[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

[Brett Paatsch]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> It is clear that those going on, poking at me about "believing in
> the tooth fairy" are irrational atheists, who may know some
> philosophical jive to rationalize their faith, but are ultimately
> believers in atheism purely for emotional reasons. Their snide
> 'tooth fairy' attacks are clear evidence of this.
>
> If such people are so intent on holding onto their atheism, then they
> are going to need to rationally and logically answer the Simulation
> Argument, demolishing its premise that we are likely in a simulation,
> and otherwise prove conclusively that a posthuman society would never
> run ancestor simulations, or that intelligent technological societies
> always destroy themselves short of reaching post-humanity. This is the
> challenge. In the years since Bostrom, Hanson, and others have
> developed the concept, I have not seen any significant attempt by the
> atheist community to try to disprove the simulation fork of the
> argument.
>
> My main assertion is that they must answer this challenge to remain
> relevant, or else cede their position or admit to being a religious
> faith outright. Why are they so afraid of the challenge?

I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by the Simulation Argument
capitalised as you have it Mike. I think I've real essays to the effect that
the world 'we' live in could be a simulation (I think Nick Bostrom was
the author of at least one of those) but I'm not sure I've read the exact
Argument you're referring too.

Do you think the Simulation Argument is falsifiable?

Do you agree that if a proposition is not falsifiable it cannot be "proven"
wrong?

In my experience people have different ideas about what constitutes
proof and sometimes evidence just as they have different ideas about
what constitutes the meaning of the word God.

Brett Paatsch