Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X

He is attempting to sidestep the resolution. It is his viewpoint vs. mine "Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X His theory can be contained within mine and be entirely true but mine may still win the opposition due to more accuracy in discussing our current existence and our "next" existence. I do not state that my opponent's model is 100% accurate but that the concept is quite contained within Christianity. Christianity asserts a bio-tech simulation as superior and far more plausible, when we consider that we are indeed currently contained within a biological "world". I will address my opponent's statements one at a time: << From my opponent: "I've never heard a Christian propose such a thing, ever. I suppose it's a comparable analogy, but surely most Christian DON'T think we're being simulated on the HDD of God's computer…" I am excited that this debate has brought growth to my opponent. Analogies are ways we describe new truths in easy ways to understand. 1 Corinthians Chapter 4 the Apostle St. Paul represents us as "earthen vessels" containing the truth from God. The world is blind and cannot see God but they can see the information contained within us. Plato considers all things of this world as mere shadows of the next. These are descriptions of a concept that is quite apparently true. These descriptions are for the age and culture in which they are used. Computers are very much a part of our culture. In 2,000 years we may be discussing (inbound made up word) "sibu" as the code of life. << My Opponent States: "You're committing an "Argumentum ad populum" fallacy and speaking for the entire planet, which you clearly have no right to do. " And "I'm sure you believe you have, however I highly doubt you were quick-thinking enough to get a picture taken. Your eye witness account doesn't equal evidence. " And "Countless numbers of people have also claimed to have seen Elvis. Countless numbers of people have claimed to have been abducted by UFOs. A billion unsubstantiated eye witness accounts doesn't equal evidence. " To reply as these are all variations of the same concept. Address 1) 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. Additionally by these statements that I have quoted you above, 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. Only recently have brain measuring technologies been developed that verify known psychiatric anomalies and patterns in patients. Address 2) If a socially crippled person was arguing with another socially crippled person (neither capable of Love) and one states "Love is experienced by everyone around the world, there must be something to it…. " What should the other reply? Love is unverifiable to an onlooker from a hard concept, a picture of love cannot be provided, only the acts resulting from love, but it is quite empirically evident based on "personal experiences" and the outside accounts/patterns of those experiences. I might doubt had I not had that experience but to deny its existence would be… completely feckless, to state it should not be counted as evidence is beyond feckless and well into the realm of scientific incompetence. To compound that, to state "because I have not personally experienced "X"… "X" does not exist" would be the pinnacle of stupidity. 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. The first reasonable assumption is that the way of processing data is limited in some fashion, not that all others are limited in some fashion. When you are in the minority odds are you are the "unenlightened" one. Address 3) Regarding Elvis, I have not personally run down the testimonies on Elvis sightings and cannot speak to those. You are claiming to have run down those testimonies and have proven they are inaccurate? I believe If you were Elvis you would want to disappear too… Regarding UFO's. . I am not so foolish to discount that these experiences as utter nonsense and that they should not be put to a scientific test. I also am willing to give a lot of time and scientific grace as people try to understand things that defy the laws of physics. Things that are outside of our physical laws may or may not be measurable by a scientific means constrained by our Laws of Physics. I am also not so foolish to believe that liars and money makers will not show up on the scene and curve any scientific results. If I meet a snakeoil salesman I do not state "all medicine is fake! " << My Opponent States: "And for all these personal meetings and apparent evidence, you still have Ray Comfort claiming that the banana is evidence of God. You still have Jews, who reject your prophet. You still have Muslims, who reject the divine heritage of Jesus. You still have Asian philosophy, making up the belief system huge part of the Earth's population. " Address 4) If Jesus is true then conversely so is his enemy. His enemy has created many religions that have supernatural abilities and power. They are entirely valid as to have functional power. Christians reject them due to the source of their powers and abilities. Conversely, if the belief and practice generates consistent and reliable power it will retain its followers. << My opponent States: "I strongly disagree. First of all, I've explained why your personal experience doesn't add anything to the plausibility of your argument. Second, I don't understand how you equate more explanatory power to more plausibility. I think quite the opposite is true. Your almighty creator explains EVERYTHING. He's a God of the gaps. But you need FAITH to believe it. You don't need faith to believe my hypothesis, you just need to look at the natural world that exists right now, in front of you. " Address 7) 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. Second, that model would need a precisely designed world that allowed for the sustainability for that model. To avoid any particulars of how "you think it should be designed" is irrelevant as the "creator" of this designs Will governs what has actually been created. This is clearly a superior model in its explanation of a simulator. Christianity has the claim for that superior model. You can even pinch yourself to show you exist in it LOL. <<< Concept 5 My opponent concludes: "I have made my case; everything that is needed for BSH to be plausible exists in the natural world. Even a theist must agree with this. If information technology continues on the path that it is already on, we will eventually reach a point where we can simulate a realistic universe with conscious human beings. " I do not agree as a Theist with this. I would need to see a system of bio-technology (as I have made the case for the claim of designer and bio-tech) as a superior and more plausible model. I have shown that Christianity is both scientifically verifiable and I have also shown that it is technologically more plausible. Christianity has the added value of a claim that goes well into History 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.