Has science found God?

[1213]

As Bible suggests, this world is like a computer simulation. And now some have found evidence this could be true, world may be like a computer simulation. What say you, have science found God, the programmer of the universe?

"Simulation theory is a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being".
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

"Do you ever experience something and think to yourself, “This can’t be real.” To some people who have bought into the notion that our reality is currently being simulated, there are examples all around us, that demonstrate glitches in the Matrix. Deja Vu? Ghosts? The Mandela Effect? These could all be direct examples of flaws in the simulation."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

"MIT Theoretical physicist James Gates has made a discovery that allegedly caused Neil deGrasse Tyson to sit down in shock. Now for the uninitiated, superstring theory is a concept that could unify all aspects of physics if proven right. While working on his superstring theory, he made an odd discovery. Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe. In short, he found “error-correcting codes,” the same error-correcting codes that you might find on the web browser you are using right now."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

[Purple Knight]

The separate individual you refer to as you, is different from how I see myself.

I do not see myself as only the individual human personality which has grown from the blank-slate default.

I also understand (from the human personality perspective) the idea that a broader aspect of my overall mindfulness/the mindfulness I am involved with, was indeed asked to participate and did indeed agree to participating.
I do not require having any direct memory of that agreement in order to logically trust it did indeed occur.

You're free to give that trust but others are not wrong in withholding it. It would be awful if we really were individuals, none of us agreed to this (or some didn't) and people let themselves be hurt because they trusted that it was okay because they agreed. It feels like shades of what goes on in a mental institution. Yeah, you totally agreed to this lobotomy, you just don't remember it. Trust us.

And even if this is all true, by the process of creating individuals in every colour of the rainbow, GG creates some who do not agree to this process of having his negative experiences for him.

If I cut one ball of dough in two, it's not one anymore. Someone who does not have this experience of oneness, is not charged with accepting the consequences of the other's agreements. That's like saying that if I mind-meld with someone, once, he can use my credit card two years later and I have to pay for everything he buys. Just because there was oneness at one time, does not mean that extends to a blank cheque to give consent for me, while that oneness is not present. In other words, if I experience being an individual, I am one. If what you're saying is true that seems to be the point.

We don't know and cannot know with any more certainty than logic allows for re that.

The way my human personality regards the issue is to ask myself whether I would trust a "higher moral agent" personally involved in the growing of a human personality (as in a "avatar" re Simulation Theory) and the answer I have come up with is YES.

I don't think I (or anyone mindful at that level of per-human intelligence) would knowingly enter such a reality experience without taking full precautions, so we can eliminate the idea of suffering as pain as some kind of curse placed upon we within said experience.

Thus, the reports to do with NDE take on a significant meaning in relation to agreement, co-creation (of reality experience) and the idea of securing/saving the precious growth moving forward, adds purpose to said experience.

Maybe we all did agree to it, and I don't have much to say if I really said, "Yeah sure do it and take all my memories, I agree to every last one of these experiences." But maybe we didn't.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #41]

But maybe we didn't.

And if that maybe is believed in, where do you go from there?

(Hint: One will find out when one finishes up with this particular reality experience.)

The evidence gives us the clues we require to make a logical decision to trust and what does not trusting this, provide for the individual personality being grown?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #41]

But maybe we didn't.

And if that maybe is believed in, where do you go from there?

(Hint: One will find out when one finishes up with this particular reality experience.)

The evidence gives us the clues we require to make a logical decision to trust and what does not trusting this, provide for the individual personality being grown?

Remember, this is assuming what you say is true, and if it isn't, simply trusting because we're called to and perpetuating that people should, is really really bad. But I think that it's not irrelevant for the individual personality, to understand boundaries. Maybe there are some things people shouldn't do, to other people.

The alternative route, that there are no boundaries and I can do whatever I want to others because they're just me anyway, is not only the easy route, but GG has access to that experience of thinking already.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #43]

Remember, this is assuming what you say is true,

It isn't just about what I say is true - it is about putting the evidence together and coming up with the most logical understanding available to us all.

simply trusting because we're called to and perpetuating that people should, is really really bad. But I think that it's not irrelevant for the individual personality, to understand boundaries. Maybe there are some things people shouldn't do, to other people.

The alternative route, that there are no boundaries and I can do whatever I want to others because they're just me anyway, is not only the easy route, but GG has access to that experience of thinking already.

That is entirely up to the individual to decide for themselves. No one is forcing that we "should" or "shouldn't" do, except - perhaps - ourselves.

[bluegreenearth]

As Bible suggests, this world is like a computer simulation. And now some have found evidence this could be true, world may be like a computer simulation. What say you, have science found God, the programmer of the universe?

"Simulation theory is a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being".
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

"Do you ever experience something and think to yourself, “This can’t be real.” To some people who have bought into the notion that our reality is currently being simulated, there are examples all around us, that demonstrate glitches in the Matrix. Deja Vu? Ghosts? The Mandela Effect? These could all be direct examples of flaws in the simulation."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

"MIT Theoretical physicist James Gates has made a discovery that allegedly caused Neil deGrasse Tyson to sit down in shock. Now for the uninitiated, superstring theory is a concept that could unify all aspects of physics if proven right. While working on his superstring theory, he made an odd discovery. Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe. In short, he found “error-correcting codes,” the same error-correcting codes that you might find on the web browser you are using right now."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

The scientific method is not equipped to prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis is true or false. The Simulation Hypothesis is currently untestable and, therefore, unfalsifiable. So, no. Science has not found God.

[The Barbarian]

Science can't find God.

But scientists can.

[Tcg]

Science can't find God.

But scientists can.

Do you expect these bald assertions to be accepted or is evidence for these claims to follow?


Tcg

[The Barbarian]

Science can't find God.

But scientists can.

Do you expect these bald assertions to be accepted

By definition, science is limited to the physical universe.

And since many scientists are theists, it's very clear that they can find God.

Now, I suppose an atheist would say we are just kidding ourselves. So there is that.

[Clownboat]

Science can't find God.

But scientists can.

Do you expect these bald assertions to be accepted

By definition, science is limited to the physical universe.

And since many scientists are theists, it's very clear that they can find God.

Now, I suppose an atheist would say we are just kidding ourselves. So there is that.

The wording is the issue.
From a grammatical perspective, “but” is a conjunction used specifically to imply contrast when the second idea or statement is different from the first, negating the first statement as if it is not true. The phrase attached after “but” is the defining, last impression, the one that sticks.

To be precise:
Science can't find God.

People can. Some people are scientists.

Just my two cents.

[William]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #48]

IF.
Science can't find God, But scientists can.

THEN
Scientists who can should be able to develop a science that can.