In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[Revelations won]

Dear William,

The simulation THEORY is just that a theory.

Maybe it would be well to discuss the eternal nature of God?

Is God himself a being endowed with eternal progress?

Where did he begin?

What is the ultimate result and destiny of his divine plan?

Should we be so narrow minded and blind to think that we are the only planet among all his uncountable creations that is inhabited?

Is his work and creations an ongoing process among unnumbered solar systems?

We are only given detailed knowledge regarding this earth.

Can anyone give precise documentation on how exactly the sun, earth and other planets in our solar system obtained their respective placements, rotations and orbits are governed?

We are told in the scriptures that God the Father is the father of the spirits of all mankind. That being the case, does this also not imply that we also have a heavenly mother?

Is this concept also supported by the fact that his only begotten son in the flesh was through the normal procreative process?

Would such a perfect Divine being want his children to become like him?

God the Father obviously wanted his son Jesus Christ to receive all that the father hth, should he not also want all of his children to become like Jesus Christ?

God the Fathers work and glory is to "BRING TO PASS THE IMMORTALITY AND ETERNAL LIFE OF MAN".

William please give us your understanding and answers to the above questions.

Best regards,
RW

[The Tanager]

I will wait until I have an answer from you on your own question and then reconfirm whether I agree with you or not and why.

Why do you think there is a clear distinction between creating a VR world that one can then move about in and manipulate and creating a painting that you can't move about in and manipulate?

{Note: I think that the distinction is obvious but have no inkling as to why you think it is important to note that distinction other than it has something to do with why you find it difficult to understand that creation [the universe] is not the same a simulation.}

I think there is a clear distinction because in one you can move about in the creation and interact/manipulate/affect things after finishing creating it, while in the other you can't move about in the creation and interact/manipulate/affect things after finishing creating it. I think the distinction is important because you are using creation and simulation as synonyms, as picking out the same thing. I have no problem understanding that creation is not the same concept as simulation (although they are related); you have been using them as synonyms, as thought they are the same thing.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #42]

I have no problem understanding that creation is not the same concept as simulation (although they are related); you have been using them as synonyms, as thought they are the same thing.

We haven't even gotten to specifics and in relation to the universe existing is the only time I have used creation and simulation as meaning the same thing.
It makes more sense that we exist within a simulation, if indeed we exist within something which was created
In that, it is specific to the OPQ;



Therein are links provided where one can get a better idea of Simulation Theory.

Did you happen at all to follow those links and get a better idea as to what ST is?

Also:

Christian: There is always a non-zero chance we are wrong about everything we believe -- we could all be plugged into the Matrix and the world around us is just an illusion, for example. Yet you and I believe all kinds of things despite that. {SOURCE}

which is encouraging since at least one Christian understands the idea of creation being simulated.

[The Tanager]

Therein are links provided where one can get a better idea of Simulation Theory.

Did you happen at all to follow those links and get a better idea as to what ST is?

Honestly, I did not see the links. Since this was a continuation out of another thread, I simply responded to the post directly addressing what I said and then kept the conversation up from there. Neither is my computer allowing me to see the image in the OP, so I've no idea what that says. I think I understand the gist of simulation theory. In that, I know it's different than, say, traditional Christian understandings of creation. Therefore, I'm hesitant to treat simulation and creation as synonyms.

I don't see why it makes more sense that we exist within a simulation, if indeed we exist within something which was created. I don't see why something like the Matrix, where there is the true world within which there is a simulation of a different world, is more fitting of "creation" than that there is the true world that we exist in.

[William]

William: Therein are links provided where one can get a better idea of Simulation Theory.
Did you happen at all to follow those links and get a better idea as to what ST is?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #44]

Honestly, I did not see the links. Since this was a continuation out of another thread, I simply responded to the post directly addressing what I said and then kept the conversation up from there.

Fair enough. We might agree to regard most of the subsequent posts as preamble...

Neither is my computer allowing me to see the image in the OP, so I've no idea what that says.

That will make a suitable analogy as we progress.

I think I understand the gist of simulation theory. In that, I know it's different than, say, traditional Christian understandings of creation. Therefore, I'm hesitant to treat simulation and creation as synonyms.

So milestone one is reached.
The reason you do not agree with simulation theory is because it doesn't fit in with "Christian understandings of creation".
We both understand this difference we have in our universe views re past conversations.
You may agree that the contrary views we hold, have not changed, but our expressions regarding them, have.

As I understand the Christian understandings of creation, re Simulation Theory - they are currently being expressed in the following; [please bear with me here]

Re: Genesis 1:28 {SOURCE POST}

Christian 1: ...Which means, conceptually they are the same, Yahweh and Christ (they are physical beings in the spirit of Yahweh); and physical beings (such as human beings), are the ground and condition of their possibility... The point being, we are all potential Yahwehs / Christs, and there is no Yahweh / Christ without us. Or no work done in heaven or on earth.

William: Caution is advised in that regard as we could be consigning ourselves [and thus YVHV as us] to an epoch of an eternity of imprisonment within the confines of timespace, making use of our machinery to do so...trapping ourselves within the main simulation and any other simulations we create within the main...how is that going to be a good thing for the YVHV-US?

Why would YVHV create a trap for YVHV?

Christian 1: Who created what trap now? Do note what I said: Yahweh (and even the spirit of Yahweh for that matter) is just as conditioned by physical being as the rest of us, which itself presupposes something like spacetime as the matrix of all that is. So none of that stuff - matter, space, or time - was made by Yahweh but rather the reverse.

So if there is some great simulation running out there, then Yahweh is just as caught up in it as we are. But hey, if we can get so far in life, perhaps we can break / escape whatever cosmic cycle (or machine process) we are in. Matrix styles.

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?{SOURCE POST}

William: If we are to trust the Bible on the subject of being within a created thing, we have to be able to reasonable show that the Bible is a trustworthy source of information re that.

Christian 2: Yes, and this is what I've been demonstrating in this thread.

William: The Bible - with all its stories - certainly points to it being the case that we exist within a created simulation.

Christian 2: Depends on what you mean by simulation. You mean we do not actually exist?

William: Otherwise bushes which speak and which appear to be burning but are not, and other miraculous happenings are not so easy to explain other than with the vague gap-filler word "supernatural" and since the Bible itself doesn't contain the word, it is best to examine what word the Bible does use, to which the word 'supernatural" is substituting, even if just to see if there is any true correlation.

Christian 2: The reason the word supernatural is not in the Bible was there was no such distinction between the natural and the supernatural in the minds of the authors. To them, it was all just reality.

I get that the idea we exist within a simulation has one questioning the validity of subjective experience.

I have found that in Acceptance of Simulation Theory as an Idea allows Enlightenment re A Perfect Event unfolding...this, the physical universe and our involvement within it.

My main questions to Christians resistance re Simulation Theory but not Creation Theory, is why it makes a difference and in what way the differences can be noted by supportive example.
Why do some Christians assume that being within a simulation somehow makes the whole thing 'not real' re subjective experience, while others seem better equipped to consider there would be no difference because "real is real" no matter that what is being experience is within a simulation aka creation?

Over to you Tanager.
_________________












[376]
The validity of subjective experience
Acceptance Idea Enlightenment A Perfect Event
Christian understandings of creation

[The Tanager]

So milestone one is reached.
The reason you do not agree with simulation theory is because it doesn't fit in with "Christian understandings of creation".

I wouldn’t put it that way. I’d say my beliefs fit with a “Christian understanding of creation” rather than simulation theory. I’m a Christian because of my beliefs, not the other way around. I’m not saying you meant otherwise, just making a distinction clear.

We both understand this difference we have in our universe views re past conversations.
You may agree that the contrary views we hold, have not changed, but our expressions regarding them, have.

Absolutely.

My main questions to Christians resistance re Simulation Theory but not Creation Theory, is why it makes a difference and in what way the differences can be noted by supportive example.
Why do some Christians assume that being within a simulation somehow makes the whole thing 'not real' re subjective experience, while others seem better equipped to consider there would be no difference because "real is real" no matter that what is being experience is within a simulation aka creation?

I agree that a simulated world would still involve real experiences. But while the matrix was a real, subjective experience, it was still a lie and not ultimate reality. Neo went about overcoming those lies, breaking free of them, and living out of that new truth and freedom.

Even traditional Christianity believes we live in illusions of our own making. We create images of ourselves, present them before others, even fool ourselves. But that’s a different thing than saying the environment we are put in is a simulation. So, maybe the real resistance comes out of who is responsible for the illusions and what results because of them.

[William]

William:
The reason you do not agree with simulation theory is because it doesn't fit in with "Christian understandings of creation".

[Replying to The Tanager in post #46]

I wouldn’t put it that way. I’d say my beliefs fit with a “Christian understanding of creation” rather than simulation theory. I’m a Christian because of my beliefs, not the other way around.

The distinction is noted but does not change what I stated, because I was not referring to any one particular Christian understanding of creation.

I am sure you would agree that your particular reason for calling yourself a Christian may not be the same reason as another/others call themselves Christian because your belief may differ from those others.

So it is not really about any particular understanding of creation but rather, it is about misunderstanding of Simulation Theory, which has to do with beliefs about creation.

Beliefs act in a similar way to algorithms.

Of note, the algorithm preventing your computer from showing you the picture in the OP means that you are not privy to information others can see.

Beliefs act in the same way.

I agree that a simulated world would still involve real experiences. But while the matrix was a real, subjective experience, it was still a lie and not ultimate reality.

It was portrayed as such in the movie, but is not hidden re Biblical script, so should not be considered a lie or regarded in the same context as the Matrix storyline.

Neo went about overcoming those lies, breaking free of them, and living out of that new truth and freedom.

Neo - before taking the Red Pill, is an example of someone who believed his experience was real/reality, much in the same way you are currently arguing that the universe is real.

There is plenty of supporting evidence that shows us that what we experience as the universe, is not what the universe fundamentally is, and that is an important truth to acknowledge, and - depending on the nature of ones beliefs, acknowledging it will be impossible as long as those beliefs persist.

Neo did indeed come to realize that what he had believed was not the whole truth. Even as he adjusted to that revelation, and broke free from the old way of thinking, living out the new truth only showed him that he was far from experiencing freedom.

That freedom came much latter as he learned to understand the nature of that which created the Matrix.

Even traditional Christianity believes we live in illusions of our own making. We create images of ourselves, present them before others, even fool ourselves. But that’s a different thing than saying the environment we are put in is a simulation. So, maybe the real resistance comes out of who is responsible for the illusions and what results because of them.

Indeed.

The nature of the Simulation makes it so each personality developed will eventually come to the realization that their beliefs were a fundamental aspect as to how the simulation responded to their sense of what was real and what was simply belief/illusion.

That is why the OPQ is focused on the Bible stories and how all these might be explained through Simulation Theory.

But of course, you cannot see the OPQ - so are somewhat blind in that regard.

[myth-one.com]

Should we be so narrow minded and blind to think that we are the only planet among all his uncountable creations that is inhabited?

Is his work and creations an ongoing process among unnumbered solar systems?

We are only given detailed knowledge regarding this earth.

These verses have always intrigued me:

John 10:14-16
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Jesus was relating a parable to the Jews when He made this statement. So the sheep referred to could be the Jews. If that is the case, then the other sheep not of this Jewish fold would be the gentiles. Jesus came first to the Jews, then to the gentiles.

However, the entire flock of earthly sheep for which Jesus gave His life is every human on the Earth, both Jews and gentiles. If this is the meaning of the verse, then where are the sheep which are not of this fold? That is, if Jesus died for all the sheep in the fold of the Earth, and He has sheep which are not of the fold of the Earth; then where are these other sheep which He must bring together into this fold?

Jesus could be referring to the angels which revolted on the earth and are currently imprisoned in hell. These sheep would certainly not be of this fold. That is, on the earth:

Jude 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

These angels are no longer in the fold of the earth, so it's possible that Jesus is speaking of them.

Otherwise, the sheep not in this fold could be on another planet or planets. That is, the earth may not be the only inhabited planet.

[The Tanager]

I wouldn’t put it that way. I’d say my beliefs fit with a “Christian understanding of creation” rather than simulation theory. I’m a Christian because of my beliefs, not the other way around.I’m not saying you meant otherwise, just making a distinction clear.

The distinction is noted but does not change what I stated, because I was not referring to any one particular Christian understanding of creation.

I am sure you would agree that your particular reason for calling yourself a Christian may not be the same reason as another/others call themselves Christian because your belief may differ from those others.

So it is not really about any particular understanding of creation but rather, it is about misunderstanding of Simulation Theory, which has to do with beliefs about creation.

Beliefs act in a similar way to algorithms.

Of note, the algorithm preventing your computer from showing you the picture in the OP means that you are not privy to information others can see.

Beliefs act in the same way.

Yes, there are different beliefs within Christianity. I also agree that information informs our beliefs and, so, not being privy to certain information can affect one’s beliefs.

There is plenty of supporting evidence that shows us that what we experience as the universe, is not what the universe fundamentally is, and that is an important truth to acknowledge, and - depending on the nature of ones beliefs, acknowledging it will be impossible as long as those beliefs persist.

What evidence are you speaking of here?

The nature of the Simulation makes it so each personality developed will eventually come to the realization that their beliefs were a fundamental aspect as to how the simulation responded to their sense of what was real and what was simply belief/illusion.

That is why the OPQ is focused on the Bible stories and how all these might be explained through Simulation Theory.

What is the extent of your claim here:

1) The Bible directly teaches simulation theory
2) Simulation theory makes more sense of the Bible than alternatives
3) Simulation theory is consistent with the Bible, but not directly taught
4) Something else

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #49]

There is plenty of supporting evidence that shows us that what we experience as the universe, is not what the universe fundamentally is, and that is an important truth to acknowledge, and - depending on the nature of ones beliefs, acknowledging it will be impossible as long as those beliefs persist.

What evidence are you speaking of here?

The nature of our Body-Set as mentioned in the preamble which limits the information available to us, is one such evidence.
Also - have you taken a look at the links provided in the OP?

What is the extent of your claim here:

There is no claim re the OPQ.

1) The Bible directly teaches simulation theory

Yes, I would say so. Indeed theology teaches the same, but refers to us existing within a creation and I understand that a creation is no different from a simulation.

2) Simulation theory makes more sense of the Bible than alternatives

What 'alternatives'?

3) Simulation theory is consistent with the Bible, but not directly taught

Only in that a different words are used. We exist with a created thing, is what the Bible [and all theology] teaches.