"In the beginning God created ...."

[Skepdick]

Seriously? Do you really think that is implied in what I said?

You brought up uniqueness. One wonders why if it's of no import or implication.

[tillingborn]

You are...

You are ad hominem.

You have this back to front. I would be ad hominem if I were to claim that your ideas were idiotic because you are an idiot. In fact I think you are an idiot, because you believe idiotic ideas.

And you are fearful of logic, apparently.

That is just brattish petulance. Try your own logic: If God gave you choice and reason, what reason do you have to choose? What choice does reason give you?

[tillingborn]

Seriously? Do you really think that is implied in what I said?

You brought up uniqueness. One wonders why if it's of no import or implication.

One does, does one? Should you come up with an interesting theory that is worth bringing up, that doesn't make one wonder why you brought it up, by all means bring it up.

[Skepdick]

One does, does one? Should you come up with an interesting theory that is worth bringing up, that doesn't make one wonder why you brought it up, by all means bring it up.

Which makes one wonder why you are in the pursuit of "interesting theories worth bringing up".

And so, right back where we started.

Of course, I did point out that know-why is kinda important... And I don't know why you do what you do (pursue interesting theories). Is it just aesthetics, or is there more to it? What will you do with all the interesting theories you are hoarding?

[tillingborn]

What will you do with all the interesting theories you are hoarding?

I'm happy to share some of them. I have this idea that you are wanking as you type one handed - probably metaphorically, maybe literally. I can't imagine what else you get out of being such a dick.

[Skepdick]

I'm happy to share some of them.

Presumably because you think we can't find interesting theories ourselves? Are your theory-finding skills unique in some way? Do you have access to information/knowledge that we don't?

I have this idea that you are wanking as you type one handed - probably metaphorically, maybe literally. I can't imagine what else you get out of being such a dick.

That's ironic. I have this idea that you are intellectually masturbating while you do Philosophy. I can't imagine what else you get out of it.

Which is precisely why I asked if you do this for merely aesthetic reasons, or if there is more to it.

[tillingborn]

I have this idea that you are intellectually masturbating while you do Philosophy.

So you insert yourself into a philosophy forum. Whatever turns you on.

[tillingborn]

Which is precisely why I asked if you do this for merely aesthetic reasons, or if there is more to it.

No it isn't. That's just the most dickish thing you could think of saying at the time.

[Skepdick]

So you insert yourself into a philosophy forum. Whatever turns you on.

Know-why turns me on.

Which is precisely why I asked if you do this for merely aesthetic reasons, or if there is more to it.

[Skepdick]

No it isn't. That's just the most dickish thing you could think of saying at the time.

You aren't very charitable about my intentions.

Your hypothesis is certainly wrong, but if it's aesthetically pleasing then its wrongness probably doesn't matter to you.

[tillingborn]

No it isn't. That's just the most dickish thing you could think of saying at the time.

You aren't very charitable about my intentions.

Your hypothesis is certainly wrong, but if it's aesthetically pleasing then its wrongness probably doesn't matter to you.

Ah, you've come to a decision. If you want me to be charitable about your intentions, don't be so stupid as to tell me what they are:

And I can go on ad-infinitum attacking every single concept, feeling or idea you've ever have in your head.

And you aren't going to like it.

[Skepdick]

Ah, you've come to a decision. If you want me to be charitable about your intentions, don't be so stupid as to tell me what they are:

If you "charitability" depends on me, then you aren't really charitable, are you?

if you were less stupid than me, you would've inferred my intentions by know. Even if I hadn't told you what they are (which I did).

I want to know why.

[tillingborn]

Ah, you've come to a decision. If you want me to be charitable about your intentions, don't be so stupid as to tell me what they are:

I told you what they are.
I want to know why.

It's because you are a dick.

[Skepdick]

It's because you are a dick.

Why does tillingborn pursue interesting theories?
Because Skepdick is a dick.

That isn't even aesthetically pleasing. Is it?

[tillingborn]

How about instead of being rude ignorant pricks you take your argument elsewhere by starting your own thread.

You're right of course; sorry about that. Anyway, Christianity is basically Platonism with extra nails. For Plato the world was crafted by a demiurge out of gross matter according to divine templates called 'forms'. In the same way Christianity, at least in some shapes, claims that the temporal world is an imperfect model of the eternal world of heaven and that we are made in the image of God. People can quibble over the exact meaning of 'simulation', but in my view the answer to your question

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

is, 'Not much'.