"In the beginning God created ...."

[VVilliam]

Person 2: "I am happy to view what evidence you have to show me, but won't accept your word for it that "it exists"

Quite right. You shouldn't. And no one is asking you to.

But "I haven't seen it" is not synonymous with "It doesn't exist." All it means is that the first speaker hasn't been everywhere and seen everything.

What doesn't exist? How is your argument even relative to the Thread topic?

[Walker]

You're still enslaved by the need that causes you to be a Cap-freak.

And you are still enslaved by the need that causes you to be a Control-freak.

You have no free-will control over it.

When you least expect it, the corruption appears.

Set yourself free, Walker

What controls me, controls you. The controller controls the capacity-load of the controlled. This is how the controller uses me to offer rationality and wisdom, and it uses you to contrast and thus highlight the offering. Aha, aha. The same thing happens when the controller contrasts me with a sucker, or a saint.

To the offended … from one perspective, all is trolldom. From another, all is relevant and application of that relevance to any specific topic would be a rather useless insight if one is too severely perspective-challenged, a corruption that could be caused by grinding out technical manuals to pay the rent, hopefully none of which could possibly happen in a PN place.

Hex Hammer advises us that this is the realm of cozy chat, and over time this insight has revealed as truth.

So, loosen up and see … no vicious defense of illusions is required for social intercourse just because incomprehension causes a minor case of passing frustration.

[Immanuel Can]

What qualifies me is based on empirical facts. Boston exists is an empirical fact that is similar to scientific facts.

Well, empirical facts are premised on personal experience and testing. But if you haven't been to Boston, how are you going to do that? So you don't then actually have empirical facts available to you: you have testimony, secondary evidence (like maps and pictures), and so on, but not the ability to test empirically.

To test empirically, you would have to agree to go to Boston and see for yourself: touch the buildings, drink the water, breathe the air there, and so on. But what if you've already arbitrarily decided that Boston can't possibly exist? Then you won't go. A Boston-skeptic will just insist it's not there, but without evidence, and may even irrationally insist that because he doesn't believe in Boston, nobody else is allowed to either.

Like Atheists do.

[Immanuel Can]

What doesn't exist? How is your argument even relative to the Thread topic?

God. That was the noun in your own phrase, as above.

[VVilliam]

What doesn't exist? How is your argument even relative to the Thread topic?

God. That was the noun in your own phrase, as above.

"God" [the name of the Christian god] doesn't exist?

[Immanuel Can]

"God" [the name of the Christian god] doesn't exist?

No. I'm denying your claim that there is no evidence for God. But I'm sure you could figure that out.

[VVilliam]

"God" [the name of the Christian god] doesn't exist?

No. I'm denying your claim that there is no evidence for God. But I'm sure you could figure that out.

Where did I claim that?

[Immanuel Can]

"God" [the name of the Christian god] doesn't exist?

No. I'm denying your claim that there is no evidence for God. But I'm sure you could figure that out.

Where did I claim that?

I apologize if you didn't. i understood this comment to be intended that way:

People state such things all the time. They state "I have the evidence".
I suppose that can even be regarded as a claim...

[VVilliam]

No. I'm denying your claim that there is no evidence for God. But I'm sure you could figure that out.

Where did I claim that?

I apologize if you didn't. i understood this comment to be intended that way:

People state such things all the time. They state "I have the evidence".
I suppose that can even be regarded as a claim...

My focus is upon the understanding that IF we exist within a 'creation' THEN we exist within a Simulated Reality.

You did not make it plain that you were referring to a god as you were referring to evidence you have, but again, the focus of the thread is not on the existence of any creator, but on the existence of the Simulated Reality/ Creation.

[Immanuel Can]

...the focus of the thread is not on the existence of any creator, but on the existence of the Simulated Reality/ Creation.

Funny that you gave it the title you did, then.

But if you say so now, we can go that way.

[VVilliam]

...the focus of the thread is not on the existence of any creator, but on the existence of the Simulated Reality/ Creation.

Funny that you gave it the title you did, then.

But if you say so now, we can go that way.

Not at all. The title has to do with the observation that [in this case Christians] believe they exist within a Creation.
Therefore, [if that is the case] what they believe is the same thing said differently. If they believe they exist within a creation, then it is the same thing as saying "We exist within a Simulated Reality".

[Immanuel Can]

If they believe they exist within a creation, then it is the same thing as saying "We exist within a Simulated Reality".

And what I've been pointing out is that the term "simulation" automatically requires the existence of an "original." It's just like the word "copy" or "imitation," in that respect: there has to be something real that the "copy" or the "imitation" or the "simulation" is replicating. If there's no such other state, then the current situation is not a "simulation" or "copy" or "imitation" of anything...it's the original, because it's the only reality there is.

And so, since you say this world is a "simulation," I'm asking you for what evidence you have of the existence of the "original," of which this is (you are saying) the "simulation."

And you say you have none.

And that's where we are.

[VVilliam]

If they believe they exist within a creation, then it is the same thing as saying "We exist within a Simulated Reality".

And what I've been pointing out is that the term "simulation" automatically requires the existence of an "original." It's just like the word "copy" or "imitation," in that respect: there has to be something real that the "copy" or the "imitation" or the "simulation" is replicating. If there's no such other state, then the current situation is not a "simulation" or "copy" or "imitation" of anything...it's the original, because it's the only reality there is.

And so, since you say this world is a "simulation," I'm asking you for what evidence you have of the existence of the "original," of which this is (you are saying) the "simulation."

And you say you have none.

And that's where we are.

Then your confusion has to do with assuming that I am making a claim either way.

I am not.

Nor am I a "Christian".

All I am pointing out is that IF Christians believe that they exist within a creation, THEN they might as well say that they exist within a simulation .

Weather or not it is a matter of fact, is not the focus of the thread topic or OP. You appear to think it should be...but what you are arguing is a topic of its own.

[Immanuel Can]

Nor am I a "Christian".

Nor do you have to be, in order to have an opinion, of course.

All I am pointing out is that IF Christians believe that they exist within a creation, THEN they might as well say that they exist within a simulation .

And I'm (respectfully) disagreeing, and pointing out that "I exist within a simulation" is not a statement that can make sense for anyone who doesn't have reason to believe there's such a thing as "non-simulated" reality.

Or, to put it another way, if the Creation is all there is to reality as you and I experience it, then what's the use of calling it a "simulation"? It's not "simulating" anything.

[VVilliam]

You can disagree all you want.

If you want to discuss that, you can start a thread and I will be happy to discuss that with you.

Meanwhile. since there is not argument against the observations that the Christian belief that we exist within a creation is fundamentally no different that the belief we exist within a simulation, I am happy with that conclusion.