"In the beginning God created ...."

[Age]

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?

What does "wander much" mean, to you?

Was there ANY thing WRONG or INCORRECT in what was just said to you here in this post?

[VVilliam]

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?

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?

Okay...

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

Not what I said.

You are not referring to the promise of an after life when you said "more to come"?

In relation to Christian beliefs yes. I was not arguing that these have or do not have psychological benefits in this life...I am focused on the claimed difference between belief in this universe being a creation and belief in this universe being a simulation.

Since the afterlife is untestable by the living then the story could (if it has any benefit at all) only have a psychological benefit.

Be that as it may, my question isn't about that.

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

In relation to simulation theory, there is some implication therein, just as with the creation theory. My question remains "why co Christians believe we are within a creation but think that it is untrue that we are within a simulation."

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

Maybe so, but not what I said.

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

Then the idea that it is a psychological benefit in this life to believe we exist within a creation should naturally apply to the idea that we exist within a simulation. Why wouldn't it? Unless the two idea are actually different, which of course is what the OPQ is asking.
"What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?"

can you answer this?

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 an OP question... Living in a "creation" has zero connotation. Living in a simulation has the connotation of computation theory and information theory.

Flow of information from the Creator to Us is a communication channel. Thanks Claud Shannon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathema ... munication

So are you arguing that this is the difference between existing in a creation [Christian belief re physical universe] and existing within a simulated reality?

One offers "Flow of information from the Creator to Us" and the other does not?

[Skepdick]

In relation to Christian beliefs yes. I was not arguing that these have or do not have psychological benefits in this life...I am focused on the claimed difference between belief in this universe being a creation and belief in this universe being a simulation.

The difference is in human understanding.

A created universe is some unspecified magic.
A simulated universe is a computer.

One of those ideas is closer to science than the other.

In relation to simulation theory, there is some implication therein, just as with the creation theory. My question remains "why co Christians believe we are within a creation but think that it is untrue that we are within a simulation."

Because a simulation erases some of the mystery?

One of those ideas is closer to science (and thus - no longer mystical) than the other.

Humans like magic/mystery.

Then the idea that it is a psychological benefit in this life to believe we exist within a creation should naturally apply to the idea that we exist within a simulation. Why wouldn't it? Unless the two idea are actually different, which of course is what the OPQ is asking.

The ACTUAL difference is psychological. Which you continue to reject.

Which necessarily implies that you don't recognise psychological differences as valid differences.
And then I'd ask you if you think there's any actual difference between pain and joy. They are only in your head.

can you answer this?

The one is more magical, the one is more scientific. Qualitatively they are different.

So are you arguing that this is the difference between existing in a creation [Christian belief re physical universe] and existing within a simulated reality?

One offers "Flow of information from the Creator to Us" and the other does not?

No. I am arguing that simulation theory is a (much) higher fidelity model.

It can answer HOW questions? HOW did God create the universe? Genesis 1:1 didn't even mention his keyboard, or the specifications of his computer; or the programming language he used.

[Age]

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"

But this is VERY DIFFERENT. As can be CLEARLY SEEN. Besides the, literal, FACT that calling one 'thing' by a different 'label' is, literally, DIFFERENT.

Calling one's experiences 'a creation' is EXTREMELY, and EXTREMELY OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT than calling one's experiences 'a simulation'.

Now, what the ACTUAL Truth IS may NOT YET BE KNOWN. But it 'could be' COMPLETELY DIFFERENT or EXACTLY THE SAME. It is CERTAINLY NOT 'necessarily' COMPLETELY DIFFERENT nor EXACTLY THE SAME.

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.

AGAIN, do you seriously BELIEVE that ABSOLUTELY EVERY one who is called and labeled a "christian" thinks and says THE SAME 'things'?

And, conversely, do you seriously BELIEVE that if ANY one believes that the physical Universe is NOT a creation is therefore NOT a, so called, "christian"?

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?

[Age]

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.

What are you proposing would happen here?

Even IF 'you', human beings, found out that you will existing in a 'Reality simulation', this still does NOT detract from the FACT that you are STILL existing within Creation, Itself.

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.

LOL 'moot' is RELATIVE. So, 'moot' can only be, as 'moot' is chosen to be.

There is NO "might not be 'as moot' as SOME choose to see 'it'.

'Moot' is EXACTLY as, 'moot' as one has chosen to see 'it'.

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

[Age]

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.

Could you, but will you?

See, ANY one can 'argue' ANY thing. But whether that 'argument' is a sound AND valid argument is a WHOLE other matter.

If you WILL provide YOUR argument that "everything one can experience could be a simulation", then will can LOOK and SEE if that argument is an actual sound AND valid argument.

But if you do NOT provide what you CLAIM you could, then we will have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS here, regarding this.

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

You appear here to have a VERY TWISTED and DISTORTED misinterpretation of what the words 'afterlife' and 'heaven' here refers to.

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

LOL You have been TOLD, numerous times now, by a few what the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IS. But you just REFUSE to LOOK AT and SEE the DIFFERENCES, with an 'S'.

What this poster is doing is yet ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of how the BELIEF-system will PREVENT and STOP thee ACTUAL Truth getting through, which opposes the BELIEF, while it is being currently held and maintained.

[Age]

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.

Actually, when the word 'afterlife' is started to be used in the way that marries in with and unifies ALL together as One, which paints thee True picture of Life, Itself, then the 'afterlife' is ACTUALLY testable, in the Truest of senses, empirically/scientifically AND logically/reasonably.

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

That 'one' might NOT, but some of 'us' ALREADY DO.

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.

[Skepdick]

Actually, when the word 'afterlife' is started to be used in the way that marries in with and unifies ALL together as One, which paints thee True picture of Life, Itself, then the 'afterlife' is ACTUALLY testable, in the Truest of senses, empirically/scientifically AND logically/reasonably.

It's not communicable by those who have tested it to those who haven't.

That 'one' might NOT, but some of 'us' ALREADY DO.

Ohhhh! Some of you already dead?!?

Wicked. How are you posting on a forum from the afterlife?

[Age]

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.

No NOT for that reason at all, in regards to I was actually talking about and referring to.

What I was talking about and referring to was, JUST IMAGINE, that there is some 'thing' that can create ANOTHER 'thing'.

Now, the saying, "made in the Creator's (God's) image" does NOT necessitate that the created 'thing' is an 'image' of the Creator/God, itself.

That saying could just be referring to WHATEVER 'image' the Creator had for and of the created 'thing', then the created, is just 'made in 'that' image', alone. Which means, for example, if the Creator's (or the God's) image was of say; A not as powerful as 'me' (Creator/God) being, then that is the 'image' that the created 'thing/being' IS, or becomes, when created.

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.

You appear to be COMPLETELY MISSING MY POINT.

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

Yes this is ALL ALREADY VERY WELL UNDERSTOOD.

My point is the saying, "created in God's image", does NOT necessarily mean what some people have INTERPRETED it to mean. And this is all.

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?[/quote]

Why did you add a question mark at the end of this statement.

Apparently there is NO difference, to who, EXACTLY?

God didn't have the power to create his own universe.

WHERE is this interpretation/notion that God is a "he" coming from? And how could that even be a POSSIBILITY in the first place?

Also, who CLAIMS God did NOT have the power to create Its own Universe, or universe?

He only had the power to create ours. The simulated one.

Who CLAIMS this, EXACTLY?

And who is the "our" here?

And how does this possessive noun relate, EXACTLY?

I find just saying ONLY 'that' what is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' far easier and simpler to back up and support when, and IF, ever CHALLENGED and/or QUESTIONED.

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

Nothing stops evolving. It's how time works.

I am NOT SURE how the word 'time' relates here, but at the moment I also have absolutely NO interest at all in finding out.

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.

[VVilliam]

In relation to Christian beliefs yes. I was not arguing that these have or do not have psychological benefits in this life...I am focused on the claimed difference between belief in this universe being a creation and belief in this universe being a simulation.

The difference is in human understanding.

A created universe is some unspecified magic.
A simulated universe is a computer.

That makes sense. A Christian wouldn't want to think that the universe is 'merely' a simulation, because this would [somehow] imply that the creator is less than what Christians claim about the creator of this universe.

One of those ideas is closer to science than the other.

And science is regarded as something which is the enemy of Christian religion...because science take the gods creation and examines it and tells us that is is not the product of magic but of...?

In relation to simulation theory, there is some implication therein, just as with the creation theory. My question remains "why co Christians believe we are within a creation but think that it is untrue that we are within a simulation."

Because a simulation erases some of the mystery?

But does it really...well I suppose in relation to the 'mysterious' idea of a creator...perhaps...perhaps not...it would erase the image of a humanlike being upon a glorious throne surrounded by heavenly beings...but one could suppose that if a creator could simulate the physical universe the same creator could simulate heaven and a god on a throne for those who expect such...so the idea itself is repugnant to those who feel that such a simulation wouldn't be 'true' even if that is what they expect to experience as 'true' It has to be 'real' or it cannot be 'true...

Something to think about...

Then the idea that it is a psychological benefit in this life to believe we exist within a creation should naturally apply to the idea that we exist within a simulation. Why wouldn't it? Unless the two ideas are actually different, which of course is what the OPQ is asking.

The ACTUAL difference is psychological. Which you continue to reject.

Not so much reject as not understanding the significance of...until now...thank you.

It would be a psychological benefit to remain ignorant of the truth IF the truth was that we exist within a simulation because even if we then experienced a heaven in an afterlife, we could not be sure that it was actually real or just something created for (or perhaps even by) us, to fulfill our expectations.

It wouldn't be 'true' whereas believing the current creation is a true (real) creation and not a Simulated reality, then one can also believe the expected heaven that awaits one, will also be real and not a reality simulation.

Which necessarily implies that you don't recognise psychological differences as valid differences.

But the argument re "a psychological benefit" has it faults, because why should it matter, if the results expected are the same?

And then I'd ask you if you think there's any actual difference between pain and joy. They are only in your head.

I would answer that it does not matter 'where' they exist. If they are experienced as real, they could be part of the reality simulation and are meant to be experienced as real, and also as different.

So are you arguing that this is the difference between existing in a creation [Christian belief re physical universe] and existing within a simulated reality?

One offers "Flow of information from the Creator to Us" and the other does not?

No. I am arguing that simulation theory is a (much) higher fidelity model.

It can answer HOW questions? HOW did God create the universe?

Can you give any example?

Genesis 1:1 didn't even mention his keyboard, or the specifications of his computer.

Keyboard? Reminds me of something I saw once...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hShY6xZWVGE

[I don't know how to post the video onto this forum]

The first few chapters of Genesis seem to be bullet points of a story rather than the story itself.

So "In the beginning a creator simulated the universe and placed us into it to experience it as real." might not have meant anything to those around the ancient campfires listening to entertaining stories doing their darndest to answer human questions about their collective situation...

[Age]

I am focused on the claimed difference between belief in this universe being a creation and belief in this universe being a simulation.

If you WERE, Truly, 'focused' on this Universe being a Creation and this Universe being a simulation, then you would ALREADY be AWARE of the DIFFERENCE.

Are you YET AWARE of the DIFFERENCE?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then I will TELL you.

The DIFFERENCE between this Universe being a Creation and this Universe being a simulation is that this Universe could ONLY be a Creation, and thus could NOT be a simulation.

This is because of what the word 'Universe' refers to and MEANS, and because of what this Universe ACTUALLY IS and how It ACTUALLY WORKS.

Now, there is ANOTHER DIFFERENCE for you to LOOK AT and PONDER OVER. That is if you did get to ACTUALLY HEAR and SEE this DIFFERENCE.

Since the afterlife is untestable by the living then the story could (if it has any benefit at all) only have a psychological benefit.

Be that as it may, my question isn't about that.

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

In relation to simulation theory, there is some implication therein, just as with the creation theory. My question remains "why co Christians believe we are within a creation but think that it is untrue that we are within a simulation."

Do, so called, "christians" REALLY BELIEVE this?

If yes, then will you bring one forward so that 'I' could discuss this with 'them'?

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

Maybe so, but not what I said.

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

Then the idea that it is a psychological benefit in this life to believe we exist within a creation should naturally apply to the idea that we exist within a simulation. Why wouldn't it? Unless the two idea are actually different, which of course is what the OPQ is asking.

AND, which, OF COURSE, that question has been answered SUFFICIENTLY many times ALREADY. Although it appears that you have COMPLETELY MISSED EVERY ONE of these answers.

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

can you answer this?

Yes I CAN.

[Age]

In relation to Christian beliefs yes. I was not arguing that these have or do not have psychological benefits in this life...I am focused on the claimed difference between belief in this universe being a creation and belief in this universe being a simulation.

The difference is in human understanding.

A created universe is some unspecified magic.
A simulated universe is a computer.

One of those ideas is closer to science than the other.

But a created Universe is NOT even possible, 'in the beginning'.

In relation to simulation theory, there is some implication therein, just as with the creation theory. My question remains "why co Christians believe we are within a creation but think that it is untrue that we are within a simulation."

Because a simulation erases some of the mystery?

One of those ideas is closer to science (and thus - no longer mystical) than the other.

Humans like magic/mystery.

Then the idea that it is a psychological benefit in this life to believe we exist within a creation should naturally apply to the idea that we exist within a simulation. Why wouldn't it? Unless the two idea are actually different, which of course is what the OPQ is asking.

The ACTUAL difference is psychological. Which you continue to reject.

Which necessarily implies that you don't recognise psychological differences as valid differences.
And then I'd ask you if you think there's any actual difference between pain and joy. They are only in your head.

can you answer this?

The one is more magical, the one is more scientific. Qualitatively they are different.

So are you arguing that this is the difference between existing in a creation [Christian belief re physical universe] and existing within a simulated reality?

One offers "Flow of information from the Creator to Us" and the other does not?

No. I am arguing that simulation theory is a (much) higher fidelity model.

It can answer HOW questions? HOW did God create the universe? Genesis 1:1 didn't even mention his keyboard, or the specifications of his computer; or the programming language he used.

[Age]

Actually, when the word 'afterlife' is started to be used in the way that marries in with and unifies ALL together as One, which paints thee True picture of Life, Itself, then the 'afterlife' is ACTUALLY testable, in the Truest of senses, empirically/scientifically AND logically/reasonably.

It's not communicable by those who have tested it to those who haven't.

WHY would you even PRESUME such at 'thing' as this?

That 'one' might NOT, but some of 'us' ALREADY DO.

Ohhhh! Some of you already dead?!?

Wicked. How are you posting on a forum from the afterlife?

This was and IS the POINT I was ACTUALLY MAKING.

You are using the word 'afterlife' in a Truly WRONG and IMPOSSIBLE 'interpretation' of 'things'.

I said, WHEN the word 'afterlife' is STARTED to be USED IN THE WAY, that marries in with, and unifies, ALL together as One, THEN the 'afterlife' is ACTUALLY testable.

SEE, it is just YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION of what the words 'afterlife' are ACTUALLY referring to, is WHY you have such a DISTORTED and CLOSED view of 'things' here.

Is it POSSIBLE, to 'you', that the words 'afterlife' mean some 'thing' DIFFERENT to what you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE they do?

[Skepdick]

And science is regarded as something which is the enemy of Christian religion...because science take the gods creation and examines it and tells us that is is not the product of magic but of...?

The mission of science is to give us control over nature. Scientists aspire towards such power.

It seems to be a conflict of interest with the Christian God.

But does it really...well I suppose in relation to the 'mysterious' idea of a creator...perhaps...perhaps not...it would erase the image of a humanlike being upon a glorious throne surrounded by heavenly beings...but one could suppose that if a creator could simulate the physical universe the same creator could simulate heaven and a god on a throne for those who expect such...so the idea itself is repugnant to those who feel that such a simulation wouldn't be 'true' even if that is what they expect to experience as 'true' It has to be 'real' or it cannot be 'true...

Something to think about...

Well, you know how it goes with chickens and eggs. Seeming as the idea of "creation" was created by humans...

So if the idea of God-the-creator was originally created by humans then... I guess we are the original creators, eh?

Not so much reject as not understanding the significance of...until now...thank you.

It would be a psychological benefit to remain ignorant of the truth IF the truth was that we exist within a simulation because even if we then experienced a heaven in an afterlife, we could not be sure that it was actually real or just something created for (or perhaps even by) us, to fulfill our expectations.

In so far as I can tell - that's the same thing looked from a different perspective.

The idea of God was made in our self-image. The desire to be powerful - omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. The desire to create - universes if possible. We, humans, invent tools. It's one of the things which separates us from other animals.

It's the idea of control. We want to be in control of our destiny. Reality has other things in store...

It wouldn't be 'true' whereas believing the current creation is a true (real) creation and not a Simulated reality, then one can also believe the expected heaven that awaits one, will also be real and not a reality simulation.

I mean sure, that's one interpretation. Another interpretation of the simulation is that it's a penal colony. And if you aren't quite ready for parole or rehabilitated enough to go into the "real society" - back into the simulation you go! Much like the Indian idea of Karma/re-birth.

But the argument re "a psychological benefit" has it faults, because why should it matter, if the results expected are the same?

Because the journey towards the destination is more enjoyable that way.

I would answer that it does not matter 'where' they exist. If they are experienced as real, they could be part of the reality simulation and are meant to be experienced as real, and also as different.

But you do prefer joy to pain, do you not?

And so if the journey could be painful, or it could be joyful - I imagine you'd much prefer a joyful one. Even if the outcome (death; or afterlife) is the same.

Can you give any example?

Trivially. How did God create our universe? He has a much better computer/cloud than we do and more advanced programming languages.
And he modeled us up in 7 days.

If you have any experience/familiarity with programming/computation this explanation is more relatable than "he just made us".

Keyboard? Reminds me of something I saw once...

The interface itself is less significant than the fact that the Programmer interfaces with the computer somehow...

Voice. Neuralink. Whatever.

The first few chapters of Genesis seem to be bullet points of a story rather than the story itself.

Yeah, and none of those points mention God's tools/workbench/medium of expression/creation.

They sorta skip all of those details.

So "In the beginning a creator simulated the universe and placed us into it to experience it as real." might not have meant anything to those around the ancient campfires listening to entertaining stories doing their darndest to answer human questions about their collective situation...

Precisely. Because the idea of "simulation" was not prolific in society back then.

It reminds me of this article which explores the notion of "inferential distance" - the mental effort required to connect existing knowledge to new knowledge.

Can you even imagine the sort of metaphors, leaps and bounds of imagination you'd have to cover to explain a computer to somebody who teleported from 2000BC to 2021AD.

[Age]

In relation to Christian beliefs yes. I was not arguing that these have or do not have psychological benefits in this life...I am focused on the claimed difference between belief in this universe being a creation and belief in this universe being a simulation.

The difference is in human understanding.

A created universe is some unspecified magic.
A simulated universe is a computer.

That makes sense. A Christian wouldn't want to think that the universe is 'merely' a simulation, because this would [somehow] imply that the creator is less than what Christians claim about the creator of this universe.

One of those ideas is closer to science than the other.

And science is regarded as something which is the enemy of Christian religion...

ONLY to 'those' with VERY TWISTED, DISTORTED, and CLOSED views.

Because a simulation erases some of the mystery?

But does it really...well I suppose in relation to the 'mysterious' idea of a creator...perhaps...perhaps not...it would erase the image of a humanlike being upon a glorious throne surrounded by heavenly beings...

But WHY would 'you' have, and/or hold onto, such an IMPOSSIBLE image.

WHERE did this OBVIOUSLY False image come from, EXACTLY, and WHY do you continue to EXPRESS or PORTRAY this False image of 'things'.

I suggest just PROVIDING True, and NOT False, images ONLY.