How Can an Atheist Reject a Simulated Realities CPU?

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I am not sure of what the OP is asking.

If you do not believe in creationist God,
then how can you believe that our world is a creation in a computer?

Essentially what is the intrinsic difference between the two in real analytical terms.
There is no difference.

Who says God cannot use something like a computer to compute the
laws of physics in the universe.

The only major difference is that if we are a mere simulation then our
creator is not necesarily omnipotent.

But it does beg the question:
How did the simulation come into being?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

All the simulation 'solution' does is extend the mystery back another level...like the panspermia theory for the origin of life on earth...okay, great, it came from elsewhere in the galaxy...how did it get started there?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well who knew we were all so close all this time

All ANY incarnation of ID does is pass the buck anyway. Who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? Ad infinitum.

When would you possibly reach a plane/state of existence where there would be no more questions to ask about where that level of existence came from?

If you assume our universe had to have a marked "beginning" then what sense does it make at all to not assume the same of any other universe or dimension you discover?

 

[Curious George]

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

In my opinion.

We went this route. I rephrase your question, gave an answer and then you went a step further saying "you can't say yes i accept a simulated reality, and then fail on is it intelligently designed." I explained where this was incorrect. Then we went on a tangential regarding whether we were assuming the premise or not.

What is amiss here. What we were discussing was does your logically follow from premise x. In other words, does x entail y. The answer is it logically follows that something is simulating a simulation. Attributing intelligence to this is where the logic requires another jump.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All ANY incarnation of ID does is pass the buck anyway. Who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? Ad infinitum.

When would you possibly reach a plane/state of existence where there would be no more questions to ask about where that level of existence came from?

If you assume our universe had to have a marked "beginning" then what sense does it make at all to not assume the same of any other universe or dimension you discover?

I agree

and similarly; what naturalistic mechanism created the naturalistic mechanism? ad infinitum...

same apparent paradox, yet here we are- there is a solution one way or the other

But what's not the same is the creative capacity of each. Naturalism adds an additional and distinct paradox, creation without creativity- an infinite regression of naturalistic cause and effect with no genuinely creative mechanism allowed.

If we simply lift the unwarranted restriction, allow both as possibilities, this paradox can be solved at least hypothetically

When would you possibly reach a plane/state of existence where there would be no more questions to ask about where that level of existence came from?

^ good question, pretty much the age old chicken and egg question right? There must be an answer, just not one that's necessarily conceptually easy

But..

what if the chicken lays an identical egg to the one it came from, at precisely the same place and precisely the same time

Is this egg a copy or the original? what would distinguish between them? can it be both?

 

[Nakosis]

Where are the glitches and bugs?

Trump?

 

[wizanda]

Then we went on a tangential regarding whether we were assuming the premise or not.

What is amiss here.

The last reply summarized it, i wouldn't want anyone to make any assumptions; which is why donated a few reasons why we can see a mathematical reality...

That for me is enough not to assume.

Attributing intelligence to this is where the logic requires another jump.

Reality is amazingly complex; that automatically attributes intelligence by the very nature of our reality, being intelligent in its mathematical workings....

If we lived in a blob, that didn't do much, and was just a blob, would agree we've got a dumb coder for our reality.

In my opinion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Lol, I do not think that I said that either.

exactly, 'spontaneous creation' is not the default explanation for a simulation, just because we can't prove an intelligent designer

But we do have one proven mechanism that creates simulations, and it is not spontaneous/ unguided/naturalistic

 

[columbus]

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.

That makes you unusual. Not many people stray far from the teachings that they learn as children.

Me too, I was raised a staunch Catholic.
Even now, after decades of Nontheism, I have a "C" engraved on my heart. At least, that's what my Catholic friends tell me.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

exactly, 'spontaneous creation' is not the default explanation for a simulation, just because we can't prove an intelligent designer

But we do have one proven mechanism that creates simulations, and it is not spontaneous/ unguided/naturalistic

Is that so? I am pretty sure we have all sorts of spontaneous simulations. A reflection for instance could be termed a spontaneous simulation. That something was previously the case does not mean something will be the case. You quite simply cannot conclude that no intelligent designer created or that an intelligent designer created based on the accepted premise our reality is a simulation.

Trying to make more from it will likely lead to errors in logic.

 

[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.

Ok, I'll admit to imagining this as a possibility.

However maybe it is because of movies like Tron and the Matrix the subconscious mind latches onto to create a narrative which ends up seeming plausible to the conscious self.

 

[Curious George]

The last reply summarized it, i wouldn't want anyone to make any assumptions; which is why donated a few reasons why we can see a mathematical reality...

That for me is enough not to assume.

Reality is amazingly complex; that automatically attributes intelligence by the very nature of our reality, being intelligent in its mathematical workings....

If we lived in a blob, that didn't do much, and was just a blob, would agree we've got a dumb coder for our reality.

In my opinion.

It seems to me that what you wanted to know was does intelligent design follow from the premise that we live in a simulation. The answer is no. Though you specifically asked about it from an atheist point of view which seems to ask does the conclusion that a god exists follow from the premise that reality is a simulation
The answer is still no.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is that so? I am pretty sure we have all sorts of spontaneous simulations. A reflection for instance could be termed a spontaneous simulation. That something was previously the case does not mean something will be the case. You quite simply cannot conclude that no intelligent designer created or that an intelligent designer created based on the accepted premise our reality is a simulation.

Trying to make more from it will likely lead to errors in logic.

Things tend to get mired in semantics here, but most definitions of the word specifically denote intelligent agency one way or another

Simulation:

1.
imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.
2.
the act or process of pretending; feigning.
3.
an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form; counterfeit; sham.
4.
Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical disorder to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective.
5.
the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose.


You could eek out a non intelligent version of #3- an imitation of form- as in your mirror example, but in doing so you conspicuously pick the simplest form, and least familiar definition of ' simulation'

The simulation we are talking about is the most sophisticated simulation we are aware of, it includes many hierarchical integrated information systems- and we only have one proven method by which such systems can be originated.. the probability of an unguided mechanism doing likewise is just too small to compete

 

[Curious George]

You could eek out a non intelligent version,

My intent was not to eek out or conspicuously choose anything. It was to refute the point that a simulation necessitates intelligence. That we have an example that contradicts this point is just like showing a black swan after being told that a black swan doesn't exist.

The point was it doesn't logically follow. Even if we only had examples of intelligently designed simulations it still doesn't follow.

We make these jumps when they are either self evident (a=a), or they are necessary inductive leaps (causality exists, free will exists)

But we do not make these jumps when they are neither necessary inductive leaps nor self evident. (All swans are white).

 

[Twilight Hue]

Trump?

Max Headroom! He's back!!!! Whoot!!!!!!

 

[QuestioningMind]

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 POSSIBLE that reality is a simulation, just as it's POSSIBLE that there is a creator God. But until I see some verifiable evidence for either I have no reason to believe that either is true.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was brought up a staunch atheist....

One of those, eh? I was brought up a lax atheist.
It still serves me well. "Staunch" is so much work.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's POSSIBLE that reality is a simulation, just as it's POSSIBLE that there is a creator God. But until I see some verifiable evidence for either I have no reason to believe that either is true.

It could be argued if it's actually a simulation, then there's a Code somewhere.

Crack the code then your God!

 

[columbus]

It's POSSIBLE that reality is a simulation, just as it's POSSIBLE that there is a creator God. But until I see some verifiable evidence for either I have no reason to believe that either is true.

I don't have any trouble believing in god. It's the people who tell me that they know something important about god, like god has sapience and agency, that I don't find credible.
Tom

 

[osgart]

How does information exist and function in our universe if a simulation is found to be true? What or who is driving the information?

Perhaps by nature the universe is unintelligible, but for the intelligence made out of it, and made in it.

What would lead anyone to believe that the universe is not an independent self existing reality?

How vast of an intelligence it is that can create and maintain its causes and effects so well.