RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 4, 2016 at 12:46 am
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2016 at 12:49 am by robvalue.)
I think this shows that the word "God" is next to meaningless, because everyone has their own definition. That's my position, ignosticism. The only useful definition I have is "intelligent creator", and the term is relative. Being a "God" of a VR I create obviously doesn't not make me "God" with respect to this reality.
It's a fair hypothesis that this is some sort of simulation, yeah. It appears unfalsifiable to me, although it's certainly interesting. I'm concerned there is a fallacy of composition included in the hypothesis though, and it requires several assumptions.
It's much more interesting than "God says don't wank or he'll cry and burn your bum".
It's a fair hypothesis that this is some sort of simulation, yeah. It appears unfalsifiable to me, although it's certainly interesting. I'm concerned there is a fallacy of composition included in the hypothesis though, and it requires several assumptions.
It's much more interesting than "God says don't wank or he'll cry and burn your bum".
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum