Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
many theist and diest use the simulation hypothesis to make the existence of god scientifically relevant and plausible.
the simulation hypothesis leaves open the potentiality that our existence is really a simulation, not our real existence.
as a believer, i tend not to make my belief scientifically relevant because that would signify that i really dont believe in a creator
sure, i can try to make my belief scientifically relevant by pointing out that earths water may have derived from asteroids, or that our physical bodies are the most amazing complex machines that do a variety of amazing things.
but that would indicate that i am insecure about my belief, which would indicate that i was really agnostic
why do peope use the simulation hypothesis to scientfically condon their beliefs? can it be that they lack faith or are insecure of their beliefs?
what do you think of the simulation hypothesis?
i dont know if the bibles refers to our existence as a simulation.
but i cam affirm that i am 100% convinced that there is a creator
jesus says:
John 16:33 (WEB) I have told you these things, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have oppression; but cheer up! I have overcome the world.”
John 3:12 (KJV) If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Matthew 6:24-28 (WEB)
24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon.
25 Therefore I tell you, don’t be anxious for your life: what you will eat, or what you will drink; nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Isn’t life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
26 See the birds of the sky, that they don’t sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you of much more value than they?
27 “Which of you, by being anxious, can add one moment to his lifespan?
28 Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don’t toil, neither do they spin,
i think people interests of aliens derives from the philosphical disatisfaction of their existence and purpose.
aliens (especially advanced ones) opens the door to more questions, which satisfies the philosphical thoughts of people who may question in s much larger context
i am using a non serviced prepaid cell phone with annoying keyboard. i dont think one is writing or editing my comments with another computer. i am using a cell
i am using a non serviced prepaid cell phone with annoying keyboard. i dont think one is writing or editing my comments with another computer. i am using a cell
Transponder, please learn the difference between proof and evidence. "We already know that Faith is not based on evidence, and in fact evidence would devalue Faith. So in fact it is consistent with Godfaith. But not with science or evidence."
Ah. I get it. 'Proof' is used in the Op. But it really doesn't matter. We all know what's going on here.
Though 'Faith' is considered to 'prove' ..whatever the faith is, in all but the baldest manifestations of that, a modicum of evidence is produced. It may vary in quantity or quality or both. It may differ in what it is a supposed to prove. Proving an intelligent Creation is not the same thing as proving Biblegod, though a lot of believers think that it is.
That said, suggesting that the universe is just on some alien computer -game doesn't seem to have anything to do with proving a god. But we've seen it before, haven't we? The idea seems to be to pull the rug from under the feet of everything that science thinks it knows, and then when Science has lost all credibility (the theist hopes) God -faith can be slipped in there as the Only Game in town.
Ah. I get it. 'Proof' is used in the Op. But it really doesn't matter. We all know what's going on here.
Though 'Faith' is considered to 'prove' ..whatever the faith is, in all but the baldest manifestations of that, a modicum of evidence is produced. It may vary in quantity or quality or both. It may differ in what it is a supposed to prove. Proving an intelligent Creation is not the same thing as proving Biblegod, though a lot of believers think that it is.
That said, suggesting that the universe is just on some alien computer -game doesn't seem to have anything to do with proving a god. But we've seen it before, haven't we? The idea seems to be to pull the rug from under the feet of everything that science thinks it knows, and then when Science has lost all credibility (the theist hopes) God -faith can be slipped in there as the Only Game in town.
No.
Digital physics doesn't say the universe is a game on some alien's computer. There is no evidence for saying that, so if anyone does they are just making it up.
It should not really be called a simulation, because that suggests the kind of simulations we have in our world. I think it's better to consider Bohm's ideas of implicate orders. The lower dimensional orders are created by the next higher, on up to infinity.
The intelligence on these higher levels is unimaginable to us.
If you doubt that, just consider the intelligent behavior that goes on within a single living cell. No human brain could begin to accomplish any of that. Let alone an entire organism, or community of organisms, or an ecosystem.
It is natural for our species to be arrogant and to think it understands infinitely more than it does.
Again, I am NOT saying science knows nothing. Atheists always accuse non-atheists of saying that. We are not minimizing science, just not glorifying and worshiping it.
the simulation doesn't prove god as taught by many religions.
the simulation does show that its possible the universe came from another life form. That claim is valid enough that trans, and his sect of atheism members, have to run away from it.
I personally don't think its a simulation. But something up there laughing at what we see going on around us does have a certian appeal.
Ah. I get it. 'Proof' is used in the Op. But it really doesn't matter. We all know what's going on here.
Though 'Faith' is considered to 'prove' ..whatever the faith is, in all but the baldest manifestations of that, a modicum of evidence is produced. It may vary in quantity or quality or both. It may differ in what it is a supposed to prove. Proving an intelligent Creation is not the same thing as proving Biblegod, though a lot of believers think that it is.
That said, suggesting that the universe is just on some alien computer -game doesn't seem to have anything to do with proving a god. But we've seen it before, haven't we? The idea seems to be to pull the rug from under the feet of everything that science thinks it knows, and then when Science has lost all credibility (the theist hopes) God -faith can be slipped in there as the Only Game in town.
the lengths people go to make a statement of belief about God (here anti-anything) more real.
But apparently you have figured out how to use the CAPS key. Most of us have. It is just a courtesy to others to try and use normal title and sentence structure as possible.
Digital physics doesn't say the universe is a game on some alien's computer. There is no evidence for saying that, so if anyone does they are just making it up.
It should not really be called a simulation, because that suggests the kind of simulations we have in our world. I think it's better to consider Bohm's ideas of implicate orders. The lower dimensional orders are created by the next higher, on up to infinity.
The intelligence on these higher levels is unimaginable to us.
If you doubt that, just consider the intelligent behavior that goes on within a single living cell. No human brain could begin to accomplish any of that. Let alone an entire organism, or community of organisms, or an ecosystem.
It is natural for our species to be arrogant and to think it understands infinitely more than it does.
Again, I am NOT saying science knows nothing. Atheists always accuse non-atheists of saying that. We are not minimizing science, just not glorifying and worshiping it.
Yes, sorry. I had lost track there. Your point was a computer simulation. More aligned to the 'DNA is God's computer program' than the 'Universe is an Alien computer -game' argument, which is allied to the solipsistic universe/brain in a vat argument.
Really 'computer simulation' is an ID argument. And the same objection applies - there are reasons to think that Life, the Universe and Everything is Not Intelligently designed, though it has 'design' in the sense of structure, but resulting from physical forces, much of which are understood. Of course, one can argue that it a computer simulation that looks like it isn't. But then, there is no reason to think that it is, is there?
I really don't see that Bohm's implicate or explicate order has any bearing on this . It is just the way we look at the way things work.
I am glad that you don't dismiss science, but unfortunate that you keep looking for 'gap for god' arguments, even those that don't really exist, such gaps in evolution -theory that aren't really there, like your appeal to complexity in the cell, or Bohm's suggestions about the way we look at Quantum mechanics.
Atheists do say that some religious apologists say 'science knows nothing' because they will often brush away anything science says that they don't like,on the grounds that 'it doesn't know everything'. Thus anything it knows is disregarded at need. Do you see how this works? So if we say it, don't blame atheists.
Now you on the other hand accuse us of glorifying and worshipping science. I think we rather regard that as useful and reliable tools. But then the results are pretty good, don't you think? And perhaps it demands a good deal more respect and admiration than the god -claim, which has produced no answers or wrong ones, pretty much, wouldn't you agree?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-22-2018 at 12:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea seems to be to pull the rug from under the feet of everything that science thinks it knows, and then when Science has lost all credibility (the theist hopes) God -faith can be slipped in there as the Only Game in town.
