Saying goodbye

[Paulomycin]

No, it's a claim. It is an assertion.

And you're weakly asserting that it's an assertion.

A proof is an argument. "There are only three" is not an argument or a proof.

Because you're deliberately taking it out of the context of the actual proof.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because you're deliberately taking it out of the context of the actual argument.

Arguments are made up of claims, those are your premises. All premises must be proven true for an argument to be proven sound. The assertion "There are only three" is a premise. It is not the argument itself, it is not a proof.

 

[Paulomycin]

Arguments are made up of claims, those are your premises.

No, the premises is the Big Bang. You're flailing. Please pay attention.

All premises must be proven true for an argument to be proven sound.

Not in deductive elimination. I keep posting the link and you keep ignoring it.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, the premises is the Big Bang.

That's not a premise.

Not in deductive elimination.

Yes, all premises must be proven true even in deductive elimination.

p1 A or B or C
p2 Not A
p3 Not B
c C

This argument is valid. But you need to prove p1-p3 are true to prove C. Proving p2-p3 is not sufficient.

 

[Paulomycin]

That's not a premise.

Hey everybody, Moral Orel arbitrarily commands that the Big Bang cannot be a premise for any rational argument ever. Everyone obey him.

Yes, all premises must be proven true even in deductive elimination.

No. Read the link you keep ignoring. Quote:

argument by elimination( either-or)

Any argument based on an either-or setup of two or more options, eliminating all but one, is Argument by Elimination (aka Process of Elimination; The Either-Or Argument).
Given two or more options, and eliminating all but one, you can infer the one remaining must be true.
Example: Either A or B or C. Not B. Not C. Therefore, A.

 

[Moral Orel]

A or B or C

That's what I said:

A or B or C

If you can't prove that it can only be A or B or C, then you can't deduce which it is by eliminating two of them.

 

[Paulomycin]

That's what I said:

You quotemined all the elimination parts. *smh*

If you can't prove that it can only be A or B or C, then you can't deduce which it is by eliminating two of them.

Where does it even say that? Other than you making it up, I mean.

 

[Moral Orel]

You quotemined all the elimination parts.

Sorry, here there are again in context:

Either A or B or C. Not B. Not C. Therefore, A

That's what I said with more proper formatting:

p1 A or B or C
p2 Not A
p3 Not B
c C

Where does it even say that? Other than you making it up, I mean.

Sorry, that's how "or" works. Your link probably assumes you're familiar with terms like "and" "or" "if" "then" etc.

 

[Paulomycin]

Sorry, that's how "or" works. Your link probably assumes you're familiar with terms like "and" "or" "if" "then" etc.

You're just asserting it and nothing more, because you have nothing that proves your made-up rule.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're just asserting it and nothing more, because you have nothing that proves your made-up rule.

Logical Disjunction That's how "or" works.

 

[Moral Orel]

I know how @zippy2006 feels when he talks to me now.

 

[Paulomycin]

Logical Disjunction That's how "or" works.

Click link, then see quote: "Classical proof theoretical treatments are often given in terms of rules such as disjunction introduction and disjunction elimination."

Then click, "disjunction elimination." <-- Because that's what I did.

Disjunction elimination

^ W00T! No specific, nor compulsory rule that requires proof of disjunctive statements before or after elimination.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@Moral Orel , it's a pleasure reading your dialogue with Paulomycin.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes. Please review absolutely every word of your own question before replying.
"You[r] body dies, but. . ." <-- Don't strain yourself with that reach. You've already admitted to an initial (first) death here.

Good; so you believe that Christians go directly to heaven when they die.
But if they're alive in heaven, then they're not dead. If they're not dead, then they could not have died. Are you following the logic here?
You can't be alive if you died.
If you had died, then you'd be dead.
Christians believe that they will live in heaven.
I don't know how to make it simpler than that.
I believe in death, because I believe that when you die, that's the complete and total end of you.
Christians, on the other hand, believe that after what we refer to as "death" they are still living. Also, mildly surprised I have to explain Christian beliefs to a Christian.

You had me at "if." The speculative "if" gives me the option to chase it or seriously question why an atheist is trying to disprove purely speculative fiction with. . .purely speculative fiction.

Look, if you don't want to explore the logical consequences of your beliefs, then I can't force you to. As you say, you don't want to talk about it.
Since the argument blows your position out of the water, I don't blame you for wanting to avoid it.

Goodness means God. It's literally exclusive to God alone. -Mark 10:18

Yeah? Prove it.

Because that (really) is His nature. Easy-peasy. See, you're hung-up on this metaphysical standard of "good" that you yourself cannot account for. A theoretical morality, that even God Himself would be subordinate to. <-- But that would mean God is not omnipotent.

Prove that this reality is His nature. If it's easy-peasy, you should be able to.

There is no higher standard of morality than God alone.

Yeah? Prove that, if you can. How do you know?

Because you assume we're using "goodness" as a separate metaphysical descriptive. We are not. You cannot even account for moral "good" without God. Even the presuppositionalists get that.

You don't seem to be able to account for goodness yourself.
Let's try it again:
If goodness is God's nature (hope you don't mind the "i" word there) then all we can say is that God being good is just God being God. What information does this give us about why goodness is good?
Can you show why being kind, merciful or generous are good things to be? Can you say, "It is good to be kind because..." and give an explanation?
Based on what you're saying, all you can do is say that "It is good to be X because that is in accordance with God's nature." Which tells us nothing at all.

^ I'm never allowed to get away with that dodge. What makes you so special?

Because you're the one who said you could resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma. All you've managed to do so far is say "Goodness is commanded by God because God is goodness. How? Why? It just is, that's why."

Logic is the biggest game in town. It's a game with rules. Either you're in or out.

Actual logic, yes. People playing silly word games, no.

No. If you accept logic as universal, then the modus ponens and PSR put you through the wringer. You're more than welcome to reject logic to escape God, but that's a heavy price you don't want to pay. Logic is math-based. Proof is exclusive to math. Thus, the modus ponens is not only valid, but also sound.

It doesn't work like that.
The laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. They're just descriptions of how we think about how the universe works. We didn't need someone to invent a law that A = A, we just had to recognise that it was so and create a law to describe how it works. Descriptive laws like this don't require a lawgiver at all.

^ Circular argument. If logic is invented, then there would be no reason to invent it in the first place. You're claiming that there was a time when no reason existed. . .for no reason.

Well, yes.
Before humans existed, there was no reason, because there was nobody to reason about things. This is not to say there was no order or patterns, just chaos; things were just then as they were now. But before intelligent beings observed and thought and, well, reasoned about them, there was no logic. Just the things that we see now that we base our logic on.
Again: there is no need to posit God as a Logician. Logic is something that humans are perfectly capable of inventing. What, you think that 1 + 1 could decide to be 3 if God hadn't made a law that they must only ever result in 2?

In which case, you're equivocating logic itself. Bad move.

Nonsense. Again: Logic is simply us observing ways in which the universe works.

^ Is that a typo? Because that's actually my line.

You should think more about it. You seem to be determined to believe that descriptive laws are prescriptive.

"If program, then programmer." If the universe is a computer program, then it logically follows that there is a programmer.

Well, the universe isn't a computer program, so there we are.

If the cosmos appears ordered, then it logically follows that there is an Orderer. etc.

Why?

Why does your special pleading have to come into this?

I said:
"Why does "everything exists" lead to the supposition that "there must be a Person who controls everything that exists?"
Where is the special pleading in this? Or are you just trying to distract from the fact that you haven't answered the question?

Which I refuted. There is no such thing as a determined indeterminate. You people are just contradicting yourselves. I never claimed a negative, "that there cannot logically be another option," and I don't have to prove a negative. You're welcome.

That's exactly what you claimed. Your whole argument is based on trying to prove logically that the only possible cause for the universe is a deliberate act by a conscious entity. So yes, if you want us to believe that, you do have to prove that there cannot logically be any other option.

I literally said the fallacy of begging the question. Quote: "You're more than welcome to imply the universe is "just there" without explanation, as a question-begging fallacy."

The universe is "just here." That is not open to question. As yet, I have no explanation for its existence.

1. Claiming the statement, "We don't yet know why," and then claiming that this statement is equivalent to the determinate answer is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. IOW, "I don't know" is never the answer for anything. It's like taking an exam and filling out all the write-in answers with "I don't know," and then expecting your teacher to give you a passing grade. Ridiculous.

"I don't know" is never the answer to anything? Are you serious?
There are lots of things I don't know the answer to. And the same for you.
Tell me: what colour is my hair? How do you say "thank you" in Ancient Egyptian? How many 7s are there in the complete pi? If I roll a dice, what number will it show? Will it rain tomorrow?

2. You should at the very least feel some purely rational frustration with the universe begging the question of its own existence. But you don't, because the logical fallacy makes you feel good about being an atheist. You just have to wake up every morning and force it on the rest of the world as-if it were rational, when it really isn't.

Don't try being a mind-reader.
Don't you think it's rather childish to experience frustration at things you don't know? Like an infant throwing a tantrum? I can't levitate, leap tall buildings with a single bound or speak Russian either. Should I feel frustrated about those things?
Why not be sensible about this? Mature? There are things we don't know. And quite possibly will never know. It's not that I'm happy about these, but why would you expect me to be frustrated about them?

Logic stacks. MUH is rational. <-- The wider reality that governs material nature is unfalsifiable. Supernature is rational.

You can keep saying it all you like, but that doesn't make it true.

Only objective refutations count. This isn't about your will. Any moron can "nuh-uh" their way out of a jam. I'm holding you to a higher standard than that.

It would be nice if you were, but truthfully, your arguments are so shallow it's boring to keep explaining them.

*ahem* "Nuh-uh!" <-- Did the magic work? Or is it just when you do it?

Perhaps it's because I know how to do it and you don't.

- You're not the judge of what is "good" evidence and what isn't. Flaws in evidence can only be submitted as objective flaws. Not subjective flaws.
- Evidence is objective; not subjective. So your subjective assessments never count.
- You have cited no objective flaws in the causal argument. Assertions without evidence to the contrary don't count. "Flawed" is not a magic word that creates real flaws.

Evidence is objective, but you seem to have an extremely subjective view on what counts as evidence.

Yet you are admitting "cause." <-- The deductive proof follows from there.

Conceding, for the moment, that the universe has a cause, we now come to the question: what was that cause?
And my answer is: I don't know.
If you think you do know, you'll need to show some reasons for your answer.

No. They're all materialistic empirical claims; every one of them. And they always come around every generation or so to replace the old tired-out one that preceded it.

Again: if you want me to believe that God is real, you have to give some reason for why I should think so. Just as if I want you to believe that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto, I have to give you a reason to believe rather than just "you can't prove there isn't."

Hold up. Pay attention here and don't skim-past this: The definition of terms is always necessary before proof can even be demonstrated. I agree with igtheists and ignostics. They are correct on one highly relevant detail you are missing here--the definition of "God." I only define "God" as an omnipotent being. Not, "The God of the Bible," because I'm not a presuppositionalist. The Bible is Special Revelation; not General Revelation in nature. Your definition of "god" or "god(s)" doesn't count here, because I'm accepting the burden of proof. So in the end, it's first definition of terms in the claim; then prove the claim.

That was supposed to be significant in some way? I feel underwhelmed.
I don't have to define God. I'm not the one who believes in Him. You do. And then, when you make your arguments for Him, I tell you if they make sense or not.

^ Special pleading. You can examine the universe and see.

You can look outside the universe and examine it? Goodness me. I'm impressed!

The existence of "God" can obviously be examined when contrasted against a finite universe. Granted God cannot be known exhaustively, but that's not necessary, we already know enough that we are without excuse.

God can't be known "exhaustively"? How generous of you.
In fact, God can't be known at all, in any way. If you think He can, try performing an experiment on Him. And of course God can't be examined in contrast to a finite universe. We know the universe exists, but we have no way at all of examining God, in contrast with a finite universe or in any other way.

Then how do you know I'm even capable of making logical arguments to begin with? You've never seen any.

You never spoke a truer word?

Why contradict yourself? You reject law of causality. You reject modus ponens. You reject PSR. You reject pretty much all the logic that I'm appealing to. You think appeal to ignorance is "the answer" for literally everything. You think gainsaying is rational. You think logic is invented without the prior existence of logic itself (quack-quack). You essentially reject law of identity. You think an indeterminate is a determinate claim. Need I go on? I think it's pretty clear where the misology really comes from here.

Sigh.
Look, I'm sorry I keep rejecting the nonsense you post, but it would be a disservice to you to do otherwise. If I were to accept the fallacious arguments you keep posting, you might think they're right. And that would not be good at all. You understand - sometimes we must be cruel to be kind.

What a convenient loophole you discovered! Since your "internet disability" doesn't allow external (neutral POV) verification, then this means I can pretty much ignore everything you argue on those very same grounds.

You are already.

I'll copypaste it in the next post, but then you can then immediately move the goalposts and reject it because you can't verifiy it for certain that Harris wrote it, or that I didn't doctor the contents.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Should We Be Mormons in the Matrix?

by Sam Harris

April 20, 2011

Should We Be Mormons in the Matrix? | Sam Harris

Many people have noticed that there seem to be no new arguments for the truth of any of the world’s religions. I recently stumbled upon one, however, and it has given me a moment’s pause.

The Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that our entire cosmos could be running as a simulation on a supercomputer of the future. This, needless to say, is a bizarre claim, but it can be defended with a few surprisingly plausible assumptions:

Bostrom’s first premise is that human consciousness is the product of information processing in the brain. If this is correct, there is probably nothing magical about having the wet stuff of neurons doing the work, and it should be possible to instantiate minds like our own on a computer. Human consciousness, therefore, would be platform independent.

There are smart people who will leap off this train before it leaves the station—the mathematical physicist Roger Penrose thinks that consciousness cannot be the result of mere computation; the computer scientist David Gelernter* believes that consciousness is a matter of computation, but there must be something special about biological neurons. However, these appear to be minority opinions in the scientific community. The assumption that minds like our own could, in principle, be realized on a computer seems to be on reasonably firm ground.

Bostrom’s second assumption is that if we survive the next few centuries without annihilating ourselves, it is just a matter of time before we build computers capable of running virtual worlds populated by virtual people. Our descendants will likely do this, the way we create video games like The Sims. They might create virtual worlds where simulated ancestors live in circumstances very much like our own. In his paper, Bostrom justifies this assumption using known principles of computation and without assuming any breakthroughs in physics.

Given these premises—that human consciousness is purely the product of computation; that our computing power will continue to grow; and that our descendants will build simulated worlds—it seems tempting to conclude that simulated people will eventually outnumber all the real people who have ever lived. Statistically, therefore, it is more likely that we are simulated ancestors, living in a simulated world, rather than real ancestors of the real, supercomputing people of the future.

This is, of course, a very strange idea. And here is my own contribution: add to this strangeness the possibility that the supercomputing people of the future will build into their virtual worlds the truth of Mormonism, or some other faith that seems like it could not possibly be true at present. In which case, we may, in fact, be living in a world in which Jesus will return on clouds of glory to judge the living and the dead. Perversely, this could be a self-fulfilling prophecy: given how beguiled people have been by religious mythology throughout our history, our descendants might engineer specific religious doctrines into their virtual worlds just for the hell of it.

Of course, this is not an entirely serious conjecture, but it is not entirely unserious either. It isn’t obvious to me that there is something wrong with Bostrom’s simulation argument. It really does seem that one of these propositions must be true: Either (1) consciousness is not a matter of computation and cannot be simulated, or (2) we never do simulate it as a matter of fact (perhaps because we destroy ourselves in the interim), or (3) we stand a good chance of living in a simulation—to which I add a theological twist: This simulated cosmos might be every bit as ridiculous as Joseph Smith said it was.

* [Note: A reader, Graham Warner, has pointed out that my original inclusion of the philosopher John Searle along with David Gelernter was misleading, and I agree. Searle often argues that “information” and “computation” do not exist in the real world, the way synapses and electrical potentials do, and this view leads him to resist any description of the human mind as the product of “information processing” or of the brain as a biological “computer.” However, Searle does not actually deny that consciousness could be instantiated on a nonbiological “computer” that emulated all the causal properties of the human brain.]

That was your big argument? An amusing conjecture that Sam Harris says "gave him pause for a moment" and "is not an entirely serious conjecture"?
It's a pure hypothetical. Interesting and amusing, no doubt, and worth a moment's read, but no more than that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That is, in fact, the entire point. You don't love a mere slave as "my son" (verse 10). As his own heart (verse 12). As a beloved brother (verse 16). You're blind to the love, man.
...
As a brother, wanting Philemon to accept Onesimus, no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

Again: how much Paul loved Onesimus is quite beside the point. The point is, he sent the runaway slave back to his master.
If Paul had actually been opposed to slavery, he wouldn't have done that. He would have recognised that Philemon had no claim over Onesimus; that by holding him as a slave, he had done him wrong, and Onesimus was under no obligation to him. But no: Paul loved Onesimus, but recognised that a slave must be returned to his master. Because of his love, he wanted Onesimus to be freed - not because he was opposed to slavery, but out of affection for this particular slave - but he recognised that it was Philemon's place, as the master, to make that decision.

Boom. Your cherrypicking here is done.

You keep using that word in the wrong way.

As slaves. Paul did not violate any law. Onesimus was emancipated at his salvation, his status changed, and returned to Philemon as a "slave no longer" - Philemon 1:16 You're now doubling-down and accusing a "Hebrew of the Hebrews" and a Pharisee of blatantly violating Deuteronomy 23:15-16. I was waiting for when you'd throw Paul under the bus. No surprise.

You're right. Paul didn't violate any law. He sent a runaway slave back to his master. That was the wrong thing to do; Paul should have simply helped to free the runaway slave. But Paul was pro-slavery, so instead he entreated the slave's master to free him, out of the love he bore them both.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 does not say, "slave from the enemy you're attacking. . ." Now you're desperately trying to add more specific context than is even in the verse. The HCSB translation even heads the passage RE: "Fugitive Slaves." Doesn't matter where they originated. It's all slaves in-general. Direct verbatum quote:

But the HCSB translation's heading is a later inerpolation. The original verses are talking about how you should behave when you attack an enemy, and one of the things they say is that any slaves escaping the enemy should not be returned.

There is no extra "enemy" context in that passage. You added "enemy" to it and made it your own imaginary "context."

Not at all. It's simply what the Bible says. All you have to do is read it.

*reading*
1. It doesn't say, "And do not return said aforementioned enemy slaves to his master when he has escaped from his master to you."

It's in the context, something you really should try to familiarise yourself with.

2.

Escape would necessarily happen at home, after the slave has been taken back and/or sold to a master. In war, they're just a POW. They're not a slave yet, because none of the soldiers have been decommissioned to civilian duty.

Uh...no.
All it means is that slaves who were travelling with the enemy army might run away to the Israelites. If so, they were to be welcomed. There's nothing surprising about this; it seems a sensible measure.

3.

Why would enemy slaves get an exemption exclusive only to foreigners, but not a native-born Hebrew?

Because if you're attacking a people it benefits you if their slaves run away from them. Why would you aid the enemy by returning their resources to them?

Nope,

there's only one law, both for the stranger and the native. Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, and Numbers 15:16. You can't push a double-standard on the law of Moses.

Again, those verses don't mean what you think they mean. Read them in context. They're just talking about strangers who happen to be visiting you.

19th century commentaries aren't canon either.

At least they know how to read in context and draw reasonable conclusions based on what they read.

Then the commentator needs to address 1-3 above. How do I know this commentator didn't have a bias towards the Fugitive Slave Acts of the 1850s? I don't.
I'm totally within my rights to argue with these commentators, and it doesn't include all of them on that page either. There is no consensus that this was exclusive to just foreign captives. How can you be a slave when you're still a POW who hasn't been sold into slavery yet?

1-3 above have been fully addressed already.

His justification for Civil Rights from scripture. Not on his authority alone, but on his reliance of the Bible.

I've already shown that the bible is pro-slavery.

Wow, you're becoming more Confederate every day! Way to throw MLK under the bus there, or should I say you just threw him in the back of it?

I have the greatest respect for Martin Luther King. If he was able to make people behave better by making them think that the Bible was against slavery, then good for him. But whether he actually believed it or not, he was wrong.

This is like saying Jesus is just fine with sin because He didn't abolish all sin while He was still alive, right then and there.

Of course it isn't. There are plenty of things that are part of our world that we don't expect to have in heaven.

He's a double-standard heretic; preaching that some people are only 3/5ths Imago Dei.

Where does he preach that?

To convert them. To keep the peace. Not because he was "pro-slavery." Listen, baby-killing abortionists exist. Just because I concede that fact, and allow them to live peacefully right next door to me doesn't make me "pro-choice." It's about priorities. Paul's priorities were clear in 1 Corinthians 2:2, "For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Activism against Rome was illegal. Paul could not legislate against sin. <-- The gospel subverts it.

Nonsense. Jesus and the aspostles were clear and direct on what was sinful. There are many examples of them being outspoken against sin, regardless of the consequences. If they had thought that slavery was sinful, you can be sure they would have said so. But they didn't. Instead, they praised it, and exhorted slaves to be obedient.

What part of, "do the same things," and, "giving up threatening" are you failing to comprehend here?

The part where you think it is a commandment to end slavery, rather than a commandment to be just and kindly masters to slaves.

Quote: "Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free."
9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, [in addition to] giving up threatening," <-- "Them" refers to the bondservants. Not other masters.

So to the masters, it would literally read as, "Masters, be obedient to those who are your bondservants according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free, in addition to giving up threatening."

Read it again, and think about it a little more.
You think Paul is saying that masters should be obedient to their slaves? What nonsense. He's saying that they should treat them justly and fairly, as slaves. That they should take care of them, and reward them if they do well, and only punish them if they fail in their duties. Not threatening and punishing them capriciously or unfairly or vindictively, but only if they do not perform their duties.

And now, think about one more thing: how could Paul be saying that he wants to end slavery if he tells slaves to be obedient to their masters? If slavery is ended, how are they going to do that?

The simple truth is that you, a modern, twenty-first century Christian, think that slavery is bad, so you think that the Bible must as well. Don't do that. Actually read the book, and see what it says. Take it on its own terms. And when it says that slaves should be obedient to their masters, why not just accept that this is exactly what it meant.

 

[Moral Orel]

Click link, then see quote: "Classical proof theoretical treatments are often given in terms of rules such as disjunction introduction and disjunction elimination."

Then click, "disjunction elimination." <-- Because that's what I did.

Disjunction elimination

No, that's a different form. This would be an argument using disjunction elimination:

p1 If X then A
p2 If Y then A
p3 X or Y
c A

That is not the same as the form you used:

p1 A or B or C
p2 not A
p3 not B
c C

W00T! No specific, nor compulsory rule that requires proof of disjunctive statements before or after elimination.

It's a compulsory rule for all arguments of any form that every premise must be true for the argument to be sound. Soundness

 

[Paulomycin]

No, that's a different form. This would be an argument using disjunction elimination:

Per wiki: In propositional logic, disjunction elimination[1][2] (sometimes named proof by cases, case analysis, or elimination)

Same thing.

 

[Paulomycin]

@Moral Orel , it's a pleasure reading your dialogue with Paulomycin.

Is that the atheist agenda here, move the goalposts to the point of demanding that all theistic arguments can only be submitted in a formal logic format?

Seriously?

 

[Paulomycin]

That was your big argument? An amusing conjecture that Sam Harris says "gave him pause for a moment" and "is not an entirely serious conjecture"?

^ Quotemining. At the same time he said it wasn't entirely un-serious either. Full sentence reads as: "Of course, this is not an entirely serious conjecture, but it is not entirely unserious either. It isn’t obvious to me that there is something wrong with Bostrom’s simulation argument." You really gotta stop cutting off entire sentences to appease your confirmation bias.

And that "moment's pause" has been continuing since 2011.

It's a pure hypothetical. Interesting and amusing, no doubt, and worth a moment's read, but no more than that.

It's not based on pure hypothetical. You obviously haven't read the paper. Harris provided a direct link, but you must have "missed" that (of course you did). It's an empirical argument. The evidence is all our computers + every new innovation that proceeds after that. Then the math kicks in.