Why call him a God?

[+OverSword]

58 minutes ago, danydandan said:

It's a good thought experiment.

But if you lean towards simulation then what's so outlandish about a God, or miracles or something like ghosts? I think believing in one and not the other is contradictory. 

Edit: @Hammerclaw beat me to it. 

Fools seldom differ eh?

Why would simulation eliminate God?  Say we exist in a simulation, does that make our existence less real?  If a created being created the simulation or otherwise caused it to exist who's to say that was't also the work of God?  My real fantasy is if we intelligent simulations can learn how our own code works can we then use that knowledge to change our reality or perhaps even have some influence or presence in the world of our creator or other simulated realities. 

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's amazing how people who are so ready to dispense with fantastical impossible things, eagerly adopt and cherish a whole new portfolio of equally impossible things. If this is a simulation, then everything in the Bible, every miracle, every resurrection could be true, with God the grand maestro of the simulation. That puts us back at square one.

Yes, as I said above, if we are in a simulated reality that doesn't change our significance or eliminate God.

[+Hammerclaw]

16 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yes, as I said above, if we are in a simulated reality that doesn't change our significance or eliminate God.

Also, if you're going to posit something of such astonishing power, capable of creating something so fantastically huge and of such tremendous complexity, why does it have to be a "simulation"? You're just letting God in the back door.

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Also, if you're going to posit something of such astonishing power, capable of creating something so fantastically huge and of such tremendous complexity, why does it have to be a "simulation"? You're just letting God in the back door.

It doesn't have to be a simulation it's just a mathematical probability and who's trying to keep God out of it?

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

It's a good thought experiment.

But if you lean towards simulation then what's so outlandish about a God, or miracles or something like ghosts? I think believing in one and not the other is contradictory. 

Edit: @Hammerclaw beat me to it. 

Fools seldom differ eh?

'twas the Irish in me.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

It doesn't have to be a simulation it's just a mathematical probability and who's trying to keep God out of it?

The you was in general not you specifically.

[Habitat]

It is interesting that some people are accepting of a "simulation" ( of what ?) but reject the notion of "God". That is a psychological matter.

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It is interesting that some people are accepting of a "simulation" ( of what ?) but reject the notion of "God". That is a psychological matter.

Probably as much of a psychological matter as someone who needs a god to worship.

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It is interesting that some people are accepting of a "simulation" ( of what ?) but reject the notion of "God". That is a psychological matter.

Either way you're a creation, eh.

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Probably as much of a psychological matter as someone who needs a god to worship.

I am not a "worshipper" of anything, but if people feel more comfortable with the idea of a simulation, rather than a "God", then there is a psychological underpinning to that. That would appear to me, to arise from fear. In the "simulation" case, the fear of life having some unfathomably deep meaning, is erased. It is all just a confected "game". But if there really is this "God" beyond the veil of perception, what are the consequences of living as if there is not, but it turns out to be otherwise ? This simulation has put you beyond the reach of any negative consequence, you are just the work of this simulator, if there is anyone to take the blame, it won't be you. The simulation theory fits well with the desire to avoid responsibility for the consequences of our being. The "God" theory, not so much.

[+Desertrat56]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I am not a "worshipper" of anything, but if people feel more comfortable with the idea of a simulation, rather than a "God", then there is a psychological underpinning to that. That would appear to me, to arise from fear. In the "simulation" case, the fear of life having some unfathomably deep meaning, is erased. It is all just a confected "game". But if there really is this "God" beyond the veil of perception, what are the consequences of living as if there is not, but it turns out to be otherwise ? This simulation has put you beyond the reach of any negative consequence, you are just the work of this simulator, if there is anyone to take the blame, it won't be you. The simulation theory fits well with the desire to avoid responsibility for the consequences of our being. The "God" theory, not so much.

Just    There is no other response for this.

[Habitat]

13 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Just    There is no other response for this.

You can laugh all you like, but I think it is pretty obvious that the simulation theory appeals to people because it lets them "off the hook" of responsibility, the simulator is your shield against the ultimate simulator, aka "God". If you went wrong, it is the simulator's "fault", not yours. The entire fascination people have on this site, with "God", derives from fear. And especially confirmed by the seeming fixation with the wrathful God of the OT, the only one they really get worked up about !

Edited December 3, 2019 by Habitat

[+Desertrat56]

Just now, Habitat said:

You can laugh all you like, but I think it is pretty obvious that the simulation theory appeals to people because it lets them "off the hook" of responsibility, the simulator is your shield against the ultimate simulator, aka "God". If you went wrong, it is the simulator's "fault", not yours. The entire fascination people have on this site, with "God", derives from fear.

Just like I think the god idea appeals to people for the same reason you cite.  Ergo the .  And what is your fascination with god if not fear and non-responsibility?  What makes you different?

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

But what if those beliefs pumped into your head were wrong to begin with?

What do you mean 'if'?

The God idea is pure nonsense 

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

In other words, what if what you were told has nothing to do with how God actually is?

That's what I said pretty much Will 

I was taught god was real, like grass or water is a real. God is real as a mental construct, a human idea, and not a great one. God actually is an idea, and when I see how influential that idea is on people such as yourself, I just can't see it as a good thing.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

Just like I think the god idea appeals to people for the same reason you cite.  Ergo the .  And what is your fascination with god if not fear and non-responsibility?  What makes you different?

I am not the one railing against God, which is a common hobby on these boards. How is that not related to fear ?

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

The God idea is pure nonsense 

That is just "pure" dogmatism

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, OverSword said:

Do you mean the organized religion biblical God, the simple concept of God or both? 

One begat The other. It's just plagiarism and revision of The same thing.

Quote

Personally I don't have a problem with an intelligently designed universe

That's just creationism wrapped up in sciencey terms 

Quote

and lean towards simulation.

I really don't. I dead set think it's a really silly idea. It's just another God idea. There's no good reason to see it as a valid hypothesis. It's another flying spaghetti Monster. I think Hammer is on point.

Edited December 3, 2019 by psyche101

[+Desertrat56]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I am not the one railing against God, which is a common hobby on these boards. How is that not related to fear ?

Are you accusing me of railing against god?  You must not read my posts.  There is a difference between railing against god and pointing out the fallacies of religion.  I remember now why I never respond to your posts.  You are single minded and constantly change the subject in threads as well as saying the same things over and over.  Have good evening. 

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

  Have good evening. 

I don't trust that being a genuine sentiment

[Guyver]

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Hmmm, interesting. 

For example, on Genesis the garden and talking snakes, eating the apple etc. did you take this figurative or literal? 
 

Some people truly do, do you have insight on this?

Yes again Sherapy.  There was a time when I did in fact take the Genesis Creation Story literally.  Mainly because at the time I was indoctrinated to do so.  If you look at Christ's geneology found in the New Testament, Adam is in his line as a real person.....so that's one argument for a literal view.  

Later, after many years, I changed my viewpoint on it and considered it metaphorical or allegory instead of literal.  In any event, reading it now, it's hard for me to see why I ever believed it.  But, as I said, it was a cultural and religious thing, and I was willingly embracing Christianity and was active in the church, so Bible study just went with that program.  Many Christians also believe in a "young Earth" and that is one aspect of Christianity I never did embrace.  I believed in what is called the "Gap Theory" which basically states that in between the spaces between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there was an unknown amount of time that had passed, thus allowing for an old Earth understanding.  

[+OverSword]

32 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

One begat The other. It's just plagiarism and revision of The same thing.

That's just creationism wrapped up in sciencey terms 

I really don't. I dead set think it's a really silly idea. It's just another God idea. There's no good reason to see it as a valid hypothesis. It's another flying spaghetti Monster. I think Hammer is on point.

And yet James Gates found computer code in string theory

 

[Guyver]

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No, I can't understand how so many are so lazy as to grab hastily at the closest straw. Anyone who had a proper think about the God concept can see holes that you could drive a shopping centre through. Some seem fine to glance over the many inconsistencies, I can't, and don't know how people manage to put their all into such an obvious facade. As I said earlier, quoting populations, or the majority, is just an appeal to authority. It's not validation. If millions of people thought they were Napoleon, then it would be accepted that Napoleon's spirit manifests many. Jesus or God, is just replacing Napoleon in this instance.

OK.....I don't know how to respond to that.  

Quote

I can't agree, there is enough information to ascertain validity. Because I allow for the cutting edge of knowledge to shape my views, with all due respect, I feel that makes my "reality" more valid in this instance. 

Well, you are entitled to your opinions, as are we all.  

Quote

Yes my worldview is different. I agree with that, but it doesn't affect the physics that refute an afterlife, it doesn't affect big bang models which illustrates a natural universe. These known facts discount myths that the species has by large embraced. We still live in the same world, we both like golf and ACDC. We also both live under the same laws of nature. That's what drives my worldview. Does that not make my reality more relevant to the daily world?

Physics does not refute an afterlife.  Physics is all about describing observations from this life.  

Quote

There's just no good reason to maintain religious beliefs in this day and age. We have to move with the times or get left behind.

That is absolutely false.  Many people benefit greatly from religion.  It gives people a sense of community and belonging.  It allows many people to be helped in many ways and also allows people an outlet to do charitable work - like helping the sick, shut-in, or homeless.  These things may not appeal to you but they definitely appeal to others beside yourself.  

Quote

Very much the opposite I guess. I've seen a lot of the worst side of the species. Everytime I've put a hand out, it's been bitten. Reality has well grounded me. I can't see anything worth believing in. Belief is more like a dirty word to me these days.

Again, that is your right.  But that doesn't mean that everyone else on the planet is going to agree with you or share your opinion.  

Quote

Honestly, I'd like there to be a god. I'd really like to blame all that crap on something or someone. I'd like to ask a God a few questions about this screwed up world, and why he made such a freaking mess of so much of it. Dead set, I reckon I'd want to punch god in the face if he existed. I just don't see anything worth believing in.

Interestingly, I share many of these same opinions here.  I too would like to ask God some questions specifically along the lines you just mentioned.  

Quote

Please explain how I am not honest in my approach. You have me baffled on that one. I couldn't be much more straightforward.

No, you are right.....I misspoke.  You are honest in your approach as am I, and I should not have made that comment.  

Quote

 

I have no vested interest. As you can see from the above paragraph, as such, I have zero interest to protect. How I roll is 'things are what they are' and I just don't see any reason to think those old ideas still hold water, or to continue supporting them blindly.

Losing a good friend us tough, I lost my lifelong friend Jeff a few years back. He was only 47. Heart attack 

But you're talking about effort. Hard work. That's the best reason to dismiss religious ideas and principles. That's how my worldview comes about. Working as hard at understanding the smartest people on the planet who devote entire lifetimes with the best equipment available to answering these questions. I wouldn't be surprised at all that you managed a PB in golf after working very hard at it for a long time. Hard work brings results. My personal efforts have eroded the beliefs pumped into my head for at least half of my life. Erasing god as a possibility wasn't what I set out to do, it was the only logical, sensible conclusion. And it's surprisingly relieving.

 

As I said before, we are different.  You don't see any reason to believe and I do.  You don't have to be me, and I don't have to be you.  We each walk our own path.  I have had supernatural experiences that you would not accept and I cannot explain.....so I keep the door open for God and I continue to believe.  It's not that I have all the answers, the more I learn that more I think I have no answers.  But I do have experience and consider that the best teacher.

Regards. 

[Habitat]

Much kudos to you, Guyver, for speaking of your personal journey in these matters, very interesting, and speaks of great progress made.

[psyche101]

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And yet James Gates found computer code in string theory

 

Uh, no he hasn't.

He has noted that the supersymmetric equations of string theory contain some binary codes, which are the same as codes sometimes used in computing for error correcting and has named them "adinkra". I don't think many other people have adopted this terminology or support his claims. Does he have much more than YouTube videos regarding the subject? He is an accomplished academic, if there was more than a thought experiment here I suspect there would be more serious publications regarding his claims.

[+OverSword]

14 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Uh, no he hasn't.

He has noted that the supersymmetric equations of string theory contain some binary codes, which are the same as codes sometimes used in computing for error correcting and has named them "adinkra". I don't think many other people have adopted this terminology or support his claims. Does he have much more than YouTube videos regarding the subject? He is an accomplished academic, if there was more than a thought experiment here I suspect there would be more serious publications regarding his claims.

Yes, he has found equations that are identical to error correcting codes.  That does not mean we are in a simulation, but certainly doesn't say we aren't,  you can not say.  I don't believe you are probably more qualified than any other construction worker or insurance agent to say for sure.