Posted: Apr 22, 2017 12:37 am
SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND: Science is known to replace mythical components with empirical measures (better approximate models with more and more empirical data).
OlivierK wrote:
As people have pointed out, when you reject scientifically unfounded god-properties, you throw out all the properties that were uniquely held by gods (including omnipotence, omniscience, ability to perform miracles, talking to people from outside the universe, creating the universe), and are just left with properties that are also held by non-gods (ability to perform stage magic, ability to speak, ability to simulate universes).
Given that creating a simulation is patently not creating a universe, you'd have a better (but still stupid) argument if you just tried to argue that Penn and Teller are saints, because you've updated the definition of "miracle" to more scientifically reasonable "convincing act of illusion".
You don't throw out everything. In toddler like terms, crude universes (simulations) are empirical measures of the actual universe. Science is known to replace mythical components with empirical measures. So, the ability to yield crude universes remains.
OlivierK wrote:
You've used a lot of big words, often incorrectly, but your argument is no more than:
a) Illustris exists,
b) It's kinda-sorta a universe,
c) science has rendered the gods of antiquity surplus to requirements, by showing that none of the properties that defined gods as gods are founded on evidence
d) so we can re-use the word god for people who display crude approximations of god properties, like the folk who make kinda-sorta universes.).
(a) I did mention (a), and (a) is empirically observed.
(b) I did not say a was an actual universe. Ironically, the redefinition purges that our universe was forged by some higher being, but instead, crude universes (SIMULATIONS) such that humans are creators of said constructs...
(c) One large property, the ability to engineer crude universes remains. (Crude universes are LITERALLY APPROXIMATIONS OR MEASURES OF OUR COSMOS)
(d) See (c) above.
OlivierK wrote:
Your defense against criticism is
a) really IS true!!!! (despite nobody claiming otherwise)
b) is so too true!!! It really is a universe. My proof is that I don;t understand the word "crude", and I can use that misunderstanding to construct some lame semantic trickery that nobody sane would accept.
c) if anyone agrees with you that science has discarded all the defining properties of ancient gods as unfounded, you attack them
d) I can redefine god in stupid ways if I want. And sure, you can. All that's left is to convince others it's not stupid. A dozen pages of failure to convince even one person that it's not stupid should perhaps be a pointer for you on how good an idea that is.
My defense is simply empirical data.
I wouldn't mind a head shot after experiencing the "points"/silly expressions (including yours) given by others on this thread.