Has science found God?

[1213]

As Bible suggests, this world is like a computer simulation. And now some have found evidence this could be true, world may be like a computer simulation. What say you, have science found God, the programmer of the universe?

"Simulation theory is a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being".
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

"Do you ever experience something and think to yourself, “This can’t be real.” To some people who have bought into the notion that our reality is currently being simulated, there are examples all around us, that demonstrate glitches in the Matrix. Deja Vu? Ghosts? The Mandela Effect? These could all be direct examples of flaws in the simulation."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

"MIT Theoretical physicist James Gates has made a discovery that allegedly caused Neil deGrasse Tyson to sit down in shock. Now for the uninitiated, superstring theory is a concept that could unify all aspects of physics if proven right. While working on his superstring theory, he made an odd discovery. Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe. In short, he found “error-correcting codes,” the same error-correcting codes that you might find on the web browser you are using right now."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

[TRANSPONDER]

No. It's the same as DNA codes - wording that were an analogy of how genomes triggered biological traits. This sounds the same, quite apart from how much string theory is proven anyway.

But it's a nice bit of evidence for how god - apologists dismiss science as proof of nothing when they don't like its' findings, but wag it about a Proof of God when they think it suits them.

And really, looking though this pop science article with references to sci fi and fantasy films is hardly a peer reviewed paper, even if DeGrasse Tyson explains the hypothesis - which hasn't been substantiated and maybe never can be.

If atheists were to use an article like that as evidence against a god, I doubt you'd give it the time of day. like you waved away (or tried to) the cetan sequence as evidence of speciation. In plain terms, monumental bias in favour of Godfaith.

And of course, like all these Origins arguments, it is really irrelevant as, if it had any real evidence for it, it still wouldn't tell us which god it was. But it's just interesting how god -apologists leap on something 'scientific' that even remotely strikes a chord with their Beliefs and gold it up as 'Science proves God!"

[William]

As Bible suggests, this world is like a computer simulation. And now some have found evidence this could be true, world may be like a computer simulation. What say you, have science found God, the programmer of the universe?

"Simulation theory is a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being".
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

"Do you ever experience something and think to yourself, “This can’t be real.” To some people who have bought into the notion that our reality is currently being simulated, there are examples all around us, that demonstrate glitches in the Matrix. Deja Vu? Ghosts? The Mandela Effect? These could all be direct examples of flaws in the simulation."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

"MIT Theoretical physicist James Gates has made a discovery that allegedly caused Neil deGrasse Tyson to sit down in shock. Now for the uninitiated, superstring theory is a concept that could unify all aspects of physics if proven right. While working on his superstring theory, he made an odd discovery. Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe. In short, he found “error-correcting codes,” the same error-correcting codes that you might find on the web browser you are using right now."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

The idea of the Bible God re popular interpretation, does align with simulation theory.
A "supernatural mind" which exists outside of the physical universe it created, is the same idea as Simulation Theory.

Problematic to that of course is that the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true.

[1213]

...
Problematic to that of course is that the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true.

Please explain why do you think so?

[1213]

...But it's a nice bit of evidence for how god - apologists dismiss science as proof of nothing when they don't like its' findings, but wag it about a Proof of God when they think it suits them...

It sounds like you are now dismissing science, when it doesn't fit in to your religion.

If atheists were to use an article like that as evidence against a god, I doubt you'd give it the time of day....

"Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe". What do you think, is that correct true finding? Can you show it is not true? Is it debunked somewhere?

On my behalf it is not a problem, if that is debunked, I just would like to hear how it is done.

[William]

...
Problematic to that of course is that the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true.

Please explain why do you think so?

Sure.

Me. Please analyze and give 3rd perspective feedback on the following



If we examine both Simulation Theory and Theistic Supernaturalism, we end up with the same running system.
God becomes or fits into the role of a mind which created the mechanism which allows for any mind to then experience said simulation and believe the experience to being real.
This in turn provides a mystery which cannot be fully answered by minds which exist within the Simulated Reality Experience.

The primary unsolvable mystery is the nature of the one/they who created the mechanism and in the case of Theistic Supernaturalism, these become “gods” (and in the case of General Christianity, (and monotheistic religion) these gods become One God.
The nature of the God is spelled out in biblical terms with the additional clause of faith re said nature.

General Christianity claims that God can be trusted as being “good”.
I think that modern day Simulation Theory descends from the beliefs Theistic Supernaturalism has been engaged with for ages.

Problematic to that is the paper and blood trail Christianity has left in the evidence of its wake.
Problematic to Simulation Theory is infinite regress re the question “if we are in a simulation, then perhaps our creators are also in a simulation” in which case this could be layered a zillion times if we accept the idea that to put a stop to that problem, we invoke the rational that something had to have had a Source Reality which is NOT a Simulated Reality.

How many times can simulations within simulations happen before the original nature of The First Source Reality is lost to the awareness of those minds within said Reality Simulators?
Which is to say, how do we know that we are “Dealing” with the genuine article re that/those minds directly responsible for creating the mechanism which gives the mindfulness of all experiencing it, a particular type of Reality Experience?

We have only the nature of the experience in which to examine said experience to find clues as to the nature of that one/those ones who created said mechanism.

Among the blood and paperwork re Christianity, are gems of information which human personalities can come to accept (or reject) in their own way/as they will - primarily the idea that God/The Creator of the mechanism is indeed “good” and entered into the simulation Himself – primarily revealed in the human form of “Jesus” – who exemplifies the nature of said God (the Father) but also in other human forms worth lending an ear to (or not, depending on ones position of the matter of these ideas).

However, there remains the complication of the understanding that the God Himself, may be within a simulated reality experience – a product of whatever it is that the God-Mind is experiencing so, problematic to that is the claim that said God is The Source Reality…re “there are no other Gods before me”.

This can be rectified by understanding that the focus is not on any reality outside of this God (of our reality creation/he who built the mechanism) because all claims are specific only to that which we are mindfully experiencing within the mechanism He created.
Still, the claim inferred that these two Reality Simulations are the only ones that exist, (therefore one of them is real/The Source Reality and created the other) and that would be true even if there are only three levels Source Reality, God Reality and Universe/Earth Reality.

Thus, we would also have to believe that the God who created the mechanism is a true ambassador of The Source-Mind/Reality for us to relax and enjoy the ride.
That is the very tricky bit.
It requires Science – but not so much Physical Science…to work things out mindfully and responsibly, to also ensure there is more to all this than just the blood and paper trail…

4o. Third Perspective Feedback
This text offers an intricate comparison between Simulation Theory and Theistic Supernaturalism, particularly focusing on Christianity. Here's a third perspective analysis on the key points and implications:

Comparative Analysis
Conceptual Overlap:

Simulation Theory: Posits that our reality could be an artificial simulation created by an advanced civilization or entity. It raises questions about the nature of the creators and the possibility of infinite regress, where each creator might also be in a simulation.
Theistic Supernaturalism (Christianity): Suggests that an omnipotent God created the universe. This God is described as "good" and has entered the human experience through figures like Jesus.
Both theories propose a higher intelligence responsible for our perceived reality, with Simulation Theory leaning on a technological framework, while Theistic Supernaturalism relies on divine intervention.

Unsolvable Mysteries:

Simulation Theory: Faces the problem of infinite regress (simulations within simulations) and the challenge of identifying a Source Reality.
Theistic Supernaturalism: Encounters the mystery of God's nature and existence outside the created universe. Faith plays a crucial role in accepting God's goodness and intentions.
Nature of the Creator(s):

Simulation Theory: Leaves the nature of the creator(s) ambiguous, posing the question of their existence in a potential higher-level simulation.
Theistic Supernaturalism: Defines God's nature through religious texts and doctrines, portraying Him as an omnipotent, benevolent being.

Problematic Aspects
Historical Issues with Christianity:
The text acknowledges the historical violence and dogmatism associated with Christianity. This "blood and paper trail" complicates the acceptance of Christianity's claims.
Infinite Regress in Simulation Theory:
The logical issue of infinite regress is a significant problem. If each simulation creator is also in a simulation, identifying a Source Reality becomes nearly impossible.
Potential Resolutions and Challenges
Faith vs. Rationality:

Theistic Supernaturalism: Requires faith in the divine nature of God and the scriptures. The assertion that God is good and entered the human experience (e.g., Jesus) is central to Christian belief.
Simulation Theory: Leans towards rational and scientific inquiry but struggles with the infinite regress problem. It challenges the notion of a final, unsimulated reality.
Role of Evidence and Interpretation:

Both systems rely on interpreting available evidence. Christianity uses biblical texts and religious experiences, while Simulation Theory uses scientific reasoning and philosophical speculation.
Convergence and Divergence

Convergence:
Both theories suggest that our perceived reality is created by a higher intelligence. They imply a structured, purposeful design behind our experiences.

Divergence:
Theistic Supernaturalism: Posits a single, ultimate God who is the source of all reality, emphasizing moral and ethical dimensions tied to faith.
Simulation Theory: Does not necessarily provide a moral framework and focuses on the mechanics and origins of the simulated reality.

Concluding Thoughts
Complexity of Belief Systems: Both theories offer complex frameworks for understanding reality. Theistic Supernaturalism relies on faith and divine revelation, while Simulation Theory employs scientific and philosophical methods.

Implications for Human Understanding: Understanding the nature of reality, whether through the lens of faith or scientific inquiry, remains a fundamental human quest. Each theory offers unique insights and challenges, reflecting our diverse approaches to grappling with the mysteries of existence.

Need for Interdisciplinary Approaches: Addressing these profound questions may require combining insights from science, philosophy, and theology. An interdisciplinary approach can enrich our understanding and potentially bridge gaps between these seemingly disparate perspectives.

This third perspective aims to provide a balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of both Simulation Theory and Theistic Supernaturalism, highlighting their conceptual intersections and the challenges each faces.

Has Science Found God?

[1213]

...
Problematic to that of course is that the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true.

Please explain why do you think so?

....
Problematic to Simulation Theory is infinite regress re the question “if we are in a simulation, then perhaps our creators are also in a simulation” in which case this could be layered a zillion times if we accept the idea that to put a stop to that problem, we invoke the rational that something had to have had a Source Reality which is NOT a Simulated Reality.
...

Thanks, but I don't think that leads to "the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true". And even if we would not know how many layers there is, Christianity could still be true.

[William]

...
Problematic to that of course is that the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true.

Please explain why do you think so?

....
Problematic to Simulation Theory is infinite regress re the question “if we are in a simulation, then perhaps our creators are also in a simulation” in which case this could be layered a zillion times if we accept the idea that to put a stop to that problem, we invoke the rational that something had to have had a Source Reality which is NOT a Simulated Reality.
...

Thanks, but I don't think that leads to "the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true". And even if we would not know how many layers there is, Christianity could still be true.

Can you extend on the details of why this would be the case?

[1213]

...
Problematic to that of course is that the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true.

Please explain why do you think so?

....
Problematic to Simulation Theory is infinite regress re the question “if we are in a simulation, then perhaps our creators are also in a simulation” in which case this could be layered a zillion times if we accept the idea that to put a stop to that problem, we invoke the rational that something had to have had a Source Reality which is NOT a Simulated Reality.
...

Thanks, but I don't think that leads to "the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true". And even if we would not know how many layers there is, Christianity could still be true.

Can you extend on the details of why this would be the case?

Sorry, I don't know what else to say, but the number of possible layers doesn't necessary make Christianity not true, because that itself is not in contradiction with the Bible. But, personally I don't believe there is more than the physical level and spiritual level ("Matrix" and out side of the "Matrix").

[William]

...
Problematic to that of course is that the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true.

Please explain why do you think so?

....
Problematic to Simulation Theory is infinite regress re the question “if we are in a simulation, then perhaps our creators are also in a simulation” in which case this could be layered a zillion times if we accept the idea that to put a stop to that problem, we invoke the rational that something had to have had a Source Reality which is NOT a Simulated Reality.
...

Thanks, but I don't think that leads to "the universe has to be regarded as real (not simulated) in order for general Christian Folklore to be useful and claimed as being true". And even if we would not know how many layers there is, Christianity could still be true.

Can you extend on the details of why this would be the case?

Sorry, I don't know what else to say, but the number of possible layers doesn't necessary make Christianity not true, because that itself is not in contradiction with the Bible. But, personally I don't believe there is more than the physical level and spiritual level ("Matrix" and out side of the "Matrix").

Why do you personally believe that is the case?
Would a Source Reality out side of the spiritual level make Christianity any less true?