= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Desrtopa 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?
We've already had a discussion on whether it's appropriate to regard belief in the simulation argument as theism, and the consensus was no.
The post is about whether the label theist is appropriate. This question is about whether you believe God exists. Those two questions aren't the same.
6.69% of the people on lesswrong who think that they are "Atheist and not spiritual" believe that the chance that God exists is higher than 50%.
atheistNS <- subset(survey, survey$ReligiousViews=="Atheist and not spiritual")
(length(subset(atheistNS, as.numeric(atheistNS$PGod)>50)$PGod)/length(atheistNS$PGod))
If you give people a definition of "god" which technically includes things outside the usual conception of god, they're probably going to continue operating by the standard definitions of the term. Even if I believed we were living in a simulation, I wouldn't believe in "god," because it would be laden with so many misleading associations inapplicable to what I actually believed.