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/
In The Beginning...
Moderator: Moderators
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #71[Replying to The Tanager in post #70]
You still haven't explained what significant distinction you see between simulation and creation.
Another Christian I am speaking with about the subject say's that GOD is actually emergent from the universe, so in that way is arguing that the universe is the fundamental reality but that one day the GOD could have enough knowledge to be able to create outside of time-space, and therefore create simulations.
The reality is, the math supports what we know already about the universe, and shows that beneath that, there is a fundamental reality which we know by the math, exists.
A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.
We cannot detect the fundamental nature of the universe with any instrumentation - not with our body-set senses nor with any invention we so far have created which would be able to show us what is currently invisible.
We can build theories based on the mathematical proof and that is why ST is gaining a place as an explanation for why the universe exists.
The interesting thing I find about the religious opposition to the idea we exist within a simulation is that - while such clearly infers a creation and therefore infers a creator/creators [which goes a ways to supporting theistic claims that we exist within a created thing ] - they balk at the idea because it somehow means the universe is not 'real' therefore, none of their beliefs are based in reality so cannot be true.
[I myself think that this Christian reasoning is faulty.
Rather than find out through researching, religionists tend to stay within the bubbles of their beliefs preferring that what they believe is 'real' rather than risking exposing themselves to ideas which might challenge said beliefs - because ST has no claim that the experience of the universe is NOT real.
[The information is there for any to research.]
From my perspective, I continue to do the research and it is through doing so that I began thinking it possible that the stories of the bible [and indeed other religions stories] could have actually happened, if indeed we exist within a simulation.
It would be acceptable to understand that things which apparently defy the laws of logic, do so because we exist within a simulation/created environment and so to inject the occasional seemingly miraculous event into the program wouldn't be difficult.
Even with less grandiose events re an individuals own subjective experience within it, the individual can understand a prayer answered, or a seemingly helpful synchronistic event as being explainable as 'more than just coincidence' or 'blind luck' with the understanding that since we exist within a creation/simulation, such things can occur as that which should be expected, rather than that which mindlessly just happened by fortuitous accident.
But anyway, I see no reason why religious stories, such as those presented in the Bible, cannot be understood in that context.
Moses and the burning bush [Exodus Chapter 3]
The bush wasn't burning even though it looked like it was, and the bush wasn't talking even though it sounded like it was.
How would you explain that event, re the idea that the way we experience the universe is fundamentally real?
Q: Do Christians think that their relationship with GOD would be less real/not real if the medium of the universe was simulated?
You still haven't explained what significant distinction you see between simulation and creation.
Another Christian I am speaking with about the subject say's that GOD is actually emergent from the universe, so in that way is arguing that the universe is the fundamental reality but that one day the GOD could have enough knowledge to be able to create outside of time-space, and therefore create simulations.
The reality is, the math supports what we know already about the universe, and shows that beneath that, there is a fundamental reality which we know by the math, exists.
A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.
We cannot detect the fundamental nature of the universe with any instrumentation - not with our body-set senses nor with any invention we so far have created which would be able to show us what is currently invisible.
We can build theories based on the mathematical proof and that is why ST is gaining a place as an explanation for why the universe exists.
The interesting thing I find about the religious opposition to the idea we exist within a simulation is that - while such clearly infers a creation and therefore infers a creator/creators [which goes a ways to supporting theistic claims that we exist within a created thing ] - they balk at the idea because it somehow means the universe is not 'real' therefore, none of their beliefs are based in reality so cannot be true.
[I myself think that this Christian reasoning is faulty.
Rather than find out through researching, religionists tend to stay within the bubbles of their beliefs preferring that what they believe is 'real' rather than risking exposing themselves to ideas which might challenge said beliefs - because ST has no claim that the experience of the universe is NOT real.
[The information is there for any to research.]
From my perspective, I continue to do the research and it is through doing so that I began thinking it possible that the stories of the bible [and indeed other religions stories] could have actually happened, if indeed we exist within a simulation.
It would be acceptable to understand that things which apparently defy the laws of logic, do so because we exist within a simulation/created environment and so to inject the occasional seemingly miraculous event into the program wouldn't be difficult.
Even with less grandiose events re an individuals own subjective experience within it, the individual can understand a prayer answered, or a seemingly helpful synchronistic event as being explainable as 'more than just coincidence' or 'blind luck' with the understanding that since we exist within a creation/simulation, such things can occur as that which should be expected, rather than that which mindlessly just happened by fortuitous accident.
But anyway, I see no reason why religious stories, such as those presented in the Bible, cannot be understood in that context.
Moses and the burning bush [Exodus Chapter 3]
The bush wasn't burning even though it looked like it was, and the bush wasn't talking even though it sounded like it was.
How would you explain that event, re the idea that the way we experience the universe is fundamentally real?
Q: Do Christians think that their relationship with GOD would be less real/not real if the medium of the universe was simulated?
Last edited by William on Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #72I have tried in different ways. One kind of creation account will say our experiences in this world are the deepest level of our reality. A simulation account will disagree with that view of creation, saying these experiences, while real, are not the deepest level of reality, that there is a more fundamental level of our reality that lies underneath that.
This disagreement between two creation accounts shows to me that simulation and creation aren't synonyms.
William wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:01 pmThe reality is, the math points to what we know already about the universe, shows that beneath that, there is a fundamental reality which we know by the math, exists, but we cannot detect it with any instrumentation - not with our body-set senses nor with any invention we so far have created which would be able to show us what is currently invisible.
What, specifically, are you talking about here? And why is this a more fundamental reality instead of just a deeper aspect of our level reality?
William wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:01 pmThe interesting thing I find about the religious opposition to the idea we exist within a simulation is that - while such clearly infers a creation and therefore infers a creator/creators - which goes a ways to supporting theistic claims that we exist within a created thing - they balk at the idea because it somehow means the universe is not 'real' therefore, none of their beliefs are based in reality so cannot be true.
Rather than find out through researching, they tend to stay within the bubbles of their beliefs preferring that what they believe is 'real' rather than risking exposing themselves to ideas which might challenge said beliefs.
This isn’t the only (or major) kind of religious opposition to the idea. Some of it is intellectual rather than emotional. Depending on the theory, some current beliefs one has would not be true. But, if so, then follow the truth.
William wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:01 pmFrom my perspective, I continue to do the research and it is through doing so that I thought it possible the stories of the bible [and indeed other religions stories] could have actually happened, if indeed we exist within a simulation, because it would be acceptable to understand things which apparently defy the laws of logic, do so because we exist within a simulation/created environment and so to inject the occasional seemingly miraculous event into the program wouldn't be difficult.
I know of no Biblical story that defies the laws of logic. A miracle doesn’t necessarily defy the laws of logic. So, I, personally, would need to (1) see a case that a Biblical story/miracle defies logic and (2) that ST explains that defying of logic better than alternatives such as atheism.
William wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:01 pmEven with less grandiose events re an individuals own subjective experience within it, the individual can understand a prayer answered, or a seemingly helpful synchronistic event as being explainable as 'more than just coincidence' or 'blind luck' with the understanding that since we exist within a creation/simulation, such things can be explained as that which should be expected, rather than that which mindlessly just happened.
Yes, coincidence is one explanation, simulation is another explanation, an active God is another explanation, maybe there are others.
William wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:01 pmBut anyway, I see no reason why religious stories, such as those presented in the Bible, cannot be understood in that context.
Moses and the burning bush [Exodus Chapter 3]
The bush wasn't burning even though it looked like it was, and the bush wasn't talking even though it sounded like it was.
Yes, ST isn’t falsified by this story.
A physical sensation to catch Moses’ physical attention so that God can speak to him about the reality Moses was living in.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #73[Replying to The Tanager in post #72]
Which creation account are you referring to?
A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.
We cannot detect the fundamental nature of the universe with any instrumentation - not with our body-set senses nor with any invention we so far have created which would be able to show us what is currently invisible.
We can build theories based on the mathematical proof and that is why ST is gaining a place as an explanation for why the universe exists.
It doesn't matter in the context of our agreement because we agreed that we are existing within a creation.
ST cannot be falsified but this in itself does not mean it cannot be the case, and the math makes a proof for it being the case.
The Bible does not give that impression re its account.One kind of creation account will say our experiences in this world are the deepest level of our reality.
Which creation account are you referring to?
The Bible account tells it that way too. The creation is on account of a creator, and thus the creator is the Biblical representation of a "more fundamental level of our reality" as you put it.A simulation account will disagree with that view of creation, saying these experiences, while real, are not the deepest level of reality, that there is a more fundamental level of our reality that lies underneath that.
What 'disagreement?"This disagreement between two creation accounts shows to me that simulation and creation aren't synonyms.
The reality is, the math supports what we know already about the universe, and shows that beneath that, there is a fundamental reality which we know by the math, exists.What, specifically, are you talking about here? And why is this a more fundamental reality instead of just a deeper aspect of our level reality?
A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.
We cannot detect the fundamental nature of the universe with any instrumentation - not with our body-set senses nor with any invention we so far have created which would be able to show us what is currently invisible.
We can build theories based on the mathematical proof and that is why ST is gaining a place as an explanation for why the universe exists.
The expression I used had to do with known laws of physics - which were even apparent to the ancients in that any deviation was referred to as miraculous/magical because such should not logically happen.I know of no Biblical story that defies the laws of logic. A miracle doesn’t necessarily defy the laws of logic. So, I, personally, would need to (1) see a case that a Biblical story/miracle defies logic and (2) that ST explains that defying of logic better than alternatives such as atheism.
These two can work together. They do not have to be explained 'other' that each other. A creator acting within its creations can do so. The creation doesn't have to be the dominant reality of the creator, in order for the creator to do so.simulation is another explanation, an active God is another explanation
But anyway, I see no reason why religious stories, such as those presented in the Bible, cannot be understood in that context.
Moses and the burning bush [Exodus Chapter 3]
The bush wasn't burning even though it looked like it was, and the bush wasn't talking even though it sounded like it was.
Nor is any other story claiming the universe was created.Yes, ST isn’t falsified by this story.
It doesn't matter in the context of our agreement because we agreed that we are existing within a creation.
ST cannot be falsified but this in itself does not mean it cannot be the case, and the math makes a proof for it being the case.
So what is different about that and Moses existing within a simulation? Are you saying it wouldn't be possible to achieve this if the universe was a simulation?How would you explain that event, re the idea that the way we experience the universe is fundamentally real?
A physical sensation to catch Moses’ physical attention so that God can speak to him about the reality Moses was living in.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #74I am referring to the traditional orthodox Christian view. Note that I’m making a distinction here between deeper truth/aspect of the same level of reality and a more foundational level of reality behind the level we experience.
Platonists, for instance, posit the world of Forms that the level of reality we experience participates in. The world of Forms is a deeper level of reality. Traditional orthodox Christianity teaches a spiritual realm to this level of reality we experience, not as a deeper level of reality.
Whether the Bible teaches this or not (I think it clearly does) is not the point. My point is that this kind of difference shows there are different kinds of creation. I think it right to call ST’s idea of creation ‘simulation’ and, therefore, not to use simulation as a synonym for creation in order to avoid equivocating on terms later.
I don’t consider that a different “level of reality”. It’s a different aspect within the one level of reality.
What fundamental reality are you talking about? Quantum mechanics? What is a specific example of what you are talking about?
Thanks for your clarification. Still, I would need to see why ST makes better sense of this occurrence rather than an alternative like atheism or theistic views.
I agree. You said, “...I began thinking it possible that the stories of the bible [and indeed other religions stories] could have actually happened, if indeed we exist within a simulation.” I’m saying the stories could have actually happened, even if indeed we don’t exist within a simulation and that your view doesn’t have a stronger case for it than this alternative, as far as I can tell.
I didn’t say it’s unfalsifiability meant it can’t be the case. As to math’s proof for it, I’d love for you to present that proof so that I can take a look.
I am not saying that. I believe that a simulation could logically explain the burning bush story. I’m saying simulation doesn’t better explain the story versus alternatives.
The difference, as I see simulation, is that in the interpretation I offered, there isn’t a more fundamental level of reality that is going through a simulation to learn things (or whatever) and eventually reach/return to the more fundamental level of reality.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #75[Replying to The Tanager in post #74]
Re;
Re;
andWhat fundamental reality are you talking about? Quantum mechanics? What is a specific example of what you are talking about?
I have given you links. I am not obliged to teach you what you can learn for yourself, through application of your own intelligence...As to math’s proof for it, I’d love for you to present that proof so that I can take a look.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #76[Replying to The Tanager in post #74]
I thought you agreed that the universe was a creation?
Why do you think that ST is NOT a theistic view? Surely ST implies a creator, therefore, is an aspect of Theism/theistic views....
Non-theist views are generally under the impression/belief that we exist within a naturally occurring coincidental mindless accident of a thing which was NOT created by any creator.
Why should nontheistic views matter to you and I who have agreed already that we exist within a creation?
If what you say is true, then demonstrate how to make a bush look like it is burning while a voice speaks from within it.
If you cannot demonstrate, then at least clearly explain the process involved.
Explain the 'alternatives'...
Explain how the universe can be created, if there isn't a more fundamental level of reality.
Notwithstanding that this may be the case, it does not mean that we do not exist altogether in a simulation. Spirits and such inclusive.I am referring to the traditional orthodox Christian view. Note that I’m making a distinction here between deeper truth/aspect of the same level of reality and a more foundational level of reality behind the level we experience.
Platonists, for instance, posit the world of Forms that the level of reality we experience participates in. The world of Forms is a deeper level of reality. Traditional orthodox Christianity teaches a spiritual realm to this level of reality we experience, not as a deeper level of reality.
Whether the Bible teaches this or not (I think it clearly does) is not the point. My point is that this kind of difference shows there are different kinds of creation. I think it right to call ST’s idea of creation ‘simulation’ and, therefore, not to use simulation as a synonym for creation in order to avoid equivocating on terms later.
Are you arguing that there is no reality outside of the universe?I don’t consider that a different “level of reality”. It’s a different aspect within the one level of reality.
I thought you agreed that the universe was a creation?
The expression I used had to do with known laws of physics - which were even apparent to the ancients in that any deviation was referred to as miraculous/magical because such should not logically happen.
What are the "theistic views"?Thanks for your clarification. Still, I would need to see why ST makes better sense of this occurrence rather than an alternative like atheism or theistic views.
Why do you think that ST is NOT a theistic view? Surely ST implies a creator, therefore, is an aspect of Theism/theistic views....
Non-theist views are generally under the impression/belief that we exist within a naturally occurring coincidental mindless accident of a thing which was NOT created by any creator.
Why should nontheistic views matter to you and I who have agreed already that we exist within a creation?
Re the bold;I’m saying the stories could have actually happened, even if indeed we don’t exist within a simulation and that your view doesn’t have a stronger case for it than this alternative, as far as I can tell.
If what you say is true, then demonstrate how to make a bush look like it is burning while a voice speaks from within it.
If you cannot demonstrate, then at least clearly explain the process involved.
Again.I am not saying that. I believe that a simulation could logically explain the burning bush story. I’m saying simulation doesn’t better explain the story versus alternatives.
Explain the 'alternatives'...
So point to where the creator of this universe resides in this universe, since there can be no other reality outside of this universe.The difference, as I see simulation, is that in the interpretation I offered, there isn’t a more fundamental level of reality that is going through a simulation to learn things (or whatever) and eventually reach/return to the more fundamental level of reality.
Explain how the universe can be created, if there isn't a more fundamental level of reality.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #77Are you wanting a discussion or to just share some claims so that others can check them out on their own?
I didn’t say otherwise. The point is that, therefore, using simulation and creation as synonyms (as you are doing) is confusing.
No, I’m not arguing that there is no reality outside of the physical universe. Yes, I believe the universe is a creation. I don’t believe a “prior” reality necessarily means more fundamental, as I understand that term in ST. I’m open to hearing the definition you’d put to ‘more fundamental’ if you’ll offer it that could change my answer here.
I believe that the physical universe was made a part of the one level of reality, not an additional layer over “on top” of the most fundamental reality.
William wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 3:49 pmWhat are the "theistic views"?
Why do you think that ST is NOT a theistic view? Surely ST implies a creator, therefore, is an aspect of Theism/theistic views....
Non-theist views are generally under the impression/belief that we exist within a naturally occurring coincidental mindless accident of a thing which was NOT created by any creator.
Why should nontheistic views matter to you and I who have agreed already that we exist within a creation?
It seems to me that there could be an atheistic ST theory as well as theistic ones. Thus, I meant non-ST atheistic and theistic views, not that ST couldn’t be theistic.
This might depend on what you mean by ‘simulation’, but you won’t offer that definition to clarify. As I understand ‘simulation’ I see it as something different than a physical sign of the presence and thoughts of another being.
I believe there is a physical aspect/realm and a non-physical aspect/realm to reality, not that these are different realities that exist outside of each other. I believe God exists both “outside” the universe (but not in a different physical space) and “within” the universe (by engaging it at every point…omnipresence) without being the universe.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #78[Replying to The Tanager in post #77]
You have yet to explain why that is.
What do you mean by 'on top'?
ST implies that we exist within a created thing. Nontheists are unlikely to take any serious interest in ST because of that.
But I am open to you showing that there is such a thing as nontheist ST. If you cannot do so, we can agree that nontheism has no place in this discussion.
Remember, I am the one who sees no difference. You are the one saying that there is a difference. So it is up to you to show what the difference is.
Would your belief accept or reject the belief that invisible [spirit] life emerged from Saturn and that the Saturnites are responsible for the formation of biological life forms on Earth?
[The question above is more for the purpose of attempting to understand why your belief cannot be explained through ST.)
I am wanting a discussion about a subject which is visible enough for anyone to learn using the device of the internet. I have made no 'claims'.Are you wanting a discussion or to just share some claims so that others can check them out on their own?
You have yet to show why being in a creation is different to being in a simulation. You appear to be the only one I have spoken to about this idea, who is confused about the use of the word creation being substituted for simulation.I didn’t say otherwise. The point is that, therefore, using simulation and creation as synonyms (as you are doing) is confusing.
You have yet to explain why that is.
Any reality outside of this one and said to be the reason why our reality exists, would be the fundamental reality of our reality.No, I’m not arguing that there is no reality outside of the physical universe. Yes, I believe the universe is a creation. I don’t believe a “prior” reality necessarily means more fundamental, as I understand that term in ST. I’m open to hearing the definition you’d put to ‘more fundamental’ if you’ll offer it that could change my answer here.
Why do you believe that?I believe that the physical universe was made a part of the one level of reality, not an additional layer over “on top” of the most fundamental reality.
What do you mean by 'on top'?
Why would it seem to you this could be the case? Have you met any nontheists who are seriously entertaining the notion of ST?It seems to me that there could be an atheistic ST theory as well as theistic ones.
ST implies that we exist within a created thing. Nontheists are unlikely to take any serious interest in ST because of that.
But I am open to you showing that there is such a thing as nontheist ST. If you cannot do so, we can agree that nontheism has no place in this discussion.
In what way is a burning talking bush a "physical sign of the presence and thoughts of another being" and a simulation is not/could not be?stories could have actually happened, even if indeed we don’t exist within a simulationIf what you say is true, then demonstrate how to make a bush look like it is burning while a voice speaks from within it.
If you cannot demonstrate, then at least clearly explain the process involved.This might depend on what you mean by ‘simulation’, but you won’t offer that definition to clarify. As I understand ‘simulation’ I see it as something different than a physical sign of the presence and thoughts of another being.
Remember, I am the one who sees no difference. You are the one saying that there is a difference. So it is up to you to show what the difference is.
So point to where the creator of this universe resides in this universe, since there can be no other reality outside of this universe.
Explain how the universe can be created, if there isn't a more fundamental level of reality.
Explain why you believe this and why the belief has to oppose ST/ST renders the belief untrue.I believe there is a physical aspect/realm and a non-physical aspect/realm to reality, not that these are different realities that exist outside of each other. I believe God exists both “outside” the universe (but not in a different physical space) and “within” the universe (by engaging it at every point…omnipresence) without being the universe.
Would your belief accept or reject the belief that invisible [spirit] life emerged from Saturn and that the Saturnites are responsible for the formation of biological life forms on Earth?
[The question above is more for the purpose of attempting to understand why your belief cannot be explained through ST.)
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #79Okay, so something is a “more fundamental reality” if it is distinct from, and the reason why the physical universe exists? Is that an accurate enough description of what you mean?
If so, then I agree that there is a “more fundamental reality” than the physical universe. This physical universe is a creation/simulation. It seems like you are trying to say more than this, though.
Our beliefs are obviously different, whatever terms one wants to use, and I’m trying to understand the difference by getting clearer on what you mean by terms, trying not to bring my preconceived use of those terms into the discussion. I can’t answer your other questions until this is done. I’d appreciate your help, but you don’t have to offer it.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: In The Beginning...
Post #80[Replying to The Tanager in post #79]
Any beliefs attached to that fundamental statement "we exist within something which was created.", are ones own to carry.
I personally do not hold belief or lack belief we exist within something which was created. I simply agree to it for the purpose of having a common ground in which discuss the subject amicably.
Since it appears we are on the same page [that this physical universe is a creation/simulation] we should now be able to examine any of the Bible stories in the light of this agreement and answer "Yes" to the OPQ.
______________
Fine. we agree thus far.Okay, so something is a “more fundamental reality” if it is distinct from, and the reason why the physical universe exists? Is that an accurate enough description of what you mean?
If so, then I agree that there is a “more fundamental reality” than the physical universe. This physical universe is a creation/simulation.
My focus is simply on the best answer to the OPQ.It seems like you are trying to say more than this, though.
Not on this subject, if your saying;Our beliefs are obviously different
...we have reached agreement [the bold] as we already agreed together that we exist within something which was created."I agree that there is a “more fundamental reality” than the physical universe. This physical universe is a creation/simulation."
Any beliefs attached to that fundamental statement "we exist within something which was created.", are ones own to carry.
I personally do not hold belief or lack belief we exist within something which was created. I simply agree to it for the purpose of having a common ground in which discuss the subject amicably.
Since it appears we are on the same page [that this physical universe is a creation/simulation] we should now be able to examine any of the Bible stories in the light of this agreement and answer "Yes" to the OPQ.
______________
OPQ: Is Simulation Theory a valid way to interpret the stories of the Bible?