"In the beginning God created ...."

[William]

"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?

[William]

Then show me Heaven on Earth, for this is the reasoning you are using to argue against the idea.

For both Columbia and Taiwan are part of the same simulated environment [Earth]

Actually, my reasoning is that a similarity of some form does not suggest a simulation.

And yet my reasoning say's the opposite. There are patterns involved in relation to the energy which work together to produce things.
Within the things we can clearly enough see that something behind creation is involved with creation unfolding as it does.
It is therefore reasonable to point out that this is evidence in support of simulation.

More generally, my reasoning against the simulation theory is that there is no reason to think that it is true.

Yes there is. There is more reason to think it true than to think that a big voice in the sky spoke it into being real. The evidence points to a much more intricate cause.
Indeed it is not a matter of removing the creator from the creation but making better definitions of the creator than those which have been handed down to us through religious theism.
In that we should be able to understand that the ancients were not too far removed in their belief that God spoke the universe into existence...but that the 'speaking' had to do with algorithms put into place in order for this particular simulation to unfold as it has done.
In other words, "Spoke" is an analogy of "Coding" which follows patterns caused by vibration...so sound appears to be involved in that process.
"Let There Be" is the thought which somehow is heard within the mind field of the creator, and 'becomes' real within the creators mind - real enough for the creator to experience as real, but simulated nonetheless.
This is why things can be unmade. Because they are not real.

We appear to not live in a simulated reality. Appearances can be deceiving, but most of the time they aren’t.

It is reasonable to think therefore that the only real 'being', is that which is experiencing the unreal, and by that act, is making it appear real.

[The Tanager]

There are patterns involved in relation to the energy which work together to produce things.
Within the things we can clearly enough see that something behind creation is involved with creation unfolding as it does.
It is therefore reasonable to point out that this is evidence in support of simulation.

What do you mean that there is something behind creation involved with it unfolding as it does? Those who espouse a form of LT (without ST) would be okay with this language, at least on the surface. There are physical laws, God takes an active role in how creation unfolds, for instance. But perhaps you mean something different? If not, then the same evidence fits both the ST and LT frameworks.

but that the 'speaking' had to do with algorithms put into place in order for this particular simulation to unfold as it has done.
In other words, "Spoke" is an analogy of "Coding" which follows patterns caused by vibration...so sound appears to be involved in that process.

Do you mean this in the sense of determinism over against libertarian free will? If not, then could you explain this "coding" more completely and distinguish it from determinism?

[William]

A religious image which supports the idea of Simulated Reality...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #74]

Could you explain how this image supports the idea of Simulated Reality to you to better help me grasp your understanding?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #74]

Could you explain how this image supports the idea of Simulated Reality to you to better help me grasp your understanding?

Based upon all of our prior interactions, my answer would have to be "No. Proberbly not"