny issue of difficulty of proof of existence vs disproof in play[1]...among other things, some in your favor, and some a derivative of temporal cultural norms of cognition). [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event

by vidarh 3y ago

mistermann 3y ago

> You're misinterpreting what I wrote Seems more like I interpreted what you wrote literally rather than ideologically (colloquially, as is current enforced fashion)...seems a bit unfair that religious people can't pull a similar trick and say scripture is metaphorical and nullify all criticism. Ok, so let's consider "then it is my opinion they are just holding another religious belief": For clarity: do you believe that it is necessarily true that there is no evidence for a God? Is there some important meaning contained in "just holding another religious belief"? It seems like a phrase that is conclusive about something in some way (the "just" accentuating it, at least to my interpretation). Does personal witness count as evidence for people who believe themselves to have witnessed evidence, and if not why not (I'm getting at what seems like at least somewhat of a double standard, and there's the thorny issue of difficulty of proof of existence vs disproof in play[1]...among other things, some in your favor, and some a derivative of temporal cultural norms of cognition). [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event