[extropy-chat] Atheism, logic, and metalogic

[Dirk Bruere]

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> I have a major difficulty with the simulation argument. As a practical 
> matter,
> I try to apply logic and an few meta-logical principles to my thought 
> processes.
>
> As a matter of "faith" I accept the following:
> 1) Symbolic logic and it underpinnings.
> 2) The Peano postulates
> 3) Popper's concept of falsifiability
> 4) Occam's razor.
>
> In that order.
>
> As a result, I have ignored the "simulation argument" thread almost 
> entirely.
>
> I am living in a simulation, or not. Since the hypothesis that I am 
> living in a
> simulation is not falsifiable, it is meaningless. Therefore, I must 
> apply the next
> principle: Occam's razor. It is simpler to assume that I am not living 
> in a simulation.
>
I apply Occam's Razor and deduce the opposite.

> Based on the four principles above, I am an atheist, using the 
> following operational
> definition of atheism:
>   I have observed nothing in my universe that is more easily explained 
> by the
> existence of a God than is explained by the absence of a God.

That rather depends on how 'God' is defined.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org