[ExI] Atheism again

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Wed Apr 22 18:46:03 UTC 2020

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:55 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> >> I hope you're right and nobody around here cares about a omnipotent
>> omniscient being that created the universe, I can't prove the idea is wrong
>> but I can prove the idea is silly.
> *> To the contrary, Bostrom has shown just how probable this scenario is.*

The guy running the computer that's simulating our universe is not
omnipotent, he apparently can't simulate our natural laws so that they can
solve non-deterministic polynomial time problems in polynomial time, nor is
there any reason to think he could stop a tornado in his world from hitting
his computer. And even if the master simulator's existence could be proven
that certainly wouldn't explain why there is something rather than nothing.

*>The big bang has a reason, and that has a reason, and so does that.  The
> only way to rationalize these infinitely recurring causes is to assume said
> contingency, which I would call God. *

I would need more than that to call it God, an infinite amount more. A
chain of "why" questions either comes to a halt or it doesn't and things
terminate in a brute fact, but that brute fact need not have any
intentionality or consciousness or even a hint of intelligence, it could be
as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs. It would be a pretty low rent God if
both you and I are smarter than God. And a different chain of "why"
questions probably terminates in a different brute fact if it ever
terminates at all. In my opinion one brute fact is consciousness is the way
data feels when it is being processed, but it would be silly and very
misleading to call that fact God.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200422/2be1927f/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list