DBT
Contributor
Visible handiwork?
Well I came up with:However in your view of the universe at least...
You can see the handywork of the simulaton creator - giving you the idea.
Thoughts involving logical(?) arguments:
1. Perhaps an intelligent force doesn't want to make his existence too obvious.
2. So any messages from God can't be miraculous
and can be explained by skeptics as being coincidence, hallucination, or delusion.
3. There doesn't seem to be any proof that the supernatural exists.
4. That is compatible with the proposed intelligent force - especially if a simulation is involved.
Yeah there could be different intelligent forces interacting with different people... though many people might be deluded and just chance was involved like random hallucinations from their brain malfunctioning...Why would there ever be only one? That's nonsensical.
For me I think it does want to be known but not be too obvious. e.g. the "God playing hide and seek with itself" concept. If you had complete control in a simulation you could be like a god (omnipotent, omniscient, etc)... but then eventually you'd want more of a challenge and to have genuine surprises. To have good surprises implies the possibility of bad surprises...Here, let a skeptic ask the questions:
1. Why wouldn't it want to be known?
Well one of my holy scriptures is "When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." My point is that there is an intelligent force - it might not be the creator but I find its existence comforting and meaningful... it is possible it is in fact some kind of devil... after all 2 Corinthians 11:14 says Satan can pretend to be an angel of light. (though I don't believe in most of the Bible).2. Are any of these alleged messages actually from a god and how do you know they are?
There is for me - e.g.3. The problem is, is there compelling evidence for your claim?
By "compelling evidence" I mean it would convince most skeptics who just hear about it.... (though I personally experienced it)4. But still, why believe it until after there is compelling evidence?
Well after I was a YEC I went straight to naturalism for a few years... then I had a delusion that I was in a computer game... then I hypnotized myself into a catatonic state based on a hunch that I was in a simulation.... then I didn't believe in the supernatural for quite a few years... then based on the link earlier in this post I started to suspect I had a connection with an intelligent force....The skeptic's stance is to not invest into a belief without powerful reasons to do it. It's not because the Bible isn't accurate. It's not an aversion to whatever "the supernatural" is. It's not because "religious" experiences might be hallucinations...
Actually I think many "religious" and "spiritual" experiences are not problematic, when they're visceral feelings. It's the interpretation of the experience is where things go wonky. 1) experience and 2) interpretation of experience = two different things. Believers interpret the experience by mis-attributing it to invisible entities......
I wrote this for Reddit:
(Based on https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php)
If we are in a simulation there would be one or more intelligent forces that created it and they (or other beings) might intervene from time to time.
Sometimes they might like players to be aware that they are intervening but not want this to be obvious so that the connection is more mysterious. The intelligent force could be playing “hide and seek” with the players.
Like “God” in a Futurama episode says, "When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all”.
I think the intelligent force only intervenes in a way that skeptics could explain as involving coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud.
Though there are hints that our world could involve a simulation and an intervening intelligence, modern supernatural skeptics feel justified in their belief that the world is purely mechanistic and physical.
This way a belief in paranormal intervention is more about personal faith and reasoning rather than involving any type of scientific consensus. Though it remains possible that there can be paranormal intervention in a simulation.
Then there is the possibility that the Bible was guided by an intelligent force. It could be a test of the character of its readers - from the all-or-nothing thinking of fundamentalists and many atheists, to people who believe much of the Bible isn't historical while still believing in some kind of God.
If we are in a computer simulation or if we are characters in a dream sequence, or the product of a god with a plan....then nothing we do matters. Further more, the abiltiy to reason would not have evolved. The first and primary use of reasoning is for survival, we do not need to survive if we are brains in a vat.
Also, if everything is pre-planed then we could just as easily cross a busy highway blindfolded as using reason. (because when god decides your times up, it's up) So the only epistemology that allows for reason to evolve as a survival tool is one where chance can be altered by learning from experience and applying reason towards surviving.
Because we can reason our survival we would do well in a world just like the one we see before us.
Well in this thread my idea of a God is one that people aren't sure exist (see the Futurama quote). Based on Epicurus' trilemma this God could be good but just not all powerful. If he was all powerful and was all good it would be obvious he existed.As someone who runs simulations for all kinds of different reasons, some including active evolvers, I can pretty confidently say that the concept of doing so precludes most, if not all, ideas of a "good" god.
I don't see a problem with that. Usually video games are about playing games and I think we're in a video game. Like Alan Watts says musical instruments involve "play" as well.Do they come in to play games? Then they are literally toying with us. Fuck them.
I'm not sure what you mean... need help for what? Want peers? Remember I'm saying I don't think God wants to be obvious.Do they do it because they need help and want peers? Then they are violating our very ability to fulfill our purpose for existence by making us unable to solve the problems we exist to solve.
I think it's more like a video game.... e.g. Morty being RoyAre they doing it because they love us? If they are, it's a shitty way to show love because it allows selection for an inability to survive. Not very all-wise, eh?
I think the game is just an approximation so it isn't very accurate....If it is for an experiment, the majority of experiments would be invalidated by tinkering, and the remainder would be necessarily experiments concerning the effects of tinkering. So we are back to being toyed with.
Outside of the simulation, yes.The fact is, if we are going to assume the remaining option: god is mortal and flawed,
The intelligent force that intervenes isn't necessarily the one that created the simulation... e.g. in "The Sims", a company created the game, then a player created the Sim characters and intervenes from time to time.albeit intelligent enough to make a simulation this expansive,
Like I said God might not want to be obvious.and seeks general intelligences that are capable of helping them.solve their problems (exactly what we do, today, to source AI). Or God simply does not exist.
If it can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations or fraud then lots of people wouldn't notice if some people were aware of intervention... (e.g. see post #88)Neither of these options allows sticking the fingers I the pie,
Like I said skeptics wouldn't even notice.and in fact argues heavily against interference with the simulation.
If there is a simulation then it is possible for external beings to have God-like abilities in the simulation. The God-like abilities don't make sense if you don't have a simulation.I am not all or nothing. I generally approach the topic from the perspective of IF god exists. I will say however that I am first party to some ridiculous coincidences, and at least one potential haunting. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you deliberately broke your leg then you'd be in pain. For me, whether or not I'm in severe pain matters.If we are in a computer simulation or if we are characters in a dream sequence, or the product of a god with a plan....then nothing we do matters.
I think the attributes of humans are deliberate (perhaps we are similar to the beings that simulated us). I think our evolution involves a virtual history. If you've got games on billions of computers and set-top boxes then you'd cut corners and do things like not always explicitly simulate evolution on an atomic level...Further more, the abiltiy to reason would not have evolved.
Often in video games a goal is to survive... even if it isn't "real"....The first and primary use of reasoning is for survival, we do not need to survive if we are brains in a vat
That could be true in a "block universe" but not in the video games I'm talking about.Also, if everything is pre-planed then we could just as easily cross a busy highway blindfolded as using reason
Like I said I think evolution has a virtual history - it started with the goal and worked backwards.(because when god decides your times up, it's up) So the only epistemology that allows for reason to evolve as a survival tool
BTW here's a web page that talks about what our video game could be all about and it's not just about survival....is one where chance can be altered by learning from experience and applying reason towards surviving.
Because we can reason our survival we would do well in a world just like the one we see before us.
BTW I'm working on an essay / webpage that talks about top-down vs bottom-up simulations...As someone who runs simulations for all kinds of different reasons...
Well like Elon Musk I think there would probably be billions of simulations based on computers and set-top boxes... (and over the centuries there would be even more...) my belief is also based on a few personal experiences including post #88. Though like post #91 says it is based on personal faith and reasoning. Though on the other hand I don't have a very firm or dogmatic faith.That something is possible doesn't mean that this is in fact how the world works. As there's no way to test the Simulation hypothesis, it remains an interesting idea, a remote possibility. An extremely remote possibility.
Well in this thread my idea of a God is one that people aren't sure exist (see the Futurama quote). Based on Epicurus' trilemma this God could be good but just not all powerful. If he was all powerful and was all good it would be obvious he existed.
I don't see a problem with that. Usually video games are about playing games and I think we're in a video game. Like Alan Watts says musical instruments involve "play" as well.
I'm not sure what you mean... need help for what? Want peers? Remember I'm saying I don't think God wants to be obvious.Do they do it because they need help and want peers? Then they are violating our very ability to fulfill our purpose for existence by making us unable to solve the problems we exist to solve.
I think it's more like a video game.... e.g. Morty being RoyAre they doing it because they love us? If they are, it's a shitty way to show love because it allows selection for an inability to survive. Not very all-wise, eh?
I think the game is just an approximation so it isn't very accurate....If it is for an experiment, the majority of experiments would be invalidated by tinkering, and the remainder would be necessarily experiments concerning the effects of tinkering. So we are back to being toyed with.
Outside of the simulation, yes.The fact is, if we are going to assume the remaining option: god is mortal and flawed,
The intelligent force that intervenes isn't necessarily the one that created the simulation... e.g. in "The Sims", a company created the game, then a player created the Sim characters and intervenes from time to time.albeit intelligent enough to make a simulation this expansive,
Like I said God might not want to be obvious.and seeks general intelligences that are capable of helping them.solve their problems (exactly what we do, today, to source AI). Or God simply does not exist.
If it can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations or fraud then lots of people wouldn't notice if some people were aware of intervention... (e.g. see post #88)Neither of these options allows sticking the fingers I the pie,
Like I said skeptics wouldn't even notice.and in fact argues heavily against interference with the simulation.
If there is a simulation then it is possible for external beings to have God-like abilities in the simulation. The God-like abilities don't make sense if you don't have a simulation.I am not all or nothing. I generally approach the topic from the perspective of IF god exists. I will say however that I am first party to some ridiculous coincidences, and at least one potential haunting. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯