Christian Stuff - A Thread (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Are you certain anything outside you exists?

I don't know that I exist. It is just the simplest explanation. Probably for some the least satisfying one.

 

[rockaction]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that Blaise Pascal was purposely creating a logical fallacy to demonstrate that faith and belief cannot be logically argued? Is that wrong? Or at least up for debate?

No, you’re right. I’m not sure it’s a fallacy, but he was trying to say that reason alone cannot prove or disprove God’s existence.

 

[Zow]

Maybe for this particular mathematician an infinitisbly small chance is still greater than zero, but it is still approaching zero. If your odds are this close to zero of making a difference, why bother?

That’s the whole point of the wager and his exercise. I mean, you’ve summed it up nicely, but we should bet on God because an eternity in bliss is worth the bad bet. That’s what he was saying.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that Blaise Pascal was purposely creating a logical fallacy to demonstrate that faith and belief cannot be logically argued? Is that wrong? Or at least up for debate?

That's not the purpose that was taught to me at least. My understanding from my apologetics teacher is that the wager was Pascal's attempt to make belief logical for the most stubborn of us.

 

[rockaction]

Are you certain anything outside you exists?

I don't know that I exist. It is just the simplest explanation. Probably for some the least satisfying one.

Fair enough. That’s all I wanted, really. Perhaps a pedantic exercise. But I think it’s important because when people are very certain of something they tend to mistake it for absolute truth. I’m with you on this.

 

[rockaction]

That’s the whole point of the wager and his exercise. I mean, you’ve summed it up nicely, but we should bet on God because an eternity in bliss is worth the bad bet. That’s what he was saying.

You know what? I shouldn’t dabble with Giants. It’s not a "bad bet” and I should be more exacting. Pascal is saying that it’s a good bet because you lose nothing if you only live according to God’s will and there is no God. He’s saying that the payoff is at the end of your life. If nothing, then you lose nothing.

I should be more precise.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You know what? I shouldn’t dabble with Giants. It’s not a "bad bet” and I should be more exacting. Pascal is saying that it’s a good bet because you lose nothing if you only live according to God’s will and there is no God. He’s saying that the payoff is at the end of your life. If nothing, then you lose nothing.

When you put it this way, and if God's will is for us to try (and often fail - me as much or more than others) to take care of one another, then I guess I took the bet.

 

[Psychopav]

CCC 309

If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.

CCC 324

The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

 

[rockaction]

When you put it this way, and if God's will is for us to try (and often fail - me as much or more than others) to take care of one another, then I guess I took the bet.

Good to hear. We need more people to live like this. I have lived a selfish life that I’ve been coming to grips with the past decade. I’m still imperfect (and almost astoundingly so) but I’m at least conscious of it and attempting to remember to take care of others in service (and it’s not out of a fear of God or the promises of heaven as a utile thing). So we both at least aspire, which is a good start.

 

[Zow]

That’s the whole point of the wager and his exercise. I mean, you’ve summed it up nicely, but we should bet on God because an eternity in bliss is worth the bad bet. That’s what he was saying.

You know what? I shouldn’t dabble with Giants. It’s not a "bad bet” and I should be more exacting. Pascal is saying that it’s a good bet because you lose nothing if you only live according to God’s will and there is no God. He’s saying that the payoff is at the end of your life. If nothing, then you lose nothing.

I should be more precise.

Exactly. Which is why I stand by my understanding which is that Pascal was truly trying to give a logical reason for believing in G/god with his "wager."

I do appreciate the context BFS used above though where there are the strong logical fallacies nonetheless which are: 1) an omniscient god probably sees through the "belief on the safe side"; and 2) not only do you have to believe, but one has to believe in the "correct" god.

So, I do think as a byproduct of Pascal's intention and "wager" he did a nice job proving that logic will almost never prove the existence of God nor convince a non-believer to believe.

 

[Godsbrother]

But it doesn’t answer the fundamental question. I tend to agree with Neil Degrasse Tyson’s take on this. He’s talked about this question a lot. He says that gods are usually considered all powerful and all good by the major religions, and the only logical way to answer why so much suffering exists in the world he has created is that he is in fact either not all powerful or not all good or both.

Does NDT ever address the idea of free will? The Christian God IS all powerful, but is also self-limiting in order to allow humanity to freely choose His way. Once free will is on the table, then all powerful, all good, and the existence of suffering are no longer mutually exclusive.

If God is all powerful and knows everything then he already knows the choices we are going to make in life.

Did Judas really have free will if God already knew he would betray Jesus before he was even born?

 

[rockaction]

Exactly. Which is why I stand by my understanding which is that Pascal was truly trying to give a logical reason for believing in G/god with his "wager."

Fair enough. I’d have to deeply re-read the Pensées to really suss that out. Right now, in my understanding, he seems to be using logic to get to his argument, but I think he abandons logic and reason on logic and reason's grounds in the end, if you know what I’m saying. So that might qualify as a logically reasonable position like you say.

But consider how both Wiki and Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy point out

"For Pascal, a decision to believe God's revelation (in the relevant sense of ‘believe’) is not based on rational calculation nor, as indicated above, does it presuppose a philosophical argument in favour of God's existence. A calculation of the probability of one's wager is logically posterior to belief, and it purports to show only that those who have accepted divine grace and believed in God have made a wager that is not unreasonable. Why? Because the significance or value of the belief as a means to eternal salvation would, if it were true, compensate for its relative implausibility.” - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

It’s different to say that one’s belief is reasonable rather than giving a logical reason to believe in God, which Pascal specifically did not think was possible.

 

[Psychopav]

But it doesn’t answer the fundamental question. I tend to agree with Neil Degrasse Tyson’s take on this. He’s talked about this question a lot. He says that gods are usually considered all powerful and all good by the major religions, and the only logical way to answer why so much suffering exists in the world he has created is that he is in fact either not all powerful or not all good or both.

Does NDT ever address the idea of free will? The Christian God IS all powerful, but is also self-limiting in order to allow humanity to freely choose His way. Once free will is on the table, then all powerful, all good, and the existence of suffering are no longer mutually exclusive.

If God is all powerful and knows everything then he already knows the choices we are going to make in life.

Did Judas really have free will if God already knew he would betray Jesus before he was even born?

Why can't it be both?

 

[Terminalxylem]

It just doesn’t answer my question, which is “How can you be sure that things outside of your thoughts and body exist without a belief in God?”

I don’t understand your premise at all. Believer or not, one can never be certain anything exists outside of their own consciousness.

Indeed, as a nonbeliever, it seems most likely God is a figment of our collective imagination.

 

[rockaction]

Believer or not, one can never be certain anything exists outside of their own consciousness.

Uh, if you believe in God you can point to God and be certain that the universe exists because he created it. Right in the beginning of the ole founding document.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Are you certain anything outside you exists?

I don't know that I exist. It is just the simplest explanation. Probably for some the least satisfying one.

For me, it’s simplest, and plenty satisfying. I mean, I’d rather serve no purpose than an evil one, for example.

 

[ghostguy123]

Believer or not, one can never be certain anything exists outside of their own consciousness.

Uh, if you believe in God you can point to God and be certain that the universe exists because he created it. Right in the beginning of the ole founding document.

Belief=certainty??

 

[Terminalxylem]

Are you certain anything outside you exists?

I don't know that I exist. It is just the simplest explanation. Probably for some the least satisfying one.

Fair enough. That’s all I wanted, really. Perhaps a pedantic exercise. But I think it’s important because when people are very certain of something they tend to mistake it for absolute truth. I’m with you on this.

I agree with this at well. But at some point, 99.999% certainty is good enough.

 

[Terminalxylem]

That’s the whole point of the wager and his exercise. I mean, you’ve summed it up nicely, but we should bet on God because an eternity in bliss is worth the bad bet. That’s what he was saying.

You know what? I shouldn’t dabble with Giants. It’s not a "bad bet” and I should be more exacting. Pascal is saying that it’s a good bet because you lose nothing if you only live according to God’s will and there is no God. He’s saying that the payoff is at the end of your life. If nothing, then you lose nothing.

I should be more precise.

Disagree that nothing is lost living according to God’s will - at the minimum, you lose a lot of time searching for meaning, when you could be living instead.

 

[rockaction]

Belief=certainty??

I’m talking about in the believer’s mind. So yes, full faith in a Christian God means certainty. I am certain the universe exists.

“Why?” asks the questioner.

“Because God created it,” says the believer. “Says so right in the holy documents I revere or the Church I attend."

 

[Mister CIA]

Believer or not, one can never be certain anything exists outside of their own consciousness.

Uh, if you believe in God you can point to God and be certain that the universe exists because he created it. Right in the beginning of the ole founding document.

BYOR?

 

[Mister CIA]

This whole conversation sounds like the old apologists vs atheists, without the apologists.

 

[rockaction]

BYOR?

BYOR?

 

[Mister CIA]

BYOR?

BYOR?

I thought the 'R' would flow naturally; Reality.

Apologies.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Belief=certainty??

I’m talking about in the believer’s mind. So yes, full faith in a Christian God means certainty. I am certain the universe exists.

“Why?” asks the questioner.

“Because God created it,” says the believer. “Says so right in the holy documents I revere or the Church I attend."

If this is your point, I agree: it’s a pedantic exercise.

 

[rockaction]

If this is your point, I agree: it’s a pedantic exercise.

It’s not really my point. Whether or not God exists has huge implications for whether morality can exist as an independent thing outside of ourselves or whether morality is subjective and determined by each individual. It is especially relevant when determining how society is to punish transgressors against other people.

Long threads and strands. Long threads and strands.

 

[dutch]

God=idea of god

 

[Mister CIA]

If this is your point, I agree: it’s a pedantic exercise.

It’s not really my point. Whether or not God exists has huge implications for whether morality can exist as an independent thing outside of ourselves or whether morality is subjective and determined by each individual. It is especially relevant when determining how society is to punish transgressors against other people.

Long threads and strands. Long threads and strands.

I have not read it, but Sam Harris wrote book on this very topic, The Moral Landscape. As you might, he makes the argument that we can derive morality through science, and that moral relativism is false. I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Psychopav]

But it doesn’t answer the fundamental question. I tend to agree with Neil Degrasse Tyson’s take on this. He’s talked about this question a lot. He says that gods are usually considered all powerful and all good by the major religions, and the only logical way to answer why so much suffering exists in the world he has created is that he is in fact either not all powerful or not all good or both.

Does NDT ever address the idea of free will? The Christian God IS all powerful, but is also self-limiting in order to allow humanity to freely choose His way. Once free will is on the table, then all powerful, all good, and the existence of suffering are no longer mutually exclusive.

If God is all powerful and knows everything then he already knows the choices we are going to make in life.

Did Judas really have free will if God already knew he would betray Jesus before he was even born?

Why can't it be both?

By strange coincidence, or providence for those of us who dare to call it thus, today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which deals with Mary having been conceived without the stain of original sin. Despite God's favor falling on her in this unique and special way, she still had to say "yes".

Here was the New testament reading proclaimed in Catholic churches across the world today:

Reading 2 Eph 1:3-6, 11-12
Brothers and sisters:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us in Christ
with every spiritual blessing in the heavens,
as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world,
to be holy and without blemish before him.
In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ,
in accord with the favor of his will,
for the praise of the glory of his grace
that he granted us in the beloved.

In him we were also chosen,
destined in accord with the purpose of the One
who accomplishes all things according to the intention of his will,
so that we might exist for the praise of his glory,
we who first hoped in Christ.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

For example, how a child can't understand why a parent makes them do difficult things.

This chain of reasoning is why I'm not convinced that bad things happening to good people is the slam dunk case against an omnipotent and good God that it appears at first glance. A child and an adult are actually not that far apart in the grand scheme of things when it comes to reasoning ability, and yet the child is convinced in the moment when you won't let him have 6 cookies for dinner that you're being bad. When you start thinking of things in terms of orders of magnitude differences in understanding, then how much weight should we give the reasoning of the lesser being? Can the ants in my backyard really determine whether what I'm doing is good or logical or whatever?

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand how that sounds like a cop out to people who don't believe in an immortal deity. And yet, it does seem a bit hubristic to look at our miniscule understanding of a lot of the things that make up our reality and claim that we've got things figured out to the point where we can start leaving 1 star Yelp reviews on the universe and its potential creator.

 

[rockaction]

And yet, it does seem a bit hubristic to look at our miniscule understanding of a lot of the things that make up our reality and claim that we've got things figured out to the point where we can start leaving 1 star Yelp reviews on the universe and its potential creator.

That’s one for the books. But you want a “u” instead of an “i” in the “minuscule." Otherwise, this might be the quip of my entire year, and I’ve seen some good ones.

Back ‘em up, boys, and quote him on this one!

 

[Mister CIA]

And yet, it does seem a bit hubristic to look at our miniscule understanding of a lot of the things that make up our reality and claim that we've got things figured out to the point where we can start leaving 1 star Yelp reviews on the universe and its potential creator.

That’s one for the books. But you want a “u” instead of an “i” in the “minuscule." Otherwise, this might be the quip of my entire year, and I’ve seen some good ones this year.

Back ‘em up, boys, and quote him on this one!

I'm stuck on processing the idea of a potential deity. I'm getting a divide by zero error.

 

[rockaction]

And yet, it does seem a bit hubristic to look at our miniscule understanding of a lot of the things that make up our reality and claim that we've got things figured out to the point where we can start leaving 1 star Yelp reviews on the universe and its potential creator.

That’s one for the books. But you want a “u” instead of an “i” in the “minuscule." Otherwise, this might be the quip of my entire year, and I’ve seen some good ones this year.

Back ‘em up, boys, and quote him on this one!

I'm stuck on processing the idea of a potential deity. I'm getting a divide by zero error.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt about “potential,” knowing he meant to express ambivalence about whether or not the creator was indeed the creator. “Potential" is often used synonymously when there is uncertainty in the mix as to whether the “potential” entity either is something or isn’t something.

You know?

 

[Mister CIA]

And yet, it does seem a bit hubristic to look at our miniscule understanding of a lot of the things that make up our reality and claim that we've got things figured out to the point where we can start leaving 1 star Yelp reviews on the universe and its potential creator.

That’s one for the books. But you want a “u” instead of an “i” in the “minuscule." Otherwise, this might be the quip of my entire year, and I’ve seen some good ones this year.

Back ‘em up, boys, and quote him on this one!

I'm stuck on processing the idea of a potential deity. I'm getting a divide by zero error.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt about “potential,” knowing he meant to express ambivalence about whether or not the creator was indeed the creator. “Potential" is often used synonymously when there is uncertainty in the mix as to whether the “potential” entity either is something or isn’t something.

You know?

Yeah, I understand. It's like a courtesy, or a tip of the cap to non-believers; to imply one's side is correct, but tactfully. It's what we do.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I have not read it, but Sam Harris wrote book on this very topic, The Moral Landscape. As you might, he makes the argument that we can derive morality through science, and that moral relativism is false. I'm inclined to agree.

I've listened to a few of his podcasts where he argues this premise and it seemed logical to me. He explains that our experience is on a spectrum with complete suffering of all living things on one end and no suffering on the other. Morality is defined as moving closer to the no suffering end of the spectrum.

 

[kupcho1]

“How can you be sure that things outside of your thoughts and body exist without a belief in God?”

Simple. We exist inside a simulation. There's far more evidence supporting this theory than an existence of god.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

“How can you be sure that things outside of your thoughts and body exist without a belief in God?”

Simple. We exist inside a simulation. There's far more evidence supporting this theory than an existence of god.

If somehow I "knew" this was true, I'm pretty certain that this would be much more evidence of the existence of a god. At least a god that one way or another was in control of me existence whether going by that label or not.

 

[Mister CIA]

“How can you be sure that things outside of your thoughts and body exist without a belief in God?”

Simple. We exist inside a simulation. There's far more evidence supporting this theory than an existence of god.

If somehow I "knew" this was true, I'm pretty certain that this would be much more evidence of the existence of a god. At least a god that one way or another was in control of me existence whether going by that label or not.

The existence of god, or maybe a gamer.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Simple. We exist inside a simulation. There's far more evidence supporting this theory than an existence of god.

What's the evidence supporting this theory?

 

[Mister CIA]

Simple. We exist inside a simulation. There's far more evidence supporting this theory than an existence of god.

What's the evidence supporting this theory?

Well now you get into the question of, why does anything exist at all. Well, I do.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Is it necessary to pray to a god and honor that god by living a good life in their name if at the same time the god is so omnipotent, important, omniscient and therefore removed from caring for any singular individuals thoughts as to be blasé about the group sufferings as a whole? This is my ends that informs me that god does not exist and is merely a societal control mechanism, imo. I choose to live as part of society in a manner that keeps form and order and I choose not to disrupt via trespass against my neighbors because it allows me freedom to move around and live free from their trespass as well. No god needed, imo. I apologize for remaking points already debated but I am self important enough to want to get my say. Thanks.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I apologize for remaking points already debated but I am self important enough to want to get my say.

Speaking of self importance, Ricky Gervais has a joke that goes, "what can be more arrogant then praying to the god who didn't stop the Holocaust thinking it will help you find your car keys."

 

[Joe Bryant]

I apologize for remaking points already debated but I am self important enough to want to get my say.

Speaking of self importance, Ricky Gervais has a joke that goes, "what can be more arrogant then praying to the god who didn't stop the Holocaust thinking it will help you find your car keys."

That's a fair point. And another reason why I often fall back to the thing I said above in that I don't understand it.

I think we make a serious error when we think of God like a magic genie that will grant our wishes regardless of what they are.

Jameis Winston gave lot of content for people to mock when he (I assume sincerely) talked about hoping God could deliver him from the pick sixes. He's a fun guy but a significant part of me cringed as I knew how that would go.

 

[kupcho1]

Simple. We exist inside a simulation. There's far more evidence supporting this theory than an existence of god.

What's the evidence supporting this theory?

Modern simulation theory originated with Nick Bostrom in 2003. He presented the simulation trilemma.
It starts with the assumption that a simulation that replicates reality could one day be realized. Given that assumption, one of the following must be true.
1. We destroy ourselves before we attain the ability to create such a simulation.
2. We are able to create such a simulation, but choose not to do so.
3. We are definitely in a simulation.

Clearly, #1 has not yet happened (fingers crossed) and #2 is laughable on its face (see also: where we're headed with AI, CRISPR and any other advanced technology).

Regarding the assumption, I believe (have faith?) that we will be able to create such a simulation in the future. Just look at the evolution of video games. We started with Pong. Now we've got massive on-line gaming with almost photorealistic quality.

We simulate a lot of things now: weather, population, war gaming. We also run these simulations over and over again to try and obtain the best results. If we are currently living in a simulation, wouldn't rerunning it go a long way toward explaining deja vu? It might also explain the Mandela effect. Perhaps Mandela did actually die in prison in a separate run than the one we're currently living in.

There's a lot to go into (see The Why Files if you'd like to go into more detail), but I'll just briefly touch on what started it all. No one has a rational answer to what existed before the Big Bang. Physicists will lean on scientific mumbo jumbo (dark energy, quantum foam). Religionists will say god. But what both sides (I think) will agree on is that there are rules governing the universe. Electromagnetism and gravity are real forces; the speed of light is capped at 299,792,458 m/sec. "Putting a cap on the speed of light is a good way to keep your sims from venturing too far from home."

There's a lot more I haven't dug deeper on (e.g., quarks and electrons having error correcting code; the ability to insert code into DNA). But one of the most fascinating is the fact that everything in nature is math. Start with the Fibonnaci sequence: the series of numbers where each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers. For example, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610. Couple that with the Golden Ratio (aka Phi) and it's mind blown time. Take any two consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci sequence and divide them. The answer is always the Golden Ratio, 1.618.

This all smacks of programming, at least to me. But are we the base reality, or a simulation (or simulation built inside a simulation above us; simulations all the way down)? Scientists believe that there's a slightly greater than 50% chance that we are in a base reality as opposed to a simulated reality. But that's a very, very slight difference over a coin flip.

Anyway, something to think about.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Simple. We exist inside a simulation. There's far more evidence supporting this theory than an existence of god.

What's the evidence supporting this theory?

Modern simulation theory originated with Nick Bostrom in 2003. He presented the simulation trilemma.
It starts with the assumption that a simulation that replicates reality could one day be realized. Given that assumption, one of the following must be true.
1. We destroy ourselves before we attain the ability to create such a simulation.
2. We are able to create such a simulation, but choose not to do so.
3. We are definitely in a simulation.

Clearly, #1 has not yet happened (fingers crossed) and #2 is laughable on its face (see also: where we're headed with AI, CRISPR and any other advanced technology).

Regarding the assumption, I believe (have faith?) that we will be able to create such a simulation in the future. Just look at the evolution of video games. We started with Pong. Now we've got massive on-line gaming with almost photorealistic quality.

We simulate a lot of things now: weather, population, war gaming. We also run these simulations over and over again to try and obtain the best results. If we are currently living in a simulation, wouldn't rerunning it go a long way toward explaining deja vu? It might also explain the Mandela effect. Perhaps Mandela did actually die in prison in a separate run than the one we're currently living in.

There's a lot to go into (see The Why Files if you'd like to go into more detail), but I'll just briefly touch on what started it all. No one has a rational answer to what existed before the Big Bang. Physicists will lean on scientific mumbo jumbo (dark energy, quantum foam). Religionists will say god. But what both sides (I think) will agree on is that there are rules governing the universe. Electromagnetism and gravity are real forces; the speed of light is capped at 299,792,458 m/sec. "Putting a cap on the speed of light is a good way to keep your sims from venturing too far from home."

There's a lot more I haven't dug deeper on (e.g., quarks and electrons having error correcting code; the ability to insert code into DNA). But one of the most fascinating is the fact that everything in nature is math. Start with the Fibonnaci sequence: the series of numbers where each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers. For example, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610. Couple that with the Golden Ratio (aka Phi) and it's mind blown time. Take any two consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci sequence and divide them. The answer is always the Golden Ratio, 1.618.

This all smacks of programming, at least to me. But are we the base reality, or a simulation (or simulation built inside a simulation above us; simulations all the way down)? Scientists believe that there's a slightly greater than 50% chance that we are in a base reality as opposed to a simulated reality. But that's a very, very slight difference over a coin flip.

Anyway, something to think about.

Are you sure that simulation theory isn't just another flavor of theism? I've never seen these as incompatible. In tension, sure. But not necessarily incompatible.

 

[Captain Cranks]

This all smacks of programming, at least to me. But are we the base reality, or a simulation (or simulation built inside a simulation above us; simulations all the way down)? Scientists believe that there's a slightly greater than 50% chance that we are in a base reality as opposed to a simulated reality. But that's a very, very slight difference over a coin flip.

I'm completely on board with thinking we have no free will and are just playing out operations that could have been forecasted billions of years ago by an infinitely powerful computer. However, as Ivan suggests, the simulation theory seems to rely on some unknown variable that created everything in the first place. I don't see the rules of our universe as any more proof of a simulation than a Creator.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This all smacks of programming, at least to me. But are we the base reality, or a simulation (or simulation built inside a simulation above us; simulations all the way down)? Scientists believe that there's a slightly greater than 50% chance that we are in a base reality as opposed to a simulated reality. But that's a very, very slight difference over a coin flip.

I'm completely on board with thinking we have no free will and are just playing out operations that could have been forecasted billions of years ago by an infinitely powerful computer. However, as Ivan suggests, the simulation theory seems to rely on some unknown variable that created everything in the first place. I don't see the rules of our universe as any more proof of a simulation than a Creator.

Other than labels chosen, how is the programmer(s) of the simulation not a creator not a god for the simulation? Maybe not the god offered to those in the simulation to worship, or just acknowledge but ...?

 

[kupcho1]

Are you sure that simulation theory isn't just another flavor of theism? I've never seen these as incompatible. In tension, sure. But not necessarily incompatible.

I was addressing the question: “How can you be sure that things outside of your thoughts and body exist without a belief in God?”
I was not stating that simulation theory is separate and distinct from theism, or any other ism you'd care to mention. I was merely proposing an alternative to a belief.

I'm completely on board with thinking we have no free will and are just playing out operations that could have been forecasted billions of years ago by an infinitely powerful computer. However, as Ivan suggests, the simulation theory seems to rely on some unknown variable that created everything in the first place. I don't see the rules of our universe as any more proof of a simulation than a Creator.

I absolutely agree that some unknown created everything in the first place, either by taking 6 days and willing it into existence, or writing and then booting up a program.

Let's try not capitalizing the word creator as it conveys a godlike status. Are meteorologists gods when they do weather simulations? Navy personnel when they run a mine warfare simulation?
And yet someone (a programmer, perhaps) created these simulations. The same may very well hold true for our reality.

FYI, I never said the math behind, well, everything is proof of a simulation, I only said it "smacks" thereof. The double slit experiment, quantum entanglement and other scientifically measurable phenomena only make sense in a simulation. Now, it could well be that god just hasn't divulged why he or she has set the rules this way and allowed for this kind of craziness, but it does make sense in terms of allowing for a simulation without requiring the almost infinite computing power needed.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Are you sure that simulation theory isn't just another flavor of theism? I've never seen these as incompatible. In tension, sure. But not necessarily incompatible.

I was addressing the question: “How can you be sure that things outside of your thoughts and body exist without a belief in God?”
I was not stating that simulation theory is separate and distinct from theism, or any other ism you'd care to mention. I was merely proposing an alternative to a belief.

I'm completely on board with thinking we have no free will and are just playing out operations that could have been forecasted billions of years ago by an infinitely powerful computer. However, as Ivan suggests, the simulation theory seems to rely on some unknown variable that created everything in the first place. I don't see the rules of our universe as any more proof of a simulation than a Creator.

I absolutely agree that some unknown created everything in the first place, either by taking 6 days and willing it into existence, or writing and then booting up a program.

Let's try not capitalizing the word creator as it conveys a godlike status. Are meteorologists gods when they do weather simulations? Navy personnel when they run a mine warfare simulation?
And yet someone (a programmer, perhaps) created these simulations. The same may very well hold true for our reality.

FYI, I never said the math behind, well, everything is proof of a simulation, I only said it "smacks" thereof. The double slit experiment, quantum entanglement and other scientifically measurable phenomena only make sense in a simulation. Now, it could well be that god just hasn't divulged why he or she has set the rules this way and allowed for this kind of craziness, but it does make sense in terms of allowing for a simulation without requiring the almost infinite computing power needed.

I was just bouncing off your statement "There's far more evidence supporting this theory than an existence of god.". FTR, I don't think you explained the difference but that's ok.

 

[bigbottom]

This is obviously a complicated topic for me. But what I’ve come to understand is that no amount of reflection on why God allows bad things to happen to good people will lead me to an acceptable answer. It will only invite anger, acrimony and sorrow. So I make a conscious decision not to blame or to question, but instead to accept that I will never ever understand the seeming unfairness of it all. At least not in this lifetime.

 

[Chaos34]

Simple. We exist inside a simulation. There's far more evidence supporting this theory than an existence of god.

The bible is the simulation's readme.txt?

What's the evidence supporting this theory?

Kupcho did a nice job above. I don't like Why Files he recommends but you might. The talking fish he uses for comic relief annoys me, but he is good at putting things in layman's terms. Musk, deGrasse Tyson, a few nobel winning physicists, plenty of big brains science guys are all over youtube explaining simulation theory. Worth digging into, imo. I'm pretty much sold.