"In the beginning God created ...."

[Immanuel Can]

From what I can ascertain, Atheists are compelled to their conclusion because they have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Well, somebody can ask the Atheist this: just where is "I have no evidence," (not even the claim, "There IS no evidence") a good argument for anything?

It's just a confession of personal ignorance...no more. They're just saying, "I don't personally happen to have any experience of that," which is no more impressive than saying, "I've never been to Boston." It won't stop Boston existing.

You appear to be implying that you do have evidence,

I'm sorry: did I seem merely to imply? My fault for being indirect.

No, I was stating it -- as have many others, you will find.

[VVilliam]

You appear to be implying that you do have evidence,

No, I was stating it -- as have many others, you will find.

Yes - I do find that to be the case. Often.

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

[Immanuel Can]

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

Of course it can. It is.

But there can be no objection to such a claim, if the only statement an objector can make is, "Well, I don't personally know any evidence." For that might well be true, and the evidence exist nonetheless.

Boston will still be Boston, even if a person truthfully says, "Well, I've never seen Boston."

[Ginkgo]

It's just a confession of personal ignorance...no more. They're just saying, "I don't personally happen to have any experience of that," which is no more impressive than saying, "I've never been to Boston." It won't stop Boston existing.

That argument doesn't work IC. When I say Boston exists, even though I have never been there, I am making an empirical claim. In other words, I am making a claim based on the experience of others.When I make the claim that God does not exist in empirical terms it is not only my personal experience, but the experience of others as well.

[VVilliam]

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

Of course it can. It is.

Okay.

But there can be no objection to such a claim, if the only statement an objector can make is, "Well, I don't personally know any evidence." For that might well be true, and the evidence exists nonetheless.

So you are saying it goes like the following?

Person 1: "You don't know what I have, in fact."

Person 2: "Is what you have, evidence?"

Person 1: "Yes it is"

Person 2: "But what of it? People state such things all the time. They state "I have the evidence"."

Person 1: But there can be no objection to such a claim, if the only statement an objector can make is, "Well, I don't personally know any evidence."

Person 2: "I am not objecting on the grounds that I may personally not know of any evidence"

Person 1: "For that might well be true and the evidence exists nonetheless."

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"

Boston will still be Boston, even if a person truthfully says, "Well, I've never seen Boston.

What does that mean? That the evidence you say exists, cannot be shown to me because you have to take me to where it is?

What is your claim in regards to the premise?

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

[VVilliam]

It's just a confession of personal ignorance...no more. They're just saying, "I don't personally happen to have any experience of that," which is no more impressive than saying, "I've never been to Boston." It won't stop Boston existing.

That argument doesn't work IC. When I say Boston exists, even though I have never been there, I am making an empirical claim. In other words, I am making a claim based on the experience of others.When I make the claim that God does not exist it is not only my personal experience, but the experience of others as well.

Is that the claim being made? That 'God exists'?

The thread topic isn't asking that question at all.
The question is;
"What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?"


The observation is;
"Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation."

The Implication that we exist within a creation amounts to;
"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

The Claim is:
Even that we believe we exist within a creation, if we are, then we are existing in a Simulated Reality, for it is the same thing.

Evidence against the claim will;
Prove that the claim is false by showing the evidence that existing within a creation is different from existing within a Simulated Reality.

[VVilliam]

[Ginkgo]

It's just a confession of personal ignorance...no more. They're just saying, "I don't personally happen to have any experience of that," which is no more impressive than saying, "I've never been to Boston." It won't stop Boston existing.

That argument doesn't work IC. When I say Boston exists, even though I have never been there, I am making an empirical claim. In other words, I am making a claim based on the experience of others.When I make the claim that God does not exist it is not only my personal experience, but the experience of others as well.

Is that the claim being made? That 'God exists'?

The thread topic isn't asking that question at all.
The question is;
"What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?"


The observation is;
"Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation."

The Implication that we exist within a creation amounts to;
"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

The Claim is:
Even that we believe we exist within a creation, if we are, then we are existing in a Simulated Reality, for it is the same thing.

Evidence against the claim will;
Prove that the claim is false by showing the evidence that existing within a creation is different from existing within a Simulated Reality.

I guess one could always argue that a simulated reality exists on top of a creation. That would serve to make them two separate realities.

[Immanuel Can]

It's just a confession of personal ignorance...no more. They're just saying, "I don't personally happen to have any experience of that," which is no more impressive than saying, "I've never been to Boston." It won't stop Boston existing.

That argument doesn't work IC.

Yeah, it does.

When I say Boston exists, even though I have never been there, I am making an empirical claim. In other words, I am making a claim based on the experience of others.

That's the point: what qualifies you to make a claim about the experiences that others are allowed to have? What qualifies one person to say "Boston can't exist because I've never been there," or even "Boston doesn't exist because I and my cousin Fred and aunt Myrtle have never been there"?

If your great aunt Tillie says she has, and your nephew Elmo says he lives in Boston, then your experience and Fred's and Myrtle's just don't count against that at all. If they're telling the truth, then it makes no difference at all what anyone else have or have not personally experienced. That just speaks to the limitations of one's own experience.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Boston will still be Boston, even if a person truthfully says, "Well, I've never seen Boston.

What does that mean? That the evidence you say exists, cannot be shown to me because you have to take me to where it is?

Not at all. You can go to Boston...but I can't take you there if you refuse to go. Or I can show you pictures of Boston...but I can't make you admit that they are from Boston, if you are determined to believe they're not. Or I can bring you other people who are Bostonians...but I can't make you agree that they are Bostonians if you've already decided Boston is merely a mythical land like Lilliput or Middle Earth.

What is your claim in regards to the premise? "Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

That it is both factually false and self-contradictory. It is not the case that "Anyone who thinks that...also says..." And there is no such thing as a simulation if there is not something "real" that is being "simulated." We might add that, given the admitted absence of any proof of a "reality" that is being "simulated," there is no reason at all to think it's true. So on no terms does the claim make any sense.

[Ginkgo]

It's just a confession of personal ignorance...no more. They're just saying, "I don't personally happen to have any experience of that," which is no more impressive than saying, "I've never been to Boston." It won't stop Boston existing.

That argument doesn't work IC.

Yeah, it does.

When I say Boston exists, even though I have never been there, I am making an empirical claim. In other words, I am making a claim based on the experience of others.

That's the point: what qualifies you to make a claim about the experiences that others are allowed to have? What qualifies one person to say "Boston can't exist because I've never been there," or even "Boston doesn't exist because I and my cousin Fred and aunt Myrtle have never been there"?

If your great aunt Tillie says she has, and your nephew Elmo says he lives in Boston, then your experience and Fred's and Myrtle's just don't count against that at all. If they're telling the truth, then it makes no difference at all what anyone else have or have not personally experienced. That just speaks to the limitations of one's own experience.

No, it doesn't work IC

What qualifies me is based on empirical facts. Boston exists is an empirical fact that is similar to scientific facts. The point is that we are not talking about the experience of great aunt Tillie or any other particular individuals, we are talking about facts that are based on demonstration. Empirical evidence doesn't rely on what a handful of individuals experience or don't experience.

[VVilliam]

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

Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation.

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

[VVilliam]

To clarify then.

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

Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation.

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

[Ginkgo]

To clarify then.

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

Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation.

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

Probably not much difference. As I said in a previous post, a reality simulation could exist on top of a creation, that way we could have two distinct realities.

[VVilliam]

To clarify then.

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

Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation.

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

There could be uncountable realities to experience and all of them could be simulations.
Probably not much difference. As I said in a previous post, a reality simulation could exist on top of a creation, that way we could have two distinct realities.

There could be uncountable realities to experience and all of them could be simulations. The point to the OP is to say there is no difference between 'Something created" and "a reality simulation".
There is no argument that 'different realities' might exist.