Posted: Apr 21, 2017 12:33 pm
OlivierK wrote:ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Let's break thing down toddler style:
To put it simply, God is not redefined on the boundary of that scientifically unfounded sequence.
The difference between these two, are that:
(1) No science for an outside intelligence speaking to humans. (No humans speaking to conscious entities inside their simulations either)
(2) There is science for humans creating crude universes.
(3) No science for an outside intelligence creating universes.
(4) There is science for humans speaking.
You got nothing.
Yes, there is no error detected in the redefinition as far as science goes.
OliverK wrote: God speaks to humans
As said prior, there is no human speaking to conscious beings in their simulations.
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
PS: If the archaic God supposedly spoke, humans would still be re-definable as Gods, since we speak.
Speech would be yet another property, that is empirically founded. (I wonder why it would be sensible to exclude speech, speech had long been included as part of the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence)
...but speech to entities in our simulation though, no.
