Re: If Magick Exists (was RE: Ideological blinders)

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 03:59:49 MST

  • Next message: MaxPlumm@aol.com: "Re: META: Greg Burch's request"

    Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    >
    > 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.
    >

    So what does a purported creator being consistent with the
    creation look like? Or is that not the criteria you would use?

    - samantha

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 04:00:28 MST