[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 26 16:34:11 UTC 2004


--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:

> On Friday, November 26, 2004 9:42 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
> wrote:
> >> Definition 2 seems to be dealing with
> >> religious matters but here again there
> >> is nothing which logically links Atheism
> >> with faith.  For example you can be an
> >> Atheist without having a "firm belief in
> >> something for which there is no proof".
> >
> > On the contrary. A firm belief in the claim
> > that there is no God, or other universe-
> > creator-being, humanity-creator-being,
> > etc... is a claim to a proof which is not in
> > evidence, and, given the Simulation
> > Argument, is contrary to evidence
> > currently available.
> 
> Au contrare!  Mike conflates "God" with creator-being, especially for
> such mundane things as creating humanity.  The God meant by theism is
> a God that literally is transcendent -- beyond reality.  It may be a
> creator, but if so, then can create everything else -- the simulation
> and whatever is outside it.  Either way, it is beyond everything else
> --  beyond the simulation and what's outside it.

Quite wrong. Firstly, pre-christian and early christian theists had no
concept of multi-verse theory, at least not in that region of the
world, so this universe/simulation is the extent of the boundary
between natural and supernatural. Secondly, you are confusing late
judaic monotheism/monodeisms with other theisms and/or deisms.
Particularly, christianity is monotheistic/polydeistic in that its is
focused at least equally upon Christ, the son, as on Yahweh, the
father, as well as upon Mary the mother in many instances (and then you
have that holy spirit/ghost thing to worry about), and beyond them, the
whole panoply of the archangels, angels, seraphim, etc. as well as
demons, devils, succubi and Satan/Lucifer.

This polydeism is not unique, as it was also characteristic of the
early jewish faith, with its worship of both Yahweh (El or Enki),
Asherah (Eve), Marduk, Baal, etc. Early judaism did not say there were
not other gods, only that worshiping any of them but Yahweh was a sin.

Furthermore, many other theisms recognise deities created by a creator
god, who themselves were responsible for creation of mankind.

> 
> Now, just from a common sense viewpoint, when someone writes a
> computer game (or a novel), daydreams, or builds a house, one does
> not call that
> person God and wouldn't confuse her with the God as meant by theism.
> When one does -- assuming one isn't mad:) -- one is only being
> metaphorical and not implying that the writer, daydreamer, builder,
> whatever is really a god, a transcendent being.

To any sentient inhabitant of a simulation universe, its creator is a
transcendant being, as is any agent of that creator capable of
jockeying the rules beyond the capacity of naturally evolved sentients
within that simulation universe.

> 
> Further the Simulation Argument per se does not really speak to this
> matter -- it can not ground belief in a supernatural God of the kind
> theism posits -- but even if it did it would require some kind of
> validation.  I think a lot of people buy into it and earlier versions
> of it -- like Descartes _malin genie_ and Berkeley's view that
> everything
> is in the mind of God -- without really considering that.

On the contrary, you apparently have not read the Simulation Argument
in any detail. I suggest you do so.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com 



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list