• R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Both are just as unlikely as the other and have as much evidence, I’d find anyone who possesed both beliefs to be weird.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      One is obviously made-up by ancient peoples who knew fuck-all about the world, but insists it’s eternal truth beyond debate. Even the parts that contradict the other parts.

      The other is an openly hypothetical idea based on what we expect is just beyond our current capabilities… and it relies on that we’re-just-atoms materialism.

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s not true

      1. We have no evidence about either and both are non-falsifiable
      2. Living in a simulation is one idea. Each individual religion is a whole bunch of assumptions rolled into one system.

      Therefore “we live in a simulation” is just as likely as “there’s some higher power”, while “the Matrix is a documentary, everything will happen exactly like in the movie” is as likely as “the Christian god is real, just as described in the bible”.

      • ferralcat@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        We have plenty of evidence that were just a “random” assortment of atoms following natural laws. We see those laws around us everywhere. We manipulate them to build crazy things. We have no evidence were anything BUT that.

        • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Did you reply to the wrong comment? Nothing I said is incompatible with what you said.

          I’m just saying that the original meme makes no sense.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I use the same estimation on the likelihood of vampires or the Norse gods, it’s an interesting thought and I can’t prove those things don’t exist (nor do I have to due to the burden of proof) but since we have no good reason to believe they’re true I don’t have to entertain the ideas.

        That which is brought forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Nope. You’re trying to make a false equivalence.

            Aliens aren’t gods. If they exist, they’re life forms in some capacity similar to us. We know life can exist, since we do, so it stands to reason that since life exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about aliens conceptually requires anything that we don’t already have a scientific method for studying.

            Now compare that to gods. Do we have visible or verifiable gods on earth? No, we have a lot of conflicting claims about gods from various belief systems. If we don’t have supernatural creatures/entities on earth, then there’s no reason to believe they exist anywhere else. Whether that’s Pluto or five galaxies away.

              • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                “We know simulations can exist, since we simulate things, so it stands to reason that since simulations exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about simulations conceptually requires anything that we don’t already have a scientific method for.”

                This is still a false equivalence. The only way this argument works as a foil to mine is if we had already created a computer simulated universe where simulated individuals were convinced it was the real world. Under those circumstances we would have to accept that ours is possibly the same. Since we have no such technology we can’t say for sure if it’s even possible to emulate a sapient being in a computer, it’s not just “time and computational power” as you suggest.

                Meanwhile the animals that prove life can exist on at least one world are walking through my apartment right now and give direct observable and testable evidence that life can evolve. Under that assessment based on observation and the knowledge of how many other worlds there are, we have no additional leaps in logic to believe in alien life. No further technology or understanding is required.

                However, you have to assume that it’s possible to emulate a feeling, thinking entity as computer code to make your claim. We don’t know if that’s even possible, which is why it’s the same as suggesting a god of some variety. You’re basing your entire argument on something we haven’t yet proven to be real, and your claim that it’s “just a matter of time and computer resources” is flimsy as hell.

                Come back when Alicization from Sword Art Online exists, and then we’ll talk.