How Can an Atheist Reject a Simulated Realities CPU?

[wizanda]

Taking for granted that our reality is a simulation; which is why it is mathematically precise in atomic science, cosmology, physics, etc...

Plus mathematically theorized that there was a Singularity somewhere that manifested reality at a quantum level.

Is it then logical for an Atheist without belief, to accept that there could be a CPU that creates the reality we are within?

In my opinion.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm an atheist and do support the theory of simulated life. There are physical traits in our reality that support this: quantum levels of measurements, the act of observation forcing a physical state...

I'm also a computer engineer who now specializes in SW. We'll never be able to prove this, but I see it as plausible.

From an atheist/theist perspective, this has little do with religion or the basic view of God. To believe in this simulation does not answer much of our creation.

[Edited]

The following is a great primer on the simulation theory. It explains through science on why simulation theory is plausible.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not sure of what the OP is asking.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Taking for granted that our reality is a simulation; which is why it is mathematically precise in atomic science, cosmology, physics, etc...

Plus mathematically theorized that there was a Singularity somewhere that manifested reality at a quantum level.

Is it then logical for an Atheist without belief, to accept that there could be a CPU that creates the reality we are within?

In my opinion.

It's interesting that so many atheists are now becoming open to Intelligent design as an explanation for all the engineering evident in the universe and life.. as long as we don't call it God of course...! The distinction seems to be getting a little vague..

But it's pretty much come down to intelligent creator, or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) that would also be bound to create God/ ID whatever you prefer to call it anyway..

 

[columbus]

Is it then logical for an Atheist without belief, to accept that there could be a

"there could be" is the important part. Almost anything, whether true or not, is possible when there's no evidence on a subject.
Tom

 

[columbus]

.. as long as we don't call it God of course...! The distinction seems to be getting a little vague..

Perhaps this wouldn't be such a problem if religionists didn't muddy the waters so often, by insisting that they know important things about god. The vaguer the concept referred to by the word god, the more likely it is to be accurate.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

It's interesting that so many atheists are now becoming open to Intelligent design as an explanation for all the engineering evident in the universe and life.. as long as we don't call it God of course...! The distinction seems to be getting a little vague..

But it's pretty much come down to intelligent creator, or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) that would also be bound to create God/ ID whatever you prefer to call it anyway..

This is not intelligent design. You do not know the actual premise of a simulation theory.

All the theory suggests is that a simulation exist in a Computer with predefined constants and algorithms. That's all. It doesn't even suggest how life started in the simulations. It doesn't suggest who created the simulation or the Computer.

 

[Nakosis]

Taking for granted that our reality is a simulation; which is why it is mathematically precise in atomic science, cosmology, physics, etc...

Plus mathematically theorized that there was a Singularity somewhere that manifested reality at a quantum level.

Is it then logical for an Atheist without belief, to accept that there could be a CPU that creates the reality we are within?

In my opinion.

Whats this have to do with lacking a belief in God?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's interesting that so many atheists are now becoming open to Intelligent design as an explanation for all the engineering evident in the universe and life.. as long as we don't call it God of course...! The distinction seems to be getting a little vague..

But it's pretty much come down to intelligent creator, or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) that would also be bound to create God/ ID whatever you prefer to call it anyway..

It is very interesting, all the more so because it is not true.

 

[Srivijaya]

I am not sure of what the OP is asking.

Ever seen Tron?

 

[Nakosis]

It's interesting that so many atheists are now becoming open to Intelligent design as an explanation for all the engineering evident in the universe and life.. as long as we don't call it God of course...! The distinction seems to be getting a little vague..

But it's pretty much come down to intelligent creator, or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) that would also be bound to create God/ ID whatever you prefer to call it anyway..

I'd think a God would have godlike powers. omnipotent, omniscient etc...

Though I suppose the meaning of the word God has been muddied to the point it can practically mean anything.

So atheist may have to end up meaning a person who lacks any belief in any gods derived from religious or otherwise supernatural beliefs.

 

[Altfish]

It's interesting that so many atheists are now becoming open to Intelligent design as an explanation for all the engineering evident in the universe and life.. as long as we don't call it God of course...! The distinction seems to be getting a little vague..

But it's pretty much come down to intelligent creator, or some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse) that would also be bound to create God/ ID whatever you prefer to call it anyway..

Are they
Must have missed that happening - can you send me a link to them?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps this wouldn't be such a problem if religionists didn't muddy the waters so often, by insisting that they know important things about god. The vaguer the concept referred to by the word god, the more likely it is to be accurate.
Tom

This is not intelligent design. You do not know the actual premise of a simulation theory.

All the theory suggests is that a simulation exist in a Computer with predefined constants and algorithms. That's all. It doesn't even suggest how life started in the simulations. It doesn't suggest who created the simulation or the Computer.

Well who knew we were all so close all this time

As a theist, that's pretty much my perception of ID, it doesn't say who the intelligent designer was, it just recognizes the fingerprints of an intelligent designer..concludes that this is less improbable than an unguided naturalistic mechanism

I call that designer God, and given his work to observe all around us, I don't think we are at a complete loss to ascertain a thing or two about him, but we are all taking our best guess, and as long as we acknowledge our beliefs, faith as such, we can all get along?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are they
Must have missed that happening - can you send me a link to them?

you're talking to a couple of them right here, I used to be one also

 

[Nakosis]

Ever seen Tron?
View attachment 20154

So should we start referring to programmers who create digitally simulated realities as Gods?

 

[wizanda]

Whats this have to do with lacking a belief in God?

The CPU is a more technical term for what we find discussed in the religious texts of the world about God.

YHVH Elohim spoke the word or Brahma breathed out a long pOeM, could be metaphors, for code in a simulated reality.

In my opinion.

 

[Altfish]

you're talking to a couple of them right here, I used to be one also

OK, world domination next year?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd think a God would have godlike powers. omnipotent, omniscient etc...

I don't think that would be an unreasonable deduction, for the creator of the simulation- I've written a couple myself (obviously extremely crude in comparison)! but am omnipotent in those virtual worlds yes

Though I suppose the meaning of the word God has been muddied to the point it can practically mean anything.

i think that's one problem, that we are born into a world where people have deduced a creator for millennia, and have developed complex cultures around it- so by the time we show up- the root of it all is obscured, can appear irrational, but much of religion I think is as above, merely logical extensions of there being a creator.

So atheist may have to end up meaning a person who lacks any belief in any gods derived from religious or otherwise supernatural beliefs.

I didn't derive my belief in God from any religion so I guess I'm still an atheist by this definition?! hmm this could get confusing

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am not sure of what the OP is asking.

Obviously you have never smoked cannabis or gotten intoxicated after downing a couple pills of diphenhydramine. If you do so this is the sort of thinking that will pop into your head

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK, world domination next year?

It's looking that way, though there will always be holdouts!