The Instigator
tvellalott
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Gileandos
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,707 times Debate No: 14938
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

tvellalott

Pro

I recently watched a debate featuring Sam Harris and he mentioned this theory...

This is the wikipedia page on Nick Bostrom, a Swedish philosopher who works at Oxford university: http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is a brief overlay of his theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I propose that his theory is more plausible than any religion of my opponents choosing. They may only select one specific religion and post a link to a brief overlay.

With each other's positions understood, we will begin our arguments in round two and conclude in round four.

I know this will be a fun debate!

Gileandos

Con

He appears to be saying in your source:
1)Computers can simulate entire worlds
2)The worlds can create fully conscious people
Conclusion: We live in a simulated world

This argumentation only supports the Christian Religion. Though, I think we both realize the deductive flow, presented in your source above, is clearly incomplete for a deduction.

Positive Argument 1- Relevant synopsis of Christianity:

The Christian claim is that our souls are in a "limited world" in a "limited environment" under many restrictions to "play" out the Conflict Court Trial between Satan and God to determine which of the two is Truly Merciful, Just, Kind, Generous etc.., basically a better God. (Book of Job: Ezekiel 28 etc..)
We are in a temporary simulation to play out the Angelic Conflict/Kingdom Conflict/Heavenly Court Trial to forever determine the Character of our God and the Character of Satan.
This court conflict needed an arena where suffering, pain and death existed as it does not exist in Heaven. Hence the creation of this universe for a short time.

Conclusion:
This theory would only serve to reinforce the Christian Belief system that the next life is the "real" life…. The only "real" thing that will be carried out of this world will be our souls.

The Christian Model is far more explanatory and more fully understands the mechanisms and inner workings of the "earth simulation" proposed by this person.

In the same way, Christianity affirms Plato's "Cave Theory" which is apparently a root of this man's model. The difference in this mans model is that he proposes computer simulators as evidence.

Christianity affirms this "real world" evidence for understanding simulations. We would also utilize our current court system to understanding how this "simulation" is working and the rules that are governing it.

This shows that my opponent's model is only a small fraction of the explanatory power that rests within the Christian worldview. This model only addresses a small aspect of existence and is completely encompassed within Christianity and several thousand years ago proposed by Christianity.

Additionally nothing about this system refutes Christianity but only further supports Christianity as a complete and accurate worldview.
Debate Round No. 1
tvellalott

Pro

So, we are debating the simulated hypothesis versus Christianity; Excellent.

INTRODUCTION
My opponent claims that the Bostrom’s simulated hypothesis (hereon known as BSH) only supports his Christian beliefs. This is clearly utter nonsense.

Here is Bostrom’s theory as I understand it:
P1: Human technology is constantly improving.
>Artificial Intelligence in Video Games [1]
>Astrological Simulations [2]
P2: The workings of the human brain may be simulated by a sufficiently advanced computer.
>Blue Brain project [3] [4]

C: Humans of the future may be able to simulate multiple Universes containing conscious humans

If this is true, they will simulate so many universes that it is more likely we are a simulated universe than in the actual universe humans began to exist in.

“I think we both realize the deductive flow, presented in your source above, is clearly incomplete for a deduction.”

But of course, thus the wording of my resolution; which is more plausible your religion versus a philosophical simulated universe?

ARGUMENTS
ASSUMPTIONS
The assumption of the hypothesis is clear:
  • Human technology (or even Alien technology I suppose) will reach a point where consciousness can be simulated.

I don’t think this is a ridiculous assumption. I have the wonderful ability to look back on the last 74 years and see a dramatic advancement in computer technology in a very, very short time (in comparison to Human history). I can’t even imagine what the next 74 years will have in hold for us.

I hope this doesn’t come across as an argument from ignorance; I am certainly not saying “computers will definitely reach this level”. I am arguing plausibility, which brings me to…

The assumptions of Christianity (made by my opponent):
  • God exists…
  • Satan exists…
  • Heaven exists…
And most importantly...
  • That he KNOWS something about these things.

And what dear sirs are those assumptions based on?
Two thousand year old scripture.

No scientific evidence remotely suggests God exists.

No sound philosophical argument comes close to confirming that the Christian god or your particular denomination of belief is the correct one.

You have the wonderful ability to look back on 2000 years of Christian history, the advancements of Science in the last 400 years and the mythology of civilisations that existed BEFORE Christianity and you have the audacity to suggest that a theory about computer simulations SUPPORTS your Bible?

Egad.

CONCLUSION
The Simulated Hypothesis is clearly more plausible than Christianity.
  • We know computers exist
  • We know technology is advancing every day
  • We are working on simulating the Human brain right now.

The resolution is sound and I look forward to my opponents response.

SOURCES
[1] http://www.cs.uni.edu...
[2] http://www.gps.caltech.edu...
[3] http://bluebrain.epfl.ch...
[4] http://seedmagazine.com...
Gileandos

Con

I want to thank my opponent for a more clear understanding of his personal view of this "new" concept.
I also want to thank him for again fully supporting my side of the resolution.

We as Christians assert-
1)That we are inside of very complex computer systems for by an intelligent designer. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
2)We are organic technology so far advanced as to be mind-boggling. DNA/RNA is the very computer code that is the operating system of all life.
3)We also assert that we are contained in a giant system governed by matter, anti-matter and technical physical laws designed by this vast intelligence.
4)This system was designed by a far more advanced Mind.

It is quite apparent at some point in the distant past that the technological level was so vast as to place us into this organic computer system we now reside in, that now restricts and governs us. We will leave this simulator and go to the "real" world when it is over.

What you are claiming could happen to us as a species due to computers, Christianity claims was already asserted, a long time ago.

Again your one small and limited model of existence has very little explanatory power compared to the Christian religion. Any reasonable person should prefer the Christian religion to your model.

******
As to your statement that there is no proof of God….
You are bucking the majority view and personal experience of the entire planet.
Burden of proof rests on your minority view… that the majority of the planet believes in things with no proof despite their protestations to the contrary.

As to proof I offer 3 clear evidences of God's existence:
1)I have personally met Jesus Christ. I can affirm the below experiences due to my own meeting of Jesus.
2)A countless number of individuals that have also met Jesus Christ even at this time.
A>Muslim confirmation that the conversions are indeed happening and their concern level (See video, ending gives full interview etc..)
B>Personal visions of Jesus Christ is the main cause of the conversions (end of video and you can go to countless websources) http://www.cbn.com...
C>These visions are so clear and across countless languages, countries and cultures all affecting these muslim believers forcing them to expose themselves to death and persecution from muslims.
3)History is replete with Personal claims of meeting God – Hence religions.

This is clearly something beyond a case of perpetual indigestion happening in Africa and all of History.

To address…. I am not sure what this rant was meant to be…..

<<>>>

Clearly my opponent has "assumed" I have made assumptions.

Bullet 1- I have addressed above
Bullet 2 – Satan Exists. I can arrange a formal introduction.
Bullet 3 – Heaven exists. Not an assumption but a confident expectation. When this simulation ends… I confidently expect that Jesus whom I have met is telling the truth.

Bullet 4 – "Knows" Again not an assumption, since indeed a knowledge has been asserted however small… completely shows this is an antagonistic jibe.

" And what dear sirs are those assumptions based on?
Two thousand year old scripture."

I believe that this statement is a great point to show that my opponent does not have a valid education or ability to determine the veracity of the Christian Faith.
1)Scripture is over 3,500 years old.
2)A Christian's personal experience utilizing the information contained within the scriptures is what brings knowledge and wisdom.
3)I have shown above that Personal experience is a key guidepost for determining what is true. Three others would be Logic, Scripture, and Tradition.

I again assert that a viewpoint that is so limited in its explanatory power is a far less plausible than a model that can be verified by personal experience and has far more explanatory power. Christianity would be preferred over my opponent's model.
Debate Round No. 2
tvellalott

Pro

REBUTTALS
We as Christians assert-
1)That we are inside of very complex computer systems for by an intelligent designer. http://www.sciencedaily.com......
2)We are organic technology so far advanced as to be mind-boggling. DNA/RNA is the very computer code that is the operating system of all life.
3)We also assert that we are contained in a giant system governed by matter, anti-matter and technical physical laws designed by this vast intelligence.
4)This system was designed by a far more advanced Mind.”


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…

“It is quite apparent at some point in the distant past that the technological level was so vast as to place us into this organic computer system we now reside in, that now restricts and governs us. We will leave this simulator and go to the "real" world when it is over.”

That’s apparent is it? o.O;

“Any reasonable person should prefer the Christian religion to your model.”


We are not arguing about what a reasonable person would prefer to be true(clearly everyone wants to go to Heaven and see all the pet cats they've had), we’re arguing about what is more plausible. I’ve already provided ample evidence to support my assertion; in fact, you seem to agree that the hypothesis is not only plausible, but is reality.

Plus one to me?

“You are bucking the majority view and personal experience of the entire planet.”

You’re committing an “Argumentum ad populum” fallacy and speaking for the entire planet, which you clearly have no right to do.

“As to proof I offer 3 clear evidences of God's existence:”
1)I have personally met Jesus Christ. I can affirm the below experiences due to my own meeting of Jesus."


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.

"2)A countless number of individuals that have also met Jesus Christ even at this time."

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.

"3)History is replete with Personal claims of meeting God – Hence religions."

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.

The really amazing thing is in that in all the eyewitness accounts of Jesus, Mary and God, they always look like the last image they saw. Surely Jesus didn’t really look like this: http://sharpiron.files.wordpress.com...

“To address…. I am not sure what this rant was meant to be…..”


I’m sorry about the rant, but I was a bit taken back that instead of arguing that my theory was more implausible than yours (like you’re supposed to), you not only said it was plausible but that Christians assert the exact same thing. Come on dude.

“I believe that this statement is a great point to show that my opponent does not have a valid education or ability to determine the veracity of the Christian Faith.”

LOL, I’m not claiming we live on God’s hard drive. Perhaps you should re-read your Bible.

“1)Scripture is over 3,500 years old.”


You know very well that I was talking about the New Testament; you know – the part of about Christ.

“2)A Christian's personal experience utilizing the information contained within the scriptures is what brings knowledge and wisdom.”

Knowledge? In the Bible?!
Perhaps about morality, if you were to study the culture that the scripture was written in and have a deep understanding of the metaphorical meanings of the verses. If you only had knowledge from the Bible, you wouldn’t know how to use the computer you’re on, unless Jesus rocked up and showed you how to use it: http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

“3)I have shown above that Personal experience is a key guidepost for determining what is true. Three others would be Logic, Scripture, and Tradition.”

I agree about two; personal experience and logic. The rest is debatable.

“I again assert that a viewpoint that is so limited in its explanatory power is a far less plausible than a model that can be verified by personal experience and has far more explanatory power. Christianity would be preferred over my opponent's model.”

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.


CONCLUSION

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.

My opponent is making some kind of case; I’m not exactly sure what kind yet. He seems to suggest that because he and many other people have seen Jesus and truly know that God exists, that Christianity must be true, therefore his proposal is more plausible. He has also completely sidestepped his need to actually address my hypothesis; instead blatantly saying that he agrees that it is plausible.

Ok, you do that.

VOTE Pro
Gileandos

Con

I thank my opponent for the reply and the comedy.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
tvellalott

Pro

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.

VOTE Pro.
Gileandos

Con

I will abstain from another round. In the first round my opponent requested an equal number of rounds.

Above we have had those equal number of rounds.

This has been an incredibly fun debate and hopefully informative for everyone.

I want to thank my opponent again for the concept of this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
It's pretty simple Marauder; No fallacies > fallacies.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@Tvellalot
If your not satisfied with what you see from our votes critiqueing you because were christian being biased for the Con side, then just look at the vote from the voters more prone to be baised for you side. he could only justify giving you spelling point. even if he could never bring himself to see any case for god as rational to give arguments to Con, Cliff_Stamp also couldnt bring himself to give his vote to you either.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@Gileandos:
Thanks! I am glad to meet you too.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
Marauder,
I am excited to meet someone else that utilizes a clear and strong foundational approach to truth. I am also excited that you are familiar with Wesley's approach to discover truth and eliminating error in our own personal understanding.
Fantastic!
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
@Nails; fair enough. I believe I addressed whether Christianity remains plausible whether the BSH is true. You are obviously entitled to disagree.

I believe you're both overlooking the evidence my opponent provided (none) and voting for him based on his 'clever' approach, which I found to be stupid and frustrating.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
Not that you have any reason to care about what my comments in my vote say, but I thought I might explain the 'nit-pick quote' part. It's a little confusing as a critique to explain in 500 characters.

In one of my earlyiest debates on this site, my opponent (koopin) accused me 'nit-picking' his arguments. I didnt know what he ment by that and asked him to clairify in the debate what he ment by that but he never did, even so I kept thinking about what he could have ment after that for a long while. I reread the debate and concluded 'nit-picking' was reffering to how I quoted all he said and interjected bits of my rebuttal in-between all of it. His rebattals did not do that though they still responded to every part of argument. It just generally lookes cleaner and more professional as a debate round post when you do it like that.
Trying not to 'nit-pick' is what seperates forum debates from these official debates, witch is why it's hard to not do if your the used to debateing in the forums. If you manage to not 'nit-pick' quote then it keeps your rebuttals sounding intellectual and not like your trying to just your opponent down for everything they could think to say. To me that discribes the difference between a respectful tone and a disrespectful tone to an argument so I consider it part of conduct.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
1. Contrary to your belief, tvell, I read the debate and then reread the parts that I thought would be relevant to the decision (primarily, the part at the top of each post dealing with whether Christianity coheres with the BSH). By all means, point me to a section you think I overlooked.

2. The definition of "preferable" is rather clear in context. Obviously, I wasn't using "preferable" in the normative sense that you would when expressing a statement of value, such as your example of "I would prefer to have a job earning millions of dollars for doing nothing." "Preferable" in this case refers to the likelihood of each of the competing alternatives to be true, i.e. which is more plausible.

3. Some level of bias is inevitable. Religion is quite possibly the most deep-rooted belief that most people have, so it is hard to expect a decision that doesn't in some way reflect the voter's own beliefs. An atheist would similarly be biased against the notion of Gileandos being correct.

If it makes you feel any better, I've done a reasonable amount of reading into this subject area and felt more qualified to give a fair vote than in a generic "Christianity vs. Atheism" debate. Gileandos's position is at the very minimum scientifically plausible. See here: http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/summary.html and here: http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/physicist.html for very similar physical/theological theories.

You could very well have contested whether Christianity remains plausible when the BSH is taken to be true, but I don't see any effective argument that you make which does so.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
Tvell,
You mentioned that a second time. The preferred vs. Plausible concept.
When I say preferred... it is clearly by reason of plausibility.

After all the mundane use of the word prefer was not in context. We were not discussing "I Like dancing, so does Jesus... so I prefer Jesus to your simulator!"

Clearly the discussion was not about likes and dislikes but about giving a particular model preferential deference due to the multitude of reasons that lead to more plausibility.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Nails, you didn't read the debate or you would have known (because I said it multiple times) that preferred doesn't equal more plausible.

I would prefer to have a job earning millions of dollars for doing nothing.
It is more plausible that I will get a job earning under twenty dollars an hour.

I'm sure the fact you're a Christian like my insane opponent has nothing to do with your decision.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I know what bio technology is, but it's a very broad term.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
tvellalottGileandosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: reasons for conduct vote: Con had a organized response without 'nit-pick' quote responses. Reasons for arguent vote: Con's case that used Pro's own theory to support his own was creative and Pro didnt effectively adjust his argument for that. Reasons for Sorce vote: in links, both sides were about evenly good. In principal behind what sources to choose from Con appealed to the Weaslean Quadrilateral witch I support as smart sourcing.
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
tvellalottGileandosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't see the relevance of most arguments in this debate to whether the BSH counters Christianity, nor are they clearly resolved. CON is ahead on the one relevant argument, that Christianity remains plausible under the BSH if God is held to be the simulator, so PRO fails the buren of showing that the BSH is a preferable alternative to CON's religion of choice. Good debate, I enjoyed reading it. Also, conduct to CON for making me laugh (also, PRO's conduct in Comments was rather off-putting).
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
tvellalottGileandosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Well presented on both sides and an interesting concept. Con did not refute the argument from Pro and simply added another layer claiming God could be the computer, clever but could not meet the BoP of God.