Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X

REBUTTALS “My positive claim for meeting Jesus is entirely scientifically falsifiable. If you follow through on my exact process and do not encounter Jesus you have falsified my personal claim. These claims are entirely scientific. ” I can’t make any sense of this line. You’ve had two rounds to describe this ‘process’. It’s now too late, as I won’t be able to respond to it. “…you have entirely invalidated psychiatry, which is a scientific field whereby people who do not experience schizophrenia etc… but listen to testimonies and recognize clear patterns that are not falsified. They do not deny those experiences even when they encounter liars/fakes. ” Again, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I haven’t invalidated anything. Psychiatry is about treating mental illness. If you truly believe you’ve met Jesus of Nazareth, I highly recommend you go and see one. “Only recently have brain measuring technologies been developed that verify known psychiatric anomalies and patterns in patients. ” This I understand, yet I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with all this and you haven’t disproven my statement. Unsubstantiated eye witness accounts don’t equal evidence. “To compound that, to state "because I have not personally experienced "X"… "X" does not exist" would be the pinnacle of stupidity. ” I completely agree. However, I don’t simply base my non-belief on the fact that I haven’t had a religious experience. . . “We have never personally experienced or done even a fraction of the scientific experiments on record. However we "trust" the testimony of those scientists and those that review that science. ” That’s because I am very familiar with the scientific process; The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. " I am also familiar with the scrutiny that the scientific community puts new theories through. Christianity deals with the supernatural and cannot be subjected to scientific study. ‘God’ is unpredictable; he can do ANYTHING, he doesn’t need to abide by the proven laws of science. This is enough to be confident in my non-belief. “You are claiming to have run down those testimonies and have proven they are inaccurate? ” I don’t need to run through the testimonies. It would take my entire life time. Elvis died on the toilet in 1977. Thousands of people attended the open casket funeral. That is enough for me to find sightings of him post-death as UNPLAUSIBLE. “Regarding UFOs” If even a small percentage of the people are telling the truth and have genuinely been abducted by aliens, there are two possibilities: The Alien presence is part of a massive cover-up. The Alien technology is so great that we cannot detect them with any of our equipment. Even if either of these is true, my position (Aliens have not visited Earth) is still the most plausible. ‘If I meet a snakeoil salesman I do not state "all medicine is fake! "’ Straw man much? You are failing to grasp my entire point on your eyewitness accounts. I don’t claim that they are false, but that they are unsubstantiated and therefore cannot be used as evidence to support your argument. Please understand this as it’s VERY important. “I believe you may have missed the concept that a superior model for a world simulation would be bio-technology as we currently do legitimately live in. ” You haven’t shown a SINGLE shred of evidence to support the bio-technology model! “Second, that model would need a precisely designed world that allowed for the sustainability for that model. ” Why? Me: "I have made my case; everything that is needed for BSH to be plausible exists in the natural world. " My opponent: “I do not agree as a Theist with this. ” But you must agree, because all that’s needed for my model to exist is a computer (which already exist) and the steady increase of the abilities of computer technology (which can be observed). Your model requires… God. “I have shown that Christianity is both scientifically verifiable and I have also shown that it is technologically more plausible. ” WHERE? !? !! ? “Christianity has the added value of a claim that goes well into History…” Do you really want to get into the value Christianity has added to the history of mankind? “…and has been tested and verified by a multitude of theologians and scientists both in aspects of understanding the designer of this world simulation and the scientists understanding of the natural workings of the simulation. ” Yet the debate about religious always comes back to faith. CONCLUSION So here it is; the final round. Allow me to summarise: Present day computers are already roughly simulating both Human lives (i. e. The Sims) and Universes (i. e. Spore). IBM is currently working on simulating the human brain with super computers. With the observable increase in the potential of technology, it is reasonable to assume that computers of the distant future will be able to simulate both human consciousness and Universes with all the bells and whistles of natural physics. Given that once this is possible, there will be multiple instances of simulated Universes, it is more likely that we are now in one of these simulated Universes than in the actual Universe, given simple probability. My opponent proposes that Christianity is more plausible than the BSH. He does this claiming that there is more explanatory power in God. He supports the existence of God with vague claims of eyewitness accounts and claims that bio-technology (whatever that is) is a better model. This is clearly false and I have repeatedly refuted his evidence, while he has never (and is unable to) refute mine.