From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 01:18:04 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>> I would also need the other revised beliefs that tell me to
>> interpret sensory miracles as the actions of a consiliently existing
>> God, rather than hallucinations or an enclosing simulation.
>
> But wouldn't your criteria mean that God would have to be a being
among
> other beings within the framework of what, to be God, would be God's
> creation? I guess you're safe from theism because this looks like a
> clearly impossible hoop to jump through.
Eliezer wrote:
Does not follow. God could be the framework, or could be outside the
framework, or whatever it is the theologians insist on. The only
requirement for consilience is that the explanation be consistent.
Physics is consilient with biology, for example, and physics is not a
lifeform among other lifeforms.
-- Indeed it does not follow; God could intervene without needing to be part of the universe. However, as He is attributed omnipotence, all hoops are fair game. Hmm, psychoanalysts might have a field day with that last sentence. Luckily they are all full of shit anyway (anal retentive?) so I don't care :-) Emlyn *************************************************************************** Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 01:26:00 MST