« Even if we're in a simulation, our world is real | Main | Wacky religious news: Islamic sex cult and baptism gone wrong »

February 15, 2022

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

@ Chalmers [ Being all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and entirely wise aren't sufficient reasons for worship. Generalizing the point, I don't think any qualities can make a being worthy of worship. ]

Oh, I think gratitude for a GPS wielding godman in unfamiliar terrain is
is reason enough. A one-minute explanation by Sadhguru:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZpmdQsULR4

It seems to me that the simulated universe idea incorporates a no-win situation – much the same as the God concept. Questions that attempt to contradict a simulation theory would be met by saying that the contradiction is built into the simulation. It’s rather like a believer in God stating atheism is part of God’s plan – you just can’t win this game.

I’m quite happy with the fact that the world is an illusion constructed in our heads. We know that there is no smell, colour or taste etc. Brains interpret the world in a way that only equips us to survive, not how it actually is (whatever that is) – and it’s probably the same for all sentient creatures. The world is real enough but not in the way we think it is. David Eagleman in his book and T.V. series ‘The Brain’ explains this well.

I like physicist Brian Cox’s theory of the origins of the universe which he termed the "science creation story". He said: "In the beginning there was an ocean of energy that drove a rapid expansion of space known as inflation. There were ripples in the ocean. As inflation ended, the ocean of energy was converted into matter by the Big Bang. The denser regions of gas collapsed to form the first stars and the first galaxies.”

We could call this ‘ocean of energy’ The Simulator or God I suppose – seeing as though energy can neither be created or destroyed!

I'd counter that the "what caused God?" argument is a mystery, but not an answer, and definitely not a proof. The blaringly pertinent question of "what caused all this?" isn't resolved by suppositions on a quirk of physics (by the way, what caused the laws of physics?) or sci-fi theories about alien beings and simulation (what caused that?)

Creation is itself the proof of God (as something that created life and the universe). Science has as yet no answers on that subject.

Moreover, if we hold that God can't exist because something or someone would have to have created God, then how can we hold that life and the universe came into being ex nihilo? If a created God is illogical, then why is a created from nothing life and universe logical?

@ Ron E. [ We could call this ‘ocean of energy’ The Simulator or God I suppose – seeing as though energy can neither be created or destroyed! ]

Who unleashed or what is responsible for energy then...
Suppose someone posits Alpha-Woo is the actual
primal force that can't be created or destroyed. But it
manifests as energy at this level. Why not... aside from
the hard core materialist's disdain for the supernatural
tenor of the name itself...

Mired as our thoughts are in space-time, we'll never
unravel this. We can't conceive of what it means to
step outside it. We're stumbling on unknown terrain...
the limits imposed by our own thinking. The answers
to this quandary have to come from inside conscious-
ness, from emancipation from thought via an inward
path IMO.

D'ness. @Who unleashed or what is responsible for energy [email protected]

Well obviously it came from nothing!

@ Ron E. [ Well obviously it came from nothing! ]

Fair enough.. but whether pristine 'god-like' energy or 'Alpha-Woo',
why not probe consciousness for a clearer understanding of this
"nothing".


When you start looking into this simulation idea, there seems to be a number of opinions either for and against. Its something we may never truly find out – similar to how the universe came about. Reading some of the ideas can be interesting – and some funny like this one: -

It was suggested that a group of youngsters are messing with the system introducing things like Trump being president, Brexit etc. And having a good laugh at the resulting mayhem. Let’s hope some adult corrects the glitch.

And D'ness. Understanding nothing becomes something - and who's doing the probing?

@ Ro E. [ Understanding nothing becomes something - and who's doing the probing? ]

Consciousness itself. It's the great unknown yet can understand by direct perception.
It apprehends "nothing" without leaving a footprint.

"If we're in a simulation, its creator is our god"


..........Or gods, plural. I mean, no reason at all to posit just the one, is there?

It might well be a whole team, comprising ten people. Or, if this were some cutting edge simulation, something hugely complex compared to the kind of thing they've done before, then it might even be a very much larger team.

In fact, here's an extreme scenario: They put up this simulation so that paying customers can log in into our simulated world and either simply watch or, if they pay premium rates, then actually participate. Literally hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of customers do this, and pay good money for the entertainment. And so, this is big business, very big business indeed. So that there's a whole huge organization that's basically engaged with just this major project. Maybe even such a successful organization that they're one of the Fortune-10 of that world. So that conceivably there's literally thousands of people who're keeping this simulation --- us --- up and running, and literally hundreds who've directly helped create it (that is, create us) and to keep it (that is, keep us) up and running. Maybe even spanning many generations, if this thing (meaning us) has been going on for very many years of that world.

In short, there's no reason at all to posit just the one creator. There might well be two, or ten, or a hundred, maybe even thousands. And, whether because it spans generations, or whether due to simple everyday employee attrition, the gods may even keep changing!


----------


(Present-day inheritors of Aquinas's logical fallacies can chew on that. It cuts many ways, that analogy. And shows up yet another flaw in Aquinas. Over and above the very many other flaws in his thoughts and ideas.)

True

-
Swami Ji said it, Kabir, Nanak, Jesus

Myriads of hackers ( Brahmas, Yahwehs ) all God in what the produce(d)
plus the Para Hackers

777

TENDZIN :
"what caused God?"

me : YOU DO


777

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.