[Gatac]

- My take on Ockham's Razor, basically - an omnipotent being is the most complex assumption possible, therefore everything that is less complex has a greater chance of actually being true. I could drag the Second Law of Thermodynamics into the debate, but it really doesn't deserve that. I'll admit it's more bellyfeel than rigorous scientific examination.

- Which clearly hasn't happened with the Bible, what with its myriad translations and reinterpretations. Leaving aside the issue that the modern bible is a rather arbitary collection of texts the First Council of Nicaea decided should be in it - got pretty political back then, as I recall. I don't think it's the only example, either...Christianity has gone through some changes in the years, and while I'll admit that most are relatively minor, I'd also dispute that it's always been what it is today.

- The tower of babel? Hm, I can see your point, but that's extremely metaphorical, even by bible standards. I'd counter that the whole "Be fruitful and multiply" thing could be understood to mean the opposite, if we're operating on that level. I'm of the opinion that, if God can hand down His wisdom once, he can do it again. So either we're due for some errata or He doesn't care, because I have a hard time believing that an omniscient being couldn't foresee we'd get to that point. As for the 70 AD guys not understanding adaptive software, there could be something like "Do not seek to build a soul from clay". I doubt they would've gotten it, but they'd have carried it further - perhaps as a warning against witchcraft or something, it's certainly much more transparent than, say, Revelations -, and *that* would be a bible quote I could get behind as warning against AI.

- At that point, it's not interpretation, it's pulling things out of thin air. There's nothing in the bible that supports anything even remotely like an AI ban - if anything, it calls for a general anti-tech stance. That one's okay, but specifically AI?

- Cute little butterfly. At least it's not causing hurricanes this time.

- Uh, yeah, we're killing a whole buncha less people now, particularly relative to how many people there are now.

Fair enough on the crusades, but I understand that much of the kingdom-to-kingdom fighting was done using conscripted serfs led by a small core of knights and professional warriors.

As for wars taking longer then, let's not forget the advances in mobility we've made. You could blow Bonaparte's mind if you told him he could have thousands of well-trained soldiers deployed anywhere on Earth within 48 hours...

- I admit it's some speculation, but I'm hardly alone in that. The plans taking this into account were derived from experience in fighting the Japanese on other Pacific islands, and assuming that they'd be much more defensive still about their home islands. With estimates at about 12 million people dead for a conventional assault, I think you can make a very favorable analysis of the decision to use nuclear weapons. Of course, we can argue about how they were used...I'm just saying that I think a conventional invasion would have been much worse, based on our best knowledge of Japanese tactics and mindset at the time.

- No argument here. I'm interested in your opinion, though.

- Hubris? What hubris? Science is infallible! It is perfect! MWUAHAHAHAHA! *thunder and lightning*

...seriously, though. I understand, but we didn't get all the way up here by sitting in our caves and hoping for sunshine. We went out, we took risks, we won some and we lost some. There are no safe bets, and I think one of our strengths as a species is our dedication to ideas and taking risks to make them real. (Then again, we may just be boneheaded.)

Gatac