Atheists and fellow Agnostics, what are your thoughts on Simulation Theory?

[Grams]

^^^Some humans just always want to look for a deeper meaning in life I guess


I think we're here for no reason then we die

 

[Mr. Negative]

.

In the simulation theory, wouldn't "god" just be a mathematician?

yeah, but it would still be "God".

I would just like, for once, for the Believers, Agnostics and Atheists here to look at a theory and NOT have one side say "That's stupid and wrong because it's not listed in my Book that way" and the other side saying "Your Book is stupid and wrong, therefore you are stupid and wrong".

 

[tru_m.a.c]

.


yeah, but it would still be "God".

I would just like, for once, for the Believers, Agnostics and Atheists here to look at a theory and NOT have one side say "That's stupid and wrong because it's not listed in my Book that way" and the other side saying "Your Book is stupid and wrong, therefore you are stupid and wrong".

look it doesn't matter what you call it

call it bob

but once you start personifying it, you've officially crossed into the realm of some book

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Math doesnt rule everything. Definitions then Rules then Algorithms then Code.

since when are the concepts alien to each other

edit: nvm I saw your edit

I amended my post upon brief reflection (and prior to seeing your post). But, generally, there is truth to what you are saying.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

No matter what, it becomes infinite regress unless one concludes that Nothingness "created" Everythingness. Maybe more precisely that its existence was causal to the creation of Everythingness. This doesn't mean there isn't a God. One could argue that a God/Admin would be the first, and most logical creation, besides, perhaps, general space (if the Nothingness isn't equal to Space)

exactly.

but atheist and agnostic never actually get to ARGUE their definition of what religious folks see as God

because to them, if God does not or cannot assume a human form and say, "I am God," then it doesn't exist.

And that to me/us ends the ability to explore with open conversation

 

[Mr. Negative]

look it doesn't matter what you call it

call it bob

but once you start personifying it, you've officially crossed into the realm of some book

point.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I amended my post upon brief reflection (and prior to seeing your post). But, generally, there is truth to what you are saying.

Math can be an efficient tool to test the theory, but the theory may be unverifiable at a certain point. Even if its proven that it is true to be a simulation (which I sometimes believe, truly), math cannot prove this. There would have to be some sort of dimensional/wormhole/blackhole/portal/galactic/supernatural/matrix discovery/exploration that provides the realm in which this simulation is fed code or was fed code (the source)...and even then, one can postulate that even that "place" is outside of our simulation but inside of another simulation, or was actually in our "simulation" the whole time but was undiscovered. The latter would negate the proof that it is in fact a simulation, because it wouldn't be able to prove that there is something outside of the simulation. In fact, finding this may place people further away from the truth they are seeking in the first place.

the infinite regression you're referring to, seems a little too much like the argument against time travel

but I do agree, I think at some point it will be unverifiable…but at what point *super ye shrug*. I mean quantum physics is still not understood fully. Can you imagine what comes after that? In my mind, we can theorize, but we need to keep pushing forward.

 

[Fillerguy]

I find this shyt just as silly as the fables in the bible. Then again I think most philosophy is nothing more than smart dudes fapping to each others thoughts, to validate their poorly directed intelligence, in an attempt to separate themselves from us simple folk.

 

[Lana Kane]

If that's the case, the creator needs to create cheat codes for living longer and agelessness.

 

[Blackking]

the theory is baseless and the only reason it's discussed is because it's completely mind-boggling and extremely interesting......

And also discussed because it's an alternative to God / creator---- creator/god is considered such a foolish idea but at the same time the more we learn about the universe, physics, gravity, time, and our minds -- it's seems equally foolish that everything is random chance.

So we have shyt like this. This is like admitting to a God but wanting it to be some mathematical genius person(s) who can compute things to a level so advance that our consciousnesses can communicate with each other and then ponder about our own creations. Which is a crazy idea and leads to the same retarded issues that a belief in God leads to like ----- "well, then fukk. who" created these System admins in the first place... and Where does their conscious (and motivation) come from to create such a complex reality.


I do think everything boils down to math though. Either there's a god that kinda just popped shyt with no follow through.... or everything is based on complex mathematical structures that manifest into biological creatures and physical realities.... But also multiverses and alternative realities that lead to ..... what we consider shyt like death, souls, ghost, life, and time. i know that probably sounds retarded, but i havent decided all the theories i think are right yet.


Anyway Dr. Sylvester james doesn't find it logical to not look the way he does or participate in customary human grooming standards half the time. AND he says shyt then says... well I'm not saying that exactly.... the nikka does this because all this shyt is bullshyt.

We don't really know- We are just coming up with random ways to explain all this--- the same way we did thousands of years ago with religion - Except that we are increasingly becoming Wayyyyyyyyyyy less creative in doing so.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

^^^Some humans just always want to look for a deeper meaning in life I guess


I think we're here for no reason then we die

Exactly. Gives them something to toss around and give them importance.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Please discuss.

Bullshyt.

What other reality are you comparing this too to be able to say that this one is less real than the other?

Its predicated on an unproven or unsubstantiated assertion.

The burden rests on you to suggest that this is a valid claim

 

[Type Username Here]

I'm much more inclined to think that we modeled computer simulations on life, whether consciously or subconsciously. .

A computer, like a lot of electronics, is all electrical patterns encased in the proper "chemical combinations" of several elements.

A human being's greatest gift is that we can fool ourselves in thinking that we are any different than a machine. We are, at least on Earth, nature's ~3.5 billion year long code debugging. Slaves to the chemical and electrical reactions in our bodies like any other machine. Every thought, emotion, memory is just a operating code firing away in your neurons, just at the right place and with the correct pattern. A slave to determinism with a misguided adherence to the illusion of free will.

You are a machine. That is to say, a machine can become you. Not now, but one day. Human beings have already replicated lifeforms which took nature a billion years of "Trial-and-error" in a span of a fraction of that time (in the proper reference of time when accounting human achievement as a separate sub-timeline).

 

[Kritic]

at the social level this negro is right.

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

I don't have anything against your beliefs, Jesus; I just don't share them. The bible has too many logical inconsistencies for me to take seriously. Simulation theory may very well be wrong, but the fact that it's rooted in science, and not faith in sky deity, makes it more likely, imo.

If you think about it, no matter what the truth, of how we came into being is, it's going to pretty absurd.

Respect. But I'm not Christian.

And I have no clue what a "sky deity" is.