IF the universe was created THEN...

[Immanuel Can]

I did not hallucinate

If you saw things that are unanchored to any reality, then indeed, you did hallucinate. If you know there's a reality, but what you saw was not it, then again, you did hallucinate.

If you didn't hallucinate, then it was because you DO know there is an objective reality, and you saw it, instead.

But how did you decide that what you saw was the real reality?

[VVilliam]

IF the universe was created THEN...we must exist within some type of Simulated Reality.

What it is simulating is beyond our reach with the present devices of science.

Are we able to identify possible evidence which scientific research has uncovered within this universe which could point to the possibility we do actually exist within a creation?

If the universe were created, it is true that we may or may not live within a simulation.

Why is it true? Why is it not true?

It is also true that if the universe were not created we may or may not be living in a simulation.

Please explain.

Nothing more can be concluded from the universe’s origin.

Perhaps...

But let’s assume we live in a simulation. We cannot have access to any evidence that would reveal the simulation as such, unless we are observing the simulation from outside the simulation. In other words we can only know that we exist inside a simulation if we exist outside the simulation.

Not necessarily.

The simulation may be designed in order that those experiencing it from the inside do not easily suspect they exist within a simulation.
But it may also hold clues which show those inside it that it is indeed a simulation. So it may be that it is not designed to never be understood as a simulation.

Since we have no knowledge that our reality is a simulation, we only know our reality as the actual reality, our universe as the real universe. Besides, even if our universe is one of many universes, it is the real and only universe for us.

Only for as long as we as individuals are experiencing it.

Also to note that those outside of it who can observe it would experience it differently than those within it...

[VVilliam]

I did not hallucinate

If you saw things that are unanchored to any reality, then indeed, you did hallucinate.

You have yet to understand - Perhaps your problem here is that you cannot reconcile your own beliefs to the idea that your God would create simulations which can be experienced as if they were real?

If you know there's a reality, but what you saw was not it, then again, you did hallucinate.

If this universe is a simulation and a god created it and you are not that god who created it, then you are hallucinating.

If you didn't hallucinate, then it was because you DO know there is an objective reality, and you saw it, instead.

If you believe that the universe was created by an entity [name that entity what you will] and believe that entity resides elsewhere [say 'Heaven'] then you could argue that where the entity resides must be "objective reality"...do you agree?

But how did you decide that what you saw was the real reality?

How do you decide that what you experience here and now is 'the real reality'?

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps your problem here...

Heh. I'm not having a problem at all.

If this universe is a simulation and a god created it and you are not that god who created it, then you are hallucinating.

That's a heck of list of "if"s for a guy who says he doesn't know what reality is.

If you believe that the universe was created by an entity [name that entity what you will] and believe that entity resides elsewhere [say 'Heaven'] then you could argue that where the entity resides must be "objective reality"...do you agree?

Oh, I see. You think that God must be inside space-time.

Well, no rational Theist thinks that's true: the Creator, by definition, cannot be constrained by the space-time that He Himself creates. If He were, He would not be the creator of it, by definition. It would be the creator of Him.

[VVilliam]

Your use of semmantics is noted. .

"Semantics" is the study of the precise use of language in context. I should hope we all "use" it. So thank you.

The Serpent in the garden also used semantics...

[VVilliam]

Perhaps your problem here is that you cannot reconcile your own beliefs to the idea that your God would create simulations which can be experienced as if they were real?

Heh. I'm not having a problem at all.

Apparently yes you are because you cannot accept that "Creation" and "Simulation" are the same thing...unless of course you have changed your mind regarding that idea...

If this universe is a simulation and a god created it and you are not that god who created it, then you are hallucinating.

That's a heck of list of "if"s for a guy who says he doesn't know what reality is.

That pointless comment aside, can you argue against the statement?

If you believe that the universe was created by an entity [name that entity what you will] and believe that entity resides elsewhere [say 'Heaven'] then you could argue that where the entity resides must be "objective reality"...do you agree?

Oh, I see. You think that God must be inside space-time.

Why would you think that is what I am arguing? Do you think where your God resides, is NOT an objective reality?

Well, no rational Theist thinks that's true: the Creator, by definition, cannot be constrained by the space-time that He Himself creates. If He were, He would not be the creator of it, by definition. It would be the creator of Him.

Which thus tells us that The Creator does not exist within an objective reality, by the reason you [a rational theist?] give here.

Which circles back to my argument that it is likely any thing which we experience as an objective reality, can be referred to as a simulation.
Why?
Because [using your rational] anywhere which The Creator resides, cannot be experienced as an objective reality so the objective reality must be the simulation [hallucination as you prefer]

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps your problem here is that you cannot reconcile your own beliefs to the idea that your God would create simulations which can be experienced as if they were real?

Heh. I'm not having a problem at all.

Apparently yes you are because you cannot accept that "Creation" and "Simulation" are the same thing

"Accept"? In order to "accept" something, what one "accepts" should be worthy of "acceptation." But something that's just not true, or something that lacks in any rational warrant, or something that cannot even be made coherent...should such things be "accepted"?

Heh. No.

can you argue against the statement?

Already done. No reality, no "simulation."

If you believe that the universe was created by an entity [name that entity what you will] and believe that entity resides elsewhere [say 'Heaven'] then you could argue that where the entity resides must be "objective reality"...do you agree?

Oh, I see. You think that God must be inside space-time.

Why would you think that is what I am arguing?

You say it has to be a "where" (your word) That puts it inside space-time.

But if you misspoke, feel free to reword.

[VVilliam]

Perhaps your problem here is that you cannot reconcile your own beliefs to the idea that your God would create simulations which can be experienced as if they were real?

Apparently yes you are because you cannot accept that "Creation" and "Simulation" are the same thing

"Accept"? In order to "accept" something, what one "accepts" should be worthy of "acceptation." But something that's just not true, or something that lacks in any rational warrant, or something that cannot even be made coherent...should such things be "accepted"?

Heh. No.

Agreed. Yet you haven't shown why a 'creation' cannot be a 'simulation'.

can you argue against the statement?

Already done. No reality, no "simulation."

Will you elaborate on this...maybe a paragraph - for the sake of clarity....what is this 'reality' you are referring to? Is it perhaps where your god resides? [do you believe your god resides is a reality?]

If you believe that the universe was created by an entity [name that entity what you will] and believe that entity resides elsewhere [say 'Heaven'] then you could argue that where the entity resides must be "objective reality"...do you agree?

Oh, I see. You think that God must be inside space-time.

Why would you think that is what I am arguing?

You say it has to be a "where" (your word) That puts it inside space-time.

What do you mean? Where is it you think space time is and where is it you think your god resides?

[Immanuel Can]

Yet you haven't shown why a 'creation' cannot be a 'simulation'.

Sure I have. I've shown you that statement itself isn't even coherent, let alone true. It has zero chance of being right.

You say it has to be a "where" (your word) That puts it inside space-time.

What do you mean?

The word "where" is what's called "an interrogative pronoun," and indicates a physical place.

It appears in phrases like, "...where that page is, in that book," or "...where the wild things grow." As such, it assumes you must be referring to space-time. If you were not, you shouldn't have used the word "where."

[VVilliam]

Also re your 'hallucination' theory - it can thus be argued that all alternative experiences recorded in the Christian bibles are hallucinations.

Jesus walking on water could have therefore been a group hallucination.

Jesus being tempted by a mythological being could have been an hallucination...indeed since it is also reported that he did not eat for over a month, one can say that this contributed to his hallucination.

Saint Johns Revelation could have been an hallucination.

[VVilliam]

Yet you haven't shown why a 'creation' cannot be a 'simulation'.

Sure I have. I've shown you that statement itself isn't even coherent, let alone true. It has zero chance of being right.

You say it has to be a "where" (your word) That puts it inside space-time.

What do you mean?

The word "where" is what's called "an interrogative pronoun," and indicates a physical place.

It appears in phrases like, "...where that page is, in that book," or "...where the wild things grow." As such, it assumes you must be referring to space-time. If you were not, you shouldn't have used the word "where."

What word would you use then?

[Immanuel Can]

What word would you use then?

It wasn't my claim. I have no way of knowing what word you meant. But "where" would imply space-time. And with that, I point out the flaw in logic. If God exists, He is beyond space-time, and is not an "object" within the world of mere "objects." He is, as Theists say, "transcendent."

Is this language new to you?

[VVilliam]

What word would you use then?

It wasn't my claim. I have no way of knowing what word you meant. But "where" would imply space-time. And with that, I point out the flaw in logic. If God exists, He is beyond space-time, and is not an "object" within the world of mere "objects." He is, as Theists say, "transcendent."

Is this language new to you?

My reason for asking was rational enough. We appear to be at cross purposes in relation to how we are using language differently. My question is therefore related to that.

By understanding what you think about the creator it helps me to then understand how best to word things.

So far it appears what you are saying is that the creator does not exist in a place. Would that be correct?

[commonsense]

.

[Immanuel Can]

So far it appears what you are saying is that the creator does not exist in a place. Would that be correct?

Your wording is problematic again, but maybe we can fix it.

God "exists," but not as subject to space-time. He exists as both transcendent and immanent, if you're familiar with those terms. Basically, it means he's capable of acting within the reality we experience, but is not bound by it. That's what we Theists believe.