= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
BerryPick6 comments on 2012 Survey Results - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (640)
From those who believe that we are in a simulation with over 70% confidence there's only one person who has a higher chance of God existing then the chance that we live in a simulation. Given that a God got here defined as someone with world making powers, how do you get a simulation without a God?
That the simulation controllers/creators aren't necessarily omnibenevolent is one possible explanation for us being in a simulation and there not existing what most people call 'god.'
Omnibenevolent was not in the criteria for this question. If people used it as a criteria, it suggests that they felt victim to some bias that let's them underrate the possibility that a god exists.
Maybe it's the cognitive dissonance, because a good rationalist shouldn't believe in a god?
Right, just saw that, my bad.
I still don't see how that follows. Rationality can show that certain potential gods very probably don't exist (e.g. Thor), but I think that's as far as it goes.
I don't argue here it's rational to believe that god doesn't exist. I argue that there a tribal belief among rationalists that part of being a good rationalist mean to be an atheist or teapot agnostic.
Ratioanlists who hold that tribal belief might experience cognitive dissonce when they have to put a percentage on the chance that God exists.
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you.