"In the beginning God created ...."

[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.

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

In what way?

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."

Not in relation to a Reality Simulation, where the simulation is experienced as real. You experience this universe as real, do you not? You are not alone in that.
Christians call this real experience a "creation" - which is no different than calling it a "simulation"
The "real" part is just a unnecessary addition - like saying "This is a Real Creation" or "this is a Reality Simulation" Both are created to be experienced as real. Christians believe the physical universe is a real creation. No debate there.

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

You mean have I experienced another reality that is not this reality?

Even if I have, it is not something which can be shared objectively.

Let's see your evidence for that.

You would have to see your own evidence for that by subjectively experiencing it for yourself. Have you experienced another reality that is not this reality?

[VVilliam]

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.

Tell that to 8 billion humans who believe they exist within a creation.

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.

Even so, while one can do this, one does not care if one is doing so within a simulated reality...but if it is, this could also mean there is more to come after this simulation is "over" for the individual, so it might not be as 'moot' as some choose to see it.

If you could know that there was, would that knowledge give you power?

[Skepdick]

Tell that to 8 billion humans who believe they exist within a creation.

What's the difference between believing I exist within a universe, and believing I exist within a created universe?

Practically - nothing.

Even so, while one can do this, one does not care if one is doing so within a simulated reality...but if it is, this could also mean there is more to come after this simulation is "over" for the individual, so it might not be as 'moot' as some choose to see it.

Sure. Promises of after-life have psychological benefits in this life.

Whether the promises are true or false, the psychological benefits are real.

If you could know that there was, would that knowledge give you power?

Yes, it would. Open communications channel to the creator.

[Immanuel Can]

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

In what way?

In the way of contradicting each other. Something simulated is not real; something real is not simulated.

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."

Not in relation to a Reality Simulation, where the simulation is experienced as real. You experience this universe as real, do you not?

That's irrelevant. If nobody knows it's a simulation, then there's nobody to call it a "simulation" -- and it's not. Then, it's the only reality there is, and as real as anything can be.

So again, how do you know that this is a "simulation"? What's your evidence for that.

Christians call this real experience a "creation" - which is no different than calling it a "simulation"

Oh...I see the mistake you're making. You think "created" implies "artificial." But it does not.

Picasso created all his paintings; it does not imply they're not "real" paintings.

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

You mean have I experienced another reality that is not this reality?[/quote]
Right. You'd have to have done that, and to have proof that this "another reality" was the REAL one, or you would have no basis to say that this one was a "simulation."

Even if I have, it is not something which can be shared objectively.

Then you have no evidence. All you have is your own imagining, which you can't confirm. Maybe your experience was actually the delusion, the "simulation," and this is the real reality. How would you know? You' wouldn't.

[VVilliam]

Tell that to 8 billion humans who believe they exist within a creation.

What's the difference between believing I exist within a universe, and believing I exist within a created universe?

Practically - nothing.

Does this infer that there is 'something' of a difference? If so, what?

Even so, while one can do this, one does not care if one is doing so within a simulated reality...but if it is, this could also mean there is more to come after this simulation is "over" for the individual, so it might not be as 'moot' as some choose to see it.

Sure. Promises of after-life have psychological benefits in this life.

Not what I said.

Whether the promises are true or false, the psychological benefits are real.

Maybe so, but not what I said.

If you could know that there was, would that knowledge give you power?

Yes, it would. Open communications channel to the creator.

Assumption. But all in all, how is that relevant to the thread question?

[VVilliam]

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

In what way?

In the way of contradicting each other. Something simulated is not real; something real is not simulated.

Do you think that the universe cannot be simulated to appear real to those experiencing it as real?

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."

Not in relation to a Reality Simulation, where the simulation is experienced as real. You experience this universe as real, do you not?

That's irrelevant. If nobody knows it's a simulation, then there's nobody to call it a "simulation" -- and it's not. Then, it's the only reality there is, and as real as anything can be.

Therefore Christians calling the universe a 'creation' can be critiqued using the same argument. "If nobody knows it's a creation, then there's nobody to call it a "creation" -- and it's not. Then, it's the only reality there is, and as real as anything can be."

Christians call this real experience a "creation" - which is no different than calling it a "simulation"

Oh...I see the mistake you're making. You think "created" implies "artificial." But it does not.

Picasso created all his paintings; it does not imply they're not "real" paintings.

So in relation to the Christian belief, God created the physical universe does not imply the universe is not a "real" universe.

However, do you also argue that a simulation couldn't be created to give those experiencing it the impression it actually is real?

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

You mean have I experienced another reality that is not this reality?

Right. You'd have to have done that, and to have proof that this "another reality" was the REAL one, or you would have no basis to say that this one was a "simulation."

But I could argue that everything one can experience could be a simulation. Even if Christians get to experience their afterlife in heaven, that too, could be just a simulation. How would they know?

So what is your answer to the question "What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?"

[Age]

But I could argue that everything one can experience could be a simulation. Even if Christians get to experience their afterlife in heaven, that too, could be just a simulation. How would they know?

But it would NOT matter if they KNEW or NOT. This is because ALL of this IS ACTUALLY happening IN Creation, Itself.

You OBVIOUSLY can NOT refute this. So, if you were Truly Honest would HAVE TO admit that ALL of this is IN thee One and ONLY REAL Creation, Itself, and NOT in a 'simulation of Reality'.

So what is your answer to the question "What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?"

There difference is one could be IN a 'Reality simulation' while the other is NOT. But in BOTH cases existing is STILL occurring IN Creation, Itself.

LOOK, you are OBVIOUSLY 'trying' YOUR HARDEST to 'argue' and/or 'fight' for a CURRENTLY held onto BELIEF, which you assume and/or believe is IRREFUTABLY TRUE. But what you are doing is NOT WORKING for 'you' AT ALL.

You will NEVER 'prove', what you are appear SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' 'prove' here, the way you are going about this.

What you NEED is ACTUAL 'evidence' and/or 'proof', of which you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Is this UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

[Age]

"vvilliam" you appear to only want to attract, (lure or troll), "christians" to argue with/against.

However, your point of view can has ALREADY been squashed and defeated by the VERY FACT that NO matter how many 'Reality simulators' you want to talk about, EACH and EVERY one of them was made by some REAL 'thing', which OBVIOUSLY would HAVE TO EXIST IN Reality, or IN Creation, Itself.

Therefore, 'you' AND EVERY other 'thing' IS IN Creation. Full stop.

You OBVIOUSLY can NOT refute Creation, Itself. So, would you like to now move onto what you were next going to 'try to' argue for, and/or against?

Or, would you prefer to just stay focused on those who are labeled and called "christians" because these are the only ones you have found you can 'argue' against, "successfully"?

By the way, what IS Creating this Creation is ALREADY KNOWN and WELL UNDERSTOOD. Which, by the way, you could NOT refute EITHER.

So, you are now STUCK in the EXACT OPPOSITE position, and with the EXACT OPPOSITE point of view, of which you came here with.

[Age]

The point of reality simulation is that it is experienced as real.

But a "simulation" means that is a delusion.

If the simulation being experienced was designed to experience delusional as a reality, then in that case - yes.
Simulations of themselves are simply devices which can produce experience for any who use them.

If those who use them are delusional, then whatever they experience will be experienced through that deluded filter, whether the particular simulation was designed to experience delusion or not.

And one can't call something a "simulation" unless one also KNOWS it is unreal:

All simulation can be seen to be unreal, but what can be shown to be real?

If this universe was a simulation created to appear to be real to those experiencing it [a reality simulation] then that means
one can see it as - possibly - a simulated reality.
In that, one could look for evidence which supports the suspicion.
In relation to the OP Premise;

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

But this, so called, "premise" is NOT even necessarily True AT ALL. As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVEN True.

NOT EVERY one who thinks "we exist within a creation" also says "that we exist within a Reality Simulation", at all.

AND, to ASSUME and BELIEVE this is just ABSURDITY of the highest degree.

So, YOUR 'premise' has been SHOWN to be Wrong AND False, of which you can NOT deny NOR refute.

Those who do not think we exist within a creation can argue for that being the case...but the focus and intent of the thread [for me] is on the premise.

Well that 'premise' HAS ALREADY been quashed AND defeated. So that is the end of that.

By the way, for those who do NOT think that we exist within a Creation, then WHERE do you think 'we exist'?

Also, you just made the CLAIM that those who do NOT think that "we exist within a Creation" can 'argue' for this being the case.

Now, are you one of THOSE who do NOT think that "we exist within a Creation"?

If yes, then go ahead and ARGUE that this is the case. You CLAIMED it could be done. But until you ACTUALLY do it, then what you say could just be COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong.

So, if you do think that, but you do NOT argue for that, then you are SHOWING and REVEALING MORE about "you" ALL the time. Understood?

The OPQ is;

"What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?"

ALREADY ANSWERED SUFFICIENTLY, numerous times.

Some have it in their minds that they can believe we do not exist within a simulation but still want to confuse things by referring to reality [the physical universe] as a "Creation" even that they do not believe in the existence of creator(s) [God]

So what?

All sorts of people think things, which seem weird and/or wonderful to "others". But what was the point of highlighting this here now?

[Age]

"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.

Are you REALLY 'serious' about you seeing NO difference, even AFTER all of these answers have been provided to you?

LOOK, a creation 'can' happen in a 'Reality simulator'. A 'Reality simulator' 'has to' happen within Creation. But, Creation 'can NOT' happen within a 'Reality simulator'.

Now, there is ANOTHER answer of what the DIFFERENCE IS.

Can you STILL see NO difference?

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.

This is just so TWISTED and DISTORTED.

WHY "should" 'creation' therefore also mean; simulation?

What is this ASSUMPTION/BELIEF based on, EXACTLY?

Also, WHY do you have this constant NEED to say that if one thinks that they exist within Creation, then they ARE claiming to exist within a 'simulation' as well?

This is just SO UNTRUE that it is LAUGHABLE to observe you continually doing it.

The MAIN, and maybe ONLY, reason you CLAIM this is because this is the ONLY WAY YOUR 'view', or 'argument', could stand up.

[Age]

"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.

LOL Are you here REALLY 'trying to' suggest that ALL, so called, "christians" deny AND say the EXACT SAME 'things'?

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...

[Skepdick]

Does this infer that there is 'something' of a difference? If so, what?

I have absolutely no idea.

For starters, I can't even determine which one I "actually believe".

Both narratives exist in my mind. How do I determine my "belief" about them?

Not what I said.

You are not referring to the promise of an after life when you said "more to come"?
Since the afterlife is untestable by the living then the story could (if it has any benefit at all) only have a psychological benefit.

It MIGHT have a benefit in an after life, but you don't actually know if there's such a thing.

Maybe so, but not what I said.

You can't tell that's the implication of your words?

Assumption. But all in all, how is that relevant to the thread question?

Not an assumption. Fact. To know is to learn. To learn is to obtain access to information that exists, but I didn't previously have access to.

Any means of obtaining this information a communication channel makes.

Directly relevant to the OP question... Living in a "creation" has minimal connotation.
Living in a simulation has the theoretical connotation of information theory.

[Age]

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".

WHY is this "weird" to you?

Being made in a Creator's 'image' does NOT mean that the created one HAS the power of the Creator.

If I, for example, could be the Creator of a species, then the 'image' I have for that created species is to look and behave a certain way. Part of that 'image' could be to CERTAINLY NOT have My power. That is; UNTIL that created species had evolved enough to be Truly INTELLIGENT enough to NOT destroy want I had Created, for them.

See, the phrase, 'made in God's image', does NOT necessarily mean to be or to look just like God, but rather to just be made in the 'image' of what God had of and for 'them'.

Which MAY or MAY NOT, by the way, BE to just keep evolving until they discover and thus are able to answer the question, 'Who 'I' am?' properly AND correctly, for example?

This power that the Simulation God possess - humans have it too. The power to create universe is now in the human domain too.

Did you mean the power to create 'simulated universes' here? Or, did you actually mean the power to create an actual Universe?

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.

AND, 'we', the human being, do NOT STOP 'evolving', correct?

If correct, then 'we' can and will keep 'evolving' until either we become so God-like that 'we', collectively, have become God, or 'we' just destroy "ourselves", and/or our own home, planet earth, through continual greed, abuse, and wars.

That choice has been given to 'you', human beings, ALONE.

You are, after all, ABSOLUTELY FREE to CHOOSE what you want to do with YOUR 'life'.

[Age]

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.

WHY do you PERSISTENTLY INSIST that 'Creation' and 'simulation' are the One and EXACT SAME 'thing'.

They are NOT, as they are OBVIOUSLY two VERY different 'things'.

WHY do you SEE and BELIEVE that they are ONE and the SAME?

One OBVIOUSLY happens WITHIN the other, while one OBVIOUSLY could NOT happen WITHIN the other. Surely which one is which does NOT need to be EXPLAINED, correct?

That is what you are saying, "We are more in God's image today than we were 4000 years ago." is it not?

[Skepdick]

Being made in a Creator's 'image' does NOT mean that the created one HAS the power of the Creator.

Because we aren't made in the Creator's image. The Creator is made in ours.

You should be able to tell because the Gods of old resembled the human-creators of old. Old, wise men.
The Gods of new resemble the human-creators of new. Programmers.

The Creators that we invent necessarily have a greater power than us. This is the whole point of role models/archetypes.

Did you mean the power to create 'simulated universes' here? Or, did you actually mean the power to create an actual Universe?

Apparently there's no difference?

God didn't have the power to create his own universe. He only had the power to create ours. The simulated one.

AND, 'we', the human being, do NOT STOP 'evolving', correct?

Nothing stops evolving. It's how time works.

If correct, then 'we' can and will keep 'evolving' until either we become so God-like that 'we', collectively, have become God, or 'we' just destroy "ourselves", and/or our own home, planet earth, through continual greed, abuse, and wars.

That choice has been given to 'you', human beings, ALONE.

You are, after all, ABSOLUTELY FREE to CHOOSE what you want to do with YOUR 'life'.

No shit.