The Simulation Hypothesis, Religion, Deism, and Time... (Part 2) - Could Deism be the Same?

avatar
(Edited)

Yesterday I began this series of posts. The first post was mainly targeted at my religious audience that may have concerns/misgivings about the simulation hypothesis in relation to their own religious beliefs. Though it has things in it that other people may find interesting as well. It also contains the outline for how I intend for this series to progress.

image.png
(Source: One of my simulation hypothesis posts from 2017)


(Source: giphy.com)

I have already received some interesting questions and challenges. Hopefully the post for today will address some of those. I know it will not address all of them because some of those questions will be more likely to be covered as I progress to other areas in the coming posts in the next few days.

With that said... Thank you for reading, replying, and thinking. I will continue.


Deism the Simulation Hypothesis from the past...

image.png

Deism is an interesting religion though it is not at all organized or formal. It has been around for quite some time and a number of famous people have identified as Deists. You may be surprised to find out who some of them are. Why isn't deism more well known then? It has no priests. Reality and what you observe around you are its temple. It has no holy texts. The text of the creator as far as deists are concerned are written into reality itself. This doesn't offer much of an opportunity to gather for church at regular intervals. It doesn't offer much to people who want to be the authority on the religion and tell you how you must act, what you must believe, etc. The beliefs of the Deist are actually quite simple. "There is a creator, now observe and use reason." That's it. Nothing else. Though along with using reason most Deists actively consume the religious texts of other religions. They value the history, and they value the moral teachings such as the golden rule. They can read the Sermon on the Mount and see the wisdom and common sense within. They simply do not see other humans as having the authority to tell them what they should believe. With no avenue to grant power over people is it any surprise that it isn't talked about and advertised as much as most religions? That likely isn't the only reason but it is one I have thought of myself as being a possible explanation.


How did I come to consider myself a Deist? (Long back story - feel free to skip if you want)

I was raised by Hippies that were also Christians. The hippy side would bring in quite a bit of the "new age" type thinking which an traditional Christian would consider evil and wrong. I didn't know this as a child as I was surrounded by "Peace, Love, and Flower Power". Yes, my parents were that type of hippy. My mother talked to me about God frequently and had me say my prayers each night when I went to sleep. The famous/infamous "Now I lay me down to sleep" prayer. I had absolutely amazing large painting of an angel over my bed.

I had a voracious curiosity for weird and fringe things from an early age. I loved ghost stories. I loved stories about UFOs. I loved stories about bigfoot. It didn't particularly bother me when people would say "That's so stupid" about one of these topics while they were likely chuckling. I didn't notice most of that when I was younger though I do recall it occurring.

My first negative memory of religion was when I was sent to a religious school briefly in Ft. Worth, Texas when I was 4 or 5. I had to ride a school bus and that was my first experience with that and it was scary because I wasn't sure I'd remember which bus I was supposed to get back on to go home. I remember listening at the school and they were talking so much about "Lucifer" that I was actually a little frightened by the religion itself. At this school I don't recall them referring to Satan or one of the many other names. I just remember they seemed to spend far more time talking about Lucifer than anything else.

I told my mother when I got home. She immediately pulled me out of that school. Other than a few occasions where I gathered with people in a small town at church on a weekend or something I never went to a religious school again. I know not all schools are like that (the majority are not) yet that is my first negative reaction in my memory with religion.

Around that age Jesus Christ Superstar was my favorite song. I also liked Alvin and the Chipmunks' "Witch Doctor", Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog", and Glen Campbell's "Rhinestone Cowboy". This was at a time I was surrounded by Beatles music and many others. My family was/is very music oriented.


I didn't really run into the truly negative things with religion until I was in high school. I made the decision right before my Freshman year that I wanted to let my hair grow long. I had mostly short hair until then. This ended up being a negative choice in the minds of some aspects of society. This would often be in the form of priests, but mostly it was local ranchers and cowboys around the same age that would talk crap until they saw I wasn't afraid of them. Eventually years later we were friends.

I had a double bad thing though. I fell in love with Heavy Metal music. Metal!!! It permeated my mind, and it gave me a very important outlet. You see while my parents I have painted a rosy picture of up to this point were/are indeed good people. They became severe alcoholics. So bad that if my parents decided to get a divorce unlike most children I'd simply say "Good, but stick to it this time.". Eventually my father quit cold turkey (locked himself in a trailer and shook for 5 days) and it was easy for my mother then. She had tried numerous times but couldn't stick to it if my father would not. Their life instantly improved. I was half way through my junior year of high school when this finally occurred. Between my Freshman year and that moment were the worst of it.

I was very against suicide. Yet I was absolutely unafraid of other people attempting to put me out of my misery. The cowboys that would come up to me in a group lucky for me always backed down. I later suspected it was because they saw I was absolutely not afraid of them, their numbers, etc. That was probably a little spooky. "Is this guy crazy?" Perhaps in some ways I was.

Anyway I was angry, and had a lot to be angry about. Heavy metal sucked that anger out of me and put it some place that wouldn't hurt other people. It did not inspire me to attack. It did not inspire me to destroy. It just made me feel like a buzzing exhilarating battery and when I let it course through me for awhile I wasn't as angry anymore. It also constantly had me upping my vocabulary as metal lyrics often used some words you don't normally hear such as obsequious.

People assumed I did drugs. Because of my parents I was very anti-drug, and anti-alcohol despite being a long haired metal head. I dealt with stereotypes of being a druggy many times.

Though during that time is when Geraldo Rivera put out his documentary and warning about Satanism (DEVIL WORSHIP: Exposing Satan's Underground(Part 1 | Part 2)). It told parents what to look for. My mother became concerned. I mean I dressed like they told her she should watch out for. I was sitting right next to her watching the show when he was telling her this. I listened to a lot of the music they warned her about and likely even said "Good band" to some of the bands they mentioned. I do recall I thought some of the bands they mentioned were crap. chuckle

image.png

I became extremely interested in religion. ALL of them. I didn't want to practice any of them but I read every type of bible I could get my hands on. I even gladly took the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is from some Hari Krishna types when they offered one to me and told them thanks. I also learned a lot about Satanism.

I had a close friend who would tell people he was Satanic.

I formed the opinion that "Satanism" was kind of stupid. It did offer a power over other people. Mainly through fear, and intimidation. It also gave my friend that bad boy vibe that the opposite sex is often attracted to like a moth to a flame. Yet I realized that if I believed in Satan then I had to also believe in Christianity. You believe in Christianity but you decide to side with the dark side.

While the stereotype of metal is that this is what it is all about, that is actually not that common. There were a few bands (mediocre in my opinion) that did embrace that image but most did not. The bands like Iron Maiden would get labeled as Satanic because they dared to make a song called the "Number of The Beast" which opens with a direct quote from Revelations. Furthermore the song is about someone fighting "Satan" not being favorable to him. It was more like some old Fangoria style horror movie in song form. This is actually what most metal songs around the subject are. People hear the word "Satan" and they think the song must be Satanic.

I found myself wondering why when people hear a priest say "Satan" they don't immediately assume the priest is Satanic.

At this period I became more atheist with a heavy personal spiritualism. I had no label for it. I just was. Yet I was a voracious consumer of religious texts and history.

I wrote essays on it. Mainly because I've always been one to attack absolutes, and peer pressure didn't do much to me. I was clearly walking my own path. (Thus why an adult gave me Fountainhead to read... saying "I think you'll like this.")

I remember walking down a sidewalk and passing a Catholic priest and he literally elevated his nose up in the air a bit and turned his head away from me as he passed. I looked the part of a metal head. That's because I am a metal head (though I love and perform many types of music). I had to be an agent of Satan right?

Then one day someone showed me a newspaper clipping from a nearby ski resort town. It was talking about Satanism and the reason it was shown to me is because the person they described as Satanic was "ME" because I was the only person any of us knew for hundreds of miles that dressed the way they described. I had that big Slayer back patch with a broken pentagram made of swords and the goat headed devil standing over it and the words SLAYER. It was on the back of my tattered blue jean jacket. The other jacket I wore when it was colder was black fake leather festooned with Metallica patches. So did I invite the comparison? Sure. Yet it kind of blew me away that no one actually interviewed me. They didn't ask me if I was Satanic. I was far from that. I held the concept of Satanism in contempt. Yet I made it into the papers. They didn't know my name of course because they never spoke to me. (Side note... Singer/Bass Player for Slayer Tom Araya has been a devout Catholic the ENTIRE time... they just are big fans of horror movies, and books so that is the type of songs they write. Why don't we call Stephen King satanic?)

image.png

More fuel for my growing hatred of religion... I study things I don't like too. I want to know about them.

I'd see the good in religion. I'd see the good acts and helping people. Yet I began to see the fake too. The people that attended church each Sunday like that made it all good and the rest of the week they were some of the most corrupt self centered people I knew. I worked for some of them at restaurants they owned. They could be nice, and they definitely could put on a good face. I don't actually think they were horrible people. Yet the hypocrisy of how they treated religion bothered me.


I continued to study religion but I moved on. Eventually I became a parent. I was adamant about answering any questions my children have about religion. I'd tell them about all kinds of religions. If they wanted to choose one I would not consider them broken/wrong. It would be their choice. I was fine with whatever choices they wanted to pursue as long as it is their choice and is informed.

One of my daughters got into Christianity and going to regular sessions with other children. Until she came out as gay. Then that group wanted nothing to do with her. That hurt her quite a bit.

Another of my daughters actually spent quite a lot of time with Buddhism and would actually regularly go to a big temple in the Denver area. She pretty much does her own thing now.

The rest of my children haven't cared much one way or the other about religion. They don't call themselves atheists, agnostics, or even deists like me. They simply don't give it much thought at all.


Finally getting to Deism

I knew about religions. I knew about tons of religions. None of them fit for me. It turns out back then I was as resistant and reactionary to people trying to push dogmas on me as I am today. I just didn't realize that was it. I had this idea of a religion that just accepted people, and allowed people to think what they want while having the community, support, and helping of other people. A religion where morality was important, but what you chose to believe to get you to practice morality wasn't as important.

I discovered the website religioustolerance.org sometime back then. It strived to be a place to collect information about all religions, allow people to share different versions of bibles/religious texts, post essays, and have discussions. It didn't say negative things that I saw about ANY religion (including Satanism). It became a gateway to finding out about religions that I had not encountered.

After awhile I discovered UU (Unitarian Universalist) and they kind of claim to be doing what I just described above as a religion I'd find appealing. I never attended a church. They are still organized and formal they just welcome any one and any faith.

Then down a little crany I discovered Deism and it went click... it fit. It answered every need I had been seeking. Though I still considered Atheism a possibility. Some people may say I was agnostic. Not really. I considered there being two absolutes that only one could be true but I didn't know which one it was.

It boiled down to two simple propositions:

There was nothing, and then there was something. - This requires a creator, a catalyst, a God, the label does not matter.

It has always existed and was not created. - This fits with the no creator aspect of Atheism.

I could not prove or answer either of those questions and I am not a person that blindly trusts other humans telling me what I should believe and to simply have faith.

So I began jokingly calling myself an Atheist/Deist being well aware of the contradiction. Yet in reality the contradiction was only one. Is there a creator? The rest was the same rule for me "Observe and Use Reason". So ultimately it didn't matter whether there was or was not. My actions remained the same. It offered me freedom as I no longer had to doubt whether by not believing what another human is telling me I might be damning myself. I chose not to be manipulated by fear. I chose to Observe, and use reason and let my actions speak towards the type of person I am.

That eventually would change... It happened on Steemit.com which HIVE and PEAKD are forked from.

I began one of my stream of consciousness posts like this one. I asked the question "If reality were only a simulation how would WE the simulants be able to know for sure?

By the time I was done with that. I had convinced myself sufficiently that I dropped the Atheist. I simply consider myself a Deist at this point. I am in good Company.

image.png

Other Deists in history...

The two that come to mind the most for me are often considered Christian Founding Fathers. They were not Christians. They were Deists. They were quite out spoken about it.

image.png

Thomas Jefferson

  • Yes the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and the third president of the United States. People may say "But there is a Jeffersonian Bible!". Yes there is. He removed all revelations, prophecies, etc. from it and just left it with what he considered historical and morally relevant. He did the same for Islam.

image.png

Thomas Paine

  • The author of "Common Sense" and one of the people they claim had he not written as he did there would have been no American Revolution. He spent some time in a French prison for supporting their push for Revolution. He was released at the urging of president James Monroe who later regretted it when Paine published "Age of Reason" which advocated for Deism.

With that said... now I have taken FAR TOO LONG to get to what this post was to be about.

For Deism all you need to know is "There is a creator, now Observe and Use Reason." That's it. Nothing more. Let's see how that fares with The Simulation Hypothesis.


The Simulation Hypothesis and Deism

The Simulation Hypothesis proposes that all that we see around us could be running inside of some form of complex simulation. It does not define what that simulation is. That would be speculation and as far as I know unprovable. It does not claim that because it is a simulation that X must be true. Again that would be speculation and is likely unprovable.

One thing a simulation requires is a creator.

With that said. Okay so there is a creator. We don't know what it is. We know it must exist for the simulation to exist. What now?

What remains?

Observe and use reason.

What is Deism?

There is a creator, now observe and use reason.

To me the simulation hypothesis is just a new incarnation of the consideration of Deism.


What is the bible of the Deist?

Reality itself. What can be observed.

We notice things like the Golden Ratio, Fractals, and other patterns that seem like they are indications of intelligent/purposeful design.

What does the person pursuing the Simulation Hypothesis see?

The same thing the Deists see.

You might say "but the Simulation Hypothesis uses science, and math". So do the Deists. Observe and Use Reason doesn't mean you have a creator now ignore reality, ignore math, ignore seeking answers, ignore asking questions. It is the opposite.

Deists embrace science, math, and any other REASONABLE thing that helps them understand their observations.

A true scientist (someone who follows the scientific method) who simply stated they believe there is a creator and then they don't go out of their way to tell you who or what that creator is might as well be called a Deist.

That is short and sweet and explains the connection between Deism and the Simulation Hypothesis at least in the form it exists in my mind. With that said I know the previous post has already stirred up some religious related questions/challenges. I want to address some of those before I close out this post.

Religious Challenges

A friend here asked some good questions. I am glad he did because they are the type of questions I've encountered in the past but would not have recalled sufficiently to act upon them. I am going to quote the things this friend asked, or stated and run with each in some form of response. Wish me luck...

I think you are right in pointing out that people, wo approach this simulation idea could be offended by it. True. I am not certain if I feel truly offended or if it is just a reaction of disbelief.

I appreciate the honesty and I am glad someone stepped up to the plate. I am doubly appreciative that it is someone I respect and that has been proven to be a deep thinker.

Would I find this idea worth to accept as real? Would it do anything good for me and my personal existence?

It isn't telling you to do anything. It is not telling you what you should believe. It is only offering a possible explanation for the areas that religions currently say "It just is" or "have faith". If the simulation hypothesis is real then it changes none of that other than providing an avenue for imagining how something might be achievable rather than just saying "it just is". So as an intellectual it may have value to you. Should it change your life in any way? No. That is also one of the reasons I was saying the Simulation Hypothesis is no threat to religions because it can be used to justify or explain ANY of them.

It does have value in that it can convince those that think with reason and don't want to just trust faith that there might be something to it after all. Why? Because, whether it occurred or not we do understand how it could be possible to BE a simulation. When we extrapolate what we ourselves have achieved in simulations in a very short amount of time and imagine this trend continuing into the future then something like our reality being a simulation doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.

In which way does "simulation" differ from "creation" and thus from a religious belief-system? For me, it sounds like a replacement of those and other terms and definitions like a "higher intelligence"...

Simulation is creation. Someone has to create the simulation. What form that simulation takes is not dictated by the simulation hypothesis. This is another reason I say it is no threat to religions.

It makes even the most "magical thinking" of creation stories potentially possible. I can imagine creating a simulation for any known creation story I am aware of. The simulation hypothesis does not disprove or attack religion in any way that I see. It does offer a possible avenue for those that don't like being told "it just is" to consider a possibility that might make sense to them.

is it not similar to what is assumed about omnipotence?

This one is particularly interesting. It doesn't imply anything to do with omnipotence. It simply implies creation. It doesn't define the nature of that creator or what their abilities are.

Consider our own simulations, why we create them, what they show us, how we interact with them, and then extrapolate from there:

Some of our simulations play over exactly every time we watch them. We cobble them together in the form of movies, etc. We can play them back an a person can know everything encompassed in them. That means in terms of that video, show, etc. you are kind of omniscient at the end and perhaps the creator was omnipotent as they controlled 100%. You know, and saw everything that happened in that simulation/creation.

Yet it doesn't have to be that way for there to be a creator.

Usually we create simulations either to learn things through experiments, for entertainment, and often a combination of both.

If you take John Conway's Game of Life and it's simple set of rules. John knew the rules. He'd put some cells down that would follow his rules and he would watch what happened. He was not omniscient that he knew what would happen. What would happen was part of the curiosity. He was also not omnipotent that he could easily reach out and control any aspect. Once it was launched he could add more cells but that was the limit of his interaction. He also could likely remove cells depending upon what level of interaction he made with the simulation.

image.png

Now imagine the following... video games. We are creating more and more complex false/imaginary realities. Also known as simulations. The developers created the games. Yet they provided an avenue of for one or more player to interact with that world and cause things to happen. Neither the developers or the player are omnipotent. They don't know what the players will do before they do it. If is a game/simulation with multiple players each of the players are not omnipotent or omniscient. They don't know what the other players are doing.

If you played a game where you were omnipotent or omniscient how enjoyable do you think that game would be?

Now that isn't saying the creator in the simulation hypothesis might not be omnipotent or omniscient. While we ourselves consider our reality complex to the creator we may be nothing more than cells plopped down in John Conway's game. We cannot fathom the mind of the creator. (or can we - another day.)

Or is it, that you may mean it in the sense, that we, the organic living beings, create this simulated reality by letting it become a "mega-trend" (belief-system) and so it has the potential to become real, whether it's real or not?

Nah. It doesn't have anything to do us other than the fact if it is true then we are in it. We are either the simulants, the players, or perhaps both.

What about animals (or plants)? Do you think, they are unconscious about their existence? If you consider they aren't, what kind of influence can they possibly have on the human realm?

That depends upon the simulation. Are they AI? Or are they Avatars? I don't tell you which because if it is a simulation it could be any of those. I am not the creator. Though I might be a player. I'll touch upon that more in the future because TIME is an important and interesting thing to think about when it comes to the Simulation Hypothesis and I will have a post specifically devoted to that.

And last but not least, how do the absolutes fit into this concept we just talked about?

The absolutes would be defined by the rules of the simulation. We discover them by Observing and using reason. To me mathematics is an example of where absolutes exist. The colors black and white represent some absolutes though which way they work out depends upon whether you are focusing on pigments or whether you are focusing on light.

If it is a simulation there certainly would be some absolutes. When I get into the post about if we are in a simulation what are some ways we might be able to tell I'll touch upon that. This will be revisiting the original post idea through which I convinced myself enough to drop the Atheist from my personal Atheist/Deist identification.

Tomorrow I'll explore that. Tomorrow I jump back into the "How would we know?"



0
0
0.000
44 comments
avatar

Very cool to read the origin story of your journey from Atheist/Deist to Deist. I'm pretty much agnostic myself. I mean, there's probably a creator, but whatever it is may not be tangible or relatable enough to affix the confines of that label to it. Maybe I'm an Agnostic/Deist, lol.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Have you studied numerology and astrology?

Why haven't ever "Christian" done so?
Their holy book is a book of numerology and astrology.

It would be like telling "Mathematicians" to read the great work of "Calculus"
but never, ever look at algebra.

In fact, this could be considered exactly what Scientism has done.
Calculus is held up as the highest of the highs, although it is one of the most worthless classes taught these days. (everything important from calculus is in a book as a solved formula.)
Calculus is the pinnacle of brain fuckery that makes it almost impossible to see the HUGE, GIGANTIC FLAWS in mathematics.
I bet you (and you and you and you) were never taught the assumptions of mathematics.

I used to be seriously upset with Christianity for hiding the truth from its followers.


Now, i would like to state a different view on "Simulation Hypothesis".
What difference does it make?

If you could paint with atoms. Like the "Game of Life" but with much finer resolution,
what would the difference be between that and lets say... reality?

The problem with the Simulation theories is that it makes assumptions.
That we are all inside the simulation... that we are all simulons, ie not real.
Or other such things.

I haven't seen a Simulation theory that stated that we are the programmers of the game that we are currently playing, or some such.

It is always us and them. Or that we really don't exist. Just bits in a computer.


Further, i must state that we have free will.
That we can believe or disbelieve that God/Goddess/All That Is exists proves that we have free will.

We can, if we choose, move aside the veil and get to know God.
This is a direct knowing... unfortunately, it cannot be proven to anyone else.
But you can meet with God, talk with God. Ask all kinds of questions.

Of course a great deal of that doesn't translate well back into our 3D world.
But, you can use your mind to see God and this creation we call reality.

After that, the word "Belief" is just weird how Christians and other religions use it.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

What if we suppose that "God" is the alpha and omega? If it's all that ever is and that ever will be, doesn't that mean that anything it makes is also it? If we are the substance of God's imagination, then just as we awake and our dream characters "die," when we die, we remember that we were God all along, experiencing itself subjectively. God could perhaps do such a thing because of the loneliness it's forced to endure for reasons unknown to it. It doesn't know the hows or whys, and like a human in a sensory deprivation tank, it gets forced to create something to liberate itself from the great nothingness which envelopes the whole. The whole of nothingness is emptiness and from the emptiness springs forth form. I leave you with this, and this.

0
0
0.000
avatar

What you have written is an interesting mind experiment, but it only comes from human limitation and poor translations.

Nothing is not this boring thing.
Nothing is not empty.

The experience in a deprivation tank does not stem from "being forced to create".
For people who meditate often, a deprivation tank does nothing. Nothing more than them sitting in lotus or laying on a mat.
There is a lot of reality that we do not normally interact with. So, when you take away all the "worldly" stimulus, you can start to notice all the other things going on.
It is like living in a city all your life, and then one day being out in the country and seeing the stars.

God does such things out of excitement and exploring.
Yes, we are all part of God. And when we wake from this dream that is human reality, we recognize that we are a part of God.
There is no, out of boredom or emptiness. Those emotions are almost non-existent.
When you start really getting into "Creating" you find that the lower the level of emotion, the worse things come out. Soooo, when you are creating, using only the highest vibrations is a must.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Perhaps you are correct, I certainly am no expert. However you say that "God does such things out of excitement and exploring." If God is the A&O, what is there to explore or get excited about if everything else comes from itself?

0
0
0.000
avatar

It is a really hard concept.

How can something that is everything, become more?
But that is what happens.

After each experience, there is more.
More everything.

It is like, God asks a question... but God is all knowing, so the answer is known as soon as the question is asked.
Life, in this universe is in the "time", the moment of asking that question.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

The problem with the Simulation theories is that it makes assumptions.
That we are all inside the simulation... that we are all simulons, ie not real.
Or other such things.

Nah. They don't all do that. They are also not theories. They are just hypothesis. You don't get to be a theory in the scientific method unless you can perform an experiment and it passes the tests and is repeatable.

In common vernacular as used when people say "Conspiracy Theory" though hypothesis and theory seem interchangeable.

Simulation Hypothesis is proposed by the scientific, mathematic, and philosophical communities so it isn't remotely close to an actual theory and I suspect never will be.

There are plenty of ways it could be a simulation and NOT be what you were expressing there. Let me go back a bit and snag another quote from your reply.

What difference does it make?

If you think you are real, then answer that question yourself. :)

Further, i must state that we have free will.

Yep, a simulation like we would be in wouldn't change that.

Though if God is Omniscient and can even see the future do we in fact have free will if it is predestined? (One of several contradictions that can trip us up - Is it free will, or is God Omniscient and can predict the future? If it is the later then we only have the illusion of free will)

:)

We can, if we choose, move aside the veil and get to know God.
This is a direct knowing... unfortunately, it cannot be proven to anyone else.
But you can meet with God, talk with God. Ask all kinds of questions.

None of that changes if we are in a simulation.

People don't seem to GRASP the simple thing. "God created the universe".

What is a simulation? A creation.

God created the universe and decided the rules it would operate by.

Again.. works fine with the concept of simulation.

The simulation hypothesis does not detract from ANY religion the exists except for those that don't believe in a creator.

The only thing the simulation hypothesis actually requires is a creator.

0
0
0.000
avatar

What difference does it make?

If you think you are real, then answer that question yourself. :)

No, that is really the question.
In many definitions of theories of the Simulation sort, there isn't any difference.

You must be making a conclusion that in one, you are real, and the other not.

I cannot tell what your assumptions are falling on either side of the line.

I would say that this reality IS a simulation
That this reality is printed, like an electron beam prints the picture on the TV
several trillion times a second.
And between each one of those, we don't exist.
That at any moment, this whole thing could end, like a giant power outage ends an MMO,
we could all wake up from this dream.

But that doesn't make this experience of being a human on Earth any less real.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

You must be making a conclusion that in one, you are real, and the other not

Nope. You don't have to do that at all.

You are making assumptions.

The fact that it is a simulation doesn't mean there cannot be outside influence and input. In fact you could be nothing more than an avatar. It actually gives the concepts of the soul, reincarnation, and things like that a different perspective.

IF you were actually 100% simulated who is anyone to state whether that is real or not?

If you were simulated at the level we are you'd consider yourself completely real. It is just a matter of perception.

This is something I plan to get into in future posts. Tomorrows will be largely based upon time but I likely will tie this topic in as well because you are not the only one mentioning it.

I've actually already had these thoughts. Maybe even some of these discussions. After all I first wrote about this 5 years ago. I've had a lot of time to think.

That doesn't mean I am right. It simply means I've already made it past some of the common assumptions. There are a lot of cool "What ifs" that can make you look at the tons of different perspectives that can be applied here.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Oh, i see now... the piece that i know, that you might not know.

Do you know your higher-self?
That part of you that is outside the simulation?
The part that is still connected to God / Goddess / All that is?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yep. Very aware of it.

Just haven't written about it YET. :)

There are many different ways a simulation can be done. Some of them work quite nicely with that.

Like I said unless you don't believe in a creator this is absolutely ZERO threat to any existing religion. They all can fit quite nicely with it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I enjoyed reading your child memories and those of your young adult years. I find it important to deal with the (hi)story of the family.

Thanks for integrating my questions. Language can only so far make it clear what one wants to tell or ask.

I will read your response to them again, to take my time.

From your feedback on this question in particular, I feel, you may have brushed over it a little too quick (?):

Or is it, that you may mean it in the sense, that we, the organic living beings, create this simulated reality by letting it become a "mega-trend" (belief-system) and so it has the potential to become real, whether it's real or not?

Nah. It doesn't have anything to do us other than the fact if it is true then we are in it. We are either the simulants, the players, or perhaps both.

What exactly do you mean by " simulant"? How is the simulator different from the player?
Don't you underestimate the influence of the players on what happens in the game, because elsewhere I see it confirmed that the inventor of the game (the creator) would see little progression in the game without the creativity and ingenuity of the players.

Could it be that through Christian imprinting you root that a creator is a purposeful omnipotence in love with detail? For my part, I can tell I found it extremely difficult to shed that root (and often still have those difficulties).
What do you think instead of the assumption of a potency that is effected by the many actors in the earthly and supernatural universe and themselves in alternation?

In the end though, I think that I understand "simulation" in almost the same way you do.

To the rest I may come back later on.

Cheers. :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

What exactly do you mean by " simulant"?

The things being simulated. If we are simulated entities ourselves then I've called that the "simulant" which now that you point it out might not be an accepted word. I've used it off and on for years now. I'll hit on that a little more now that you point it out when I write today's post.

How is the simulator different from the player?
Don't you underestimate the influence of the players on what happens in the game, because elsewhere I see it confirmed that the inventor of the game (the creator) would see little progression in the game without the creativity and ingenuity of the players.

Not all simulations have players. Some just have observers. That is why I differentiate. I steal from gaming and refer to someone that can interact with the simulation as it is running as a player. A player would not be an NPC. I'm getting ahead of myself though as I do have plans for a post that will delve into some ideas about this. :) I know it is an interesting subject though and it is easy to get sucked in and have lot's of ideas and questions. I am only holding back so I can try to keep from turning my posts into a chaotic mess. :) After I've done what I plan I'll likely do some more freeform posts if it is warranted. Also feel free to do your own and tag me in them. :)

Could it be that through Christian imprinting you root that a creator is a purposeful omnipotence in love with detail? For my part, I can tell I found it extremely difficult to shed that root (and often still have those difficulties).

Nope. Not it all. I don't personally think the creator is omnipotent. I also do not think they are likely omniscient.

Yet I still discuss the possibility. To me personally omnipotence and omniscience would be extremely boring very quickly and if we are supposedly created in "his image" according to Christians and a few other faiths then I find it highly implausible. Easily resolved if I consider the bible to be the "Words of Man" and not God. Which is my stance.

What do you think instead of the assumption of a potency that is effected by the many actors in the earthly and supernatural universe and themselves in alternation?

Yep, getting ahead of where I plan to go. I have hinted at this when I gave quick statements at the bottom of the first post when I said "Monotheism - Check", and a few moments later "Polytheism - Check". Basically that was me saying "Monotheism, yep this can potentially explain that just fine." "Polytheism, yep we have a possible explanation for that as well" all logically worked out in simulation hypothesis.

Here is some foreshadowing of things to come:
Simulant = Simulated being/life form that only exists within the simulation. (NPC)
Player = An avatar of something else from outside the simulation that is able to interact with the simulation. If they have mastered immersion they may LIVE lives inside the simulation while their actual being comes from outside. They may not be the creator, but someone/something using the created simulation as design just like we use games. When you play games the world responds to you but you certainly did not create that game.
Creator(s) = The thing(s) that actually designed and created the simulation or the ability to create instances of the simulation.

Interesting thing about the Player aspect is it also meshes nicely with the concept of reincarnation, and with the concept of a soul.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I appreciate your deep thinking and your straightforward presentation of this topic.

I was not raised in a Christian home and was not exposed to Christianity until some friends in high school invited me to a weekly Bible study. After several months of Bible study, I came to a point of affirmation that the God of the Bible is indeed the Creator of the universe and, more importantly, that I had broken the moral laws He established from the beginning of time, that there was nothing I could do to right the wrongs I had committed, that Jesus' death on the cross provided the sole means to right those wrongs, and that I must willingly surrender control of my life to the Lordship of Jesus in order to receive His gift of forgiveness and the promise and hope of eternal life. That was about 35 years ago and my life since then has been filled with a deep sense of meaning and purpose (that was completely lacking before then).

Prior to that time, I would say I was a Deist by default. For some reason, I believed there was a Creator; I just never gave too much thought to who that Creator might be and how or why that might be relevant to me.

If I were to describe my view of God and His creation (which 99.9% follows orthodox Christianity), it would fit perfectly within the Simulation Hypothesis:

  • There is a Creator of all things, and we refer to that Creator as "God" (the God of the Hebrews)
  • God created everything ex nihilo (i.e. 'from nothing).
  • When God created everything, he did so by creating a complex set of rules (i.e. the physical laws that govern the universe) and, along with that, time and space and matter.
  • God, in His personal interactions with the creatures He created, has and continues to work miracles. Those miracles take two forms -- miracles of 'coincidence' (wherein God directs the laws of nature to cause something highly improbable to occur at just the right time to accomplish the miraculous outcome He desires, such as when He caused a powerful wind to blow all night and to continue blowing so as to create a path of dry land through the Red Sea, see Exodus 14:21-22) and miracles involving 'supersession of the laws of nature' (wherein God temporarily supersedes the physical laws of nature to accomplish something that is truly 'supernatural' and defies any attempt to explain it otherwise, such as when Lazarus was brought back to life after being dead for 4 days, see John 11).
  • God created sentient beings (humans) who observe and interact with their surroundings and do so with free will.
  • God created those beings "in His image", which implies many things, such as our ability and desire to create and exercise our own creativity.
  • God has chosen to play an active role in His creation, by revealing certain aspects of Himself to the creatures He created. Some of these aspects of Himself permeate nature itself; other aspects were revealed through writings that He inspired; other aspects were revealed through the person and words and historical actions of Jesus of Nazareth; other aspects were revealed through interactions with individuals, either directly or via intermediaries such as angels.

I could go on, but all the above 'truths' that most Christians would agree with, all fit within your definition of a "Simulation Hypothesis".

In fact, one could take this all a step farther and explain exactly what type of simulation(s) are compatible with each of the major religions. For example, Christianity insists upon a personal God, i.e. One who is intricately involved in the lives of people. This would not be consistent with a 'hands off' type of simulation, where the creator sets up the rules, starts the sim, then sits back and merely watches the results.

Similarly, the fact that Christianity acknowledges supernatural miracles would require a simulation wherein the creator has given himself the ability to change the 'rules' mid-simulation.

The fact that most Christians acknowledge that we as individuals have been granted free will would require a simulation that is more akin to a video game than a 'John Conway' type simulation; for example, a simulation with only NPCs would not be consistent with Christian theology (except possibly for some hyper-Calvinists).

I want to stress that I am not endorsing the Simulation Hypothesis nor suggesting that Christians should embrace this line of thinking. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that I have studied and adhered to the precepts of Biblical Christianity for 35 years and I see no contradictions between the Simulation Hypothesis (broadly defined) and orthodox Christianity. However, I am open to critiques or challenges to this viewpoint -- and will change my perspective if confronted by a persuasive argument to the contrary.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I just realized I hadn't responded to this and it is well written.

While my path differs from yours (which we each should have a unique path or something is wrong) I don't have an issue with anything you stated here.

You basically addressed the point I've been trying to make. I've written about the Simulation Hypothesis every so often in the last 5 years. I think this might be my 3rd cycle as it were.

I would get a lot of push back from people that took it like it was a threat to their religion.

Really it isn't. It is not necessary to know we are in a simulation. It is merely an interesting thought experiment and journey. It is much like us imagining time travel. We have a lot of fun with that one.

If the simulation hypothesis is real though the only thing I can see it as a threat to is people who think their is no creator. You can't have a simulation until it was created.

I also don't see a problem with the creation story of Christians or other religions because CREATION can easily be replaced with SIMULATION and for all intents and purposes they would be the same thing. Purely semantics.

You did hit on one powerful thing that I have written about before and have only hinted at here.

A big problem I have with a lot of religions is the miracles and things that violate every rule of how the world operates that we are aware of. To believe it you basically have to embrace "magical thinking" and just say that's how it is and God(s) don't have to obey those rules since they make the rules.

The Simulation Hypothesis as you neatly explained provides a plausible explanation for this that does not require magical thinking.

The interesting thing about the simulation hypothesis if one allows it to do so is it allows one to make sense of these things by thinking "If we were far more advanced than we are now, could we do this, and how?"

If we can imagine ourselves doing it with the proper resources then it makes it much easier for a person who is uncomfortable with magical thinking to consider a route that it could be explained.

Thus it isn't actually a threat to religions. It makes even the wilder stories more plausible.

There is a lot of thought experiments one can do with this topic. Thanks for your support and your interaction on this. It has been appreciated.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

I also don't see a problem with the creation story of Christians or other religions because CREATION can easily be replaced with SIMULATION and for all intents and purposes they would be the same thing. Purely semantics.

Yeah, any discrepancy between the perceived geologic timeline and the Biblical timeline for creation can easily be summed up as "God could have created the earth to LOOK millions or billions of years old even when the universe was in actuality only 6 days old; just like when He created Adam, Adam probably looked 20 or 30 years old when he was only 1 day old."

This 'explanation' of course fits cleanly within the Simulation Hypothesis.

Personally, I believe God is infinitely more creative than simply creating the universe with a perceived history. I read a cool book many years ago called Starlight & Time (by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys), where Humphreys describes a 'model' of the first days of creation that follows all known laws of physics, yet explains how the universe could have appeared to be billions of years old at the end of the first few days of a literal 6-day creation timeline.

It draws on Einstein's theory of special relativity and the Biblical explanation of God "stretching out heaven like a tent curtain." (Psalm 104:2). Basically, if God truly stretched out the heavens at the beginning of creation, He would have been stretching time as well. Thus we could have ended up with stars that are billions of light-years away (and literally billions of years OLDER than the earth) even with the earth only being about 6,000 years old. Truly mind-blowing when you think about that possibility. Of course, Humphreys is careful to say that his model is just that, only a model. Although it explains how time differences between the Biblical account of creation and astronomical observations can be reconciled, he is quick to point out that his model is probably not the way it actually happened.

NOTE: In 1984, Dr. Humphreys relied upon Biblical statements about creation to predict the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. In 1986, when the Voyager II spacecraft was close enough to actually take measurements, the observed value was consistent with Dr. Humphrey's prediction (and not consistent with the 'dynamo' theory -- a prevailing theory at that time). In 1989, when Voyager II passed by Neptune, the measured strength was consistent with Dr. Humphrey's prediction (and also consistent with the 'dynamo' theory). Interestingly, other anomalies measured by Voyager II were better explained by Dr. Humphrey's theory than the 'dynamo theory'.

The above doesn't 'prove' anything. However, it provides plausible explanations for 'magical miracles' that don't require 'magical thinking'. If the actual simulation is truly boundary-less (i.e. there are and always will be ever-more-infinitely-small subatomic particles to be discovered) then no doubt all the 'magical' miracles recorded in Scripture can be explained by physical laws -- the problem being that we do not yet know or understand those physical laws.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

Personally, I believe God is infinitely more creative

Yeah I can speculate on what God is endlessly. I used to do it as a game back in my college days. What possible explanations could I come up with that could not be refuted or proven? Coming up with the most outlandish examples became the fun of the game.

I am not saying your beliefs are outlandish. That is just the direction that game took.

I don't push speculation as fact, and I try damn hard not to treat my speculations as a belief. I try to remember they are speculations. Me imagining them as a possible explanation. That doesn't mean they may not be correct. I simply try really hard not to let my own speculations become beliefs.

If I did otherwise then I might as well go start my own religion or denomination.

0
0
0.000
avatar

As to God. Perhaps he either is like us and just much more advanced in terms of the evolution of time and knowledge, or he is something so vast and complicated that anytime we try to use the limitations of our language to describe him we are doomed to fail.

It isn't necessarily an either/or proposition. I just presented it as one and preceded it with PERHAPS.

0
0
0.000
avatar

he either is like us and just much more advanced in terms of the evolution of time and knowledge, or he is something so vast and complicated that anytime we try to use the limitations of our language to describe him we are doomed to fail

Yes, I think it is both/and. I also take the perspective that we are all heretics, because there is no way that our finite minds could even come close to understanding the true nature of an infinite God.

Explaining the concept of the Trinity (which is never explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but nonetheless represents a core aspect of Christian doctrine) is always fraught with heretical implications. This is not to say the concept of a triune God is 'wrong' or heretical in and of itself, but rather that any attempt to explain tri-unity will be so flawed that we can easily end up who knows where on the heretical spectrum.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I honestly don't have a problem with any religion until think it is justification for attacking other people. I am more of the lead by example type.

If you want to convince me to be like you and live similar to you then set a good example. It should not be because of fear. I shouldn't be following your example because I am afraid of damnation.

I should watch your good works and learn from those.

That of course is my opinion.


This is partially why I don't like organized religion. It places people into positions of authority over their congregation. While this can be good, it is also an avenue for power. That power historically has lead to some very dark places.

The moral teachings, the history, etc. Those are valuable.

A person pushing their interpretation as fact is not a positive in my mind.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I honestly don't have a problem with any religion until think it is justification for attacking other people.

Yes, I agree. If a religion teaches that its adherents should murder their children to appease ancestral spirits, then I would oppose their right to practice that religion.


This is partially why I don't like organized religion. It places people into positions of authority over their congregation. While this can be good, it is also an avenue for power.

Yes, hierarchy in religion (and elsewhere) is a double-edged sword.

Power corrupts. This is why Jesus exemplified the attitude and actions of a servant and taught his disciples to love one another and wash feet instead of "lording" their authority over others.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I used to tell some Christians when I was younger and angry and liked to challenge and play mind games still (I had a more vulgar name for it.) something like the following:

"Didin't Christ come along and throw down the Pharisees and take people out of those buildings and take them out into the world for the sermons?"

"If so why was one of the first things that happened when he was gone is that people were ushered into buildings, and quickly they were listening to a new breed of Pharisees?"

Even back then before I knew anything about Deism there were only two times I particularly felt what could be considered a religious experience.

  1. When I am out in nature and something moves me.
  2. Music. The right place, the right time, the right people around me, and the right music could become something quite magical.

I did perform at a contemporary service in a Presbyterian Church along with my father (he was an elder by then). We both played guitar for them. The minister had asked me if I would do it, even though he knew I was not a church goer. I told him if he could get my father to do it with me I would.

My father was a skilled musician and he'd basically given it up for a long time.

I attended that service, and I played music with my father.

He died several years later from cancer. When I was at his service they played one of the songs we would perform together and that was when the dam broke inside me and I wept the hardest I have since I was a young child. I was holding it together until that song. Then I couldn't stop the flood that followed.

My wife just held me at the time. It also likely was a surprise to my children who likely had never seen their father cry.

Music is powerful stuff.


I listen to a lot of music that commonly is labeled Satanic. Though that is very rarely actually the case.

I would ask myself things like why a priest could mention the word "Satan" and not be labeled as Satanic. Why could Stephen King and other horror authors make stories that have Satan and demons in them and they wouldn't be labeled Satanic? Why can people make a movie with Satan and horror elements without being called Satanic?

Yet as soon as the word appears in music the go to is immediately "Satanic".

That was a clue at just how powerful music can be. People tend to consider it as something potentially beyond most other art forms just by how they are so quick to form judgements around it.


I hadn't gone to a concert in some time. I heard Slayer was retiring and going on their last tour. That was a band I'd always wanted to see live and in person. I went and I took my children who were all adults by this time.

The venue did not have the best sound and it is known for having kind of crappy sound so I wasn't expecting an amazing audio experience.

I remember standing in a crowd of so many different types of people all there enjoying it and living it and feeling that religious like experience powerful in the air.

They are a band that is commonly called Satanic. They play into it with their imagery.
Their lyrics are heavily horror story oriented.

Yet the singer/bassist Tom Araya (Legal immigrant from Chile - U.S. Citizen now) has been a devout practicing Catholic the entire time and still is.

I know some of the other band members are Atheists but I don't know of any of them actually being Satanic. They seem a little too intelligent for that by the way they talk and the complexity of their lyrics.

Being interested things that resulted in immediate persecution for most of my life has definitely altered my perception in some areas. Of this I have no doubt.

That is not where I was... but it is the same concert.

The last 15 minutes of the last concert from them. Performing one of their most famous songs "Angel of Death" which is actually a song about the horrors of the Nazi concentration camp doctor Joseph Mengle.

They perform that song and then say goodbye. Sound sucks... but you can feel the power of the drums and such and might be able to imagine what that feels like when you are there. You feel it in your bones and everywhere.

I've been to non-metal concerts as well. They can be great and can give goosebumps but none of them match the in your bones feeling. The song ends at around the 5 minutes 20 second mark if you want to just hear it. You may not be interested but I thought I'd share it anyway. They were saying goodbye.

Actually... rewatching it he speaks at the 14 minute mark.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I was in high school (and a brand new Christian) when a call-to-arms about 'Satanic music' was making the rounds.

I remember seeing a documentary showing songs played backwards, where you could hear voices saying things like "Start to smoke marijuana".

A friend of mine at the time commented that we should be paying more attention to the message of the lyrics played forward rather than backwards.

You aptly point out that topic and message are two totally different things. Satanic imagery and use of the word 'Satan' does not imply a Satanic message. Also, God has demonstrated His ability to turn Satan's intentions upside-down to fulfill God's purposes (the cross is the ultimate example of this -- Satan entered Judas and convinced him to betray Jesus, then God used the crucifixion as the very means to make salvation and reconciliation available to the masses). So, even those things that are openly Satanic should not engender fear, but rather compassion for those ensnared by Satan's lies.

Music is a powerful medium. This was God's design. We observe in Scripture how David was able to bring spiritual relief to Saul's tormented soul through music. Most of the Psalms themselves were set to music (which we unfortunately no longer have access to).

Regarding the song you played with your dad and the emotions that same song evoked years later, that is a testament to the power of music and to the power of fatherhood.

I wrote several weeks ago about The Power of Fatherhood and how our conception of God is tied to our relationship with our earthly father. My takeaway from that observation is twofold. First, it helps us introspectively better understand the various ways in which our own views of God might have been corrupted by our earthly father's imperfections, and second, it (hopefully) causes us take a much more serious look at our own parenting style, recognizing that, as fathers, we are responsible to a significant degree for our children's spiritual health and well-being.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Scripture how David was able to bring spiritual relief to Saul's tormented soul through music

This will always remind me of the movie "Footloose" for some reason even though it predates that and is far more important. :)

I used to invited the Jehovah's Witnesses into my house when I was just in College (early 90s). I had 3 roommates. I was in the stage where I liked playing mind games. Fortunately that was a short lived interest. I look at that as a negative thing I did.

However, I on a couple of occasions played them the Metallica song "Creeping Death" and asked them if it was Satanic. Without fail they would say yes.

Yet the entire song is about the Angel of Death and Passover.

First verse "Slaves Hebrews born to serve unto the Pharaoh"... that video has lyrics as it plays if your curious. It's a pretty powerful song.

Their song Master of Puppets which has been vilified by the media several times is actually about drug addiction. Drugs ARE the master of puppets.

It's ironic how quickly people can jump to conclusions. It seems that music evokes such a response faster than any other medium I am aware of.

They also are known to have numerous anti-war songs.

They are but one of many examples. Yet it is aggressive energy so it evokes fear and presumption in people.

This form of music saved my life. That is why I am so passionate about it. A good portion of my life my parents were very bad alcoholics. They finally quit about half way through my junior year in high school. I wasn't suicidal but I was angry enough I was fine if they decided to divorce and I was fearless as I may not have been suicidal but I didn't care if other people tried to take me out. I was angry. Yet I never took it out on other people. Fortunately I treated everyone around me regardless of who they were like friends until they gave me reason not to. I was only able to do it due to the energy of this music. It didn't make me want to hurt people. It gave me something to put that negative energy to and it made me happy. The news was always talking about how it turns people into mean people that want to fight, kill, sacrifice, and bully.

I lived and breathed that community and I saw it helping many people the same way it did me. It is far better my negative thoughts and emotions were drawn out and turned into something positive by this than the alternative.

I am absolutely certain without it I would have been suicidal and possibly even homicidal. I was young and very angry. For brief times. I always had the music to bring me peace.

Eventually I stopped being angry. :) Especially once my first child was born. That changed EVERYTHING.

EDIT: Also when my child was born I immediately ceased being fearless. I had something to fear (something hurting my child).

0
0
0.000
avatar

Especially once my first child was born. That changed EVERYTHING.

I have often said that I have learned more about the nature of God by being a parent than via everything else combined.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think you and I will continue to get along nicely. Also I am glad you have things you disagree with me on. It'd be pretty boring otherwise. If I want to talk to myself I can do that anytime. :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes. When I say "magical thinking" I am referring to those that simply accept a thing and expect others to accept it without trying to understand how it might be possible. Sometimes the thing is so against what we know of nature that all we have at the moment is "magical thinking".

I truly dislike it when someone tells me "it just is", "you gotta have faith", or "God wills it". Those are lazy to me. If they preceded those things with "I don't know" or simply stated "I don't know" then that I can accept.

I am too much of a control freak of my own mind to blindly accept anything.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Christianity is not for me. I don't like organized religions. Yet if people were to pick one to follow and they stick to the moral teachings and things like was said on the Sermon on the Mount I see that as a net positive for the world. It is a problem when people revert to some of the things that occurred in the Old Testament and seem to use those things to justify abhorant/amoral behavior. They seem to miss the fact that Christ was here to change things. Those avenues of death, infanticide, rape, etc. Those things were no longer welcome though they were written of in the old testament.

A lot of people read the bible and they don't seem to grasp this. It can be used to justify some pretty heinous things if you use the old testament as a justification.

Thus, why I say... stick with the Sermon on the Mount and the things Christ taught. Stick to the 10 commandments (there are older similar commandments) and things are good.


Buddhists also tend to be pretty peaceful for the most part but it too has denominations and not all of them are as positive.


I am greatly opposed to Islam. It is not just a religion but also a system of rule. It is a government.

I think separation of church and state is important so one or more corrupt official does not gain control of a government that is merged with the religion and go on a spree of persecution. It has happened. Even with nations lead by Christianity. NOTE: I had an important word in there. "corrupt"

By extension since Islam is merged with a form of governance if you take it at face value the separation of church and state is impossible. If practitioners of Islam choose to ignore that or create a denomination that did not have the Shariah law stuff then I wouldn't have much of an issue with it.

I wouldn't agree with it. Like I said I am not a particular fan of organized religion MYSELF. I have zero problem though if other people benefit and find comfort in them.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

When I was much a child "Noah's Ark" was without a doubt my most favorite part of the bible. I even ended up getting it as several toys.

As I became older and learned more and more it is one of the stories I have the most trouble in accepting. Though if we are in a Simulation it is possible. :)

I will admit I have a lot of reservations about the bible. I have seen it help people though so I try not to go out of my way to bring them up. Doing so can take what for someone like yourself can be a doubt free and comforting existence and try to throw spanners into it. If the person is not a deep thinker they likely would ignore me and be okay. If it is someone like you though I think it can do more harm than good.

I see little to no benefit in sharing my misgivings. I found myself writing about such things in a reply to someone (possibly you) the other day then I deleted them. I thought... "Why?" These are my conclusions, my research, etc. Would knowing these things do more harm than good?

If a person is at peace, feels good about their life, and is doing good in their life then yes, I think it can do more harm than good.

If on the other hand you were one of those "On Sunday I am at Church" Christians that then seemed to think that gave them a pass to act however they wanted the rest of the week... I'd come for someone like that both barrels blazing. I am no fan of hypocrisy.

I can tell you. I do live by the teachings of Christ as best I can. They make sense to me. I don't believe many things that I'd be required to believe and call myself a Christian.

I also like some things from Taoism. I like some things from Buddhism. I even like some Native American ideas.

So I take them... I try to be them, follow them, use them.

I call myself a Deist because as it is defined it fits. No two Deists are alike except they believe there is a Creator/God.

I doubt I'll ever embrace and organized religion. I instead hope my actions and who I am are representative enough.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Doing so can take what for someone like yourself can be a doubt free and comforting existence and try to throw spanners into it. If the person is not a deep thinker they likely would ignore me and be okay. If it is someone like you though I think it can do more harm than good.

For me, you asking probing questions would not end up doing more harm than good.

I consider myself first and foremost a 'truth and wisdom seeker' (see my Hive profile). As such, I do not seek nor desire a 'doubt free' existence. With that said, I do not desire to interact with folks whose primary goal is to sow seeds of doubt -- not much fruit to be had from those interactions. However, I am happy to engage with fellow truth-seekers. I used to teach a Sunday school class called 'Difficult Questions' where the aim was to invite folks to bring up those theological issues that they have genuinely struggled with. The presence of evil and pain & suffering in the world represent a couple questions folks commonly struggle with but might not have the courage to grapple with.

This is not to say that all such 'difficult questions' can be answered. Many times, our exploration of a specific question uncovered even more questions. The point of the class was not to provide 'answers' per se but to say that it's okay to have questions and to explore the ramifications of different viewpoints, even if we end up with no definitive answers. We should never fear honest inquiry.

If I am believing a lie or adhering to a belief system that misrepresents or misconstrues the 'truth' then I would rather have that fact exposed, so that I can abandon falsehood and seek truth along a different path. That is why I welcome genuine questions about Christian doctrine and theology, Biblical worldview, veracity of the Scriptures, etc.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

That is good to know. Well let's start simple then. I'd like to know your take on some things in the bible. It's easy to explain if you don't consider it the word of God. Yet if you do view it as the word of God then it can often cause some concern.

The person that first exposed it to me is actually a devout Christian. He was also a Tax Attorney, and Concert Pianist. He was teaching bible school himself when he discovered these things (and numerous others) and they bothered him as an attorney enough that he did not cease being a Christian. He did however, go on a long journey and write a number of books as he researched and looked for answers. Many Christians I know would find many of his conclusions disturbing as they are not Canon but they did for him solve the issues.

You can start by closely looking at the accounts of the birth of Christ in Matthew and Luke. Compare them. You may need to check a couple of different printings of bibles as I cannot guarantee they all say the same thing. In my experience they often differ depending on edition, denomination, etc.

Like I said for me this is easy to rectify. I view the bible as the words of man attempting to explain what they experienced, what they were told, etc. It is often also written long after the event, or by someone who was repeating things they had heard.

I don't expect it to be flawless in such a condition. I also don't think that immediately invalidates the content of the book. It just is a perceptual shift. Is it the word of God or is it the word of man? If it is the word of God then the contradictions are worrisome. Also if it is the word of God which bible is the correct one? Why does man keep changing the word of God?

As to my friend, author, attorney, pianist I referred to. Let me see if I can find links to some of his works. He put a ton of effort into researching. I have a couple of his books signed. (I met him because I always made house trips to fix his computers for him more than a decade ago)

I don't agree with all of his conclusions but I respect the work and I greatly enjoyed talking to him.

His name is Edward Reaugh Smith and it saddens me to learn he died in August. I didn't know. On the upside I know he likely has some answers that all of us will get eventually now.

List of books
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=edward+reaugh+Smith&ref=nb_sb_noss

I have the Burning Bush and The Soul's Long Journey. I had the Incredible Births of Jesus which is a smaller book and not as daunting as some of the others. I loaned it to someone (forgot who) and never got it back.

Why do I mention him? He is someone who is/was a Christian and saw the contradictions. Instead of discounting them, ignoring them, or deciding it was a lie he went out and tried to explain them.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

It's easy to explain if you don't consider it the word of God. Yet if you do view it as the word of God then it can often cause some concern.

I guess I should start by explaining my take on the veracity and authority of Scripture.

I have always believed the Bible is the Word of God. I have believed this for as long as I can remember, even though no one (that I know of) ever taught me this. However, I never actually studied the Bible (in any way, shape, or form) until my junior year in high school. I became a Christian about 6 months after I began to intently study the Scriptures. My views about Scripture have changed some (but not much) over the years since then.

Regarding the infallibility of Scripture, I take a mostly orthodox approach (but not because I believe in orthodoxy):

  • All Scripture is God-breathed (θεόπνευστος, theo-pneustos) (2 Timothy 3:16), which I interpret as meaning the original words penned by each original author exactly expressed [1] the thinking and intentions of the author AND [2] the thinking and intentions of the Holy Spirit. This duality of thoughts and intentions is possible because of God's infinite wisdom and creativity. He was able to allow each author to uniquely express himself while also being 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit so as to uniquely express the specific truths God was intent on revealing to humankind in the process. As such, the written words of Scripture are not the literal, actual, 'spoken' words of God, except in those instances where Scripture explicitly says so (e.g. "Thus saith the Lord").
  • The primary purpose of Scripture is to reveal to mankind truths about the nature of God and His expectations of us.
  • As such, God has ensured that no substantive corruption has occurred over the millennia since original authorship.
  • God directed the canonization process, to ensure that the final canon of Scripture represents the full and complete written revelation of Himself.
  • However, God intentionally allowed 'mistakes' to enter into our Scripture canon. This was done to minimize the idolization of the Scriptures themselves (i.e. the worship of the Bible rather than its Author).
  • No individual can access the truths contained in Scripture through mere reason and intellect. God has intentionally obfuscated access to certain truths. This is exemplified by Jesus' teaching methods, wherein He spoke in parables to the masses, then explained later, in detail, the spiritual truths of those parables to His disciples. As such, we need the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit to fully understand the truths of Scripture.
  • Some mysteries (including some apparent contradictions in doctrine and/or Scripture) are not meant for us to understand.
  • Those who take it upon themselves to teach 'spiritual truth' to others will face a stricter judgment.
  • Each of us will be judged based on how we responded to the truths that have been revealed to us. This implies that those to whom more truth has been revealed will also be subject to a stricter judgment.
  • Translations are fallible. Paraphrased translations are even more fallible. Multiple translations should regularly be consulted and compared when studying the Scriptures.
  • Historical context is extremely important and often overlooked when interpreting Scripture.


You can start by closely looking at the accounts of the birth of Christ in Matthew and Luke. Compare them. You may need to check a couple of different printings of bibles as I cannot guarantee they all say the same thing. In my experience they often differ depending on edition, denomination, etc.

If you are referring to differences in details, this does not bother me (e.g. one gospel writer says there was a blind man who Jesus healed, while another gospel writer says there were two blind men). Although I steadfastly hold to the infallibility of Scripture, I do not define 'infallibility' as "every detail was perfectly and precisely captured" by each author. Some might consider this a 'cop out' and maybe it is. This gets back to my view that God intentionally allowed mistakes to enter the canon. My personal belief is that those mistakes were transcriptional (i.e. they occurred after-the-fact, as individuals where transcribing copies from the originals and from copies of the originals, etc.). However, it would not upset me if some of those 'mistakes' were allowed from the outset. Again, my view is that [1] God intentionally allowed minor mistakes (to keep us from idolizing the Bible) and [2] God preserved the important truths from corruption (so Scripture can faithfully fulfill its purpose -- God revealing Himself to mankind).


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Okay... good enough. Now we get to the next point. This is a big one for me and it relates to all of the above and it has nothing to do with Ed Smith. I don't think I ever had a chance to discuss it with him.


You do understand that the bible as it first came to be was put together over 300 years after the time of Christ. It was done so by the FIRST Council of Nicea formed at the behest of Roman Emperor Constantine.

They decided what would and would not go into the bible. There is even indication they changed things here and there.

Occasionally we discover papyruses, and writings that predate this. Often they are accounts of some of the same stories and could be quite close or they can sometimes vary significantly.

It was this Roman council that decided what WOULD and WOULD NOT go in there.

I can't bring myself to remotely consider that the word of God.

I can't do it. I don't trust Governments. I don't trust a council of humans to not use that as an opportunity to manipulate and control.

Could there be exceptions? I am sure there are. Though I have no way of proving that to my satisfaction without the assistance of a time machine to either let me travel there, or to view the past.

Does this bother me? Not really because I don't need a bible. I just appreciate wisdom and I try to learn from the examples of people doing good works.

I long ago gained far more respect for creating things as opposed to destroying them.

I long ago decided that the easy path is often not the one to take. The difficult path is usually more rewarding and often avoids some of the perils of the easy path. It just takes more effort.

I respect a lot of things in the Bible. I also learned from Taoism, and Buddhism. I know a lot of other mythologies Norse, Egyptian, Roman/Greek, etc. I am familiar with Hinduism and many things before that.

I've looked into the history of Judaism as far as we are able to currently know it from before the times of Christ.

I've even seen many examples of things similar to the 10 commandments from before Judaism, and in particular the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".


The word of God. Those practicing Islam agree. They also extend that to Mohammed and what he stated.

Is their reasoning lesser? It is likely their reasons are the same as yours.


I found studying Judaism and Zoroastrianism to be particularly informative when I then looked at Christianity and where it went.

I myself do not consider Christianity as it is generally taught as being monotheistic. In practice it resembled Polytheism to me. Consider it Greater and lesser gods. The way Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub/Etc. is treated is pretty much the same as a lesser god is treated in Polytheistic religions.

Judaism on the other hand was truly monotheistic. They didn't have the concept of a Heaven and Hell. They had one place in the after life.


Though one of the most popular religions of the time had a Creator and his antagonist who is strangely reminiscent of God vs Devil type of Dichotomy. It also had the concept of Heaven and Hell and it was extremely influential and powerful.

To me Christianity seems to have taken Judaism and merged it heavily with Zoroastrianism.

Fear is a big motivator. While damnation is a thing people are afraid of and it has existed for a very long time (Most religions have it). The Zoroastrians took it to a new level. It was apparently very successful.


Many of the holidays and dates we attribute to Christ could not actually have fit for those times. The Church did a good job of repurposing holidays that already existed for their own purposes while referring to those that practiced those holidays as Pagans.

It makes sense. It is far easier to convert people if they don't have to give up their holidays, they only need to change the name, and over time change the meaning.

For control and conversion ALL of this makes sense.

Yet it certainly doesn't speak the word of God to me. It resembles patterns of humanity and control that are echoed time and time again. We even see such techniques at work today.

Does that make the bible a bad thing?

No. It has some great things in it. How much of it is allegory and how much of it is literal is constantly in flux as we learn new things, and as new archaeology backs up or refutes things. I also personally think the 10 commandments, and the Sermon on the Mount are quite good and wise.

I can think of reasons why a society would want all of the 10 commandments without needing a God to tell me. If you truly think about them and think long term they make sense.

So whether it is the word of God or it is not the word of God it is still valuable.

The only thing the Word of God might change is whether a person thinks they should believe everything written in it without question.

I don't believe that. I seriously doubt I ever will.

Though I am fine with you or others believing that. As long a you don't go for things in the old testament and think that justifies actions you take you'll be a good person practicing Christianity.


EDIT: I threw you a curve ball. My Polytheism twist didn't have anything to do with the holy trinity. :)

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

the bible as it first came to be was put together over 300 years after the time of Christ. It was done so by the FIRST Council of Nicea formed at the behest of Roman Emperor Constantine.

It was this Roman council that decided what WOULD and WOULD NOT go in there.

I can't bring myself to remotely consider that the word of God.

I can't do it. I don't trust Governments. I don't trust a council of humans to not use that as an opportunity to manipulate and control.

I, too, have an extreme distrust for 'governments'. As we discussed previously, power corrupts -- and political power is perhaps the most corruptible.

However, I have complete peace in trusting the Council of Nicea in their affirmation of which sacred writings constituted canon and which did not. My sense of peace about that resides not in me having any faith or trust that those present were holy and pure in heart. Rather, my peace comes from my faith and trust in an almighty Creator who cares for His creation -- I am confident that if such a Creator exists, then He would have taken a proactive role in protecting His Word -- the revelation of Himself to mankind -- from corruption. And that proactive role would include not only the content itself, but also the societal recognition of what constitutes that content.

In other words, I am convinced that one or the other is true:

  • The Creator is almighty and caring and, as such, He has ensured that the Bible as we know it faithfully represents the revelation of Himself to mankind, or
  • The Creator is either non-existent or non-caring, in which case life itself is meaningless.

I choose to affirm the former rather than the latter.

Of course, every individual is free to examine other so-called sacred writings and decide for himself whether they should be canonized. Same goes for examining the existing canon to determine for yourself whether any of the canonized books should be removed. Martin Luther was critical of the book of James and relegated it to a 'second class' status within the canon.

This does, of course, lead into your question about Islam and the Koran. Any serious seeker of truth must investigate other religions and their claims to have possession of the 'protected revelation' of the almighty Creator. I have studied the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, and Book of Mormon enough to convince myself beyond any doubt that the first two constitute the genuine Word of God while the other two do not.

Ultimately, we are each accountable to God for how we respond to the truth that He has revealed, whether to us individually (i.e. personal communications) or societally (i.e. via canonized Scriptures) or naturally (i.e. via nature and the created world). A wise friend of mine once said, "What God requires of each and every one of us, regardless of age or intellect, is simply this: 'Surrender everything I know about me to everything I know about Him.'"


So whether it is the word of God or it is not the word of God it is still valuable.

This is where you and I probably disagree the most. If the Bible is not the Word of God then its value (from my perspective) becomes extremely low. This gets back to my assertion that the Creator is a God who cares. If the Bible (or some other collection of sacred writings constituting the non-corrupted revelation of God to mankind) does not exist, then the God (as I understand Him) does not exist.

A similar argument was made by the Apostle Paul regarding Jesus' resurrection. He said (in 1 Corinthians 15:12-14):

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

So, either God is conscientious enough to have preserved His revelation for us, or He is not. If He is not, then He is not the God I presume to know and serve, and I am delusional or foolish or worse.

A serious evaluation of textual criticism will reveal that both the Old and New Testaments stand alone in terms of the number of ancient manuscripts in existence and the level of agreement among the various copies.

I would encourage you to throw away the Council of Nicea (as you have already done) and adopt a decentralized alternative method for determining what constitutes Scriptural canon and what does not. Compile the enumeration of the number of distinct ancient copies (both full and partial) currently in existence, for each ancient writing that has ever existed. Those numbers will tell you what should be considered canon and what should not, because that will tell you what writings were viewed as sacred enough to copy and preserve throughout antiquity.

BTW, although I have not done the above exercise, if you do it and find any writing that is not in the Old or New Testaments that rivals the 66 books of the conventional canon, I will seriously begin studying those writings on a regular basis, as I currently do the OT and NT.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

As to why I see the bible valuable whether it is the words of God or not.

The teachings of Christ and the New Testament in particular if they are honored and followed without doing so only when convenient and without twisting them to some interpreted purpose historically seem to be one of the most benevolent religions out there.

Buddhists as well are fairly benevolent but I personally see Christians acting as Christ asked as doing more for others. The Buddhists will as well but they seem less driven to seek the opportunity to help. They have denominations too though and I am not familiar with all of them nor have I ever lived or visited anywhere that it was the dominant religion so I may be wrong in these assumptions.

So given the track record of societies when they follow these things the actions speak loudly and that is why I think it has value whether it is the Word of God or not.


Book of Mormon - I chuckle when I think of that one. By the way my wife was raised LDS, married her first husband (I was married once before as well) and came disillusioned by it and left that before we met. Now her mother in her 80s and her father who just turned 90 live with us and have for 5 years at least. They are both practicing Mormons but no longer able to physically travel to church. The Mormon Church sends Elders to visit them at least every other week. We welcome them and treat them well and it brings my mother and father in-law happiness.

The Elders have come to respect and be friends with my wife and I though they know neither of us are of their faith. We treat them well and as if we were part of their faith without being of it.

I strive to do that for everyone.

Though talk about "Magical Thinking"... I have some serious problems with the Golden tablets that everyone is simply supposed to believe existed...

Not to mention one of his later books he wrote while consulting a Scroll he acquired. He produced a quite large tome from that (can't remember which one it was) and claimed it was from interpreting that scroll. Later through Egyptology and Archaeology a lot of examples of that scroll were discovered and translated. They were nothing close to what he wrote. They are what is known as the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

So if he faked that translation, you still want me to believe in these Golden Tablets that the entire Mormon faith is based upon that were gone by the time you tell anyone about them? Uhm... nope. Not going to do that.

Now of course I don't say ANY of this to my mother and father in-law. They are happy. The elders are nice. I don't see any benefit to disrupting that because I see it as based upon a con.


Islam I am no fan of. To me it is a pretty evil religion that has been built around a foundation that was not.

The fact it has multiple names for types of lies and when using them is appropriate is enough for me. Jihad is not the language of peace either. And Hijra (conversion through immigration) is not particularly appealing. Don't get me started on Shariah law. If people follow Islam precisely then Separation of Church and State is impossible for they are one and the same.


I also have a lot of interest in mythology. I've studied quite a bit of Celtic mythology as well because I've been told that is some of my ancestry. Whether that is true or not. I know not.

0
0
0.000
avatar

BTW, although I have not done the above exercise, if you do it and find any writing that is not in the Old or New Testaments that rivals the 66 books of the conventional canon, I will seriously begin studying those writings on a regular basis, as I currently do the OT and NT.

I haven't been seeking as I once did. If it happens though I'll try to remember to reach out to you.

I'm not nearly as angry and I am content. This means a lot of my motivation for why I voraciously studied this type of stuff has chilled. Being young, angry, stereotyped, and occasionally persecuted was a pretty strong motivator for me.

0
0
0.000
avatar

As promised... I am currently watching the following:

It may be of interest to you

0
0
0.000
avatar

By the way... thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. My vote is not worth much but I gave you a 100% up vote on this comment.

0
0
0.000
avatar

When I was much a child "Noah's Ark" was without a doubt my most favorite part of the bible. I even ended up getting it as several toys.

As I became older and learned more and more it is one of the stories I have the most trouble in accepting.

Yeah, Noah's Ark is anything but a children's story. The annihilation of every human being on earth except 8 should never have been rebranded as a light-hearted bedtime story, imho.

A couple interesting thoughts about Noah's Ark for you to ponder:

  • Many people label 'the flood of Noah' as just another 'global flood myth' because nearly every major culture on earth has its own version of a legend about a catastrophic flood. Personally, I think the prevalence of 'flood myths' lends credibility FOR the veracity of the Biblical account. If there truly was a global flood that wiped out all of mankind except one family, then one would expect that 'story' to be talked about by the descendants of those survivors for many generations. And, one would expect the 'story' to change a lot from retelling to retelling (so that different groups of descendants would end up with widely varying versions of the story).
  • According to the Biblical record of genealogies from Adam to Noah, Noah's dad was 56 years old when Adam died (at the age of 930). That means 9 generations were all alive at the same time. When you think about having 900 years of productive learning, experimenting, etc., combined with 9 consecutive generations of wisdom to simultaneously build upon, it is quite possible that the civilization that existed before the flood may have developed technologies far more advanced than some of ours. When I look at technology today, I see a pattern wherein advances in technology enhance both our ability to do good and our ability to do evil. It may very well be that the reason evil was so prevalent during the time of Noah was because their civilization had advanced technologically to the point where their propensity to do evil was greatly enhanced, and they acted upon that propensity, and God finally said enough and brought judgment.

I don't expect you to agree with either of the above points -- just providing them as food for thought.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The toys were more centered around having two animals of each type... so you ended up with a bunch of toy animals. If I remember correctly the toys didn't even have any humans. :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I wasn't implying that there is anything macabre in the way Noah's Ark stuff is presented to children; just that it is a misrepresentation of that event -- a global catastrophe that no doubt broke the heart of God -- seeing His creation become so corrupt that He had to wipe the slate clean, and there was only one family on earth displaying any righteousness at all.

When Abraham confronted God about destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, God was willing to relent if there were as few as 10 righteous people in the city, but there weren't. At the time of Noah, there were only 8 righteous people in the entire world. Sad days. Sad time in history.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah. I knew what you meant. I was just recalling what it was packaged as to me. A toy with a bunch of plastic animals.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I like the theory that we are all a part of Joe Rogan's DMT hallucination 😄

I like the simulation hypothesis, though the theory obviously wouldn't answer the question, "how did the real world beyond the simulation begin?"

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Good segue.. that question in the hypothesis (it is not a theory yet, and likely never will be) is actually something addressed by the post I plan to write today. It didn't suddenly become that with you asking either.

Synchronicity.

0
0
0.000