How Can an Atheist Reject a Simulated Realities CPU?

[Guy Threepwood]

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

it was proposed explicitly as a way to avoid the theistic implications of a creation event, no creation = no creator

Similarly proposing that the simulation running this universe merely exists eternally as a given... is the exact same 'no creation = no creator' rationale, just retreating it beyond scientific investigation this time

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

I acknowledge faith yes, not declaring any 'undeniable truths' here - just deducing most likely scenarios

we have plenty examples of objects, designs, information systems, simulations etc that employed purpose, creative intelligence, and which could certainly not exist without them

We simply don't have any unambiguous examples of these things being created spontaneously without any creativity/purpose- it's not technically impossible, its simply not something we can reproduce, observe measure. So if we are going to be sticklers for the scientific method, creative intelligence is the only proven method by which this simulation could have come into being

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Not only that, can you just imagine the energy requirement that would be necessary?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

If all else fails, attack someones intellectual capacity

 

[Curious George]

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...

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.

This is not a given. I do not care how many appeals you make or what semantics are played. You are asking us to assume something that is neither self evident or proven. Why waste the time with the rest. You want us to assume our reality is a simulation.

No, it would be another jump in logic to assume this was intelligently created.

Reality is simulated.
Therefore an intelligent entity is simulating reality.


This is a non sequitur.

 

[wizanda]

Where are the glitches and bugs?

Why do you think people are weird; this is the recycle bin we're in.

In my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

What possible reason would we have to take that for granted?

 

[Curious George]

What possible reason would we have to take that for granted?

Does it matter? I thought it was a question about what such a premise entails.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is not a given. I do not care how many appeals you make or what semantics are played. You are asking us to assume something that is neither self evident or proven. Why waste the time with the rest. You want us to assume our reality is a simulation.

No, it would be another jump in logic to assume this was intelligently created.

Reality is simulated.
Therefore an intelligent entity is simulating reality.


This is a non sequitur.

but assuming this simulation somehow exists by some unguided spontaneous mechanism- is a default assumption?!

 

[Revoltingest]

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..

Hmmm....God could be a simulation.

 

[Curious George]

but assuming this simulation somehow exists by some unguided spontaneous mechanism- is a default assumption?!

Lol, I do not think that I said that either. That a conclusion does not follow from a premise does not mean that the conclusion's negation follows from the premise. Does that seem strange to you?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ever seen Tron?
View attachment 20154

 

[columbus]

If all else fails, attack someones intellectual capacity

I didn't attack anyone's intellectual capacity. Just the methods used to employ them.

Religious people often must be very smart to keep creating the pretzel logic required to maintain their beliefs.
Tom

 

[wizanda]

You are asking us to assume something that is neither self evident or proven.

Atomic science is proven, we learn the periodic table at school, and how we can create new elements using mathematical principles that are stable and consistent.

Cosmologist question how come some of the mathematical equations they've found, are finally tuned to ten thousandth of a decimal point.

Physics functions, it isn't a random universe, it has set formula that have been coded into reality, for things like that to exist.

Thus we can question logically that we have a mathematical reality, with multiple levels of mathematical quantum dimensions; which is highly intelligent coding.

Thus is it more logical to accept a simulated reality, considering how precise everything is or random probability which would be more chaotic by far.

So wasn't asking you to assume anything.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

What possible reason would we have to take that for granted?

[GALLERY=media, 8421][/GALLERY]

 

[Curious George]

Atomic science is proven, we learn the periodic table at school, and how we can create new elements using mathematical principles that are stable and consistent.

Cosmologist question how come some of the mathematical equations they've found, are finally tuned to ten thousandth of a decimal point.

Physics functions, it isn't a random universe, it has set formula that have been coded into reality, for things like that to exist.

Thus we can question logically that we have a mathematical reality, with multiple levels of mathematical quantum dimensions; which is highly intelligent coding.

Thus is it more logical to accept a simulated reality, considering how precise everything is or random probability which would be more chaotic by far.

So wasn't asking you to assume anything.

In my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong here then. Asking us to accept that reality is simulated in order to answer a question about what such a premise entails is very much asking us to assume something.

 

[Revoltingest]

[GALLERY=media, 8421][/GALLERY]

Is that allowable here on RF?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I didn't attack anyone's intellectual capacity. Just the methods used to employ them.

Religious people often must be very smart to keep creating the pretzel logic required to maintain their beliefs.
Tom

As I think I mentioned before, I was brought up a staunch atheist, I was perfectly happy with that belief for decades but it was ultimately untenable for me.

I assume you and everyone here is capable of critical thought and is curious about the truth, at the very least this makes for a more interesting discussion.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Not only that, can you just imagine the energy requirement that would be necessary?

Really? I've heard this argument before: "It would have to simulate all the particles in the entire universe...!"

Horsepucky!

It would not take all that much energy to create a simulation for one (or a small group of interacting) consciousness and lots of bots that seem to be conscious. In terms of sensory inputs into our "brains," it should be quite manageable for an advanced civilization.

Such a simulation only has to worry in detail about the small patch or reality where the "entity" is, so that it can have its own "experience" of reality. Everything else is stories told to it (Oh, Look! Here's a academic paper in a science journal that describes quantum gravity!), most of which (think x-rays and higgs boson) the individual can never directly perceive anyway.

 

[wizanda]

is very much asking us to assume something.

The question was can Atheists answer the question logically.... Personally would find assuming illogical.

In my opinion.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Atomic science is proven, we learn the periodic table at school, and how we can create new elements using mathematical principles that are stable and consistent.

Cosmologist question how come some of the mathematical equations they've found, are finally tuned to ten thousandth of a decimal point.

Physics functions, it isn't a random universe, it has set formula that have been coded into reality, for things like that to exist.

Thus we can question logically that we have a mathematical reality, with multiple levels of mathematical quantum dimensions; which is highly intelligent coding.

Thus is it more logical to accept a simulated reality, considering how precise everything is or random probability which would be more chaotic by far.

So wasn't asking you to assume anything.

In my opinion.

All of this could be simulated, including the experiences of the scientists whose discoveries led to these 'facts.' Do you think that an intelligent programmer wouldn't program the simulation so that, the closer the simulant looks, there is something there to be 'discovered?'