Posted: Apr 21, 2017 12:23 pm
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:OlivierK wrote:The problem with calling my comment stupid, Jordan, is that I was using your own argument (and even flagged for you, in the very post you quoted, that I also thought it was a stupid argument).
If it's so easy for you to spot that it's stupid when someone else says it, then sooner or later you'll join the dots. Or maybe not, I guess.
No, it is stupid, and does not use the line of empirical evidence bound to the redefinition.
So, that there is some higher intelligence that speaks to humans is still unfounded. (so your expression was silly)
...but that humans engineer crude universes, is empirically observed.
The clear difference here, is that the redefinition draws on empirical data, while your expression compounds nonsense.
Nope, the analogy still holds. Every statement you make about creating universes can be turned around to one about speech, and vice versa. They're interchangeable examples:
So, that there is some higher intelligence that creates universes is still unfounded.
...but that humans speak, is empirically observed.
As long as you think that defining speech as a god-property is stupid, then you're equally arguing that defining simulation-creation as a god-property is stupid.