http://mashable.com/2016/06/02/elon-musk-simulated-reality/#sdLXHm2_jsqB
2,657 thoughts on “Elon Musk Thinks Evolution is Bullshit.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Does “unicorn” have a “real world referent”? FWIW, I understand it.
exactly. Perhaps you are finally getting it. Probably a better way to say it is
“God exists necessarily”
When you presume to subject God’s existence to your own puny judgement you are making yourself out to be God. You have no authority to do this
You are not in charge God is and he has revealed himself so that you are without excuse.
Now can we please discuss something else?
peace
spoken like a decider in chief. Are you a decider in chief?
If not what right do you have to make these sorts of pronouncements from on high?
peace
When you presume to subject Sasquatch’s existence to your own puny judgement you are making yourself out to be Sasquatch. You have no feet to do this.
Actually, it’s written like someone who has heard plenty of god claims but never seen any objective, empirical evidence to support them.
No pronouncements, just applying the same rules of evidence that most people do to any unsupported claim. Your god claims don’t get a free pass.
The problem here is that you and FMM are talking past each other, quite badly.
FMM thinks that divine revelation is a necessary condition for all possible knowledge. (He thinks this because of divine revelation, but that’s his problem.
So when you ask “but how do you know that God exists?” you’re asking, “how do you know what the necessary condition of knowledge is?”
Which is, in fact, not a bad question. It’s actually the question of a “metacritique”. I believe it was Herder or Hamann who first raised it in response to Kant’s exposition of the necessary conditions of knowledge: how do you know what those conditions of knowledge are?
But everything goes pear-shaped if one thinks of God as a being, a sort of an object, which either exists or not in the same way that Saquatch or unicorns don’t exist and rocks and tables do. You’re bringing a posteriori knives to an a priori gunfight.
I don’t believe you are correct about that. But even if you were it is totally irrelevant what “most would agree” to. Matters of fact and logic are not decided by vote or popularity.
You don’t get to just handwave away the incomprehensible by just putting the “omnipontent” band-aid on. I don’t even believe it is possible for something to BE omnipotent.
How do you know? You keep just saying that.
That’s just a repeat of the claim. How can he do it? Because he can. Well fuck me if it isn’t just the same assertion repeated.
.. is what the clever simulation programmers wants you to believe. But all you experienced was what the simulation programmers planted in the simulation.
Then I will respond that I don’t and then it’s just your word against mine to a 3rd party observer. Furthermore, with regards to convincing me of anything(which you’ll now tell us you’re not trying to do anyway), claiming I already know something I clearly don’t isn’t the most effective option.
Even if I acted like that it wouldn’t follow it was because your god has proven anything to me.
Incidentally the reason I act as if I’m not in a simulation is that I don’t believe we’re in a simulation, since there’s no evidence we’re in a simulation. Not because of any “proof”. In point of fact, the argument I’ve been making in discussion with you all along is that none of us(both you and me or adherent of any other philosophy) can prove that we are NOT in a simulation. I don’t believe such a proof is possible, which is the whole point.
You keep mistaking assertion with proof. A proof would be a deductive argument taking premises that entail a specific conclusion. But you don’t supply any such arguments, all you do is make claims. There isn’t a single attempt at argument you’ve made that isn’t guilty of the fallacy of question-begging assertions.
You keep just repeating this “relevation” is from god. But when asked to explain how you know it isn’t from deceptive simulation programmers or fictions of your own subconscious, you just repeat the same claim.
The revelation is what I’m asking you to prove is in fact a revelation from god, rather than a revelation from a deceptive simulation programmer. You don’t prove this by stacking another unproven assumption beneath it to prop it up.
I don’t understand why you don’t just admit you can’t prove it but just believe it on warm, abiding, servile faith. If there’s one thing that is clear to me form these many interactions we’ve had, it’s that you can’t prove it. It’s just faith. You have a total conviction of the truth of it. But that is it.
So? That is totally beside the point. You are not the judge of what is possible
no it’s your word against your own actions
How do you know there is no evidence? How do you know evidence is required or necessary?
not at all, I know revelation is not from deceptive simulation programmers because God can not lie.
Because that would not be the truth.
I’m sorry but apparently then you have not learned anything.
You can’t even prove you are not in a simulation but you believe this based on what? I would say blind faith you would say lack of (possible) evidence to the contrary.
Yet you can’t even fathom that I might believe in God because of lack of (possible) evidence to the contrary?
peace
Why?
I’m not impressed by that kind of language. You are welcome to see things in these terms, I don’t.
I don’t need to be “in charge”, whatever you mean by that, to want to have good, logically coherent reasons for believing certain propositions to be true.
How do you know the simulation programmers didn’t write the Bible?
I’m not interested in anything else from you than an admission your position is based on nothing more than unsupported faith. As soon as you concede that you don’t have any reasons based in logic or evidence for believing the things you do I will be satisfied. You can go on believing for all I care. Just stop pretending you can prove any of it. Admit that all you have to offer is assertions you believe on faith.
well said
short answer revelation.
Long answer by asking “How do you know stuff?” and looking for a consistent answer that does not invoke the Christian God.
That is why I found your latest post so interesting and why I was sorry it came up short in the eyes of everyone else
peace
Because God is the author of the Bible but in another sense it was written by folks like Paul and I know that Paul is not a programmer
Why should your feelings about it matter?
Because he is God. This is not rocket science
Why are your desires all that matter here. Is everything about you??
Spoken like someone who thinks they are in charge and have the authority to make demands on everyone else. Is that how you feel?
Why should anyone else be concerned about your personal satisfaction?
If your satisfaction is dependent on the actions of other human beings you need to prepare for a lifetime of disappointment
peace
You keep using these strange terms like “judge” and “in charge” that don’t seem to fit the subject matter very well. I’m not judging anything, I’m trying to understand. I’m trying to get you to understand.
Please detail what actions I have taken that are in conflict with my words.
To clarify: I’m not aware of any such evidence(that we are in a simulation). I obviously can’t claim none exists, I don’t know everything. For all I know such evidence could exist, I just haven’t come into contact with it. If such evidence is presented to me, I will consider it and modify my beliefs accordingly.
Required or necessary for what? Belief that our universe is a simulation? Strictly speaking it isn’t. People can believe things on faith if they wish. I’m just not that kind of person, it doesn’t sit well with me. You seem to do it just fine however.
That does not explain how you know the revelations you say you receive are actually from god and not from the programmers of a simulation.
All it means is that IF the revelation IS from god, THEN it isn’t a lie. But how do you know it IS? How do you know it IS from god?
Then please proceed to the proof, rather than just more assertions you also can’t prove.
I can help you with that. You see, rather than asking me you seem to have saddled me with a belief I don’t actually hold.
My answer to the question are we in a simulation? is simply “I don’t know”. And since I can’t even imagine how we could find out, it doesn’t bother me.
I am simply agnostic on whether I live in a simulation. I cannot prove that I’m not, so I don’t believe I’m not (since there’s no indication either way, there’s no way for me to decide). I also don’t have any evidence that I AM in a simulation, so I also don’t believe I am. I just don’t know and because I don’t see a way I could know, I really don’t care. If in the future some kind of information becomes available that should help me decide, I will look it over again.
I do not believe anything on faith.
No, I can’t for the life of me fathom why you would believe IN something just because there is (in your view) no evidence against it. I’m more the type of guy who believes in things there’s evidence FOR. I don’t have beliefs in things just because they have not been disproven. Case in point: a simulated universe.
Rumraket,
Let me try this another way just to say I gave it my best effort.
Is it blind faith to believe that you exist?
I know that God exists in exactly the same way you know you exist.
Because it is simply impossible not to believe it.
Please think deeply about this for a while
thanks in advance
peace
For one thing you act as if you know you are not in a simulation yet you claim you can’t know if you are in a simulation
you don’t need additional proof. You already know it’s the case
God’s existence is not something “out there” that a person can choose to believe in or not.
God’s existence is the only necessarily fact in the universe. disbelieving in God’s existence is exactly like disbelieving in existence itself.
To do so is insanity
peace
walto,
Reread your hypothetical exchange:
That exchange doesn’t make sense as written. However, it would make sense if it began with this…
The difference? Both sentences express the belief that you left the keys in the garage, but the first sentence additionally asserts that the belief is justified and true — that you know it, in other words.
To say that you know something, and then to immediately assert that you have no idea whether it’s likely to be true, is a nonsequitur.
It is literally impossible for any evidence to be brought against existence.
The exact same thing is true for God
peace
fifth:
No. It is perfectly possible, and coherent, to believe that God does not exist but that other things do exist.
Not at all. Your confusion is evidence of your own intellectual shortcomings, not of insanity on the part of your interlocutors.
Oh, I know that. I just can’t stop myself. 😉
I was raised in the Congregationalist church. Even sang in the choir until my voice changed. I never saw a padded pew until I went to a Catholic wedding. In the area I grew up in, the Congregationalists were considered a bit on the liberal side; the Hosanna’s had the speaking in tongues end of the spectrum nailed down. I assure you that the vast majority of the people in those churches consider their god to be a real being that actually exists.
Fifthmonarchyman does, too. He claims that his god is the one described in the Christian bible (internal contradictions and all, apparently).
I’ll take my chances with an empirical knife against a presupposed gun any day of the week.
Anything and everything
necessary simply means it can not not be so
God has revealed it. God can reveal it and he has it’s simple.
Are you claiming that it is impossible to know anything.
If so please explain how you know this.
peace
My apologies to KN 😉
No it is not.
Among other things God is logic and truth. It would not be possible or coherent to believe anything at all if logic and truth did not exist.
If you disagree please explain yourself with out the use of logic or truth
peace
This explains a lot
Apparently you are constantly trying to tear down the straw-man version of God you think you learned about when you were a young child.
FYI
God is not like that at all. Until you understand that what you rejected is not what I’m talking about you we will never be able to have a meaningful conversation about this stuff.
peace
fifth:
“God is logic and truth” is an unsupported and confused assertion.
Perhaps I’ll do an OP on “divine simplicity”. It’s quite ridiculous and incoherent.
no it’s revelation.
and I notice you are still attempting to use logic and appealing to truth.
peace
lets grant that for a minute just for the sake of argument.
Even if it’s unsupported and confused it’s what I believe God is based on Christian Scripture.
Do you claim It would be possible or coherent to believe anything if logic and truth did not exist?
If not then your argument is not directed at the God I believe in but a strawman of your own making
peace
Nonsense. All one need do is deny that God is truth and/or logic. The claim that He defined himself as either or both is irrelevant. One can accept logic and truth while denying that God has anything to do with either.
You can define God as a nonexistent entity and then say that proves that God does not exist but you really haven’t done anything of value have you,
The reality is that words have meanings we just don’t get to make them up as we go along just to suit our fancy.
On the other hand God has the right to define himself
peace
That’s the same question-beg, now for the third time, I believe. I deny knowing something involves knowing–or even having any theory regarding–the likelihood of that thing. Probabilities go on with or without me and my justification, as I’ve already explained. Orthogonal.
There’s a sense that’s right and a sense that’s wrong. I don’t know where keiths stands on whether it’s possible or coherent to believe anything if logic and truth did not exist. Personally, while I think that’s put weirdly, there may well be some version *I’d* go for. But I think it’s necessarily false that anything could be truth or logic and also be God. So, if you say, “Well MY God just *IS truth and(/or) logic,” then I think a perfectly appropriate response is to say that that’s just a redefinition and the stuff you are calling “God” isn’t worthy of worship because, e.g., it isn’t sentient, or omniscient, or benevolent or omnipotent–the stuff usually attributed to God. And when you say, “Oh No, He’s all those things.” The appropriate response is that that’s just nonsensically mixing categories.
walto,
Justification is not independent of likelihood. That’s why exchange #1 is nonsensical:
One can define God as necessary for truth and logic, and then insist that God defines Himself that way. One can say that anyone who doesn’t see it that way simply lacks the correct understanding of God, or lacks a spiritually aware reading of Scripture. But in a discussion with those who don’t already share those assumptions, insisting on those assumptions amounts to little more than stamping one’s feet and pounding one’s fists on the table.
fifth:
That’s right.
Likewise, you can define God as a necessary being and claim that proves that God exists, but then you haven’t really done anything of value, have you?
Nicely put.
Whether God exists and whether you deem him worthy of worship are two entirely separate questions.
While it’s been revealed that you know God exists it has also been reveled that you won’t find him to be worthy of worship.
So I would have no problem if you had this response to me.
I might if I was so inclined endeavor to show you how you are mistaken but it would be a completely different conversation then arguing about God’s existence.
peace
A core tenant of presuppositionalism is the reality that when it comes to questions about God we really have no common ground with which to communicate.
There is really nothing I can do except point out the inconsistency of your position and hope that God will see fit to enlighten you.
That is why I would for the most part rather discuss other things
That does not mean that this sort of of discussion has no value at all. It gives God glory and perhaps provides comfort to lurkers that they are not alone and there is always the possibility that God might choose to use something I say to tweak your conscience.
peace
KN:
I’m not arguing that Cartesian skepticism is true. I’m arguing that you don’t know that you are not being fooled, contrary to your claim:
KN:
None of which insulates you from the possibility of being fooled.
No, your position has been:
a) that Cartesian skepticism is impossible, and you even did an OP on it;
b) then it was that Cartesian skepticism is inconceivable, which you disproved by conceiving of and describing a Cartesian brain-in-vat scenario;
c) and then finally your position was that you know you are not being fooled, which you undermined by conceding that Bostrom’s scenario “has a likelihood of being true that cannot be estimated.”
It’s not me who does the defining it’s God.
And there is inerrant value in proclaiming who God is
peace
fifth:
You don’t do that. What you actually do is point out the inconsistency between our positions and your baseless presuppositions — an inconsistency that neither surprises nor discredits us.
keiths:
fifth:
Logic is definitely not your strong suit.
That’s very similar to FMM’s last post on this. The reason this is odd:
Yolanda: I not only believe X, I know it.
Xavier: How likely is it that X is true?
Yolanda: Extremely unlikely.
doesn’t have anything to do with justification. It’s just Moore’s “paradox of belief” in a different guise. That is you and Fifth are taking “P is likely” to be equivalent to the assertion “P” and the assertion “I believe P” If “It’s raining” means or at least entails “It’s likely raining” then of course there’s a sense in which one contradicts oneself if one says “I believe it’s raining, but I think it’s unlikely” But that’s only because the “likely” there isn’t adding anything at all. It’s just a reiteration of the fact that you believe it. But if we take “likely” to mean something like “having a probability of .5 or higher” there’s nothing strange about saying “I know X but I don’t know if it’s likely.” Otherwise toddlers (and doggies?) who have no concept of probability couldn’t know anything.
I don’t believe you need to understand what probability is to be justified in something and, if it’s true, know it.
You still haven’t demonstrated that knowing something requires having an estimable likelihood of its truth, just repeated it a bunch of times. I’m still waiting for probability estimates of the stuff you think you know.
I don’t think it’s possible for something to be God and not be worthy of worship. Do you?
According to revealed truth (i.e. the bible), God can lie. In fact he lied to the first man quite soon after creating him, when he said that if Adam ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that day he would die. But he didn’t. (The talking snake, on the other hand, was truthful.) I suppose FMM will present a tortured reading in which god didn’t mean he would die but that he would become mortal. But that didn’t happen either. It’s clearly failing to eat from the tree of life that renders one mortal, which is why god said he would have to be expelled from the garden before he could do that (which, unaccountably, Adam had failed to do previously, even though he had been invited to do so). So either god can lie, or Genesis isn’t true. But if it’s the word of God, and it isn’t true, that would also be a lie.
No but it is very possible for you to decide that God is unworthy of worship. We humans are prone to error.
Your brain (like mine) is simply incapable of making that sort of determination correctly.
It’s simply above your/our pay grade
peace
More importantly, I think claims that logic or truth SAID this or that are metaphorical only. God can’t both BE truth and say stuff–true or false.
Right now you are doing a good job of pointing out the inconsistency in walto’s position later on I expect him to do the same for yours.
Sometimes all I have to to is sit back and watch the circular firing squad. and throw in an occasional “how do you know that? ”
😉
peace
I could absolutely be wrong in my assessment about whether something is worthy of worship. No question. But I know what “worthy of worship” means, I know that anything that is a God has to be it, and I know that logic/truth aren’t the right sort of things to be worthy of worship.
Therefore I can appropriately infer that no God is logic/truth. I don’t need to be infallible to know that–just follow (actual) logic and truth where they (actually) go.
That’s wrong too.
You keep forgetting that God is a Trinity at some point I’d think you’d get that.
The second person could be truth while the third person could proclaim truth. In fact since he is holy that is exactly what you’d expect the third person to do when beholding the second.
peace
I don’t “get” stuff that’s nonsensical. Sorry.
walto,
Sure it does. Yolanda asserts that she knows X, meaning that X is a justified true belief of hers. Then she asserts that X is unlikely to be true, meaning that the belief is not justified.
It’s a contradiction.
For the third time: you don’t need to assign a numerical probability in order to assess the likelihood of something.