Strutting one's funky Atheist stuff.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So? You’re the one who introduced SU, and who mistakenly asserted it to support your assertion “god”. If you think there are other conjectures that can do that though, by all means jump ship and make your case.   

Incoherent. What are you trying to say here?

As ever, you have the burden of proof backwards. You’re the one who asserts that an SU would have occurred purposively. All I need to show is that it need not be so – either a purposive SU or non-purposive SU would be possible – so it’s your job to explain why it’s the former but not the latter.

Good luck with that.     

Simulation is a purpose. there is no such thing as an accidental simulation. That is just an accidental phenomenon.

That explains why it isn't the latter because the latter is an absurdity. I'm not out to prove the former either since my argument is that SU is analogous to theistic creation of the universe and if you embrace SU you are forced to allow theism.

And that, is an argument which can and has been made by atheists and theists alike.

So having put all my cards on the table I have no more to say here until and unless you come up with some better points.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Simulation is a purpose. there is no such thing as an accidental simulation. That is just an accidental phenomenon.

You’re deep in the wrongness weeds here. A simulation (noun) is a phenomenon: how it came about may or may not be purposive. 

That explains…

Assertions don’t explain anything, especially when they’re wrong…

…why it isn't the latter because the latter is an absurdity.

Like the hole fitting the puddle just so without purpose is an absurdity you mean? Rather than just assert claims, why not try to justify them with arguments?

I'm not out to prove the former either since my argument is that SU is analogous to theistic creation of the universe and if you embrace SU you are forced to allow theism.

But your “argument” (ie assertion) is wrong. “Theistic creation” requires purpose; an SU does not. Write that down until it sinks in… 

And that, is an argument which can and has been made by atheists and theists alike.

You haven’t make an argument – just assertions.

So having put all my cards on the table I have no more to say here until and unless you come up with some better points.

Your only “cards” are assertions. My “better points” are the arguments that falsify them. Try to counter my arguments with arguments of your own or not as you wish, but so far at least you’re not even at the table.