"In the beginning God created ...."

[Age]

While it is an interesting concept, how does it fit into the OPQ?

Obviously [to me] you are arguing that we are indeed within a simulation but that it is our brains which provide us with the reality [are the creators of the simulation] but in that you have to then explain what the "we" is which are experiencing said simulation. Nor have you explained why it is that we share the simulation with other individuals [the "we"] if our brains [the brains inside our skulls] are individual. Why are the individual brains supplying us with a collective experience? Are they somehow connected to an overall brain which does not reside within any human skull?

It would take me forever to explain all this to you.

Well thanks for coming along and attempting to promote an idea which you haven't got all the time in the universe to "explain".

My questions are pertinent in regard to your claim that "the Brain did it" and are easily enough answered unless, of course, 'the brain didn't do it'.
Then it would make sense that even given forever, one could not explain it. In that, it has to be regarded as a false claim followed by a handwave.

Importantly, whatever [brain/brains/super-brain/super brains or something else] created the Simulation we are experiencing, the OPQ is focused upon why Christians see a difference between the idea of being in a creation as opposed to the idea of being in a simulated reality.

WHY, so called, "christians" see a difference here is because they just BELIEVE that a 'thing' called God created Everything, and that this God-thing is TRUE and REAL and that what It created is TRUE and REAL also, and thus NOT just a simulation of Reality.

Remember when ANY human being, "christian" or not, BELIEVES ANY thing to be TRUE and REAL, then they are NOT open to ANY thing, which opposes or is contrary to 'that' what they BELIEVE is TRUE and REAL. So, these human beings will only LOOK AT, and SAY just about ANY thing, which they hope or BELIEVE will back up and support what they are currently ALREADY holding onto as BELIEF.

Even providing an ACTUAL FACT or showing an ACTUAL PROVE is NOT enough to make a human being with a BELIEF, SEE 'things' as they ACTUALLY ARE nor, in other words, SEE thee ACTUAL of 'things'.

By the way, the EXACT OPPOSITE is also true. When a human being has NO 'belief' AT ALL, and is curious to keep learning more and anew, then they can NOT stop SEEING 'things' as they ACTUALLY ARE, or, in other words, can NOT stop SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS.

[Walker]

Age, you gotta knock it off with the caps.

Jeeze.

I think that our approaches to understanding differ, since I understand so much, and you seem to understand so little.

First I empty my own cup, then determine how offerings into the empty cup can possibly be true.

Then, I examine the validity of those possibilities and determine the probability based on self-knowledge relating to the Now flux. Sounds a tad complicated in retrospect but it's rather automatic and effective for learning unfamiliar material, which I figure for you could be everything I write, based on your responses ... which I will not list.

When the buck goes no further, my approach is effective, because then you understand what you are paid to answer for.

Now answer truly this simple question.

Did you feel your comprehension shut down when I wrote that you understand so little?

Tell the truth.

[Age]

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

Objective reality.

IF "objective reality" [your answer] is the difference between Created and Simulated, [re OPQ] which is the objective reality? Creation or Simulation?

Both Creation AND simulation are 'Objective Realities'. One is just a 'simulation of Reality' while the other is 'Reality', Itself. I hope I do NOT need to clarify which one is which. But if I do need to, to ANY one, then just ask.

Now, 'existing' is the EXACT SAME, whether one is 'existing' within a 'simulation of Reality' or within 'Creation', Itself, without being in a 'simulation of Reality'.

[VVilliam]

"More rubble on the tracks"

It appears not only does 'age' want attention with his own SHOUTING [and off topic] posts but he is so desperate as to highjack a question put to another poster [in this case Immanuel Can] and answer it with his own special blend of crappola.

"Age" - You were asked nicely to go create your own thread instead of attempting to derail this thread. Instead you do the opposite. Carry it on and all that I can do is declare the thread hijacked.

And "Walker" cease with enabling Age by engaging with him...unless of course you two are in cahoots and the objective is to highjack threads...

[Age]

I think, even KNOW, 'we' exist within a creation, but I am NOT saying that we exist within a reality simulation.

WHY do you think, or BELIEVE, that 'a creation' is the same as 'a reality simulation'.

The two, to 'me', are two VERY DIFFERENT 'things'.

Why I think they are different words with the same meaning has to do with the implication of both.

That being, in order for a creation/reality simulation to exist, it requires a CREATOR.

BUT 'Creation', Itself, does NOT require a CREATOR, other than Its Self.

Well since it is called 'creation' the implication is there, yes?

NO.

Since when has human beings 'version' of 'things' HAS TO BE the One and ONLY True, Right, and Correct 'version'.

There is NO implication, in and of itself, that 'Creation', Itself, HAS TO BE 'created' from some OTHER 'thing' than Its Self.

If there is AN 'implication' that there HAS TO BE some OTHER 'thing', which is thee Creator, then WHERE as this 'implication' come from, EXACTLY, and WHY has this been 'implied'?

If some human beings 'imply' that the word 'Creator' 'implies' ANOTHER, then WHY do they 'imply' this?

Is there NO evidence NOR proof that one could 'create' itself?

Are there NO examples of where people, themselves, have made (created) themselves to become and/or be 'better' people?

Can human beings create themselves into being better people/human beings?

If yes, then if human beings/people can do this, then SURELY the Universe, Itself, could be Creating Its Self, in some way, shape, or form, correct?

It is, after all, the Universe, Itself, who had the 'power' to create human beings, and NOT the other way around. It is also the Universe, Itself, through 'evolution' which has and is continually 'creating' a more and more evolving, and so called, 'intelligent' species.

Obviously a 'reality simulation' requires an 'outside' of its self 'creator'.

Yes I agree.

But, Creation, Itself, does NOT require such a 'thing'.

However [re the OP] Christians believe they are in a creation, created by a creator.

What human beings BELIEVE or do NOT BELIEVE has absolute NO necessary bearing, itself, on what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct.

Also, 'Creation' could just be a word to describe the process of HOW thee One and ONLY Universe is Creating EVERY thing, through an ALWAYS evolving evolutionary process, which could just mean that the Universe, Itself, is thee Creator, and is JUST Creating Its Self, ALWAYS.

After all, it is thee Universe, Itself, which is Creating an ALWAYS evolving 'intelligence', in and through physical form, and in the shape and form of the 'animal organism/specie', of which what would be the purpose of creating a continually evolving 'intelligence', if not to be used to UNDERSTAND and KNOW thy 'True Self'?

[Age]

I think you are attempting to say here that there is a difference between the creation and the creator. While that is an interesting concept to explore, it is not what the OPQ is asking.

But the opening post was written on and with the ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that there was or could be some OTHER 'thing' outside of or beyond Creation, Itself. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is just ILLOGICAL and NONSENSE. It is also a COMPLETE MISINTERPRETATION of what was ACTUALLY MEANT in past writings.

So you are saying that Christians believing that existence the physical universe was created [by an intelligence outside of it] is "a complete misrepresentation of what was actually meant in past writings"...without backing your claim up with anything at all?

YES.

By the way, as I have previously clearly written and expressed, (but which does NOT necessitate that you have even seen nor read it previously), that I am NOT here, in this forum, to necessarily back up my CLAIMS at all.

I have provided MANY TIMES previously a message about HOW one can, very easily and very simply, come to discover, and/or learn, and SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS, that is; if one Truly WANTS TO. Now, this message can be heeded and/or followed or NOT. That is ones choice ALONE.

The OP is simply asking 'what is the difference between one and the other belief' NOT making any assumption at all.

I cannot see any reason for your statements as they do not appear to have anything to do with the OPQ...

There is NO difference WHERE one is 'existing'.

WHEREVER or WHENEVER 'one' is 'existing', they are 'existing' in Creation, Itself. So, it does NOT matter if one is 'existing' in a 'simulator of Reality' or NOT as they ARE still 'existing' within Creation.

[VVilliam]

More off topic gibberish

How can we know if the universe was created or if it created itself.

See! It is not that hard to do "Age"

You're Welcome!

[Age]

I am sure you have much to say on the subject of "The Universe Created Itself" but it is wasted here on a thread which isn't asking if the universe created itself.

YOUR 'opening post' is CLAIMING two 'things' and asking one 'thing'. This is YOUR opening post:

"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying 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?

Now, your FIRST CLAIM proposed in your FIRST SENTENCE I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVEN is Wrong and Incorrect. As I do NOT say what 'you' CLAIM 'I' do here. I have ALSO ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY I do NOT say such an ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL 'thing'.

As for your SECOND CLAIM, so be it. If that is what some human beings who are labeled and called "christians" say and/or do, then so be it. What some human beings say and do has NO necessarily actual bearing on what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct.

Now, as for your FIRST QUESTION, there is NO 'real' difference 'existing' within a 'Reality simulation' and 'existing' within a 'Creation', Itself. AS I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY.

For 'you', to UNDERSTAND my EXPLANATION FULLY, you NEED to UNDERSTAND what Creation, Itself, IS and HOW Creation, Itself, WORKS. And, by the way, it is NOT what you currently ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true.

So, if you do NOT want to even LOOK AT this 'subject', then that is perfectly fine and okay with 'me'. But 'you' will NEVER FULLY UNDERSTAND what I am saying and getting at, and that is; There is NO REAL 'difference' WHERE nor WHEN one is 'existing'. They will ALWAYS be 'existing' within Creation, but they will NOT necessarily be 'existing' in a 'simulator'

I would probably join a thread which was specific to the question of how the universe became the universe...but am not interested in derailing THIS thread by engaging with your posts on this other subject...please create your own thread to discuss this amazing insight you have to the universes origins.

Just for your information, there WAS, and IS, NO 'origins' to the Universe, Itself. Human beings seem to REALLY NOT be able to get rid of this MISINTERPRETATION and COMPLETELY WRONG CONCLUSION.

[VVilliam]

If you do decide to take your stuff over to the thread I linked in my last post, I will join you there to discuss the idea with you.
However, I caution you now as I do with my Granddaughter - who on occasion SHOUTS out her words, so excited she is in the telling of them.

"Please Use Your Indoors voice Granddaughter - I can listen better when your words are quiet"

So please do consider using the italic function [example of where to find it circled below in red]


That is what it is intended for - it is a tool so that anything you want to emphasis, you can do so WITHOUT HAVING TO SHOUT.

I will show you an example.

"The italic function is a tool so that anything you want to emphasis, you can do so without having to shout."

See - it is also more pleasant to the eye.

But if you carry on SHOUTING, I will carry on not hearing you...

[Age]

The act of creation is impossible since it leads to regress in the creation of time. That is true because time needed for the act of creation of anything including time.

These two are ABSOLUTELY NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

I don't care.

I do NOT care that 'you', "vvilliam", do NOT care.

I was NOT responding to 'you', nor to what you wrote.

I WAS responding to what the one known as "bahman" wrote.

The OP is not asking for anyone's opinion on if they are necessarily true.

And NO one was giving their opinion if the words in the opening post were necessarily true or NOT.

I was giving my opinion about if the words that "BAHMAN" wrote and said were necessarily true or NOT.

And please consider using the italic function as caps make you appear to come across in a somewhat desperate manner.

Well if that is what APPEARS to 'you', or to ANY one "else" for that matter, then I suggest that 'you', and/or "they", ASK for CLARITY about what is ACTUALLY OCCURRING and/or INTENDED.

As what is 'coming across to you' is ACTUALLY NOT what is ACTUALLY OCCURRING, from this end.

Also, WHY, EXACTLY, to 'you' do ITALICS NOT 'come across' as being in a "somewhat desperate manner" but caps do.

WHERE did you learn and/or gain this mis/conception from, EXACTLY?

Much like someone at a party who's voice is heard over ever other sound in the room...

WHY? These are just LETTERS and WORDS written down in different font. They OBVIOUSLY have NO sound at all to them.

I SEE plenty of different letters and words being EMPHASIZED differently. But I would NEVER ASSUME nor JUMP TO A CONCLUSION of what is ACTUALLY MEANT without asking for CLARIFICATION, FIRST. This is because I ALREADY KNOW that EVERY one is DIFFERENT, and that they ALL LOOK AT and USE words DIFFERENTLY.

[Age]

Age, you gotta knock it off with the caps.

Jeeze.

WHY?

What happens if I do NOT?

I think that our approaches to understanding differ, since I understand so much, and you seem to understand so little.

LOL Okay.

First I empty my own cup, then determine how offerings into the empty cup can possibly be true.

Then, I examine the validity of those possibilities and determine the probability based on self-knowledge relating to the Now flux. Sounds a tad complicated in retrospect but it's rather automatic and effective for learning unfamiliar material, which I figure for you could be everything I write, based on your responses ... which I will not list.

You only do NOT list because you are AFRAID of what the ramifications could be.

When the buck goes no further, my approach is effective, because then you understand what you are paid to answer for.

Now answer truly this simple question.

Did you feel your comprehension shut down when I wrote that you understand so little?

Tell the truth.

No.

Will you answer Truly this SIMPLE question?

Did you write, "within a greater reality", and then when I challenged you on it, which you even further questioned me about, you then CLAIMED that it was "my tangent" when you were STUCK and FINALLY noticed what I was getting at?

[Age]

"More rubble on the tracks"

I NEVER wrote this. This might be what APPEARS to you, but if you do NOT quote 'me' correctly, then it could be perceived as you are MISLEADING, purposely or unintentionally.

It appears not only does 'age' want attention with his own SHOUTING [and off topic] posts but he is so desperate as to highjack a question put to another poster [in this case Immanuel Can] and answer it with his own special blend of crappola.

And here is ANOTHER example of ANOTHER poster 'trying to' talk BEHIND 'me' and ABOUT 'me', as though this will accomplish some 'thing'.

What appears is that when a poster is confronted with what I POINT OUT and SHOW, which DEFEATS their OWN views and/or BELIEFS, then they 'try to' engage "others" to join in with "them", and in with their "side".

1. You can call 'it' SHOUTING as much as you like. But this does NOT mean that 'it' is ACTUALLY SHOUTING, AT ALL.

2. You asked A question. I HAVE answered it. To have this answer UNDERSTOOD FULLY, I also had to EXPLAIN some other 'things'. You can call them "off topic" till you can NOT anymore. But the Truth here speaks for itself. It is WRITTEN DOWN CLEARLY, for ANY one to SEE and RECOGNIZE.

3. You asked ANOTHER poster about 'objective reality'. I answered that question. If you can NOT YET understand that answer, then so be it.

4. If my answer is, so called, "crappola", to 'you', then that is EXACTLY what 'it' IS, to 'you'.

"Age" - You were asked nicely to go create your own thread instead of attempting to derail this thread.

AND, 'you', "vvilliam", were told politely that until you UNDERSTAND FULLY what Creation, Itself, ACTUALLY IS, you will NEVER UNDERSTAND what I have been POINTING OUT and SHOWING 'you'.

See, what is REALLY ANNOYING to you is that you wanted to 'try to' argue and/or prove some 'thing' here with this thread, but because of what I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN here this has COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DISRUPTED this for you.

Instead you do the opposite. Carry it on and all that I can do is declare the thread hijacked.

You can DECLARE absolutely ANY 'thing'. But this does NOT mean that 'it' is necessarily true AT ALL.

I ANSWERED your question in your opening post. You OBVIOUSLY do NOT like this answer, and you also can NOT refute MY ANSWER, so all you can do, as you say and claim, is just DECLARE "the thread hijacked".

By the way, HOW can just having A questioned ANSWERED, in MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, be a, supposed and alleged, "thread hijack"?

I suggest NOT asking questions if you will NOT like some of the answers provided. And, especially if some of the answers provided will ACTUALLY DESTROY and DEFEAT what it was that you were 'trying to' argue for and had set out to achieve.

And "Walker" cease with enabling Age by engaging with him...unless of course you two are in cahoots and the objective is to highjack threads...

Wow, here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how ASSUMING, based on Previous Experiences, can lead some so FAR ASTRAY.

Some here might be seeing that when "others" do NOT agree with and accept YOUR VIEW "vvilliam", then you will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to SHUT 'them' down and/or just GET RID of 'them' completely.

Now, if you would like to respond to MY ANSWER, to YOUR QUESTION, then please do. I would LOVE to SEE how you respond to 'THAT', instead of to all of the OFF TOPIC 'things' that you have here.

[Age]

If you do decide to take your stuff over to the thread I linked in my last post, I will join you there to discuss the idea with you.
However, I caution you now as I do with my Granddaughter - who on occasion SHOUTS out her words, so excited she is in the telling of them.

"Please Use Your Indoors voice Granddaughter - I can listen better when your words are quiet"

So please do consider using the italic function [example of where to find it circled below in red]

I do what I WANT, and NOT necessarily what YOU WANT. Understood?

I write the way I do for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON and PURPOSE. You, OBVIOUSLY, have absolutely NO INTENTION of DISCOVERING nor LEARNING WHY I do this, so I will just continue doing what I do, and you can continue living in your NON UNDERSTANDING and NON KNOWING. Okay?

That is what it is intended for - it is a tool so that anything you want to emphasis, you can do so WITHOUT HAVING TO SHOUT.

YOUR INTERPRETATION of SHOUTING is a WRONG INTERPRETATION. Is this UNDERSTOOD?

I will show you an example.

"The italic function is a tool so that anything you want to emphasis, you can do so without having to shout."

BUT I AM NOT SHOUTING. I AM JUST EMPHASIZING. YOU UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE AND RECOGNIZE THIS. THIS IS BECAUSE OF YOUR CURRENT ASSUMPTIONS AND BELIEFS, which you WANT TO keep HOLDING ONTO.

See - it is also more pleasant to the eye.

'Pleasantness' like 'beauty' is in the eye of the beholder.

What 'you' see is NOT necessarily what I see AT ALL.

I emphasize for the way I do, for EASE, and NOT for what is 'pleasant', for 'you', or ANY one "else".

If you can NOT just stay focused on the ACTUAL WORDS that I write and use, then that maybe something you NEED to LOOK AT and RECOGNIZE.

Also, WHY do you think or believe that some of 'you', human beings, turn to FOCUSING ON the WAY I WRITE, INSTEAD OF WHAT I ACTUALLY WRITE, especially when I have OBVIOUSLY POINTED OUT and SHOWN where your views/beliefs are just PLAIN WRONG and INACCURATE?

But if you carry on SHOUTING, I will carry on not hearing you...

And I have absolutely not one iota of care.

I just focus on the words that are written down, and on the intention and motive BEHIND THOSE ACTUAL WORDS. I respond to this alone, so that "others" can SEE WHERE and WHY those words are just PLAIN WRONG.

I have done this with YOUR WORDS "vvilliam". That is what I Truly care about.

If you can HEAR or SEE this, I have NO REAL CARE, AT ALL.

You OBVIOUSLY can NOT find fault in what I ACTUALLY WRITE, and this is WHY you FOCUS on what you have been here and 'try' SO HARD to DETRACT and DEFLECT from what I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN.

[VVilliam]

[Immanuel Can]

...which is the objective reality? Creation or Simulation?

Creation, obviously. The point of the word "simulation" is that it indicates the semblance of something, not the reality of it.