How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #4130]

(1) otseng Any 'actions' not addressed by physical material mind(s) are instead addressed by the supernatural Christian God or maybe even supernatural 'evil'.

(2) Neil & co. We can invent all sorts of unfalsifiable scenarios, such as 'simulation', "its-all-a-dream", 'solipsism', 'Scientology', 'brain-in-a-vat', etc etc etc

(3) William All 'actions' are initiated by a "mind".

(4) POI Some 'actions' are initiated by a physical material brain, while some 'actions' are completed by other 'material natural processes' alone.

**********************************

(1) lacks evidence and may even broach upon the 'god of the gaps'. (2) is/are a perpetual 'funsy' thought experiment. (3) lacks evidence and may even broach upon the 'mind of the gaps'. (4) A claimed initiating "invisible mind' requires a physical brain to facilitate the 'action'. Chemical actions possess no physical brain to react/function. Ergo, no "mind" can facilitate the process.

You are the one making the positive claim that some actions are initiated by mindful agency in where no physical material brain can be identified to facilitate them. Your concept appears to also beg the question. If a 'mind' initiates chemistry/other, what exactly "gives to" or "initiates" the said 'mind' which then-in-turn initiates the actions of chemistry, and what 'mind' initiates that one, and so on and so on and so on... I instead state, a physical material brain is required to initiate some 'actions', but not others -- (like chemical processes for example), as I have already given examples as to my rationale:

(1) A lightning bolt has no identified supernatural lightning-bolt-thrower. Natural processes prevail here. The God of the gaps continues to become smaller and smaller.
(2) Weeeeeeeeeee!
(3) Germination/evaporation/etc. happens without the need of a physical brain to propel the process into motion. Hence, no "invisible mind" could/would be able to facilitate the 'action', as there is no physical material brain to complete the asserted process.

Take away Q, as I already see it coming....

Does the 'mind' require a physical brain to relay its information? If not, then why is it when parts of the physical brain(s) are destroyed or damaged, the said mindful process also suffers or no longer happens?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4131]

Your post and the question at the end are not directly related to that which otseng and I are currently investigating. Also your presentation of Neil's position is not as it is presented in the video as it goes off on a tangent from what the video is saying, perhaps in order to fudge the facts to favor your position?
Neil isn't saying the same thing you are. He is saying that there is 50% chance we are the first unsimulated (real) universe and a 50% chance we are not. He favors the statistic that we are NOT in a simulation and makes no mention of the idea that we exist within The Creator Mind.

Otseng favors that we are also NOT in a simulation but also favors that we are in a thing created by an outside mind - thus for all intent and purpose - no different from what simulation theory also says.

I favor we exist within The Creator Mind and that there may well be many universes created within said mind and that no thing exists outside of The Creator Mind/there is no "outside" of The Creator Mind.

Otseng has since argued that (3) has the possibility of The Creator Mind creating a computer inside said mind, simulating said mind, and I have responded to that as "possible" and await for his reply.

I remain unconvinced that (4) belongs on the list of discussion since you want it to be considered on the proviso that (2) is not. (4) is simply (3) without The Creator Mind.

So, anyway - I think I have made myself clear on this. I am specifically focused upon the idea of simulation theory in relation to (1) and (3) and I agree with otseng (and you do not) that we exist within a creation (the Universe) and also think that the created thing exists within The Creator Mind, and disagree with otseng that such should be considered to be a simulation.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #4132]

Allow me to break this down even more, since you still appear to have missed it. All three of us have differing viewpoints.

(1) otseng Undetectable/unmeasurable "external mind", outside our physical universe(s), controls all

(3) William Undetectable/unmeasurable "external mind", inside our physical universe(s), controls all

(4) POI No undetectable/unmeasurable "external mind(s)" exist, outside or inside our physical universe(s)

***********************

Further, I want to challenge your specific position re (3), since I'm exchanging with you about your presented position. We either logically leave it in as an option, or, discard it entirely: (i.e.)

Does this perceived upon 'external mind' require a physical brain to relay its information? If not, then why is it when parts of the physical brain(s) are destroyed or damaged, the said mindful process also suffers or no longer happens?

******************************************

I won't speak any more to Neil's position re (2) until we first verify that all three of our positions are worthy to stay or leave. As it stands, I have laid out the groundwork to suggest that both (1) and (3) are not logically conceivable. Which would then leave options (2) and (4). And newsflash, this is where the argument rises and falls upon the term faith. Just like we would need equal amounts of faith to hand-wave away all other said thought exercises, as aforementioned. Which is why I preface this term to otseng more than once. In essence, I'm saying (1) and (3) can be discarded without having to use much faith.

[otseng]

Also, I'd say the more there exists evidence, the less faith then needs to come and take its place.

Of course. So, the key issue is the strength of the arguments, not really what has more faith.

This is why no one really speaks about faith in mathematics <or> regarding the shape of the earth.

There are actually fundamental assumptions in math and even the shape of the earth. Math has axioms that are not proved to be true, but assumed to be true. So, in a sense, math has faith the basic axioms are true. Even the shape of the earth assumes spacetime is Euclidean, which even cosmologists challenge.

The question remains, for which I also presented to William in posts 4117 and 4119 is, EXCLUDING Mr. Tyson's theory, which philosophical theory requires the most amount of faith? I'd say mine requires the least amount, and yours requires the most.

It's all based on the evidence. So, since you claim yours has the least faith, present your evidence for your claim and we'll assess it.

But it doesn't, unless we actually are in some kind of 'simulation.'

Please present your argument to back this claim.

Yes, I've proposed that before as one way in this thread: Actually, the resurrection is falsifiable. And I'm even upping the ante by saying if the TS is falsified, then the resurrection is falsified.

Then I see your position as really no different than Ken Ham's position about YEC (and The Creationist Museum or The Ark Encounter), <or> flat-earthers and their arguments. Meaning, both positions are held, and all 'evidence' which suggest otherwise can be 'reasonably dismissed'. But are these topics still really debatable topics? They are to the ones who hold those two positions, I guess? But to you and I, likely not. This is exactly how I feel about TS-ers as well, and where you and I diverge.

No idea what you're referring to. What are the "both positions" that you're referring to?

Further, even IF the TS was found to be a fake (to your satisfaction), couldn't you then just pivot and state the real TS is still lurking about, or, was destroyed?

No, I'm referring to the Shroud in Turin, Italy. I believe that was the actual burial shroud of Jesus. This is the object for anyone to try to disprove.

[otseng]

Fundamentally, I'm not interested in just voices, but all of the physical world. There's a differences between voices in our mind and the claim of a world existing in a mind. You can't claim just because we hear voices in our mind therefore all of the universe exists within God's mind.

The fundamental in this argument is The Creator Mind and biblically speaking said Mind is big on voices and on humans hearing and listening to the voices - in the case of the Bible God - specifically listening to His Voice.

You claim the entire universe is inside the mind of God. How can voices in the mind of God correlate with the existence of the universe?

Going along with that concept, The Creator Mind creating a computer inside The Creator Mind seems to be as redundant as creating the universe outside of Itself.

No, creating a universe that is actually real is not redundant. It's one of the most parsimonious explanations. I would argue anything else is redundant because it would be a simulation based on an actual universe, whether it be a computer simulation or God's mind.

So, even giving the concept some due, one then has to answer "why" would The Creator Mind deem it necessary to create a computer in It's House, that would run simulations of rooms that minds could experience, rather than simply placing minds in actual rooms for experience?

I don't believe in either, so it's a meaningless question for me.

You would now have to explain where the minds - which can experience said computer simulations - come from, in relation to said computer mind.

Ultimately, the mind in a computer simulation is the CPU. So the mind inside a simulation would be the CPU (or even a simulated CPU).

Hang on there...why would The Creator Mind create a computer within Itself and make it so that The minds in (B) cannot interact with The Creator Mind (or minds within Creator Mind who are not within the computer simulation?

I'm just giving hypothetical scenarios, not claiming I believe in any of them. The point is there are a variety of possible worlds based on the basic three proposals.

The energy is the thought in action within The Creator Mind (TCM). The energy is physical and so to is the one who thought it and this is how mindfulness interacts with itself to produce objects which can then be experienced intimately - eventually - on all levels.

Within the realm of the Creator Mind (TCM), the energy released from the initial thought manifests as physical reality.

Yes, I agree God created physical reality. But physical reality doesn't correlate with something that is inside a mind.

TCM achieves this engagement with the objects by being the "minds" within said objects, which eventually leads us to Earth and our human experience.

In actual universe theory (AUT), God can interact with anything in the universe the same as TCM.

The same applies to (1) in that regard. Are we to drop conversation because "circular logic" and thus surrender to atheism?

Nothing is surrendering to atheism, just that using circular logic is fallacious.

We have to approach things with our own thinking, logic, and intuition. How do you know your understanding is correct then?

Because it is the most reasonable under the present circumstances.

Well, that's quite a claim. And also hints at another circular logic.

Even so, I am simply agreeing with the assessment that The Creator Mind cannot act with deception, based on those same findings and more which align with said findings, so am taking the example of the Bible God as being an accurate ambassador/image for The Creator Mind we exist within.

But is the world actually real and not just something in a mind?

Is this because, as powerful as your Bible God is, (omnipotent creator) you do not regard His imagination (mindfulness) can create actual real things?

Yes, I believe God can create actual real things. Since we are limited by anthropomorphic language and have no language to actually describe things outside of our universe, we have to describe ultimate reality based on our understanding of our world. When we create actual things, they do not exist within our mind, but outside of our mind. So, I'm using the same analogy with God. God created actual things that exist outside of his mind.

Kinda like that computer concept you offered, where The Creator Mind (The Real) created a computer to simulate Its Mind ("model the mind of omnipotent creator") for whatever minds inside the computer to experience...in this case the God of (1) is the computer mind of (3)...

Then it boils down to a simulation, not creating actual real physical things.

You ignored my reply regarding what it means to be Married to God (re Jewish Mysticism) and marched on obliviously.

I'll let readers assess which interpretation makes more sense.

[POI]

3rd request.

If you want to bring philosophy into the equation, specifically about 'simulation', I already refuted your argument. (i.e.) We are now in version (x) of the given simulation. We no longer experience "glitches" for the reason(s) I've already stated, and I could continue giving more. If you want to continue with this exercise, we can. But, we both already agree that we are not likely in a 'simulation'. Is this where 'faith' specifically comes in? See below for why this is important.

Of course. So, the key issue is the strength of the arguments, not really what has more faith.

Is the "strength of the arguments" subjective or objective? -- (See near the bottom in red about positions 1 & 2).

You argue why we are not in a simulation. You may find your argument strong, where-as I find your argument weak. But guess what, it does not matter anyways, because Neil's given hypothetical is purely faith-based, regardless of if you take his position, or yours. And faith is not reliable. Maybe you two should just arm wrestle for the win?

Neil's position is not falsifiable. You cannot falsify it. Hence, you need faith here too. And in this context, faith is not reliable. Where Neil's position of simulation is concerned, at best, it's a coin toss. No amount of 'evidence' will direct us otherwise, due to the type of argument. It's like I told William. It would really be no different than the many other hypothetical arguments I can conjure up, just because I can, such as 'solipsism" or "Scientology". Or, that Jesus was really Satan in disguise. But I digress and use these examples merely to make the point that Neil's position, (for or against simulation), is faith-based alone. And faith is not a reliable tool.

There are actually fundamental assumptions in math and even the shape of the earth. Math has axioms that are not proved to be true, but assumed to be true. So, in a sense, math has faith the basic axioms are true. Even the shape of the earth assumes spacetime is Euclidean, which even cosmologists challenge.

You continue to demonstrate my initial point. Everything is faith. Hence, otseng's position about having faith in the Bible is no more or less absurd than POI having faith that the Bible's given assertion about a risen Jesus is likely false. Why? Because we cannot falsify the claim that Jesus rose from the grave, just like we also cannot falsify the claim that we are simulated.

It's all based on the evidence. So, since you claim yours has the least faith, present your evidence for your claim and we'll assess it.

See above/below as to why going do this road is completely futile.

No idea what you're referring to. What are the "both positions" that you're referring to?

1) Ken Ham's position, as 'evidence' by The Ark Encounter and The Creationist's Museum
2) The 'evidence' given by the flat-earthers.

I no longer take their arguments seriously, in spite of all the 'evidence'. I'd gather you do not either, to at least the second position? Meaning, the way both you and I feel about the (1 or 2) positions above, I simply also add your entire argument about the "Shroud" into the mix as well.

No, I'm referring to the Shroud in Turin, Italy. I believe that was the actual burial shroud of Jesus. This is the object for anyone to try to disprove.

I could try again, but see above.

*********************

Also feel free to address post 4133. And since this is in the category of philosophy, "we cannot prove or disprove anything." However, leaving out philosophical thought, I instead say the most sensible conclusion is (2) or (4), for differing reasons. (2) because it's a coin flip. (4) stands above (1) and (3).

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #4135]

Fundamentally, I'm not interested in just voices, but all of the physical world. There's a differences between voices in our mind and the claim of a world existing in a mind. You can't claim just because we hear voices in our mind therefore all of the universe exists within God's mind.

The fundamental in this argument is The Creator Mind and biblically speaking said Mind is big on voices and on humans hearing and listening to the voices - in the case of the Bible God - specifically listening to His Voice.

You claim the entire universe is inside the mind of God.

It's more of an observation of likeliness.

IF
We exist with a created thing
THEN
Which is more likely?
1. The created thing exists within The Creator Mind.
2. The created thing exists without The Creator Mind.

Indeed, anything a theist claims as real (heavens, hells et al) also exist within The Creator Mind, so it is not just this universe - but every any and all universes which can be mindfully experienced. All exist within The Creator Mind (and are real for that).

How can voices in the mind of God correlate with the existence of the universe?

How is this achieved, Biblically speaking?

In this perspective, the "voices in the mind of God" could be understood as the underlying laws, principles, or thoughts that govern the universe. From this viewpoint, the universe's existence and its order are manifestations of the divine intellect or will "heard" by the minds receiving said information.

Are you wanting a scientific explanation as to "how"?
Apart from explaining theistic beliefs that The Creator Voice can be heard (through the created) the "correlation between the universe and the voices in the mind of God" is primarily a matter of philosophical or theological interpretation rather than a scientific "how?" explanation.

Going along with that concept, The Creator Mind creating a computer inside The Creator Mind seems to be as redundant as creating the universe outside of Itself.

No, creating a universe that is actually real is not redundant.

IF
The Creator Mind is all powerful and all present and omni-veritable
THEN
Explain why you believe that anything created within The Creator Mind, has to be seen as false/illusion/fake, rather than true/real/genuine.

I would argue anything else is redundant because it would be a simulation based on an actual universe,

Then support that argument. Explain how one can believe that a God can create this awesomely complex universe outside of His own existence (self) and believe such thinking preposterous and redundant when said universe is understood to being within His mind.

...whether it be a computer simulation or God's mind.

Reducing the thoughts of God to being nothing more than simulations, comes with it own set of problems.

Even giving the concept some due, one then has to answer "why" would The Creator Mind deem it necessary to create a computer in It's House, that would run simulations of rooms that minds could experience, rather than simply placing minds in actual rooms for experience?

I don't believe in either, so it's a meaningless question for me.

It is not a case of whether one believes in it or not. It is a case that you brought it into your argument in an attempt to show that (3) and (2) are similar (as (1) and (2) are).
Now when push comes to shove, you want to backpedal from a statement you yourself made as argument for your observation (2) and (3) share a similarity?

Okay then. I can therefore ascertain from your reply that you cannot support your claim that (2) and (3) are similar.

You would now have to explain where the minds - which can experience said computer simulations - come from, in relation to said computer mind.

Ultimately, the mind in a computer simulation is the CPU. So the mind inside a simulation would be the CPU (or even a simulated CPU).

So your explanation is that this computer in The Creator Mind which was built to simulation The Creator Mind, also simulates the minds which respond to it.
This would signify that The Creator Mind is using the computer simulator device It created in Its Mind - to act as a type of scientific instrument in order to observe the reactions and interactions between the computer mind (simulating The Creator Mind), and the simulated minds the computer mind created within itself (re the simulation).

Q: What are these minds within the simulation, simulating?

(This is asked because your scenario has it that the computer is (by design) simulating The Creator Mind, so any minds simulated within that would also have to be simulating minds outside of the computer in order for those minds to be said to being simulating "something/anything".)

Hang on there...why would The Creator Mind create a computer within Itself and make it so that The minds in (B) cannot interact with The Creator Mind (or minds within Creator Mind who are not within the computer simulation?

I'm just giving hypothetical scenarios, not claiming I believe in any of them.

That is beside the point. You are attempting to show through your hypothetical scenarios that (2) and (3) are similar.
I think of your "Creator outside of creation" perspective as a hypothetical scenario and that did not prevent me from showing that (1) and (2) are similar for that. I also think (2) is a hypothetical scenario.

The point is there are a variety of possible worlds based on the basic three proposals.

Name some of these varieties of possible worlds so as to explain the point. Which varieties are there re (1) and (2) and (3) and how are these relevant to any "point" being made?

The energy is the thought in action within The Creator Mind (TCM). The energy is physical and so too is the one who thought it and this is how mindfulness interacts with itself to produce objects which can then be experienced intimately - eventually - on all levels.

Within the realm of the Creator Mind (TCM), the energy released from the initial thought manifests as physical reality.

Yes, I agree God created physical reality.

Which is not what I am arguing above. The Creator Mind IS physical and real. The Creator Mind did not create Itself. The argument your present re the computer only suggests TCM created a simulation of Itself. I am asking why you think (what reational you are using) that such is a viable thing to consider as possibly true.

But physical reality doesn't correlate with something that is inside a mind.

Perhaps not in relation to how some personalities use mindfulness, but this in itself does not prove your words are true. We are - after all - speaking about a Mind which is omni-omni.

To argue then, that even inside such a mind, physical reality cannot exist, is simply lacking comprehension re the abilities of an omni-omni entity (re 3) and consequently deferring to the problematic idea that we "therefore must exist outside of said Mind" (The Creator Mind) (1) which has been shown to share similarities with (2).

TCM achieves this engagement with the objects by being the "minds" within said objects, which eventually leads us to Earth and our human experience.

In actual universe theory (AUT), God can interact with anything in the universe the same as TCM.

Indeed. This is where (1) and (3) share a similar idea.

This also answers your earlier question (How can voices in the mind of God correlate with the existence of the universe?) and makes one wonder as to why the question was asked.

The same applies to (1) in that regard. Are we to drop conversation because "circular logic" and thus surrender to atheism?

Nothing is surrendering to atheism, just that using circular logic is fallacious.

It is a good thing then, that I - like you - am not using such in my arguments.

Even so, I am simply agreeing with the assessment that The Creator Mind cannot act with deception, based on those same findings and more which align with said findings, so am taking the example of the Bible God as being an accurate ambassador/image for The Creator Mind we exist within.

But is the world actually real and not just something in a mind?

At this point, the question asked by you also requires being answered by you.
Do you seriously believe that anything within The Mind of an omni-omni entity, must be seen as "fake/false/untrue/illusion et al" or are you willing to think that it is possible such belief is misinformed/based on misinformation/incorrectly perceived?

I have no idea what you mean by "everything that exists is real" in 3. I can agree it would be perceptually real, but I would disagree it's actually real.

Is this because, as powerful as your Bible God is, (omnipotent creator) you do not regard His imagination (mindfulness) can create actual real things?

Yes, I believe God can create actual real things. Since we are limited by anthropomorphic language and have no language to actually describe things outside of our universe, we have to describe ultimate reality based on our understanding of our world.

Yet you also appear to think your Gods Mind (like you think human minds) can create illusions, (non-real things), which in itself argues against your belief that God is unable to deceive. For your view carries with it, that anything within (your idea/perception of) God's Mind, can only be thought of as non-real.

When we create actual things, they do not exist within our mind, but outside of our mind.

Not how (3) has it. When humans create actual things, they are doing so within The Creator Mind. That is where they get the stuff to create with, from.
Where they get their ideas is also (ultimately/fundamentally) from the same source.

In the same way, The Creator Mind imagines/has ideas and these ideas manifest as real objects with The Creator Mind (which itself is a real object).
Thinking/believing that mindfulness is not actually real (is immaterial) is fundamentally flawed in relation to this discussion re (2).

So, I'm using the same analogy with God. God created actual things that exist outside of his mind.

Which aligns with (2) in that belief in a God outside of this universe who created this universe is the same as (2) ( some mind outside the simulation created the simulation) and the claim that such belief is "Actually Real" is based upon a possible deception due to the variables.

Kinda like that computer concept you offered, where The Creator Mind (The Real) created a computer to simulate Its Mind ("model the mind of omnipotent creator") for whatever minds inside the computer to experience...in this case the God of (1) is the computer mind of (3)...

Then it boils down to a simulation, not creating actual real physical things.

If it were shown to be a valid argument (that The Creator Mind created a computer within Its Mind) yes it would be reduced to that. The computer in this scenario would have to have somehow figured out how to breach its programing and no longer simulate The Creator Mind by telling the minds (which are part of its overall running system), that they exist in a "real" universe outside of the computer simulation.

Not only would this computer mind have to
1. be enabled by The Creator Mind to do this, but
2. It would also have to essentially deceive itself in relation to what it is deceptively telling its minds within itself, to believe.

If we are to consider your scenario as possible, you will have to explain why The Creator Mind created this computer (within) to be enabled have a mind of its own.
One could argue that in order for the computer simulating The Creator Mind to do so genuinely, The Creator Mind would have to build into it coding for the allowance of that simulated computer mind program to exhibit the same freedom to be willful.

However, this presents a problem if said computer mind chooses to be deceptive in relation to the minds it creates from itself to experience its simulations, because it was created to simulate The Creator Mind, and
IF
TCM is not deceptive,
THEN
The simulated mind of The Creator Mind that is the computer cannot be deceptive either.

Therefore, this is another point against your claim that (2) and (3) are similar re your argument that TCM could have created a computer within Itself which would simulate TCM and also (through that) create a non-real universe and minds inside said fake universe which would believe this non-real universe as actually real/true.

This in itself also adds support for the notion that we do not exist in a universe outside of TCM, because as your scenario shows, such would be deception.

You ignored my reply regarding what it means to be Married to God (re Jewish Mysticism) and marched on obliviously.

I'll let readers assess which interpretation makes more sense.

Sure! Why not? The less one gives to the readers to assess with, the less the readers can assess.
Your current interpretation lacks intimacy and understanding as to the proposal and the significance Jewish Mysticism places on the ideas woven into the marriage mythology.

Your apparent unwillingness to engage more deeply about this aspect of relationship between TCM and human mindfulness, may signify an inability to comprehend the significance of understanding how a human mind can become ONE with TCM (through realisation that everything - including human mindfulness) exists within TCM

Even so, as you say - The Reader Minds can assess which interpretation makes more sense to them and the more information they are exposed to, the better they are enabled to follow the path of least resistance.

The takeaway from this is that
IF
We do not exist within a simulation.
THEN
We minds (The Bride) do not exist within a thing created outside of our Husbands Mindfulness.

Therefore, we exist (as one) within TCM and there is no "outside" of TCM which is actually real.

[POI]

Dear William,

You skipped me. I'll try again.

What "evidence" supports any of these concepts? Feel free to provide the best piece of 'evidence' for (3) alone, since it is not your burden to produce any for options (1) or (2):

(1) otseng supernatural external creator mind outside the 'universe(s)'
(2) Neil external creator mind outside the 'universe(s)'
(3) William external creator mind inside the 'universe(s)'

I say the evidence is lacking for all three asserted concepts.

However, I'm sure we agree I do not need to justify to you my position:

(4) POI Internal mind inside our 'universe(s)'.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4138]
Dear POI

I didn't forget anything. I have already advised you that I do not consider your position relevant to the discussion being had between otseng and I.
You failed to convince me that it is relevant, so I see no reason presently to "waste time" in any further discussion with you re that.
I still read what you are discussing with otseng and I will reply to any points either of you make if I think it pertinent...

[POI]

I can therefore ascertain from your reply that you cannot support your claim that (2) and (3) are similar.

(2) & (3) look to be similar in the assertion that both claim an external mind feeds data/info. to an internal mind. Where they differ, is that (2) asserts the external mind resides completely outside this contained 'simulated universe(s)' <vs> (3) the external mind residing inside the same 'universe(s)'.