Completely disagree. If we were to observe that miracles reliably occur under certain conditions, such as when a god is being called upon, then the simplest explanation is that that god is responding to people calling it. It is irrelevant whether or not our world is a simulation which that god is itself a part of, as it would still mean that, at least within our simulation, there does in fact exist a spiritual dimension. In this scenario it is actually the idea of a simulation which is the superfluous belief, as it contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomena observed and has no evidence in support of it.
Thanks. I think it is a sober objection. I think there could be situations when it is true, nevertheless as long as that god would seem logically impossible (although human logic could be false and God’s one true). I think it is in the realm of possibility that some form of computer-simulated entities are conscious with enough of computing power and it is one of widely accepted assumptions, so I think it can for now be used as an argument in some discussions. I see the second option as simpler (when we think in terms of axioms, assume our logic is right and we understand it, and if God has incoherent properties)
Completely disagree. If we were to observe that miracles reliably occur under certain conditions, such as when a god is being called upon, then the simplest explanation is that that god is responding to people calling it. It is irrelevant whether or not our world is a simulation which that god is itself a part of, as it would still mean that, at least within our simulation, there does in fact exist a spiritual dimension. In this scenario it is actually the idea of a simulation which is the superfluous belief, as it contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomena observed and has no evidence in support of it.
Thanks. I think it is a sober objection. I think there could be situations when it is true, nevertheless as long as that god would seem logically impossible (although human logic could be false and God’s one true). I think it is in the realm of possibility that some form of computer-simulated entities are conscious with enough of computing power and it is one of widely accepted assumptions, so I think it can for now be used as an argument in some discussions. I see the second option as simpler (when we think in terms of axioms, assume our logic is right and we understand it, and if God has incoherent properties)