Rev, I agree with most of your points, but I think there is a disconnect at two points: 1) What is a god, and 2) Scientist vs Mathematician.
1) While I agree with you that the major faiths are all wrong, there is a high likelyhood of there being a 'god' as I would consider it. Any type II civilization or higher forinstance would fill what I think would qualify one for godhood, just by being substantially more powerfull than the human race. Much like the greek gods where essentially just ridicullisly powerfull humans (if Nanoha was real I'd essentially consider her a goddess, along with the TSAB, because they are that much more powerfull then us, juat like the greek gods vs the greeks.). Add to that that we are probably very likely to live in a simulation, and I would consider any of the beings running the simulations to be gods, since they created the universe we live in.
2) You view things from the viewpoint of a scientist, following the scientific method and requiering proof. Even though I am called a computer scientist my training is closer to that of a mathematician, rellying on logic and math to awnswer questions. That makes arguments like: www.simulation-argument.c...ation.html
very compelling to me, as they are based on those two things rather than observable phenomena. The science viewpoint is very usefull (just look at all the things it allows us to build) but it is not the only one. There are a couple of other mathematical arguments that god is likely, though there are none that result in the Judean-Christian god afaik.
Edit: I suppose I should qulify that I belive in conclusion 3, since I don't think we are about to go extinct, and I belive that there would be many reasons to run a simulation (Sociology research anyone? What about marketing research?)
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
1) While I agree with you that the major faiths are all wrong, there is a high likelyhood of there being a 'god' as I would consider it. Any type II civilization or higher forinstance would fill what I think would qualify one for godhood, just by being substantially more powerfull than the human race. Much like the greek gods where essentially just ridicullisly powerfull humans (if Nanoha was real I'd essentially consider her a goddess, along with the TSAB, because they are that much more powerfull then us, juat like the greek gods vs the greeks.). Add to that that we are probably very likely to live in a simulation, and I would consider any of the beings running the simulations to be gods, since they created the universe we live in.
2) You view things from the viewpoint of a scientist, following the scientific method and requiering proof. Even though I am called a computer scientist my training is closer to that of a mathematician, rellying on logic and math to awnswer questions. That makes arguments like: www.simulation-argument.c...ation.html
very compelling to me, as they are based on those two things rather than observable phenomena. The science viewpoint is very usefull (just look at all the things it allows us to build) but it is not the only one. There are a couple of other mathematical arguments that god is likely, though there are none that result in the Judean-Christian god afaik.
Edit: I suppose I should qulify that I belive in conclusion 3, since I don't think we are about to go extinct, and I belive that there would be many reasons to run a simulation (Sociology research anyone? What about marketing research?)
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."