How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe

[otseng]

"Things"? We were discussing voices in particular. We were not discussing whether what the voices say can be true or false but whether such voices should be considered not to be real.

Fundamentally, I'm not interested in just voices, but all of the physical world. There's a differences between voices in our mind and the claim of a world existing in a mind. You can't claim just because we hear voices in our mind therefore all of the universe exists within God's mind.

Different variations can be presented to "harmonize" them. For example, we can all be in a computer simulation inside God's mind.

Please explain this concept as a possible contender for consideration.

God created a computer inside his mind. The computer is running a simulation of the entire universe.

Or we can be in the Creator's mind inside a computer simulation.

How is that different from your first variation offered here?

A computer simulation is running a program to model the mind of omnipotent creator. The mind then simulates the the entire universe inside its mind.

If we are in a computer simulation, it could be we are inside an actual universe or in another computer simulation.

Please explain how we can be in a computer simulation and also in an actual universe.

Actually, that's what simulation theory believes. The first universe would an actual real universe (A). Inside A, there is a supercomputer that runs a universe simulation program (B). If we are in B, A would exist, even though we cannot interact with A.

I think the question is what is our immediate universe that we are in? It'd have to be one of the three options.

And I showed how believing in a creator which exists outside of the creation is similar to (2) in that (2) also has it that way.

That's why I said our immediate universe.

Yet clearly the Bible does not say anything about a lot of things, so your point would have to be that - for example - dinosaurs cannot have ever existed since there is no mention of them in the Bible. Either that OR, because they were not mentioned in the Bible, the God of the Bible is being deceptive.

But, the Bible does make claims about God creating everything. How does the act of creation work in the Creator mind theory?

Neither of those is contrary to position (3). (3) has it that everything which can be experienced, is real because it all exists within The Creator Mind.

Simply stating circular logic does not support your case.

The assumption might be that those reading the stories would - through intuitive perception - understand it that way.
Or it might be that people would assume that IF we are in The Creator's Mind, THEN the creator would be deceptive and the Bible is attempting to present The Creator Mind to the wayward human mind, as beyond reproach.

You see, even in your own arguments you are thinking God's mind would behave in the same manner that wayward human minds behave, and in that - declaring "if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us".

We have to approach things with our own thinking, logic, and intuition. How do you know your understanding is correct then?

If someone also claims that the Bible is the word of God therefore everything within the Bible must be true and real because the premise is that God is not deceptive (always true/speaking the truth) that is circular logic too...
Such is circular if it relies solely on the premise (such as the Bible is the word of God) to assert the truth and reality of everything within it. This argument would be circular because it presupposes the truth of the Bible in order to establish the truth of its contents.

Actually, I've never based my argument for the trustworthiness of the Bible on God not being deceptive. I've spent hundreds of pages presenting logical arguments and verifiable evidence on establishing its veracity without presenting God's nature. Now given we can accept the Bible as reliable, I'm arguing how we perceive reality further aligns with the Bible and God's nature.

For starters, I have revised your list in order to make it more acurate.
1. Real Created Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and exists as an entity created by a creator outside of our universe.
2. Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology.
3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind and everything that exists is real.

I have no idea what you mean by "everything that exists is real" in 3. I can agree it would be perceptually real, but I would disagree it's actually real.

I am pointing out that both theories (1) and (2) involve the concept of an external creator mind shaping the universe, despite their differences in other aspects and you are avoiding addressing that similarity, other than making the claim that God is not deceptive (always true/speaking the truth, which (3) also assumes to be the case.

Still have no idea what you're asking. If you don't believe 1 or 2, why would I need to address their similarity? The issue would really be the differences between 1 and 3.

Are you being non deceptive and true/speaking the truth by saying that you don't know what I'm asking from you? I hope that isn't the case and that you will acknowledge my argument about (1) and (2) being similar, as valid and (3) as being understandable enough that one considers it possible/possibly true.

No, I'm not being deceptive. I honestly have no idea what you're asking for. As I pointed out, the original article that spawned this entire discussion asked "Is our universe real?". It offered the simulation argument as a possible explanation:

2. Is our universe real?

This the classic Cartesian question. It essentially asks, how do we know that what we see around us is the real deal, and not some grand illusion perpetuated by an unseen force (who René Descartes referred to as the hypothesized ‘evil demon')? More recently, the question has been reframed as the "brain in a vat" problem, or the Simulation Argument. And it could very well be that we're the products of an elaborate simulation. A deeper question to ask, therefore, is whether the civilization running the simulation is also in a simulation — a kind of supercomputer regression (or simulationception). Moreover, we may not be who we think we are. Assuming that the people running the simulation are also taking part in it, our true identities may be temporarily suppressed, to heighten the realness of the experience. This philosophical conundrum also forces us to re-evaluate what we mean by "real." Modal realists argue that if the universe around us seems rational (as opposed to it being dreamy, incoherent, or lawless), then we have no choice but to declare it as being real and genuine.

https://gizmodo.com/8-great-philosophic ... ve-5945801

This was the fundamental debate. Then you brought up your Creator mind theory. I've asked for supporting evidence for your theory and the only one you presented was your personal interpretation of John 14:2-3, which I've refuted with how a Jewish audience would have interpreted it. So, discussing the similarities of 1 and 2 have nothing to do with attacking 3.

Your theory is not equivalent to quantum theory or string theory.

Which is easier for you to understand - Those theories or the Everything Exists Within The Creator Mind theory?

Honestly, quantum theory is easier to understand.

Both are widely researched and accepted theories.

I hope you are not using argumentum ad populum as your basis here...

Since I also said it was widely researched, no I'm not using the ad populum fallacy. Again, what it boils down to is logical arguments (and not fallacious arguments like circular logic) that is required to support your theory. If you do not have any, then it can be dismissed.

You may be incorrect in asserting that I am the only person who thinks (3) is true.

Who else holds to the Creator mind theory?

Given the argument that (3) is complex and hard to understand, one can reason as to why it was not specifically worded in the bible that we exist within The Creator Mind.
However, that does not mean the Bible specifically claims otherwise or that things the Bible does say, do not point us to that conclusion.
In essence, I am suggesting that while the Bible may not overtly endorse theory (3) in its exact formulation, there may be elements within its teachings or narratives that can be interpreted to support or align with this perspective, even if they require deeper exploration and understanding.

Actually, I consider this as evidence the theory cannot be true. The theory is obscure and hard to grasp and it is not stated in the Bible.

What if someone else comes along and comes up with another theory and says the same things? Why should they be believed?

One of many examples I can produce from the Bible in support of (3) is
Colossians 1:16-17 (NIV):
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

Also the verse you previously used to support (1)

Rev 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Isa 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

2Pe 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

All of these support the real universe theory too. It's not like centuries and millions of readers of the Bible have read these passages and interpreted it to mean our universe is not actually real but is in God's mind.

[POI]

Before I address your responses, I feel you skipped a key component. (i.e.):

If you want to bring philosophy into the equation, specifically about 'simulation', I already refuted your argument. (i.e.) We are now in version (x) of the given simulation. We no longer experience glitches for the reason(s) I've already stated, and I could give more. If you want to continue with this exercise, we can. But, we both already agree that we are not likely in a simulation. Is this where 'faith' specifically comes in?

Not sure why you keep asking about faith. Faith comes in when we cannot prove a claim. Do you disagree?

See above.

Also, I'd say the more there exists evidence, the less faith then needs to come and take its place. This is why no one really speaks about faith in mathematics <or> regarding the shape of the earth. In these (2) instances, we need very little 'faith', as we can instead infer the evidence presented. Unless, of course, we are just in a 'simulation.'

You stated (post 4108) - "Though it's not possible to prove something is true, it is possible to prove something false." Apparently, I then cannot prove your claim is true, even if I were to agree. But seriously...

If this concept is true, then we all need some level of faith to believe anything is true - even when doing proofs in Geometry class . The question remains, for which I also presented to William in posts 4117 and 4119 is, EXCLUDING Mr. Tyson's theory, which philosophical theory requires the most amount of faith? I'd say mine requires the least amount, and yours requires the most.

What we're trying to answer is the philosophical question of the nature of reality and looking at all the proposed explanations. If the most likely explanation aligns with the position of the Bible, then it adds to its veracity.

But it doesn't, unless we actually are in some kind of 'simulation.'

Yes, I've proposed that before as one way in this thread: Actually, the resurrection is falsifiable. And I'm even upping the ante by saying if the TS is falsified, then the resurrection is falsified.

Then I see your position as really no different than Ken Ham's position about YEC (and The Creationist Museum or The Ark Encounter), <or> flat-earthers and their arguments. Meaning, both positions are held, and all 'evidence' which suggest otherwise can be 'reasonably dismissed'. But are these topics still really debatable topics? They are to the ones who hold those two positions, I guess? But to you and I, likely not. This is exactly how I feel about TS-ers as well, and where you and I diverge.

Further, even IF the TS was found to be a fake (to your satisfaction), couldn't you then just pivot and state the real TS is still lurking about, or, was destroyed? Meaning, many believers will often come with what they feel is the strongest argument(s). And if/when they are refuted, they still often believe.

[William]

The "point one enters" = "The Beginning". Within the scope of eternity - if a mind enters some kind of body, the mind begins to experience whatever that kind of body allows such to experience and a mind can exit said "kind of body" at a later moment and enter some other kind of body.

Even while said mind is in between body changes, it is still embodied within The Creator Mind so overall I would say that is how I think will go along with eternity - Within the infinite Creator Mind.

In light of that I can argue (therefore) I am (we are) always within The Creator Mind and thus always experiencing eternity, always have experienced eternity and always ever will do.
This means that I think the experience of being human is a sojourn where I have (as a mind) tried out said experience for a brief moment of time, within the eternal timelessness.


[Replying to otseng in post #4121]

"Things"? We were discussing voices in particular. We were not discussing whether what the voices say can be true or false but whether such voices should be considered not to be real.

Fundamentally, I'm not interested in just voices, but all of the physical world. There's a differences between voices in our mind and the claim of a world existing in a mind. You can't claim just because we hear voices in our mind therefore all of the universe exists within God's mind.

The fundamental in this argument is The Creator Mind and biblically speaking said Mind is big on voices and on humans hearing and listening to the voices - in the case of the Bible God - specifically listening to His Voice.

Therefore I reject your reasoning as besides the point.

Different variations can be presented to "harmonize" them. For example, we can all be in a computer simulation inside God's mind.

Please explain this concept as a possible contender for consideration.

God created a computer inside his mind. The computer is running a simulation of the entire universe.

Going along with that concept, The Creator Mind creating a computer inside The Creator Mind seems to be as redundant as creating the universe outside of Itself. (1)
Why do that when One is already able/completely capable of doing that for Oneself?

So, even giving the concept some due, one then has to answer "why" would The Creator Mind deem it necessary to create a computer in It's House, that would run simulations of rooms that minds could experience, rather than simply placing minds in actual rooms for experience?

I accept the concept you offered, to that point. Do you have an answer to the question posed?

Or we can be in the Creator's mind inside a computer simulation.

How is that different from your first variation offered here?

A computer simulation is running a program to model the mind of omnipotent creator. The mind then simulates the the entire universe inside its mind.

A computer simulation is running a program to model the mind of omnipotent creator. The mind then simulates the the entire universe inside its mind.

I see no difference (of significance) which places this concept as different from the first one you offered.
You are describing the attribute of the computer and making it sentient by allowing it the power to simulate actual rooms that exist in The Creator Mind.
You would now have to explain where the minds - which can experience said computer simulations - come from, in relation to said computer mind.

If we are in a computer simulation, it could be we are inside an actual universe or in another computer simulation.

Please explain how we can be in a computer simulation and also in an actual universe.

Actually, that's what simulation theory believes.

Yes, that was the 50/50 aspect we discussed earlier, re (2).

The first universe would an actual real universe (A).

Yes. Within The Creator Mind (3) or somewhere undefined (1)

Inside A, there is a supercomputer that runs a universe simulation program

According to (1) the universe is seen to be "real" but is (re your concept) actually a computer simulation.

(B). If we are in B, A would exist, even though we cannot interact with A.

Hang on there...why would The Creator Mind create a computer within Itself and make it so that The minds in (B) cannot interact with The Creator Mind (or minds within Creator Mind who are not within the computer simulation?
Perhaps this is where you need to connect the dots.
1) Why did TCM make a computer in which to simulate It's mind in relation to the minds within the simulation and at the same time make it so said minds couldn't comune with any mind outside of the simulation?

I think the question is what is our immediate universe that we are in? It'd have to be one of the three options.

And I showed how believing in a creator which exists outside of the creation is similar to (2) in that (2) also has it that way.

That's why I said our immediate universe.

? We agree.

Yet clearly the Bible does not say anything about a lot of things, so your point would have to be that - for example - dinosaurs cannot have ever existed since there is no mention of them in the Bible. Either that OR, because they were not mentioned in the Bible, the God of the Bible is being deceptive.

But, the Bible does make claims about God creating everything. How does the act of creation work in the Creator mind theory?

Glad You asked!

A view on how The Creator Mind creates.

Based upon the idea of Big Bang Theory and Evolution Theory the explanation is that something called the singularity "contained" everything that the universe currently evolved into, through series of events known as epochs.
(Some well-known epochs include the Planck Epoch, Inflationary Epoch, Electroweak Epoch, and the various stages of the Hot Big Bang, among others.)

In terms of this all happening within The Creator Mind, the singularity represents the "spark of a thought" and the thought itself represents the energy released - not just in the initial thought but in all subsequent thinking which followed through the single event to spread out into that region of The Creator Mind, producing this particular universe we are involved within.
(Within the framework of the Creator Mind hypothesis, the singularity can be likened to the spark of a thought emanating within the mind of the Creator. This initial thought sets forth a cascade of energy release, not only in its inception but also in the subsequent chain of thoughts that ripple through the expanse of the Creator Mind. These thoughts, analogous to the events unfolding through the epochs in scientific theories, propagate throughout the vastness of the Creator Mind, ultimately giving rise to the creation and evolution of the universe.)

The energy is the thought in action within The Creator Mind (TCM). The energy is physical and so to is the one who thought it and this is how mindfulness interacts with itself to produce objects which can then be experienced intimately - eventually - on all levels
As the initial result unfolded into the epochs, there appeared various objects (Galaxies) which was what TCM had envisioned re the initial thought, and allowed TCM opportunity to inject its mindfulness into the objects being created.

This in turn, led to a type of fine-tuning, mindfully so...
(Within the realm of the Creator Mind (TCM), the energy released from the initial thought manifests as physical reality. This energy, imbued with the conscious intent of the Creator, interacts within TCM to give rise to tangible objects and phenomena. As the epochs unfold, galaxies and other cosmic entities emerge in alignment with the envisioned plan within TCM's consciousness.

Through this process, TCM engages in a form of mindful interaction with its creation, fine-tuning the evolving universe with deliberate intent. This conscious engagement infuses the cosmos with purpose and intricacy, allowing for intimate experiences to emerge across all levels of existence.)

TCM achieves this engagement with the objects by being the "minds" within said objects, which eventually leads us to Earth and our human experience.
This is where we pick up the story unfolding re the question of a Sentient Earth - (Is the planet mindful and would this explain why there is life in earth?)
(By inhabiting the forms it creates, the Creator Mind (TCM) becomes the mindfulness within those forms. This perspective suggests that TCM's consciousness permeates through the various entities it brings into existence, including Earth and its inhabitants. Thus, rather than Earth possessing mindfulness independently, it is imbued with mindfulness through the presence of TCM within its forms. This interconnectedness between TCM and its creations underscores a profound unity and mutual influence between the Creator and the created.)

In turn, TCM in the form of planet Earth, is enabled (over time) to perform more fine tuning by creating an incredible variety of forms which TCM (in the role of Earth-Mind) is then able to occupy (be the life/mindfulness within.)

(TCM, manifesting as planet Earth, undergoes a process of refinement, enabling it to perform further fine-tuning. Through this refinement, Earth generates an astonishing array of forms, each of which becomes imbued with the consciousness of TCM—the Earth-Mind. These diverse forms serve as vessels for TCM's presence and mindfulness, allowing for a rich and intricate tapestry of life experiences to unfold on the planet. Through the occupation of these forms, TCM engages intimately with its creation, fostering evolution and complexity within the interconnected web of life on Earth.)

Each sojourn (epoch) deeper into the creation (this universe) brings with it heighten forgetfulness as the form being engaged with acts to prevent prior states and the initial state of mindfulness from being known by TCM occupying said forms.

Some examples of how this is happening are in the following;
1. Tool Use: Certain animals, such as primates and birds, demonstrate the ability to use tools for various purposes, indicating a level of cognitive sophistication.
2. Problem-Solving Abilities: Many species exhibit problem-solving skills in response to challenges in their environment, suggesting a capacity for foresight and planning.
3. Social Cooperation: Numerous organisms, including humans, engage in complex social behaviors, such as cooperation, communication, and empathy, which require an understanding of others' perspectives.
4. Self-Awareness: Some animals display signs of self-awareness, as demonstrated by their ability to recognize themselves in mirrors or engage in behaviors indicative of introspection.
5. Learning and Adaptation: Biological organisms exhibit the capacity to learn from experience and adapt their behavior accordingly, showing a form of cognitive flexibility."

These examples provide evidence of cognitive abilities and behaviors across various species, indicating a continuum of consciousness and mindfulness within the forms inhabited by TCM, highlighting the intricate interplay between consciousness, cognition, and behavior across different forms of life, offering glimpses into the evolving journey of TCM within its own Mind-Field.

TCM is undertaking this exploration and refinement within its own consciousness, as the universe is conceptualized as existing within The Creator Mind. Through the diverse manifestations of consciousness within the forms it inhabits, TCM delves deeper into its own mindfulness, weaving a rich tapestry of experiences and insights within the vast expanse of its own being.

Neither of those is contrary to position (3). (3) has it that everything which can be experienced, is real because it all exists within The Creator Mind.

Simply stating circular logic does not support your case.

The same applies to (1) in that regard. Are we to drop conversation because "circular logic" and thus surrender to atheism?

Or shall we continue with our explorations?

You see, even in your own arguments you are thinking God's mind would behave in the same manner that wayward human minds behave, and in that - declaring "if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us".

We have to approach things with our own thinking, logic, and intuition. How do you know your understanding is correct then?

Because it is the most reasonable under the present circumstances. Do you disagree with my assessment of the different ways knowledge of good and evil can be perceived (re gods and humans) and are you arguing that our own devices (thinking, logic, and intuition) are not up to/designed for the task?

Why would The Creator Mind (3) deceive us? Or, why wouldn't the Bible God (1) deceive us?

Actually, I've never based my argument for the trustworthiness of the Bible on God not being deceptive. I've spent hundreds of pages presenting logical arguments and verifiable evidence on establishing its veracity without presenting God's nature. Now given we can accept the Bible as reliable, I'm arguing how we perceive reality further aligns with the Bible and God's nature.

Thus, now the hard yak has been done, one has the basis for arguing Bible Gods' Nature without being circular.

Even so, I am simply agreeing with the assessment that The Creator Mind cannot act with deception, based on those same findings and more which align with said findings, so am taking the example of the Bible God as being an accurate ambassador/image for The Creator Mind we exist within. In that, I can declare that The Creator Mind is indeed without deception/trustworthy and not be circular with my reasoning. (Therein (1) and (3) have a crossover/similarity.

For starters, I have revised your list in order to make it more acurate.
1. Real Created Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and exists as an entity created by a creator outside of our universe.
2. Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology.
3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind and everything that exists is real.

I have no idea what you mean by "everything that exists is real" in 3. I can agree it would be perceptually real, but I would disagree it's actually real.

Is this because, as powerful as your Bible God is, (omnipotent creator) you do not regard His imagination (mindfulness) can create actual real things? Or perhaps that His mind is not actually a representation of what is The Real (actually real) Creator Mind?

Kinda like that computer concept you offered, where The Creator Mind (The Real) created a computer to simulate Its Mind ("model the mind of omnipotent creator") for whatever minds inside the computer to experience...in this case the God of (1) is the computer mind of (3)...

I am pointing out that both theories (1) and (2) involve the concept of an external creator mind shaping the universe, despite their differences in other aspects and you are avoiding addressing that similarity, other than making the claim that God is not deceptive (always true/speaking the truth, which (3) also assumes to be the case.

Still have no idea what you're asking. If you don't believe 1 or 2, why would I need to address their similarity? The issue would really be the differences between 1 and 3.

Until your "Computer within The Creator Mind" concept is put to rest, (2) remains viable re (3) - which is "why".

This was the fundamental debate. Then you brought up your Creator mind theory. I've asked for supporting evidence for your theory and the only one you presented was your personal interpretation of John 14:2-3, which I've refuted with how a Jewish audience would have interpreted it. So, discussing the similarities of 1 and 2 have nothing to do with attacking 3.

No you didn't refute it. You ignored my reply regarding what it means to be Married to God (re Jewish Mysticism) and marched on obliviously.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4119]

I actually asked you a question here. Were you planning on answering it? Below is my position.

(i.e.) While omitting Mr. Tyson's 'theory', which of our (3) positions requires the most 'faith' - (you, me, or Otseng)?

Firstly, I am not sure that we can omit "Mr. Tyson's 'theory'" (re (2)) because there may be faith involved in that as well.

I am still unclear as to what your position is, as to tell to what degree of faith your theory requires...
...and currently I would say that there is no particular difference in the levels of faith between (1) and (3) re otseng and my positions, due to his introducing (2) as being possible re (3) - and I have asked him some questions re said concept which would need to be answered which in turn may change that degree of faith between (1) and (3)....

What philosophical theory is your position representing re Philosophies (1) (2) (3) that a heading can be given by you for the position (4) to be added/included on the list?

I honestly have not thought about this enough to give a concise and formal one, but I will start by providing the following, which may or may not need to be tweaked or amended?

Real Natural/Materialistic Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed; and all changes not demonstrated to be done directly by naturalistic and/or material minds have and do happen by way of natural processes alone.

Yes I see what you mean. It is way more long-winded than the rest and could do with tweaking on account of that.

But it is a start. At least we can find the crossovers now -if any are to be discovered therein...

I'll give you an example of option 4)... Compare a forest filled with wild trees, as compared to a human planted tree farm. The former looks to have come from no material mind, where-as the later looks to have come from a material mind. Why? The former has no rhyme or reason, and all trees are of differing ages and species. The later are planted in organized rows and are also trees which are the same age and same species, as designated by the verified material mindful designer of the tree farm.

GOing along with that idea, (2) has it that such could have been made to look like it was a mindless happening. Re (3) This may be a reflection of the essence of The Creator Mind or a variant designed by the planet mind. ((3) also has it that all minds are sourced by/in The Creator Mind - re "A view on how The Creator Mind creates." which can be read in my reply to otseng. (headed halfway down that post).

Physical "science" is a particular "science" focused upon what can be observed and studied directly. "Science" involving study of mind/mindfulness is valid and holds a different philosophical framework than that of purely physical "science".

We shall see

I hope you are implying by that, you shall provide that which we shall see? Perhaps eventual agreement that "science" is more than just about mindless things?

[POI]

Firstly, I am not sure that we can omit "Mr. Tyson's 'theory'" (re (2)) because there may be faith involved in that as well.

As I already alluded to otseng, we cannot ever rule out (re 2). Why? Any of us can invent all sorts of hypotheticals, for which we cannot falsify. As I told otseng, he believes (re 2) is likely false because we would still experience 'glitches'. For which the counter could be a) we are programmed to ignore such 'glitches', or, b) we are now in version 5, which only has one 'glitch' every one million years. I, or you, or anyone else, could also give countless hypotheticals, and we could entertain this thought experiment (re 2), or exercise, indefinitely! But how likely is it, really? How much faith IS required to assume we are not in a simulation? Sure, it can be a fun exercise and all, but does it really get us anywhere?

I guess we can start by asking ourselves if we agree that we share the same physical reality? Seems we all agree in that much? How much 'faith' is involved in applying in that agreement alone? And then, we forge forth from there?

I am still unclear as to what your position is

Allow me to try again. I'll elaborate what I stated in post 4117. It may still be a work in progress. And, as a precursor, and to stay in line with the discussion, I am borrowing from otseng. And yes, we all three appear to overlap where it pertains to agreeing that we exist in a real physical reality.

4) Real Uncreated Universe Theory - Our 'universe' is real and eternal.

...and currently I would say that there is no particular difference in the levels of faith between (1) and (3) re otseng and my positions, due to his introducing (2) as being possible re (3) - and I have asked him some questions re said concept which would need to be answered which in turn may change that degree of faith between (1) and (3)....

For the record, and in line with post 4117, I'm going to state that my position requires the least amount of faith, from all given positions. Why?

Thus far, all prior unknowns, which were previously thought (or) assumed (or) asserted to have been the works of some "invisible source", have all been discovered not to be. Hence, it seems it would take more faith to continue assuming your two propositions (i.e.) <invisible mind - (re 3) <or> god(s) - (re 1)> is/are behind it all, verses to instead assume all things yet undiscovered are going to later be the results of natural processes alone (re 4).

GOing along with that idea, (2) has it that such could have been made to look like it was a mindless happening.

Yes, there appears to be a much stronger case that all three of us are applying the same amount of faith that we are not actually in a simulation. But, as I already stated, we can entertain this exercise until the cows come home, and there is really no way to falsify it.... And like I told otseng, I think Neil knows this, likes to "F" with people for funsies, and to also get more views/traffic. But, maybe this IS another faith claim

It would really be no different than me creating a topic stating "Jesus was really Satan in disguise". Satan got many to worship him instead of the true God, and is getting countless folks to break the 1st Commandment All I would have to do is argue that a) Satan has free will, b) wants to deceive us, and also c) has supernatural powers. But, I digress...

Re (3) This may be a reflection of the essence of The Creator Mind or a variant designed by the planet mind.

We can watch this stuff in action, via time lapse photography/other. Do you really believe there exists some "invisible conscious mind" producing the 'chemical' actions(s) of germination, calcification, erosion, precipitation, condensation, evaporation, etc etc etc? I instead state they are happening without any 'conscious mind'. (i.e.) We know beavers make damns. We know bees make bee hives. We know dung beetles make dung balls. Your position seems to suggest that <chemistry> is synonymous with "conscious agency" too, like the beaver/bee/beetle?

I hope you are implying by that, you shall provide that which we shall see? Perhaps eventual agreement that "science" is more than just about mindless things?

Let's see how this all plays out.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4125]

As I already alluded to otseng, we cannot ever rule out (re 2). Why? Any of us can invent all sorts of hypotheticals, for which we cannot falsify. As I told otseng, he believes (re 2) is likely false because we would still experience 'glitches'. For which the counter could be a) we are programmed to ignore such 'glitches', or, b) we are now in version 5, which only has one 'glitch' every one million years. I, or you, or anyone else, could also give countless hypotheticals, and we could entertain this thought experiment (re 2), or exercise, indefinitely!

Has otseng given any examples of what he would consider to be "glitches"?
It is possible that we might be programmed to ignore glitches. This would mean that glitches could be seen as those who break that programming... and it also could be that the simulation is without glitches because it has been tweaked uncountable times in order to present the most perfect example of something which can be experienced as real (actually real as otseng puts it).

But how likely is it, really? How much faith IS required to assume we are not in a simulation? Sure, it can be a fun exercise and all, but does it really get us anywhere?

As long as it is on the table as a possibility, some faith has to be attached to it. Perhaps even as much as (1) and (3)...unless it can be argued successfully that no faith would be required to believe we exist within a "non-actually real" universe.

I guess we can start by asking ourselves if we agree that we share the same physical reality? Seems we all agree in that much? How much 'faith' is involved in applying in that agreement alone? And then, we forge forth from there?

Even then there is faith that others are actually real and not simply part of the simulation.

4) Real Uncreated Universe Theory - Our 'universe' is real and eternal.

Okay -

1. Real Created Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and exists as an entity created by a creator outside of our universe.
2. Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology.
3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind and everything that exists is real.
4 Real Uncreated Universe Theory: Our 'universe' is real and eternal.

For the record, and in line with post 4117, I'm going to state that my position requires the least amount of faith, from all given positions. Why?

Thus far, all prior unknowns, which were previously thought (or) assumed (or) asserted to have been the works of some "invisible source", have all been discovered not to be.

Then they have not yet or cannot be discovered at all re (4)

The "faith" therein is that "cannot be discovered". I would say (for now) that this makes all positions re faith fairly equal - or equal enough not to quibble about at this stage...

Yes, there appears to be a much stronger case that all three of us are applying the same amount of faith that we are not actually in a simulation. But, as I already stated, we can entertain this exercise until the cows come home, and there is really no way to falsify it.... And like I told otseng, I think Neil knows this, likes to "F" with people for funsies, and to also get more views/traffic. But, maybe this IS another faith claim

Neil proposes a 50/50 and while this is fun, it is also a serious proposal. ("Science" can be fun too) (4) has it that there is only 100% and that is that we do not exist within a simulation (2) because the belief (faith) is that we will never discover that we are, so "we are not".

We can watch this stuff in action, via time lapse photography/other. Do you really believe there exists some "invisible conscious mind" producing the 'chemical' actions(s) of germination, calcification, erosion, precipitation, condensation, evaporation, etc etc etc? I instead state they are happening without any 'conscious mind'. (i.e.) We know beavers make damns. We know bees make bee hives. We know dung beetles make dung balls. Your position seems to suggest that <chemistry> is synonymous with "conscious agency" too, like the beaver/bee/beetle?

Pretty much, yeah. However the idea of this is not in chemical reactions, but in what makes chemical reactions possible...(the stage before chemical reactions) which then specifically enabled biological critters to emerge and to be mindfully experienced. (3).

I hope you are implying by that, you shall provide that which we shall see? Perhaps eventual agreement that "science" is more than just about mindless things?

Let's see how this all plays out.

Mindfully so....

[POI]

Has otseng given any examples of what he would consider to be "glitches"?

It wouldn't matter. My point is it's a proposed 'theory' which can be perpetually entertained at will.

As long as it is on the table as a possibility, some faith has to be attached to it. Perhaps even as much as (1) and (3)...unless it can be argued successfully that no faith would be required to believe we exist within a "non-actually real" universe.

Since it is unfalsifiable, any of us can waive this argument about any time we feel we are losing an exchange about any topic residing within a "real universe".

Then they have not yet or cannot be discovered at all re (4)

I can get on board with what you are saying here, insofar as each and every unknown must still be assessed upon their own merit(s) alone, as opposed to just preemptively lumping it in with the countless other discoveries -- which ultimately all turn out to be purely materialistic in nature. Case/point, lightning bolts do not come from Thor. Heaven does not set upon the clouds. The god Indra does not cause rain. Etc etc etc etc........... However, theists, and even you to some degree, still reside upon the "(god) of the gaps argument". (i.e.) -- all that has not yet or may never be discovered can and will be assigned to either god (option 1) <or> invisible consciousness (option 3). Seems both you and otseng fall into this epistemological box, in one way or another.

How many times do we assume "conscious agency" in (option 1), and come up with none, before we start to lose faith?

Neil proposes a 50/50 and while this is fun, it is also a serious proposal. ("Science" can be fun too) (4) has it that there is only 100% and that is that we do not exist within a simulation (2) because the belief (faith) is that we will never discover that we are, so "we are not".

Neil is a smart one. He realizes that he basically has carte blanche to relegate any percentage value he likes, being it is completely unfalsifiable and can be argue FOR infinitely. But, as I stated, I doubt he actually takes it too seriously, for the already given reason(s). Just like I REALLY do not take the thought experiment seriously about "Jesus being Satan in disguise". Even though I already know it too cannot be falsified. But if I was semi famous, had a platform, and wanted more followers, then why not?

Pretty much, yeah. However the idea of this is not in chemical reactions, but in what makes chemical reactions possible...(the stage before chemical reactions) which then specifically enabled biological critters to emerge and to be mindfully experienced. (3).

Then, as I stated above, at best, you are possibly arguing a variation of fallacious reasoning, (i.e.) "consciousness of the gaps".

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4127]

Then it would appear to circle back to why (4) needs to be on the list at all.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #4127]

Then it would appear to circle back to why (4) needs to be on the list at all.

Because besides option (2), (4) requires the least amount of faith (among options (1), (3), and (4). Further, (2) can be all sorts of unfalsifiable scenarios. Case/point, the scientologists state all our souls have been predisposed/preprogrammed to have all our memories and thoughts implanted before our birth. Thus, Otseng might as well entertain any of these 'theories' as well.

In conclusion, sure, we can screw around with all sorts of 'theories', in category (2), such as:

simulations
solipsism
Scientology
brain in a vat
etc etc etc..................

But why don't we just focus on (1) (3) and (4), shall we?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4129]

Then it would appear to circle back to why (4) needs to be on the list at all.

Because besides option (2), (4) requires the least amount of faith (among options (1), (3), and (4).

So you are saying that which requires the least amount of faith should be on the list as well?

But why don't we just focus on (1) (3) and (4), shall we?

(4) is beside the point re what otseng and I are currently discussing (2) in relation to our positions (1) and (3).

Re (2) Re Niel being smart and your asserting/believing he doesn't take (2) seriously - he is an agnostic. His points, both I and otseng agree with re our positions and currently I am awaiting otsengs answers to my questions and observations re his assertion that (2) fits into (3).

(4) is really (3) with mindfulness removed. I see no requirement to have (4) on the list specifically because otseng did not include it since it is not what he and I are discussing.
Since Osteng is interacting with you, perhaps he might say whether he thinks your (4) adds any insight to the overall discussion re (2) in relation to (1) and (3). I haven't been able to see this myself, and your answers haven't convinced me - so have nothing more to presently add to this observation as I do not see the relevance of (4) re said discussion.