From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 13:49:58 MDT
--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever@sprynet.com> wrote:
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@yahoo.com>
> >
> > What I find so amusing is that we have Olga here, trashing a 13
> > year old kid for being allegedly as naive as, well, a 13 year
> > old, for thinking there is a God while being allegedly so high an
> > IQ as to be untestable.
>
> Mike, did I not write (to Rafal)?:
>
> ***"... we can cut him some slack. The kid is only 13 and is
> dependent on his grownups (or, sounds like, they may be dependent
> on him?)."
>
> ***I also agreed (I don't remember with whom) that the kid is
> definitely worth watching.
>
> ***I also agreed with Newstrom: [Olga Bourlin wrote]
> Certainly, I can understand why a 13-year-old would think that (most
> teenagers are prone to narcissism, anyway - it's probably even an
> important developmental step).
>
> ***Mike, why are you ignoring the whole of what I've written? Please
> respond to this point.
No, I'm not. What I am doing is drawing a contrast between what seems
to be a need for you to attack religiosity when overtly expressed as
such (even to the point of dissing a 13 year old kid, which I think was
excessive, and which you seem to be backing off a bit, good for you!),
yet you have been silent on the writing of Nick Bostrom, whose
simulation arguments MANDATE that there be a system operator, i.e. a
'God' to have created this universe if it is indeed a simulation. I'll
note that you failed to respond to this point in my post. Please do
respond now.
>
> As I've not had any trouble shedding religiosity at a very early
> age (and I'm no genius), I was wondering what
> people thought. I've learned some things here (I usually do), and
> appreciate the input from all the posters.
I'll note that you failed to respond to my earlier post making just
that contrast, that Mr Smith IS a supergenius and you are not, so IMHO
it's a bit arrogant for you to think that it was to be assumed that you
automatically knew more than him, in calling him arrogant for thinking
that there is a God.
As for myself, I'm enough of a genius to say I don't know the answer. I
am genius enough to say that the arguments made by Nick Bostrom are
persuasive that we likely do live in a simulation. If that is so, then
the argument that there is a creator 'God' is implicit. Furthermore,
the range of knowledge between what we know and what such a theoretical
God must know to have achieved this simulation is so significant that
we really are in no position to judge any limits on what is and is not
possible for such a God to do within this simulation.
Thus, if the simulation argument holds, then atheism is dead, and
religiosity is an acceptable standard for scientific individuals to practice.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 14:03:05 MDT