How Can an Atheist Reject a Simulated Realities CPU?

[Sha'irullah]

This is one of the massive reasons I began believing the teleological argument. At the end of the day precision is something that we as humans create and manipulate to such a degree we achieve consistency from it. Anything that has creative powers which extends not only to biological life but even to the stars has a 99.99% chance of guaranteed consistency in occurence and I could only reduce this down to a creative force also producing consistency for all of this.

 

[columbus]

I call that designer God,

Adding the word designer to God is an unsupported assertion. It implies a lot of things, such as sapience and agency.
It's like gravity. Gravity causes stars and orbits and such. But gravity doesn't design them, as far as anybody knows. Gravity just is, and those things are the results.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

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?

I'll put it this way.

I as a programmer I can program any simulation I wanted. I can create universes with very distinct physics and constants, then simply let it run and simulate. There could be a chance that a "lifeform" creates itself in these simulations. I can't tell you what that percentage will be. I can tell you as a programmer, possibly, I could create some constants and physics that favors the creation of life so as to increase this percentage. Then there's always the "hacking" route. I can run this simulation then simply insert life at some point in time and space. No one in this simulation will ever be able to prove that a hack occurred.

Sure, maybe if you want to draw an analogy to god and life in our universe, but the one true correlation is still to be able to prove that we live in a simulation. We will never be able to prove that we live in a simulation so I do not venture further than believing we possibly live in a simulation. Plus, the same basic logic applies to simulation theory. If there is a programmer that created us through simulation, then who created that programmer? Is he living in a simulation? Who is his god if there exists one? His possible religions fail the same questions we ask of our Gods and religions.

 

[wizanda]

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

These are called Avatars, Elohim, Elders, Amesha Spenta, Arch Angels, etc...

This is where mankind has got muddled by calling them Gods in the religions, as these beings knew how to code; yet they are not the CPU.

In my opinion.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Um, how is adding superfluous layers eventually prove or disprove a god or gods?

But trying to answer here:
You have said, assume that our reality is a simulation. Is it then logical for an atheist to accept that some mechanism without intelligence created this reality?

Sure.

 

[Nakosis]

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




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.



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

I'm just thinking, because the two definition are so interrelated.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Adding the word designer to God is an unsupported assertion. It implies a lot of things, such as sapience and agency.
It's like gravity. Gravity causes stars and orbits and such. But gravity doesn't design them, as far as anybody knows. Gravity just is, and those things are the results.
Tom

The universe 'just is' was the rationale for static/eternal universes, no creation = no creator

So the computer, CPU, hardware and software running this reality- , all 'just exist' without being created one way or another? Do you believe that this is a better supported assumption?

 

[suncowiam]

Ever seen Tron?
View attachment 20154

I watched this movie so much, my wife threatened to divorce me.

Not only does it draw on much of my beliefs but Daft Punk orchestrated the sound track!

 

[Curious George]

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..

Perhaps you just missed that atheists were "open" to the possibility of even a god existing. But believing something is a possibility and believing it is true are two separate things.

 

[suncowiam]

The universe 'just is' was the rationale for static/eternal universes, no creation = no creator

So the computer, CPU, hardware and software running this reality- , all 'just exist' without being created one way or another? Do you believe that this is a better supported assumption?

I reiterate this. Who created the creator of the simulation and the Computer? They don't just all exist. No one is saying it all exists. We're just saying that JUST the simulation exists.

You're jumping to conclusions too readily.

 

[YmirGF]

I watched this movie so much, my wife threatened to divorce me.

Not only does it draw on much of my beliefs but Daft Punk orchestrated the sound track!

Liked the original, hated the sequel. The original movie didn't age well though.

 

[suncowiam]

Liked the original, hated the sequel. The original movie didn't age well though.

Tron was cult success.

Tron Legacy, not so much I guess. I'm into EDM and Daft Punk and was into Tron which was part of the reason for me choosing to get into computers.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps you just missed that atheists were "open" to the possibility of even a god existing. But believing something is a possibility and believing it is true are two separate things.

Well it's a step in the right direction!

 

[Nakosis]

These are called Avatars, Elohim, Elders, Amesha Spenta, Arch Angels, etc...

This is where mankind has got muddled by calling them Gods in the religions, as these beings knew how to code; yet they are not the CPU.

In my opinion.

Maybe it's the same considering the lack of proof for either. A religion based on the Master Programmer, so we're back to another movie.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I reiterate this. Who created the creator of the simulation and the Computer? They don't just all exist. No one is saying it all exists. We're just saying that the JUST the simulation exists.

You're jumping to conclusions too readily.

and you are not curious how it got there?

 

[suncowiam]

and you are not curious how it got there?

Of course I am curious, but I know there is nothing I can do in my universe or simulation to prove it. It is physically impossible from my perspective.

I do not spend my energy on what I can not venture forward with...

 

[columbus]

The universe 'just is' was the rationale for static/eternal universes, no creation = no creator

The static state model doesn't match the evidence of a singularity, so that doesn't really matter any more. Why bring it up?

So the computer, CPU, hardware and software running this reality- , all 'just exist' without being created one way or another? Do you believe that this is a better supported assumption?

I am not the one making truth claims. The only thing I am sure of, on this subject, is that nobody really knows the answers. That's why I am an agnostic deist and not a theist. You still haven't given me a reason to believe that you know any more about God than I do.
Tom

 

[wizanda]

assume that our reality is a simulation.

Could have said it slightly better so any form of assumption is based on reasoning to begin, by adding 'based on' the mathematical precision in atomic science, cosmology, physics, etc...

Is it then logical for an atheist to accept that some mechanism without intelligence created this reality?

You see that is illogical already, you can't say yes i accept a simulated reality, and then fail on is it intelligently designed, if we accept the first premise is based on mathematics and science.

so we're back to another movie.

The Matrix directors made the crew read some complex university style essay, on the theory of a simulated reality; because they wanted the concept that has always existed in many philosophies to be understood.

A religion based on the Master Programmer

Well quite a few say this already, and it is the religious that have comprehension issues; which is why they argue over which programmer in the Matrix is best, when everything stems from the CPU in the first place.

In my opinion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Where are the glitches and bugs?

 

[columbus]

and you are not curious how it got there?

People who are curious don't just make up answers. They look for evidence to support their opinions and then go on looking for more to refine the opinions.

That's the difference between science and religion.
Tom