Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

From: Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:56:59 -0800

On Mar 10, 2005, at 1:19 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> Why is it important whether we live in a sim or not: if we live in a
> sim, then there is the possibility of life beyond the sim, and of life
> beyond the sim for those who were born in the sim.

By definition there is life beyond the sim or at least automated 
hardware running it.

>  Reconciling this
> issue I think is of immense importance in reconciling transhumanism
> with the theist majority, such that we are able to construct a
> constructive, productive, and peaceful future, and not one riven by
> transhuman/luddite strife and misery.

I still don't see how this (likely being in a sim) makes any such 
difference.  There are too many possible sim scenarios that do not 
support any notion of a god much less one near that of most theists.  
So precisely how does this follow?

I can and have construct sim-inclusive arguments that do do a 
reasonable job of supporting a God but not one very similar at all to 
what most theist claim.  So even having done some number of iterations 
of such speculative theology I still don't see where you/we get the 
benefit you are suggesting.

- samantha

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Dan Clemmensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:53:46 -0500

> benefit you are suggesting.
I'm very confused, as usual. Is there any detectable difference between 
living in a sim and living in a universe constructed or controlled by 
"God?"  "God" is simply another name for "sysop."

Different religions use different names for god and ascribe different 
qualities to their particular god. It should be possible to create a 
list of attributes that are ascribed to gods by each religion (sect, 
faith, or other theist grouping) and then ask each religion to declare 
for each attribute whether or not it applies to their god. those who 
think we live in a sim can agree or disagree that each attribute 
describes the sim environment/sysop.

For each religion there is a corresponding simulation environment.

This reductionist approach applies only to religions that agree that at 
least some attributes of their god are "public knowledge." That is that 
at least some attributes of the god can be described reliably in words.

For myself, each of these descriptions of my universe falls into one 
three categories:
    1) inconsistent
    2) consistent but  contradicted by observation of the universe
    3) consistent but no contradicted buy observation of the universe.

I reject 1 and 2. Of all religions in category 3, only one is unique: 
That is the one in which there is no unobservable attributes. For any 
religion that ascribes unobservable attributes to god, I can construct 
an infinity of additional religions by adding additional unobservable 
attributes.

I choose to "believe: in the one unique "religion." I am an atheist.

---

From: Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:39:52 -0800

On Mar 14, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

>> what most theist claim.  So even having done some number of 
>> iterations of such speculative theology I still don't see where 
>> you/we get the benefit you are suggesting.
>>
> I'm very confused, as usual. Is there any detectable difference 
> between living in a sim and living in a universe constructed or 
> controlled by "God?"  "God" is simply another name for "sysop."

That depends on what aspects you are looking at.  There could be 
accidental sims, school project sims, sims with the creator[s] poking 
their noses in or not, sims where the creators felt compassion toward 
any intelligent beings within the sim or not and so on.  The sim may or 
may not be "controlled".   The creator[s] may or may not still be 
around and interested in the sim.  Thus it is a big jump from 
considering being in a sim likely to extrapolating what that means re 
notions of God and such.

> describes the sim environment/sysop.

This would be a pointless speculative exercise  but interesting/amusing 
as such exercises go.

> For each religion there is a corresponding simulation environment.

If you wish.

>
> This reductionist approach applies only to religions that agree that 
> at least some attributes of their god are "public knowledge." That is 
> that at least some attributes of the god can be described reliably in 
> words.

it is fairly certain that present humans are unable to understand much 
about significantly advanced intelligences.  Ineluctability may be a 
simple statement of fact.

> I choose to "believe: in the one unique "religion." I am an atheist.

Nice for you.  However, ti is quite possible to lack sufficient 
intelligence or knowledge to grasp that what appears inconsistent is 
not necessarily inconsistent at all.   On (2) it is difficult to get a 
contradiction within a sim for the possibility of being in a sim.  
there are many religions and religious sects that either have no 
theistic component or assign no particular attributes to God.

- samantha