"In the beginning God created ...."

[VVilliam]

I personally do not have any image of God

So how are you using the word?

In the thread title...and in relation to the OP observation and question re that observation.

"God" is simply what the Christians named their god. Their idea/image of "The Creator" of "The Creation" [Reality Simulation]

My question is not about the nature/image of creator/creators. but is focused upon the idea of a creation and why, if it is so, do Christians have an issue with the idea we exist within a simulated reality, when they seem happy enough to call said reality a 'creation'.

Again, I have no image of a Programmer...I was using the images you provided and playing with those, but they are not my 'current stereotypes'

So how are you using those terms?

In relation to the idea we exist within a creation, we thus exist within a simulation, implying 'programmers/creators'.
But the focus of the thread topic is not about 'who or what' the programmers look like or are motivated by in creating and using the simulators, nor is it even about what the simulators might consist of/what 'type' of 'computers' these might be.

I wouldn't because I have no current images of stereotypes.

So those words mean nothing to you? You don't have vivid descriptions, associations or particular examples of what a God; or a Programmer might be like?

Even if I did, these are not relevant to the thread question. Nor to the answer.

IF we are existing within a creation/simulation, THEN those questions can be focused upon for any possible answers which might be found in the clues the universe might provide. Lets not hitch the cart in front of the pony...

For my part, thinking on what we do know about our reality [universe] we are dealing with a creator whom just has to be far greater than a few hippies in a garage sipping coke while making ways in which they can use their know-how to their advantage...

See! You do have stereotypes!

Even if so, they are here nor there in relation to the thread topic. My personal [and changeable] opinions on 'what the creator(s) might be 'like' are besides the point. As are yours. As a playful thing, they are interesting related concepts to bounce around, but not relative to the Thread topic and focus of the thread question.

In my view a creator simply needs to be greater than me. If I can do what the Creator can do then the creator isn't great.

And in that, sure - a playful idea. Something to explore in another thread... perhaps.

Au contraire - you are projecting a false image of who I am onto your mind-screen [internal imaging] and arguing with the words you put into the mouth of said false image...

Then what do you have in mind when you are using superlatives for "greatness"? For you think the creator needs to be "greater" than hipsters drinking coke.

Only in the sense that the simulation [the physical universe] is greater than anything any human has yet to create through the current machines invented to create simulations with. If - of course - we are actually currently experiencing a Reality Simulation.
But that is not what the OPQ is asking.

What I wrote was to let folk know the way I currently lean, but make no mistake - I am an agnostic when it comes to the idea of existing within a simulated reality/creation...I am undecided but due to the nature of my particular subjective experience of the physical universe, is why I lean in that direction.

For an "agnostic" you do have a lot to say...

I was not aware there were rules in place defining "agnostics" as "Those not having much to say"...

Project much?

[Immanuel Can]

"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

That cannot be true.

Anyone who did not know they were in a "simulation" would never think to call it a "simulation." Anyone who knew it was a "simulation" would also have to believe there was something "real" that the "simulation" was "simulating."

So the above statement is just not capable of being rendered cogent, it seems to me. It also seems obviously untrue: I believe we exist within the Creation, but I am not at all saying we exist in what you call a "reality simulation." So I'm not "saying" that, and don't think a sensible person could.

[tillingborn]

Anyone who did not know they were in a "simulation" would never think to call it a "simulation." Anyone who knew it was a "simulation" would also have to believe there was something "real" that the "simulation" was "simulating."

Would you say that we are created in the image of God?

[Skepdick]

"God" is simply what the Christians named their god. Their idea/image of "The Creator" of "The Creation" [Reality Simulation]

My question is not about the nature/image of creator/creators. but is focused upon the idea of a creation and why, if it is so, do Christians have an issue with the idea we exist within a simulated reality, when they seem happy enough to call said reality a 'creation'.

It's not just Christians. In general - it's people who have unresolved issues with the notion of "power".

The power to reify one's will.

In relation to the idea we exist within a creation, we thus exist within a simulation, implying 'programmers/creators'.
But the focus of the thread topic is not about 'who or what' the programmers look like or are motivated by in creating and using the simulators, nor is it even about what the simulators might consist of/what 'type' of 'computers' these might be.

But you went further than that - you characterised the "operator" as an AI...

IF we are existing within a creation/simulation, THEN those questions can be focused upon for any possible answers which might be found in the clues the universe might provide. Lets not hitch the cart in front of the pony...

If we exist within a creation/simulation then there is a creator. Fine. This is all that can be said without you beginning to project qualities upon the nature of the creator.

For my part, thinking on what we do know about our reality [universe] we are dealing with a creator whom just has to be far greater than a few hippies in a garage sipping coke while making ways in which they can use their know-how to their advantage...

See! You do have stereotypes!

Even if so, they are here nor there in relation to the thread topic. My personal [and changeable] opinions on 'what the creator(s) might be 'like' are besides the point. As are yours. As a playful thing, they are interesting related concepts to bounce around, but not relative to the Thread topic and focus of the thread question.

In my view a creator simply needs to be greater than me. If I can do what the Creator can do then the creator isn't great.

And in that, sure - a playful idea. Something to explore in another thread... perhaps.

I was not aware there were rules in place defining "agnostics" as "Those not having much to say"...

Project much?

No... just paraphrasing Wittgenstein. Whereof one cannot know, thereof one must remain silent.

Else, you are just constructing a religion. No different to the Christian one.

[VVilliam]

"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

Anyone who did not know they were in a "simulation" would never think to call it a "simulation."

This points to the possibility that those who claim to be in a creation, are not aware that they are also claiming to be in a simulation, unless they can show why there is a difference between the two concepts. I see no difference, which is why I wrote the premise as it is.

Anyone who knew it was a "simulation" would also have to believe there was something "real" that the "simulation" was "simulating."

Which is where theism comes into play. Specifically the theists/theism I am targeting are Christians/Christian mythology.

So I agree with your statement...although I would word it thus;

Anyone who believed the physical universe was a "simulation" would also have to believe there was something "real" that the "simulation" was "simulating." A minor yet important detail. They don't have to know that they exist within a simulation. They just have to believe that they exist within a creation..."creation" should therefore also mean "simulation"...either way, even that they don't admit/realize it, they are claiming to exist within a simulation.

[Skepdick]

This points to the possibility that those who claim to be in a creation, are not aware that they are also claiming to be in a simulation, unless they can show why there is a difference between the two concepts. I see no difference, which is why I wrote the premise as it is.

You can't see a difference or don't want to acknowledge the difference in characterising the creators?

Do you see a difference between Allah, God, Yahweh, Shiva and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[VVilliam]

"God" is simply what the Christians named their god. Their idea/image of "The Creator" of "The Creation" [Reality Simulation]

My question is not about the nature/image of creator/creators. but is focused upon the idea of a creation and why, if it is so, do Christians have an issue with the idea we exist within a simulated reality, when they seem happy enough to call said reality a 'creation'.

It's not just Christians. In general - it's people who have unresolved issues with the notion of "power".

The power to reify one's will.

I agree - we could extend it to all of theism, but that creates its own problems because not all theism denies that we exist within a simulated reality.
So my focus is on those who I know DO deny that [Christians]...whilst still claiming the physical universe is a created thing.

In relation to the idea we exist within a creation, we thus exist within a simulation, implying 'programmers/creators'.
But the focus of the thread topic is not about 'who or what' the programmers look like or are motivated by in creating and using the simulators, nor is it even about what the simulators might consist of/what 'type' of 'computers' these might be.

But you went further than that - you characterised the "operator" as an AI...

Like I said - it was an irrelevant opinion offered playfully in respect to your own offerings. I am happy to retract/withdraw said comments, on those grounds.

IF we are existing within a creation/simulation, THEN those questions can be focused upon for any possible answers which might be found in the clues the universe might provide. Lets not hitch the cart in front of the pony...

If we exist within a creation/simulation then there is a creator. Fine. This is all that can be said without you beginning to project qualities upon the nature of the creator.

Nor you. We agree.
It is possible that some trace or hint of the creator(s) 'being' might be found/uncovered in the examination of the physical universe, but for now that is not the focus of this thread subject...we can move to the focus yes?

I was not aware there were rules in place defining "agnostics" as "Those not having much to say"...

Project much?

No... just paraphrasing Wittgenstein. Whereof one cannot know, thereof one must remain silent.

Else, you are just constructing a religion. No different to the Christian one.

And it is the Christian one which I am questioning. They do not know so they should not claim.

Any more than anyone should claim that we do not exist within a simulated reality. Thus, we are - all of us indeed - free to make some noise about it.

Indeed, if we actually do exist within a simulated reality, that in itself wouldn't constitute we are thus 'being religious'. Only when we then begin to claim what the creator of said Simulation 'must be like', do we fall into the rabbit hole of 'creating a religion(s)'

The one does not necessarily follow the other...

[VVilliam]

This points to the possibility that those who claim to be in a creation, are not aware that they are also claiming to be in a simulation, unless they can show why there is a difference between the two concepts. I see no difference, which is why I wrote the premise as it is.

You can't see a difference or don't want to acknowledge the difference in characterising the creators?

To characterize creators is putting the horse before the cart. I have moved on from such questions being relevant to the thread topic. Can you do the same?

Do you see a difference between Allah, God, Yahweh, Shiva and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

No. Do you see that mentioning these is besides the point of the thread topic?

[Skepdick]

Indeed, if we actually do exist within a simulated reality, that in itself wouldn't constitute we are thus 'being religious'. Only when we then begin to claim what the creator of said Simulation 'must be like', do we fall into the rabbit hole of 'creating a religion(s)'

The one does not necessarily follow the other...

But it does.

The answer to the question "How might you create a reality?" changed somewhere between 2000BC and 2021AD.

The word "simulation" has social connotation. You know what a computer is. You know how they work. You have a theory of recursion. Early Christians didn't.

So this power that the Christian God possesses - Christians didn't. The power to create universes was exclusively in God's domain. Which is weird because we were "made in God's image".
This power that the Simulation God possess - humans have it too. The power to create universe is now in the human domain too.

We are like Prometheus who stole Zeus's fire.

We are more in God's image today than we were 4000 years ago. Because we can now do what only Gods could.

[VVilliam]

Indeed, if we actually do exist within a simulated reality, that in itself wouldn't constitute we are thus 'being religious'. Only when we then begin to claim what the creator of said Simulation 'must be like', do we fall into the rabbit hole of 'creating a religion(s)'

The one does not necessarily follow the other...

But it does.

The answer to the question "How might you create a reality?" changed somewhere between 2000BC and 2021AD.

The word "simulation" has social connotation. You know what a computer is. You know how they work. You have a theory of recursion. Early Christians didn't.

So this power that the Christian God possesses - Christians didn't. The power to create universes was exclusively in God's domain. Which is weird because we were "made in God's image".
This power that the Simulation God possess - humans have it too. The power to create universe is now in the human domain too.

We are like Prometheus who stole Zeus's fire.

We are more in God's image today than we were 4000 years ago. Because we can now do what only Gods could.

Yes...but in that are you saying this means we would behave like that if we stopped assuming things about 'gods' and jumping down those rabbit holes?

2.382 billion Christians do have an effect on the reality we are all experiencing. The simulation/creation [if that is what it is] allows for manipulation of said simulation/creation - from within it.
That is what you are saying, "We are more in God's image today than we were 4000 years ago." is it not?

[Skepdick]

Yes...but in that are you saying this means we would behave like that is we stopped assuming things about 'gods'?

Behave like how?

Gods are just our role-models. Things we aspire to be.

As we become those things we aspire to be we have to re-invent our Gods - we need new aspirations.
Creator of The Universe sounds magnanimous. Programmer of The Simulation sounds lame.

The story of Gods has always been mankind's obsession with power - we want to be Gods. Apotheosis

[VVilliam]

Yes...but in that are you saying this means we would behave like that is we stopped assuming things about 'gods'?

Behave like how?

Gods are just our role-models. Things we aspire to be.

As we become those things we aspire to be we have to re-invent our Gods - we need new aspirations.
Creator of The Universe sounds magnanimous. Programmer of The Simulation sounds lame.

The story of Gods has always been mankind's obsession with power - we want to be Gods. Apotheosis

Wander much?

[Skepdick]

2.382 billion Christians do have an effect on the reality we are all experiencing. The simulation/creation [if that is what it is] allows for manipulation of said simulation/creation - from within it.
That is what you are saying, "We are more in God's image today than we were 4000 years ago." is it not?

8 billion humans have effect on the reality we are experiencing.

Whether it's a simulation/creation or not is moot.

This place we find ourselves in allows for manipulation/creation. Some manipulation is by virtue of intent/design (well thought out, precise and purposeful), some is by side-effect of our nature. We eat, we poop - it has to go somewhere.

So yea! Mould reality as you see fit - bend it to your will, you aspiring God, you!

Create things...Create knowledge. Knowledge IS power.

[Immanuel Can]

This points to the possibility that those who claim to be in a creation, are not aware that they are also claiming to be in a simulation, unless they can show why there is a difference between the two concepts. I see no difference, which is why I wrote the premise as it is.

There is not only a difference, but the concepts are opposite.

They don't have to know that they exist within a simulation.

But YOU would have to know that they were. Or some other definitive person would. Or else there would be nobody to say, "Hey, this isn't reality; it's a simulation."

So do you know there's a reality that is not the Creation?

Let's see your evidence for that.

[Immanuel Can]

Would you say that we are created in the image of God?

Genesis 1:27.