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/

[The Tanager]

That they are lying, hallucinating, dreaming, honestly mistaken in some other way, etc.

Would you accept this might be the case for all such stories, or only non-biblical ones?

Yes, this could be the case for all such stories.

The world appears to be flourishing then, would you agree?

I think there is quite the mix of flourishing and destruction going on.

What do you mean by 'a state'? A state of mind, perhaps?

Our minds are affected, but it’s not just a state of mind. I think it’s a physical and emotional thing as well.

None in particular. It is often accepted as a realm where YHVH resides - The Fathers House - the going to, to prepare many mansions that biblical Jesus spoke of. Are you suggesting Jesus went to a 'state'? Why do you think the physical universe isn't also a 'state'?

When Jesus talks about how to get there (in John 14), he doesn’t give location-type directions. He says that He is the way (v. 6) and then that knowing him is connected to knowing the Father. Jesus seems to be talking about a relational kind of change, not a locational change. It’s more about being with God and knowing God and living out of that relationship. The physical universe is not a ‘state’ in this sense.

Are you of the belief that the physical universe is the only thing which exists physically and that all other things are 'states' and that Jesus was speaking of a 'state' re The Father House?

If so - how does a 'state' descend - such as the mention of a city descending from the sky into the physical land of Israel?

Is it simply a metaphor for a significant change, rather than a physical thing?

I think it is trivially true that the physical universe covers all that exists physically. That’s just the definition to me. That doesn’t preclude something like a multiverse with distinct physical “universes,” although I don’t think Jesus was talking about other physical locations in speaking of heaven and God’s presence.

The descending in Revelations 21, I think, is metaphorical but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t also involve actual physical changes.

Assuming we are physical beings. We may well actually be non-physical beings who are experiencing a physical simulation. The "glorified environment" may be another way of saying our reality experience has been changed, along with our understanding of who we are.

I agree that this interpretation is logically possible. I don’t think it is the better interpretation, though, for reasons like I’ve shared.

Is it because of your belief systems that you have this opinion?

This question doesn’t make much sense to me. My belief system is simply the collection of my opinions. I don’t hold my opinions based on authority, if that is what you mean. I think there are good reasons to reject the above interpretation and, so, it becomes a part of my belief system.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #121]

Yes, this could be the case for all such stories.

The difficulty then, is in how one could determine the truth.

Even if such a thing happened to you, how would you be able to determine that you were not, hallucinating, dreaming, or honestly mistaken in some other way, etc?

I think there is quite the mix of flourishing and destruction going on.

This is the nature of our environment. What do you thing the percentage of the mix is, and why?

I think heaven is more a state than another realm.

What do you mean by 'a state'? A state of mind, perhaps?

Our minds are affected, but it’s not just a state of mind. I think it’s a physical and emotional thing as well.

In what way can Heaven be physical AND not a universe/'realm in its own right?

What do you mean by "emotional thing as well"? Do you count emotional things as the affect of mind?

When Jesus talks about how to get there (in John 14), he doesn’t give location-type directions. He says that He is the way (v. 6) and then that knowing him is connected to knowing the Father. Jesus seems to be talking about a relational kind of change, not a locational change. It’s more about being with God and knowing God and living out of that relationship.

If you believe this is what Jesus meant, where did Jesus go when he ascended into the clouds? Obviously movement and going somewhere/relocating was involved in that process. Jesus confirmed that an attitude was necessary to that movement of relocation, so that would explain the relational kind of change, but not the physical relocation movement involved and so it is not so easy to deny that when Jesus said where he was to go his followers could not go [at that time] so your thinking where Jesus went was not really a place but a state, appears to leave much out.

The physical universe is not a ‘state’ in this sense.

Or, perhaps every universe/experience is a 'state' and state is one way of saying 'simulation' and Jesus was able to move from one state to the next.

I think it is trivially true that the physical universe covers all that exists physically. That’s just the definition to me. That doesn’t preclude something like a multiverse with distinct physical “universes,” although I don’t think Jesus was talking about other physical locations in speaking of heaven and God’s presence.

In what way [negative/positive] would it impact your belief system to understand that Jesus was indeed speaking of alternate realities as locations which can be experienced physically/as real?
Would such help you to understand that the non-biblical stories mentioned, are more likely NOT lies being told, hallucinations been had, or honest mistakes being made?

The descending in Revelations 21, I think, is metaphorical but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t also involve actual physical changes.

Perhaps it serves as a placeholder to remain undecided and to think biblical events as metaphor, but the OP is asking whether Simulation Theory is valid re those stories, and also shows that it could validate non-biblical stories as well, because we are essentially examining the stories in that light.

Perhaps the difficult one can have with ST is in thinking that somehow things experienced - whether heavenly of earthly are therefore "NOT REAL" but I think that this is an incorrect assumption.

Lets say a heavenly city does descend and therefore shows us that metaphor was an incorrect assumption/belief.

What options as to explanation could we draw from such an event?

I agree that this interpretation is logically possible. I don’t think it is the better interpretation, though, for reasons like I’ve shared.

Is it because of your belief systems that you have this opinion?

This question doesn’t make much sense to me.

Okay...

My belief system is simply the collection of my opinions.

Okay...

I don’t hold my opinions based on authority, if that is what you mean.

Is this because your beliefs are simply a set of opinions and thus hold no authority? Why have beliefs then?

Assuming we are physical beings. We may well actually be non-physical beings who are experiencing a physical simulation. The "glorified environment" may be another way of saying our reality experience has been changed, along with our understanding of who we are.

I think there are good reasons to reject the above interpretation...

What 'good reasons' are these? You have not said. You have been asked. For example, I asked you what the difference is between experiencing something real and experiencing something simulated...

It is not easy for me to determine what your reasons are if you do not state them.

...and, so, it becomes a part of my belief system.

Which is essentially a non-authoritative set of opinions of which you have undisclosed reasons for holding...

How can one evaluate your rejection of ST when you do not disclose the reasons for your beliefs/opinion sets?

[The Tanager]

The difficulty then, is in how one could determine the truth.

Absolutely.

Even if such a thing happened to you, how would you be able to determine that you were not, hallucinating, dreaming, or honestly mistaken in some other way, etc?

I think one would be rational to believe it wasn’t one of these things until some defeater came along that shows otherwise. This defeater could be intellectual (say, the experience leads to certain beliefs that are logically incompatible) or something else.

This is the nature of our environment. What do you thing the percentage of the mix is, and why?

I think humans are too limited and reality too complex to have a reasonable answer to that.

In what way can Heaven be physical AND not a universe/'realm in its own right?

In that heaven is God’s presence, God’s wisdom, God’s rule having an affect on our physical universe. Taking care of the environment, creating beautiful art, exercising our bodies, etc.

What do you mean by "emotional thing as well"? Do you count emotional things as the affect of mind?

In that heaven is God’s presence, God’s wisdom, God’s rule having an affect on our emotions. Seeking joy, being content, righteous anger but not unrighteous anger, etc. I do think all these various pieces (intellectual, physical, emotional) are interconnected.

If you believe this is what Jesus meant, where did Jesus go when he ascended into the clouds? Obviously movement and going somewhere/relocating was involved in that process. Jesus confirmed that an attitude was necessary to that movement of relocation, so that would explain the relational kind of change, but not the physical relocation movement involved and so it is not so easy to deny that when Jesus said where he was to go his followers could not go [at that time] so your thinking where Jesus went was not really a place but a state, appears to leave much out.

Jesus’ resurrected body was not limited by time and space. He pops up in the middle of a locked room, for instance. I believe Jesus probably literally moved up towards the sky, but he didn’t just keep going and going out into space or anything like that. So, I don’t think we can say it's that kind of physical relocation.

I think part of the reason could have been the human association of heaven with the sky. Even this literal act of ascending could include the metaphorical meaning (that I think is a theme throughout the gospels) of Jesus being the place where heaven and earth meet.

Here is a quote from NT Wright I think pertinent:

“[It] is not just that rationalist skepticism mocks [the ascension] (a possibility that the church has sometimes invited with those stained-glass windows that show Jesus’s feet sticking downward out of a cloud). It is that the ascension demands that we think differently about how the whole cosmos is, so to speak, put together and that we also think differently about the church and about salvation. Both literalism and skepticism regularly operate with what is called a receptacle view of space; theologians who take the ascension seriously insist that it demands what some have called a relational view. Basically, heaven and earth in biblical cosmology are not two different locations within the same continuum of space or matter. They are two different dimensions of God’s good creation. And the point about heaven is twofold. First, heaven relates to earth tangentially so that the one who is in heaven can be present simultaneously anywhere and everywhere on earth: the ascension therefore means that Jesus is available, accessible, without people having to travel to a particular spot on the earth to find him. Second, heaven is, as it were, the control room for earth; it is the CEO’s office, the place from which instructions are given. “All authority is given to me,” said Jesus at the end of Matthew’s gospel, “in heaven and on earth.”

The idea of the human Jesus now being in heaven, in his thoroughly embodied risen state, comes as a shock to many people, including many Christians.”

Or, perhaps every universe/experience is a 'state' and state is one way of saying 'simulation' and Jesus was able to move from one state to the next.

Perhaps.

In what way [negative/positive] would it impact your belief system to understand that Jesus was indeed speaking of alternate realities as locations which can be experienced physically/as real?
Would such help you to understand that the non-biblical stories mentioned, are more likely NOT lies being told, hallucinations been had, or honest mistakes being made?

If it were truth, then it would be a positive impact. It would open up the possibility that at least some of the non-biblical stories you are talking about could be true. They also could still all be false.

Perhaps it serves as a placeholder to remain undecided and to think biblical events as metaphor, but the OP is asking whether Simulation Theory is valid re those stories, and also shows that it could validate non-biblical stories as well, because we are essentially examining the stories in that light.

Perhaps the difficult one can have with ST is in thinking that somehow things experienced - whether heavenly of earthly are therefore "NOT REAL" but I think that this is an incorrect assumption.

I think ST can fit with the story of Jesus’ ascension. I don’t think that story directly points to ST over non-ST theories. ST could validate non-biblical stories as well. I also agree with you that the things experienced in simulation are still real experiences.

Lets say a heavenly city does descend and therefore shows us that metaphor was an incorrect assumption/belief.

What options as to explanation could we draw from such an event?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it would give us reason to believe ST over non-ST alternatives. There may be some theories ruled out, but there would still be multiple ways to make sense of that occurrence.

I don’t hold my opinions based on authority, if that is what you mean.

Is this because your beliefs are simply a set of opinions and thus hold no authority? Why have beliefs then?

No, I mean that I don’t believe in something simply because a Christian says it’s true. I wasn’t sure if you meant that by asking if I believe X because of my belief system.

What 'good reasons' are these? You have not said. You have been asked. For example, I asked you what the difference is between experiencing something real and experiencing something simulated...

It is not easy for me to determine what your reasons are if you do not state them.

Well, I have said that all else being equal, the simulation theory is less simple. But, I don’t think all things are equal. Ultimately, I think it rests on Jesus’ resurrection, the reliability of the NT in giving us what Jesus taught, and those teachings, which do not teach simulation theory.

How can one evaluate your rejection of ST when you do not disclose the reasons for your beliefs/opinion sets?

I didn’t think you were wanting to have that kind of conversation at first. As it’s becoming more clear to me that you do, I’m more than happy to go into any depth of my reasons that you want.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #123]

I think one would be rational to believe it wasn’t one of these things until some defeater came along that shows otherwise. This defeater could be intellectual (say, the experience leads to certain beliefs that are logically incompatible) or something else.

How does an intellectual defeater explain the logic of something which is alternative? Such as one who has an NDE, believes they meet with Jesus, and upon surviving, changes the way in which they had been seeing and living life prior to the experience?

The world appears to be flourishing then, would you agree?

I think there is quite the mix of flourishing and destruction going on.

This is the nature of our environment. What do you thing the percentage of the mix is, and why?

I think humans are too limited and reality too complex to have a reasonable answer to that.

Re the Christian belief in the second coming, what would the mix have to be?
Christians believe that Jesus will return and stop the wicked ways of the world because the world is not flourishing, but being destroyed through those wicked ways. They would therefore, have to believe that the mix percentage is more destructive than constructive.
Your statement that humans are too limited and reality too complex to have a reasonable answer to, tends to render such faith in the second coming, unreasonable and thus - illogical.

In what way can Heaven be physical AND not a universe/'realm in its own right?

In that heaven is YHVH presence, YHVH wisdom, YHVH rule having an affect on our physical universe. Taking care of the environment, creating beautiful art, exercising our bodies, etc.

In that, YHVH represents activity within and through the human instrument. Is there Biblical support that this is the actual case?

What do you mean by "emotional thing as well"? Do you count emotional things as the affect of mind?

In that heaven is YHVH presence, YHVH wisdom, YHVH rule having an affect on our emotions. Seeking joy, being content, righteous anger but not unrighteous anger, etc. I do think all these various pieces (intellectual, physical, emotional) are interconnected.

Are you perhaps saying that the correct combination of these constitute what theists refer to as "spiritual"?

Jesus’ resurrected body was not limited by time and space. He pops up in the middle of a locked room, for instance. I believe Jesus probably literally moved up towards the sky, but he didn’t just keep going and going out into space or anything like that. So, I don’t think we can say it's that kind of physical relocation.

Do you believe it was the same body Jesus had prior to his death?

I think part of the reason could have been the human association of heaven with the sky. Even this literal act of ascending could include the metaphorical meaning (that I think is a theme throughout the gospels) of Jesus being the place where heaven and earth meet.

So are you thinking that the display was not to have people believe that he went to another/alternative Realm, but rather, to feed into/utilize popular belief in Heaven being an actual realm where YHVH and the Host reside, even that this was not the actual case?

Why do you think Jesus used such device. Surely he would have known the impact that this would have on those who witnessed the act, and those who subsequently learned of the event?

Why would he not just simply disappear from their midst if indeed Heaven isn't an actual realm, as you believe? Why the theatrics?

Here is a quote from NT Wright I think pertinent:

I do not immediately see the connect therein, with your thinking Heaven is not a Realm.

The way the piece reads;

First, heaven relates to earth tangentially so that the one who is in heaven can be present simultaneously anywhere and everywhere on earth: the ascension therefore means that Jesus is available, accessible, without people having to travel to a particular spot on the earth to find him. Second, heaven is, as it were, the control room for earth; it is the CEO’s office, the place from which instructions are given.

could be construed as technology, Jesus moving outside of the physical universe simulation in order to tweak the algorithms as he felt necessary based upon the ripple effect of his prior interaction within it.

Indeed, knowing what we now know about technology, I think Simulation Theory best explains the above quoted passage.

Do you agree?

In what way [negative/positive] would it impact your belief system to understand that Jesus was indeed speaking of alternate realities as locations which can be experienced physically/as real?
Would such help you to understand that the non-biblical stories mentioned, are more likely NOT lies being told, hallucinations been had, or honest mistakes being made?

If it were truth, then it would be a positive impact. It would open up the possibility that at least some of the non-biblical stories you are talking about could be true. They also could still all be false.

I think at this point we might have to agree that because we cannot say with certainty either way, if we are to count the Biblical Stories as NOT being the product of lies being told, hallucinations been had, or honest mistakes being made, then we should at least count the non-Biblical stories with the same assumption, since none of them [at least those I have come across] are in opposition to Jesus or YHVH, even that the content of the experiences being reported differ from person to person - something we should expect, because of the individuality of the personalities being grown.

We should be able to agree that the differences are cosmetic at best but the similarities are too numerous to discard as lies being told, hallucinations been had, or honest mistakes being made...

Agreed?

I think ST can fit with the story of Jesus’ ascension. I don’t think that story directly points to ST over non-ST theories. ST could validate non-biblical stories as well. I also agree with you that the things experienced in simulation are still real experiences.

Yes. I think the problem I have in connecting with your reasoning, is that you appear to be [naturally] unable to show the difference between simulation and reality, but have yet to acknowledge the impossibility of doing so...

...these "non-ST theories" you refer to them as - have no accompanying examples - therefore it is impossible for me to understand what exactly you are referring to, and I suspect that this is because it is impossible for you to give any examples...I think that this is a fair call on my part - at least until you can actually give the examples, that we can examine them together.

If not, then would you agree to dropping the notion that "non-ST theories" actually exist?

Lets say a heavenly city does descend and therefore shows us that metaphor was an incorrect assumption/belief.

What options as to explanation could we draw from such an event?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it would give us reason to believe ST over non-ST alternatives. There may be some theories ruled out, but there would still be multiple ways to make sense of that occurrence.

This is precisely what I am referring to. Your statement implies something but is not supported by examples, which make the discussion difficult as I am [understandably] unable to simply take your word on that. Do you agree with my critique here?

I don’t hold my opinions based on authority, if that is what you mean.

Is this because your beliefs are simply a set of opinions and thus hold no authority? Why have beliefs then?

No, I mean that I don’t believe in something simply because a Christian says it’s true. I wasn’t sure if you meant that by asking if I believe X because of my belief system.

I am under the impression that you are a Christian. Am I incorrect?

[I have my own way of dealing with the assortment of Christian beliefs which contradict other Christian beliefs, which I am happy to share with you. I just want to make sure that I have not mistaken you for being/calling yourself a Christian.]

What 'good reasons' are these? You have not said. You have been asked. For example, I asked you what the difference is between experiencing something real and experiencing something simulated...

It is not easy for me to determine what your reasons are if you do not state them.

Well, I have said that all else being equal, the simulation theory is less simple. But, I don’t think all things are equal.

I do not think that is an adequate rebuttal of ST. Especially since you agree [as you should] that there is much metaphor within the stories of the Bible.
ST may well appear to you to being "less simple" when in actuality, it bundles every theory together and explains how Jesus can perform the operations mentioned re "the control room for earth; it is the CEO’s office, the place from which instructions are given." - it allows sense to be made, especially given we exist in a time where we understand the implications of Simulation(s)...

I think that why you think it is less simple, has to do with your belief that this physical universe is the base reality, and Heaven is something of a construct of this physical universe, rather than the other way around.
Perhaps part of that belief is construed by the thought that IF this universe is NOT base reality, THEN we would have to assume that the "Control Room" might also NOT be a base reality?

However, we do not have to concern ourselves with that [therein complicate] because it does not matter. What matters is our being able to acknowledge that OUR universe is not the base reality and that another - overarching reality - ["The Control Room"] is the basis for our reality.

["The Control Room" has been added to my Journal List re GMs
The Control Room = 191
Cleaning Up The Mess
Astral as busy as a bee
Living in Alignment
Getting off the hook
Getting unstuck
The One We Cannot See
Personal growth
The Control Room
...next level stuff...
The Nature of Angels]

Ultimately, I think it rests on Jesus’ resurrection, the reliability of the NT in giving us what Jesus taught, and those teachings, which do not teach simulation theory.

Given that Jesus made a display re the Ascension, leading folk to assume the legitimacy of the belief that Heaven is a place one can go to - also referred to in the story of the two personalities crucified next to him where the pertinent thief asks Jesus to remember him "when you come into your kingdom". Jesus replies by promising him that he will be with him that same day in Paradise...

... we cannot say - either of the story of Jesus, or indeed, any other Biblical story - that these stories do not teach simulation theory.

Sure, we can understand that what is taught, is not done so using the terminologies used today - and we can also acknowledge that Jesus would not use the terms we understand today to the ancient folk he was interacting with - because - how would they even be able to have understood him? Even with his necessary use of metaphor, many found it difficult to understand him.
Yet this does not mean that Jesus didn't fully understand he was interacting within a simulation and that the metaphors he used cannot be understood in that way, by we in this modern world.

Agreed?

How can one evaluate your rejection of ST when you do not disclose the reasons for your beliefs/opinion sets?

I didn’t think you were wanting to have that kind of conversation at first. As it’s becoming more clear to me that you do, I’m more than happy to go into any depth of my reasons that you want.

I am pleased to hear that Tanager. I appreciate your willingness to do so.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #124]

How does an intellectual defeater explain the logic of something which is alternative? Such as one who has an NDE, believes they meet with Jesus, and upon surviving, changes the way in which they had been seeing and living life prior to the experience?

I’m not sure I understand your question. What does the “logic of something which is alternative” mean? As to your example, I think a supposed NDE meeting with Jesus that contradicts known historical teachings from Jesus would give one reason to believe that they didn’t actually meet with Jesus.

I realize one could say: “but we’ve gotten Jesus all wrong,” but the evidence just isn’t on their side, a NDE that could have other scientific explanations for it against historical scholarship.

Re the Christian belief in the second coming, what would the mix have to be?
Christians believe that Jesus will return and stop the wicked ways of the world because the world is not flourishing, but being destroyed through those wicked ways. They would therefore, have to believe that the mix percentage is more destructive than constructive.
Your statement that humans are too limited and reality too complex to have a reasonable answer to, tends to render such faith in the second coming, unreasonable and thus - illogical.

Where do the scriptures say it’s currently all wickedness or give something like a percentage?

In that, YHVH represents activity within and through the human instrument. Is there Biblical support that this is the actual case?

Paul’s writings usually have two halves to them, where he gives the gospel and then tells Christians how this should impact how we live, and that the way we do this is through God working in us (Phil 2:12-13).

Are you perhaps saying that the correct combination of these constitute what theists refer to as "spiritual"?

I do think “spiritual” covers these various elements.

Do you believe it was the same body Jesus had prior to his death?

Yes, but enhanced.

So are you thinking that the display was not to have people believe that he went to another/alternative Realm, but rather, to feed into/utilize popular belief in Heaven being an actual realm where YHVH and the Host reside, even that this was not the actual case?

Why do you think Jesus used such device. Surely he would have known the impact that this would have on those who witnessed the act, and those who subsequently learned of the event?

Why would he not just simply disappear from their midst if indeed Heaven isn't an actual realm, as you believe? Why the theatrics?

No, I don’t think they believed Heaven was an actual alternate realm located elsewhere to begin with. I’m saying they metaphorically associated the heavens with talk of spiritual things and that a bit of ascension could have jogged that thought for some people, while not running the risk of being misunderstood.

could be construed as technology, Jesus moving outside of the physical universe simulation in order to tweak the algorithms as he felt necessary based upon the ripple effect of his prior interaction within it.

Indeed, knowing what we now know about technology, I think Simulation Theory best explains the above quoted passage.

Do you agree?

I do not agree. I’m as close to 100% positive as one can get that N.T. Wright, if you were able to ask him, would definitely not say that he meant that. I think that would be quite clear from anyone who has read or listened to Wright much at all.

I think at this point we might have to agree that because we cannot say with certainty either way, if we are to count the Biblical Stories as NOT being the product of lies being told, hallucinations been had, or honest mistakes being made, then we should at least count the non-Biblical stories with the same assumption, since none of them [at least those I have come across] are in opposition to Jesus or YHVH, even that the content of the experiences being reported differ from person to person - something we should expect, because of the individuality of the personalities being grown.

I think all stories should be approached skeptically, until we see good reasons to believe they aren’t lies, hallucinations, honest mistakes, etc.

We should be able to agree that the differences are cosmetic at best but the similarities are too numerous to discard as lies being told, hallucinations been had, or honest mistakes being made...

Agreed?

I don’t think the differences between a Biblical worldview/story and alternative worldviews/stories are cosmetic. There are definitely similarities at point, but they have real and often deep differences on key issues.

Yes. I think the problem I have in connecting with your reasoning, is that you appear to be [naturally] unable to show the difference between simulation and reality, but have yet to acknowledge the impossibility of doing so...

...these "non-ST theories" you refer to them as - have no accompanying examples - therefore it is impossible for me to understand what exactly you are referring to, and I suspect that this is because it is impossible for you to give any examples...I think that this is a fair call on my part - at least until you can actually give the examples, that we can examine them together.

If not, then would you agree to dropping the notion that "non-ST theories" actually exist?

No, I don’t agree. I’ve tried to share the differences I see. I think to say all theories are simulation theories ignores the very fact that they are known as simulation theories. Perhaps I’ve failed to distinguish them well enough, but the history of philosophical discussion is clear that Descartes’ demon, the Matrix, various other examples are distinct philosophical views. If you define simulation in a way that would negate any of these widely held differences (so that “simulation theory” is a designation that makes sense and is used by philosophers), then, once again, I ask you to define what you mean by simulation that would go against the history of philosophy’s understanding that simulation theory is a unique view.

This is precisely what I am referring to. Your statement implies something but is not supported by examples, which make the discussion difficult as I am [understandably] unable to simply take your word on that. Do you agree with my critique here?

You asked if we could draw an explanation from such an event. I said that there wasn’t enough there to draw a specific explanation. If you think one explanation would be called for, then share it and your support for it.

I am under the impression that you are a Christian. Am I incorrect?

[I have my own way of dealing with the assortment of Christian beliefs which contradict other Christian beliefs, which I am happy to share with you. I just want to make sure that I have not mistaken you for being/calling yourself a Christian.]

I do consider myself a Christian. My point is that I’m not going to adhere to a belief simply because Martin Luther stated it, or my pastor says it, etc.

I do not think that is an adequate rebuttal of ST. Especially since you agree [as you should] that there is much metaphor within the stories of the Bible.
ST may well appear to you to being "less simple" when in actuality, it bundles every theory together and explains how Jesus can perform the operations mentioned re "the control room for earth; it is the CEO’s office, the place from which instructions are given." - it allows sense to be made, especially given we exist in a time where we understand the implications of Simulation(s)...

I didn’t mean that it had less explanatory power. I meant simplicity in the Occam’s razor sense. ST theory says there is one level of reality that we experience and then another level of reality behind that. That’s two levels of reality to explain. I think traditional Christianity asserts one of these levels of reality. One is a simpler framework than two. That’s all I meant there.

I think that why you think it is less simple, has to do with your belief that this physical universe is the base reality, and Heaven is something of a construct of this physical universe, rather than the other way around.
Perhaps part of that belief is construed by the thought that IF this universe is NOT base reality, THEN we would have to assume that the "Control Room" might also NOT be a base reality?

However, we do not have to concern ourselves with that [therein complicate] because it does not matter. What matters is our being able to acknowledge that OUR universe is not the base reality and that another - overarching reality - ["The Control Room"] is the basis for our reality.

I think heaven and earth are part of the one base reality. I don’t think heaven is a construct of the physical universe. It has nothing to do with the IF…THEN you mentioned above. I don’t think that would follow.

I see no good reason to see that our universe is not part of the base reality.

Given that Jesus made a display re the Ascension, leading folk to assume the legitimacy of the belief that Heaven is a place one can go to - also referred to in the story of the two personalities crucified next to him where the pertinent thief asks Jesus to remember him "when you come into your kingdom". Jesus replies by promising him that he will be with him that same day in Paradise...

I don’t think that is a given, as I shared above. I don’t think Paradise was thought of as being another location in that society. They didn’t think people went to another realm.

... we cannot say - either of the story of Jesus, or indeed, any other Biblical story - that these stories do not teach simulation theory.

Sure, we can understand that what is taught, is not done so using the terminologies used today - and we can also acknowledge that Jesus would not use the terms we understand today to the ancient folk he was interacting with - because - how would they even be able to have understood him? Even with his necessary use of metaphor, many found it difficult to understand him.
Yet this does not mean that Jesus didn't fully understand he was interacting within a simulation and that the metaphors he used cannot be understood in that way, by we in this modern world.

Agreed?

We absolutely can say that they do not teach simulation theory. There is no mention of ST theory being explanatory of reality. If ST theory is true, then the Biblical accounts are oblivious to that fact.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #125]

I’m not sure I understand your question. What does the “logic of something which is alternative” mean?

It means that when there is an alternative given, that can be examined, logically.

As to your example, I think a supposed NDE meeting with Jesus that contradicts known historical teachings from Jesus would give one reason to believe that they didn’t actually meet with Jesus.

This assumes Jesus remains static in the framework of the history the Bible presents him as - the biblical Jesus - fixed.
Over two thousand years have passed since then. Are we to assume that Jesus would not move with the times - and indeed [re The Control Room] not have influenced said times?

I realize one could say: “but we’ve gotten Jesus all wrong,” but the evidence just isn’t on their side, a NDE that could have other scientific explanations for it against historical scholarship.

Historical scholarship is simply that. If we are to believe that Jesus has been active behind the scenes - in N.T. Wright's "Control Room" analogy, then we best not assume that the influence of that room is forever stuck in and dependent upon - that one frame of ancient history.

Where do the scriptures say it’s currently all wickedness or give something like a percentage?

In the days of Noah. There is a comparison drawn. [Matthew 24:37-39] couple with [Genesis 6:5]
What reason would Jesus have to return if things are balanced. Why do Christians believe in the second coming if not that they believe the world is more wicked than goodly?

Paul’s writings usually have two halves to them, where he gives the gospel and then tells Christians how this should impact how we live, and that the way we do this is through God working in us (Phil 2:12-13).

I say that the metaphor for YHVH breath of life is the same.[Genesis 2:7]
Some Christians believe that the soul is what that breath is. The soul integrates with the Human experience and personality is formed through that integrated experience.

The instigative/compelling influence of the soul over the personality appears to be the Holy Ghost...perhaps the soul of YHVH, more directly?...perhaps reminding the soul attached to the personality, that it is integral to the personalities development within the framework of the personalities experience, for purposes which extend beyond the borders of materialism.

Do you believe it was the same body Jesus had prior to his death?

Yes, but enhanced.

Please explain why something which is 'enhanced' is 'the same'.

No, I don’t think they believed Heaven was an actual alternate realm located elsewhere to begin with. I’m saying they metaphorically associated the heavens with talk of spiritual things and that a bit of ascension could have jogged that thought for some people, while not running the risk of being misunderstood.

This implies that Christianity has it wrong re the belief that when one dies, one goes to Heaven - or alternatively - Hell.

What evidence can you provide that the ancients Jesus was in contact with at that time, believed differently?
What is to say that if, what they did believe in was not true, that Jesus - knowing differently - wanted them to understand that their beliefs were in error?
Given the account of the telling from Jesus re YHVH reality [Kingdom] plus the ascension, how can your thinking otherwise, be counted as acceptable?

I do not agree. I’m as close to 100% positive as one can get that N.T. Wright, if you were able to ask him, would definitely not say that he meant that. I think that would be quite clear from anyone who has read or listened to Wright much at all.

That is not my point. I am simply taking what you quoted and showing that N.T. Wright is describing something which can be taken in the context of ST.
Jesus went somewhere and we should be able to agree that where he did go had something to do with YVHV Kingdom, and unless that Kingdom is somewhere hidden in the Universe nearby - [perhaps in the hollow of earths moon?] - based upon what Jesus did say about the YHVH Kingdom, what reason do we have NOT to think he was speaking of a different realm?


Point being, whether it is N.T. Wright or C.S. Lewis, ST can explain the metaphors and if Jesus' ascension is not counted as a metaphor but a real event, then we are left to wonder where he went - once the clouds concealed his form from the eye witnesses.

I think all stories should be approached skeptically, until we see good reasons to believe they aren’t lies, hallucinations, honest mistakes, etc.

That is a non-theistic approach re biblical stories and not appropriate to faith. I have seen Christians use this as a means to argue against things which are not aligned with their particular beliefs - one personal example - my being told that experiences I have shared over the years on this message board "could be delusional."
I expect non-theists to argue in that manner, but reject the validity of such argument from theists calling themselves "Christians" and promoting faith-based beliefs which themselves, do not facilitate skepticism...

Having a foot in both camps doesn't bode well with honestly confessing one is a theist/Christian, as far as I can see.

I don’t think the differences between a Biblical worldview/story and alternative worldviews/stories are cosmetic. There are definitely similarities at point, but they have real and often deep differences on key issues.

Re our particular conversation here, what "key issues" are you speaking to?

Descartes’ demon, the Matrix, various other examples are distinct philosophical views.

ST in it's narrow view might facilitate your reasoning for not agreeing, however, in the broader sense "existing within a creation/existing within a simulation" bundles all apparent differences under the one idea.
The distinct philosophical views might be for particular purposes?
I am viewing the whole concept [we exist within a created thing] as the overall 'philosophy' rather than focusing upon any particular flavor.
Re C.S. Lewis, the wardrobe into another realm represents a gateway between one reality experience and an alternative one.
Whatever philosophy Lewis was using in relation to his renditioned storyline, only differentiates what kind of simulation one experiences. It does not seek to promote that his portrayal of it is the only one, or the overall one...each speak of the same thing, in different ways, much like the same can be said of the differences between the Star Wars Universe and the Star Trek Universe...different universes same, simulation principle.
[In that, "Universe" is another way of saying "Simulation".]

All such stories are of course modeled off of this one, from where they are authored, but there is no way of telling if the inspiration comes from the influence of actual simulated realms, or are purely figments of the authors own imaginations.
This is what I was attempting to convey to you when we were both interacting in the "Around The Campfire" Universe... as said universe was described as the hub of all Simulated Universes...

I do consider myself a Christian. My point is that I’m not going to adhere to a belief simply because Martin Luther stated it, or my pastor says it, etc.

Why do you support whatever belief you adhere to? And what about ST has you concerned, re those beliefs?

I didn’t mean that it had less explanatory power. I meant simplicity in the Occam’s razor sense. ST theory says there is one level of reality that we experience and then another level of reality behind that. That’s two levels of reality to explain. I think traditional Christianity asserts one of these levels of reality. One is a simpler framework than two. That’s all I meant there.

The math agrees with ST. ST agrees with the mathematics of quantum physics.
The evidence is more than just a theory - it is a mathematical theorem. A theorem is a statement which has been proved true by a special kind of logical argument called a rigorous proof.

The statement which has been proved true, is that "Spacetime is Doomed." This is to say, that spacetime is NOT the base reality which materialists have insisted that it is.
This bodes with theism, and Christianity being theistic means that this should also bode with Christians.
Yet you - as a Christian - are arguing for the materialist interpretation of this universe experience.

Given "Spacetime is Doomed" is relatively new to human insight and thus not popular in terms of humans knowing about that, one can accept that arguments such as yours are coming from a place of ignorance, but the information is there for anyone with internet access to find, so the idea would be for one to get knowledgeable with new information being presented and, in doing so, drop old concepts for new ones.

I think heaven and earth are part of the one base reality. I don’t think heaven is a construct of the physical universe. It has nothing to do with the IF…THEN you mentioned above. I don’t think that would follow.

I see no good reason to see that our universe is not part of the base reality.

There is very good reason, as I just mentioned.
ST gives us the better explanation [re The Razor] and aligned with the latest information.

The mathematics prove that your Christian understanding of reality is as faulty as the materialists understanding of reality.
Theism up to this point has had no choice but to accept materialism as base-reality and attempt to superimpose the idea of Creation/Creator into that mix.
Theism does not have to proceed in that manner now that the math supports our universe is not base reality.

I don’t think that is a given, as I shared above. I don’t think Paradise was thought of as being another location in that society. They didn’t think people went to another realm.

I can accept that folk may well have thought about reality in materialistic terms, but Jesus didn't speak of reality in the same way. According to his own words, we should be able to accept that he knew that the material universe was not base reality - his oft enough commentary on the realm of YHVH, confirms this to be the case.

We absolutely can say that they do not teach simulation theory. There is no mention of ST theory being explanatory of reality. If ST theory is true, then the Biblical accounts are oblivious to that fact.

Or we absolutely can say that they do teach that we exist in a reality which is not base-reality and that the accounts by those telling the stories, would have been oblivious to that but we - today - should be able to see such stories in a different light, since we have access to knowledge that they did not.

Agreed?

[The Tanager]

Hey William,

Our posts have started covering a whole bunch of ground. I’m attempting to streamline my response, but let me know if I’ve misunderstood or missed anything of importance. I saw these main areas:


1) How do we determine truth?

You questioned my skepticism as being non-theistic. I completely disagree. To me faith is putting one’s trust in what one has good reason to do so. That is the Biblical idea of faith. We are called to test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21, 2 Timothy 4, 1 John 4).

Now, you don’t seem to advocate for completely blind faith, but you do offer personal experience as a reason to believe X is true. I agree, unless there is a defeater of that belief that comes out in testing the ideas out.

One example I gave was that supposed personal experiences of Jesus that contradict His historical teachings, should not be accepted as true. I think Jesus, as part of the triune God, would remain consistent in His teachings. God has no reason to change His character or understanding for God is all-knowing and all-loving.

I think this is different from whether Jesus influences people throughout the two thousand years since, however. I think He influences us from a constant, unchanging self. What changes is our understanding of things, not what He teaches.


2) Realit(ies)?

Yes, like materialists, I believe spacetime is integral to our “base reality” but, unlike materialists, I believe it is only part of that base reality, not the whole story. That “spacetime is doomed,” for theists, doesn’t negate spacetime being part of base reality. Whether it will be a renewal of the present earth or a completely separate earth, that earth is still a spacetime.

Ultimately, it seems to me that we both agree there are distinctions to be made, but where I see these as distinct elements of one reality, you consider them different realities. Yes, ST theory can make sense of the Biblical passages, but I don’t think the context of those passages teach ST theory explanations, at least not how I understand you talking about different realms. Yes, they could be wrong and, as we have more knowledge, we could be in a position to correct their thinking and re-interpreting the stories they shared.

As far as the views on the afterlife in Jesus’ time, I would commend this article to you to read: https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jes ... n-origins/. The point in Revelation 21, I think, is about heaven coming to this earth, and renewing this earth. Yes, it’s a (re)new heaven and (re)new earth, but there is a continuity as well.

I think it’s the same with Jesus’ resurrected body and our resurrected bodies. A car that gets an upgrade in engine, shocks, etc. is different than it was, but still the same vehicle. It’s got the same VIN, owned by the same person, etc. I think Jesus’ body (and ours) are like that. While it certainly changes, it’s still the same in a unified sense.

You also seem to be separating the soul from the personality. Am I right, there? Are you saying a “personality” is a temporary identification of a soul with a body in a particular environment? I would use soul and personality as synonyms.


3) What’s the balance of goodness and wickedness in the world?

You believe Jesus stated wickedness is greater than goodness in Matthew 24:37-39, drawing on Genesis 6. I think, from the context, that Jesus is telling them to be alert (see v. 42), unlike those in the day of Noah who ignored the warnings.

Now, I originally answered the question about the balance of goodness and wickedness in the context of things right now. It sounds like you are focusing more on that balance at the “end” of the world. It’s possible that the balance there will be heavily on evil’s side, but I would need to think longer there to come to a conclusion.

Ultimately, I think the Bible doesn’t focus on balancing good and evil, but eliminating all evil coupled with patience for those who are perishing in their evil, in hopes that they will seek escape through the Messiah. But, at some point, time will be up and evil will be wiped out.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #127]

Hey William,

Our posts have started covering a whole bunch of ground. I’m attempting to streamline my response, but let me know if I’ve misunderstood or missed anything of importance. I saw these main areas:

Hey Tanager

Yes - it is often the case, we start out with short posts and this evolves into longer and more detailed ones.
That is why I was listing our agreements, so that these might provide a way in which to help direct our path of discussion.

We have both agreed that:
1: We exist within a creation.
2: Simulation Theory is a valid way to interpret the Biblical stories.
3: YVHV placed humans into this universe to grow personalities.
4: The purpose of YVHV growing human personalities is so that these would potentially gain experience of the truth of the reason for their environment and their temporary experience within it.
5: It is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.

We parted company on;

6: We do not agree that human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.

I think this is different from whether Jesus influences people throughout the two thousand years since, however. I think He influences us from a constant, unchanging self. What changes is our understanding of things, not what He teaches.

I covered that when I wrote:

Historical scholarship is simply that. If we are to believe that Jesus has been active behind the scenes - in N.T. Wright's "Control Room" analogy, then we best not assume that the influence of that room is forever stuck in and dependent upon - that one frame of ancient history.

To expand on this understanding, What Jesus taught in no way contradicts the idea that we exist within a simulated reality.
As with YHVH, being the same/unchanging hasn't anything to do with how the authors of biblical script 'saw' YHVH and thus expressed their seeing in story form. Those stories are not "what YHVH teaches" but are expressions of inspiration by the authors who believed they were being taught by YHVH and their attempts to dress that in a language which could be understood by folk of their particular epoch.

That is why I wrote;

What is to say that if, what they did believe in was not true, that Jesus - knowing differently - wanted them to understand that their beliefs were in error?

You reply;

What changes is our understanding of things, not what He teaches.

I have been saying the same thing. So we cshould eventually be able to add that to our list of things we agree with.

Yes, like materialists, I believe spacetime is integral to our “base reality” but, unlike materialists, I believe it is only part of that base reality, not the whole story. That “spacetime is doomed,” for theists, doesn’t negate spacetime being part of base reality. Whether it will be a renewal of the present earth or a completely separate earth, that earth is still a spacetime.

This only serves to add credence to Simulation Theory Tanager.

"Spacetime is doomed" - as I wrote;

The statement which has been proved true, is that "Spacetime is Doomed." This is to say, that spacetime is NOT the base reality which materialists have insisted that it is.

I never said that spacetime is not PART of something greater, but that it is not the base reality itself.
Your argument up to this point has appeared to be different to that, indicated by your not wanting to agree with;

6: That human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.

Clearly, biblical script [which I have given per your request] has it that Jesus say's differently from you on this point. That script has been offered by me for your comment.

You commented;

One example I gave was that supposed personal experiences of Jesus that contradict His historical teachings, should not be accepted as true.

Yet you offer up to this point, no scriptural evidence to support your assertion re the stories folk bring to the table re their NDE experiences, that those stories should be discarded as lies, hallucinations, honest mistakes, etc.

On the other hand, an argument that the experiences being told, are the result of folk being made aware of the actual unchanging state of YHVH, to which the bible cannot be counted as something which speaks on behalf of YHVH, but only as a reference to those telling the stories from the perspective of their place in the epoch they underwent.

Unfortunately, the bible in that light, is a closed off book - whereby at some point, men chose to seal it shut from the advancement of human/YHVH interaction, whilst declaring it a type of complete document and cutting off all future interactions between YHVH and humans, that are NOT exactly the same as those stories of more ancient folk, recorded in the bible.

This is perhaps the main reason for the struggle you are currently having with the idea of Simulation Theory and belief that the bible does not describe us existing within a reality simulation, and the struggle to accept the stories folk have to tell about their NDEs, as being witness to truth.

Who are we to limit what YHVH does or does not do, based upon the writings of more ancient men, who - if told of the things of our technologically advanced modern world - might also complain that such things told are lies, hallucinations, honest mistakes, blasphemy etc?

Do you believe that YHVH did not know the future of humanity or see it as humanity moving towards uncovering truth, and thus getting closer to the unchanging state in which YHVH resides?

As far as the views on the afterlife in Jesus’ time, I would commend this article to you to read: https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jes ... n-origins/. The point in Revelation 21, I think, is about heaven coming to this earth, and renewing this earth. Yes, it’s a (re)new heaven and (re)new earth, but there is a continuity as well.

Honestly, it does not matter in the context of simulation theory Tanager.

If something changes, then it is not what it once was.

I recently asked otseng this:

William: Many Christians believe the bible tells it, that they will be resurrected to enjoy life in this universe forever...

How do you reconcile the eventual heat death of the universe, with such beliefs?

otseng: Everything will be reset

Your telling of it is the same as otseng, but what both of you fail to understand is that something which is changed, [ and graphically so] is not the same thing, but a different thing.

It may indeed have similarities, as you point out, and I have no argument re that, as simulating something naturally enough does have the quality of sameness, but in order to believe that one can withstand the natural tendency of a universe - like the one we currently occupy - to NOT be harmful to the forms we occupy [the human form] either those forms must change to accommodate, or the universe must change to accommodate, or both - the bottom line is that those changes must signify that we will not be existing in the same form and thus, Simulation Theory explains how those differences will be achieved.

New Heavens and New Earth mean that ST is involved in making it so.

Whether it is 'reset' or some other way in which this is achieved, ST is that which explains how such can be done.

Thus, my opinion on the matter of YHVH being unchangeable, is that YHVH is the fundamental reality and ANYTHING which changes HAS to be regarded as simulated.
[Which is why we are grown, as per agreement 3: "YVHV placed humans into this universe to grow personalities."]
Agreed?

I think it’s the same with Jesus’ resurrected body and our resurrected bodies. A car that gets an upgrade in engine, shocks, etc. is different than it was, but still the same vehicle. It’s got the same VIN, owned by the same person, etc. I think Jesus’ body (and ours) are like that. While it certainly changes, it’s still the same in a unified sense.

Your above can be regarded as semantics.
Agreed?

You also seem to be separating the soul from the personality. Am I right, there? Are you saying a “personality” is a temporary identification of a soul with a body in a particular environment? I would use soul and personality as synonyms.

I understand Soul as the breath of YHVH and thus unchangeable. It works with the personality which is changeable, as a means through which the personality can change - or "level up" to use Gaming terminology - and is integral to the personalities ability to experience anything.

While it is feasible that a personality can be deleted, and the soul connected with the personality to be integrated back into the unchanging completeness of YHVH, but this would be an extreme in that it would signify the personality is of absolutely no USE to YHVH.

Your understanding that the soul and the personality are synonymous [closely associated with or suggestive of something.] is understandable in that context, but they are not the exact same thing as one is grown [changeable] while the other is the other is complete.

3) What’s the balance of goodness and wickedness in the world?

You believe Jesus stated wickedness is greater than goodness in Matthew 24:37-39,

Please quote where I said I believed that.

Now, I originally answered the question about the balance of goodness and wickedness in the context of things right now. It sounds like you are focusing more on that balance at the “end” of the world. It’s possible that the balance there will be heavily on evil’s side, but I would need to think longer there to come to a conclusion.

My point was, that IF things are balanced NOW, in order for Jesus to return [as per Christian belief] things will have to deteriorate considerably, so that the impossibility of us being able to say NOW, as to the balance between good and evil, would become possible. That also would work the other way, but if things got better to the point where it became possible to make the call, YHVH would have no need to order Jesus to return.

In line with this thinking, is the idea of Jesus and the Control Room you mentioned. IF Jesus has been active in that regard, THEN we should be able to say confidently that things are getting better.

Ultimately, I think the Bible doesn’t focus on balancing good and evil, but eliminating all evil coupled with patience for those who are perishing in their evil, in hopes that they will seek escape through the Messiah. But, at some point, time will be up and evil will be wiped out.

Given YHVH is the biblically the bringer of both good and evil, this wiping out [deleting] signifies a change in YHVH, which does not align with the idea that YHVH is complete/unchangeable so that line of reasoning can be abandoned and explanation for concepts of good and evil has to derive in the personalities being grown and their lack of understanding and confusion deriving from their concepts of good and evil.

The concepts themselves require change, and perhaps this is what is meant by evil being deleted. The personalities change as the concepts change/the concepts change as the personalities change.

Having the belief that soul and personality are the same, makes the change - impossible, as far as I can tell, because the individual has no helper to activate said change, being in a position where trust in ones personality ["soul" in your regard] can be subject to those things you mentioned - hallucination, lies, et al.

Or as Bob Dylan wrote in a song;

Preacher was talking there's a sermon he gave
He said every man's conscience is vile and depraved
You cannot depend on it to be your guide
When it's you who must keep it satisfied

Soul - as an aspect of unchangeable YHVH - independent helper of the growing/changing personality, allows one to trust in something greater than oneself.

[this also eludes to another private conversation we are having re the GMs]

Agreed?
So far, I have seen no clear reason from you as to why that wouldn't be the case, that you should remain in disagreement with me...

My hope is that we can come to agreement and move on along the same path of discussion...

[The Tanager]

We parted company on;

6: We do not agree that human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.

In looking at this again, I’m not sure this is where we part. I lean towards believing that there is a sort of holding area while we await for our resurrected bodies, but I’ve also wondered if our experience, after what we call death, is immediately “waking up” in eternity. I haven’t explored this issue in depth enough to have a clear view one way or the other. Either way, humans do have other experiences beyond what we call death.

As with YHVH, being the same/unchanging hasn't anything to do with how the authors of biblical script 'saw' YHVH and thus expressed their seeing in story form. Those stories are not "what YHVH teaches" but are expressions of inspiration by the authors who believed they were being taught by YHVH and their attempts to dress that in a language which could be understood by folk of their particular epoch.

The biblical authors did directly teach God as having an unchanging nature (Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, James 1:17, etc.).

What changes is our understanding of things, not what He teaches.

I have been saying the same thing. So we cshould eventually be able to add that to our list of things we agree with.

Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying that.

Yet you offer up to this point, no scriptural evidence to support your assertion re the stories folk bring to the table re their NDE experiences, that those stories should be discarded as lies, hallucinations, honest mistakes, etc.

Offer scriptural evidence that if NDE teaches contradictory things to Jesus’ historical teachings, that they should be discarded? If so, the Bible doesn’t address the issue of NDEs at all, so this would be an argument from ignorance, from either side.

That wasn’t my argument, though. My argument was about not just blindly accepting our initial understanding of our personal experiences but testing them more, through things like logic, science, historical understandings, etc.

Unfortunately, the bible in that light, is a closed off book - whereby at some point, men chose to seal it shut from the advancement of human/YHVH interaction, whilst declaring it a type of complete document and cutting off all future interactions between YHVH and humans, that are NOT exactly the same as those stories of more ancient folk, recorded in the bible.

This is perhaps the main reason for the struggle you are currently having with the idea of Simulation Theory and belief that the bible does not describe us existing within a reality simulation, and the struggle to accept the stories folk have to tell about their NDEs, as being witness to truth.

Who are we to limit what YHVH does or does not do, based upon the writings of more ancient men, who - if told of the things of our technologically advanced modern world - might also complain that such things told are lies, hallucinations, honest mistakes, blasphemy etc?

Do you believe that YHVH did not know the future of humanity or see it as humanity moving towards uncovering truth, and thus getting closer to the unchanging state in which YHVH resides?

I don’t think humans can’t uncover truth post-Bible. I do think that truth will not contradict what God has earlier taught as truth, was my point. I limit YHWH to consistency and logic because God has revealed Himself to be consistent and logical.

Your telling of it is the same as otseng, but what both of you fail to understand is that something which is changed, [ and graphically so] is not the same thing, but a different thing.

Then this is another of our agreements? It seems that we’ve just come at it from two different ends. I didn’t want to be confused for saying that it’s completely separate and entirely different and you didn’t want to be confused for saying that it’s completely the same.

It may indeed have similarities, as you point out, and I have no argument re that, as simulating something naturally enough does have the quality of sameness, but in order to believe that one can withstand the natural tendency of a universe - like the one we currently occupy - to NOT be harmful to the forms we occupy [the human form] either those forms must change to accommodate, or the universe must change to accommodate, or both - the bottom line is that those changes must signify that we will not be existing in the same form and thus, Simulation Theory explains how those differences will be achieved.

It fits within a ST theory, yes, but it also can be achieved in a view such as traditional Christianity. Although, at times, it seems you would consider traditional Christianity a ST theory. Could you clarify whether you think traditional Christianity is a ST theory?

Thus, my opinion on the matter of YHVH being unchangeable, is that YHVH is the fundamental reality and ANYTHING which changes HAS to be regarded as simulated.
[Which is why we are grown, as per agreement 3: "YVHV placed humans into this universe to grow personalities."]
Agreed?

I don’t understand why you think this follows. Why is anything that changes a simulation?

While it is feasible that a personality can be deleted, and the soul connected with the personality to be integrated back into the unchanging completeness of YHVH, but this would be an extreme in that it would signify the personality is of absolutely no USE to YHVH.

Your understanding that the soul and the personality are synonymous [closely associated with or suggestive of something.] is understandable in that context, but they are not the exact same thing as one is grown [changeable] while the other is the other is complete.

I don’t say they are synonymous in that context. I do think the human soul/personality can be “deleted,” but there would be no soul/breath going back to YHWH.

Please quote where I said I believed that.

Where do the scriptures say it’s currently all wickedness or give something like a percentage?

In the days of Noah. There is a comparison drawn. [Matthew 24:37-39] couple with [Genesis 6:5]

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but you seemed to bring this verse as proof that the Bible taught the wickedness would get greater. This verse is about being aware of things, unlike those in the day of Noah who ignored the warnings.

My point was, that IF things are balanced NOW, in order for Jesus to return [as per Christian belief] things will have to deteriorate considerably, so that the impossibility of us being able to say NOW, as to the balance between good and evil, would become possible. That also would work the other way, but if things got better to the point where it became possible to make the call, YHVH would have no need to order Jesus to return.

This point relies on the idea that God is interested in balance, which I see no Biblical evidence for.

In line with this thinking, is the idea of Jesus and the Control Room you mentioned. IF Jesus has been active in that regard, THEN we should be able to say confidently that things are getting better.

Areas are getting better. Areas where humans ignore/reject God’s power and wisdom are getting worse.

Given YHVH is the biblically the bringer of both good and evil, this wiping out [deleting] signifies a change in YHVH, which does not align with the idea that YHVH is complete/unchangeable so that line of reasoning can be abandoned and explanation for concepts of good and evil has to derive in the personalities being grown and their lack of understanding and confusion deriving from their concepts of good and evil.

What do you mean by “bringer” and what verses are you referring to here?

The concepts themselves require change, and perhaps this is what is meant by evil being deleted. The personalities change as the concepts change/the concepts change as the personalities change.

As in, abusing a child is not really evil and we need to see that, and every act, as good? If not, what do you mean in changing the concept of evil?

Having the belief that soul and personality are the same, makes the change - impossible, as far as I can tell, because the individual has no helper to activate said change, being in a position where trust in ones personality ["soul" in your regard] can be subject to those things you mentioned - hallucination, lies, et al.

God and other humans are the other helpers.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #129]

We parted company on;

6: We do not agree that human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.

In looking at this again, I’m not sure this is where we part. I lean towards believing that there is a sort of holding area while we await for our resurrected bodies, but I’ve also wondered if our experience, after what we call death, is immediately “waking up” in eternity. I haven’t explored this issue in depth enough to have a clear view one way or the other. Either way, humans do have other experiences beyond what we call death.

Okay. So perhaps we can explore this together and reach an agreement.

The biblical authors did directly teach God as having an unchanging nature (Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, James 1:17, etc.).

You missed the point I was making there Tanager.

I wasn't critiquing that those authors were mistaken re YHVH being in an unchangeable/complete state.

Offer scriptural evidence that if NDE teaches contradictory things to Jesus’ historical teachings, that they should be discarded?
If so, the Bible doesn’t address the issue of NDEs at all, so this would be an argument from ignorance, from either side.

It is Biblical Tanager.

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.[2 Corinthians 12]

This is exactly the type of thing which is reported by modern humans re NDEs.

In my studies of NDEs and other ways in which alternate reality experiences can happen for humans, I have seen a similarity which crosses all cultures and every cultural belief ever uttered, including those stories in the Bible.

The language in which it is reported is different - as we should expect - but the context is the same.

That wasn’t my argument, though. My argument was about not just blindly accepting our initial understanding of our personal experiences but testing them more, through things like logic, science, historical understandings, etc.

Let us continue to do so then.

I don’t think humans can’t uncover truth post-Bible. I do think that truth will not contradict what God has earlier taught as truth, was my point. I limit YHWH to consistency and logic because God has revealed Himself to be consistent and logical.

As long as we do not limit YHVH to human consistency and logic, we should be able to move forward...toward the consistency and logic of YHVH.

Your telling of it is the same as otseng, but what both of you fail to understand is that something which is changed, [ and graphically so] is not the same thing, but a different thing.

Then this is another of our agreements? It seems that we’ve just come at it from two different ends. I didn’t want to be confused for saying that it’s completely separate and entirely different and you didn’t want to be confused for saying that it’s completely the same.

We have both agreed that:
1: We exist within a creation.
2: Simulation Theory is a valid way to interpret the Biblical stories.
3: YVHV placed humans into this universe to grow personalities.
4: The purpose of YVHV growing human personalities is so that these would potentially gain experience of the truth of the reason for their environment and their temporary experience within it.
5: It is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.

6: Human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.
7: Anything which changes is not the same thing as it once was.

I think re 6&7 there is more to discuss together before full agreement is reached...agreed?

It fits within a ST theory, yes, but it also can be achieved in a view such as traditional Christianity. Although, at times, it seems you would consider traditional Christianity a ST theory. Could you clarify whether you think traditional Christianity is a ST theory?

That is what my part this discussion am attempting to do. I am sure you will agree with me that it is not going to happen overnight.
I will say that it has been made obvious that I think what you refer to as "Traditional Christianity" has something to do with the thread title...but I will also say that I do not use the phrase as I do not understand what is being meant by its use, or whether your use of it is different from another Christians use of it.
What do you mean by the phrase?

Why is anything that changes a simulation?

Is YHVH a simulation? Perhaps we can add that to our list of thing we agree on.

[8: YHVH is not a simulation.]

If we agree with that, we can go on together in the quest of discovering the answer to the question you asked, and perhaps, come to an agreement.

I do think the human soul/personality can be “deleted,” but there would be no soul/breath going back to YHWH.

Let us agree that we can use the term deleted, without the quotation marks.
Please explain where the soul which loses the personality it is assigned to, goes when the personality is deleted.

[We will have to agree to what a SOUL is, yes?]

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but you seemed to bring this verse as proof that the Bible taught the wickedness would get greater.

I simple made the observation that modern Christians preach this as being the case, and use such script to back their telling of it.

This verse is about being aware of things, unlike those in the day of Noah who ignored the warnings.

In order to ignore a warning, are we not first required to be made aware of the warning?

This point relies on the idea that God is interested in balance, which I see no Biblical evidence for.

This ties in with the question I asked of you regarding the use of this universe. We can take another look at it in the future, as our agreement list increases.

Areas are getting better. Areas where humans ignore/reject God’s power and wisdom are getting worse.

Which things are you referring to here?

Given YHVH is the biblically the bringer of both good and evil, this wiping out [deleting] signifies a change in YHVH, which does not align with the idea that YHVH is complete/unchangeable so that line of reasoning can be abandoned and explanation for concepts of good and evil has to derive in the personalities being grown and their lack of understanding and confusion deriving from their concepts of good and evil.

What do you mean by “bringer” and what verses are you referring to here?

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it; Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker![Isaiah 45]

The bolding denotes that there is no 'other' involved with either acts of good or evil, as it pertains to human notions re good and evil.

The concepts themselves require change, and perhaps this is what is meant by evil being deleted. The personalities change as the concepts change/the concepts change as the personalities change.

As in, abusing a child is not really evil and we need to see that, and every act, as good? If not, what do you mean in changing the concept of evil?

To assist us in answering the question, I bring to your attention a snip from the most recent GM [Fri Oct 28, 2022 12:56 pm]

GM: Brother
Concision
The Right Tool For The Job
Incorporate
The Life Essence
Coordinate Forgiveness
Original
Epiphany [a moment of sudden and great revelation or realization.]
The Dolphins And Whales
Getting unstuck
According
[Woman Crosses Over and Gets Told Our Role on Earth (Near Death Experience)] [RTS=9:00]

William: Forgiveness -
Incorporate The Life Essence, Coordinate Forgiveness = 512
Superposition - Being aware of Human Control Dramas = 512

GM: A very useful fiction
Two seemingly contradictory things working as one overall organized thing.
Communication With The Deeper Levels of Self
The Shadow
Develop a basic, fact-based view first and then ask the question.
Radiate Honesty {SOURCE}

Re the video, the random time selection @ [RTS=9:00] there is a pertinent answer to the question you asked which requires only 45 seconds of viewing.

[The GM itself is the last part of a series which are focused upon this thread topic and in particular, post #126 and our interaction.]

Please read the above, view the video section and then we can proceed with finding potential agreement, as we continue with this aspect of our discussion.

YHVH and other humans are the other helpers.

Yes. In this case YHVH assisting in helping you and I come to agreement, also [potentially] through the woman in the video sharing her experience with us.

Certainly, for me - the GM process.