[extropy-chat] Atheism, logic, and metalogic

[Dan Clemmensen]

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.

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.