Comment by nobody9999 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nobody9999 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>are at the same time are not willing to take the idea of "God" seriously;

I can't speak for anyone else, but the Abrahamic[0] (and most other, but you appear to be referencing monotheistic ones) religions are based on "evidence" that is demonstrably false.

The simulation hypothesis, just like your "Old-time religion" isn't falsifiable and, as such, can't be addressed in empirical terms.

That said, given advanced/sensitive enough measurements[1] (which are unlikely to ever be viable), there are at least a few potential experiments that could falsify the simulation hypothesis.

Abrahamic religions, OTOH, make claims that are, based on already collected data, demonstrably false.

That's why I don't reject the simulation hypothesis out of hand (although I don't take it all that seriously either), while I do reject the claims of Abrahamic (and most other) religions.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259212 (an, admittedly poorly formed, hypothesis, but something potentially measurable)

Edit: Added link to "poorly formed hypothesis."

There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation.

Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence of "God." In fact at the fundemental level these two beliefs are basically identical; the difference is in language and emotional baggage.

>There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation.

>Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence of "God." In fact at the fundemental level these two beliefs are basically identical; the difference is in language and emotional baggage.

The former is a claim that I made explicitly. The latter is also true to a certain extent, but a whole raft of the claims made by those who hypothesize the existence of a "god" have been shown to be empirically false.

The simulation hypothesis isn't falsifiable either, but it doesn't make demonstrably false claims.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

All that said, both are metaphysics[0] at best, and to paraphrase Sir Peter Medawar[1], a "bounteous harvest of gobbledygook" at worst.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics

[1] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507

> The former is a claim that I made explicitly.

I think you recognized the contradiction in your own point and corrected it so I will leave it be. It is unimportant to the broader idea of the simulation hypothesis that any individual hypothesis can be disproven. In fact there is an infinite number of trivial variants that can easily be disproven. This is still an infinitessimal fraction of the uncountable space of hypotheses.

Similary it doesn't matter if the claims of any individual religion can be falsified, there is simply another one without those claims. Just because I read something false in one book, or many books, doesn't mean all books are false. Or just because one scientfic paper turns out to not be replicable doesn't mean empiricism is fundementally useless.

>I think you recognized the contradiction in your own point and corrected it so I will leave it be.

I didn't "correct" anything. And there's no contradiction, AFAICT.

You either chose to misinterpret my points or I was unclear in expressing them. Either way, you drew an incorrect conclusion from my statements.

If the reason for that was the former, shame on you! If it was the latter, shame on me!

So do you want to correct my incorrect conclusion or are you happy to just call it a day :P

The contradiction was in saying the simulation hypothesis was fundementally unfalsifiable, and then pointing to its falsifiablity as a reason to prefer it to other belief systems. Your edit made it more clear, but there is still a contradiction there.

Given that a sibling comment is expressing very similar criticisms, I think my interpretation of your argument reflects something present in your text. If I am mistaken, please help me understand your point of view better. This is what good faith discussion is about. No shame necessary.

Hopefully my explication here[0] will resolve your confusion:

I didn't say that the hypothesis of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator was falsifiable, I said that some of the claims made by those who believe that hypothesis (Abrahamic religions) are demonstrably false.

I then contrasted that with the simulation hypothesis, that doesn't make such claims.

>If I am mistaken, please help me understand your point of view better. This is what good faith discussion is about. No shame necessary.

I hope I've been able to do that. As to "shame," that was a rhetorical flourish. Please feel free to ignore it.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28843001

>Abrahamic religions, OTOH, make claims that are, based on already collected data, demonstrably false.

What claims? There are so many denominations of protestant Christianity alone that I don't think you could even go so far as to say that "Abrahamic religions make claims." Maybe one specific sect makes a claim.

>What claims? There are so many denominations of protestant Christianity alone that I don't think you could even go so far as to say that "Abrahamic religions make claims." Maybe one specific sect makes a claim.

Creationism is pretty much de rigueur for all Abrahamic religions.

There are others, but that one gives the lie to all of them.

You can't disprove creationism, only young-earth or otherwise Tolkienesque creationism. There's always another variety that doesn't involve believing the thing you can demonstrate is wrong. Frankly, we don't really know whether the universe was created or not. We know a few specific things about topics covered in creation myths, but if you ask someone about them you will see response ranging from "nah I don't think that part is right," to, "if you look closely you'll see that what it's really saying is..."

The platonic ideal fundamentalist only exists in atheist cultural myths. ;) It would be awfully convenient for atheism if believers in religions weren't also trying to square away contradictions, but they are, and they have brains too - about the same brains because we're all the same species - and they're not entirely unsuccessful unless you count the activity of squaring away contradictions itself as evidence that the divine author lacked foresight into what people would think when they read Genesis millennia after it was put to text.

The essential question about apologetics is, how reasonable is to to put a lot of effort into coming up with interpretations, when the text was supposed to be written to teach you? If the only way to correctly interpret the text is to get the information elsewhere, that doesn't speak highly of the text as a vehicle for knowledge.

The rejoinder is that the Bible, or the Torah, or whatever, was not written to be a science textbook, and its value to us as a textbook did not matter at all to the author. Given that religion is focused more on saving souls that it is on natural history, it doesn't seem like such an unreasonable picture of the motives involved to say that the divine coordinator would gladly confuse generations of internet forum posters in exchange for a little more symbolic significance in the text.

The rejoinder to that is: why would God be dealing with tradeoffs? Well, at this point we've completely submerged ourselves into arguing about the personality of the creator.

>You can't disprove creationism, only young-earth or otherwise Tolkienesque creationism.

His noodly goodness[0][1] will reward you for your faith!

Arrrh!

[0] https://www.spaghettimonster.org/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Well, I think we can all agree that the FSM is not demonstrably false - to be demonstrably false is to be falsifiable, and unless they made a mistake somewhere in coming up with their parody canon there's no reason why it should have to be. In fact I think the entire point of the FSM is to illustrate that creation myths are not falsifiable.

I didn't say that the hypothesis of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator was falsifiable, I said that some of the claims made by those who believe that hypothesis (Abrahamic religions) are demonstrably false.

I then contrasted that with the simulation hypothesis, that doesn't make such claims.

That doesn't make the core hypothesis of either one falsifiable. Rather, it (at least to me) makes me less likely to entertain the (non-falsifiable) hypotheses that surround themselves with demonstrably false claims than those that don't.

I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure what the falsifiable claims are.

If you're saying that creationism is wrong because many creationists are wrong, that sounds like some kind of fallacy.

>If you're saying that creationism is wrong because many creationists are wrong, that sounds like some kind of fallacy.

That's doesn't even bear a resemblance to what I said.

Apparently, my communication skills are quite poor, so I will cease to attempt to use them in this context[0].

[0] Or you're being deliberately obtuse. But I don't claim that as I try to assume good faith.

>some of the claims made by those who believe that hypothesis (Abrahamic religions) are demonstrably false.

What would be an example of one of those claims? We tried Creationism but it turns out one can't really demonstrate that it's false.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com