How would you know?

[knownbeforetime]

I got to thinking... I got to thinking that our world is like the Matrix. If you haven't watched the movie, the Matrix is a virtual reality computer program that holds the human race captive in order for "the machines" to harvest power from our bodies. The thing is that the Matrix is an exact replica of 21st century Earth. No one, except a faint few, know that their world is fake, that their world is created...

Imagine that the above scenario is real and that you are a scientist in this virtual world. Would you be able to conclude that your world is created? How would you do that? Would you still conclude that your world is millions (billions) of years old and causeless? Would you still conclude all this even though little things like the evidence of design kept popping up?

What if I made it easier? What if some nutjob (perhaps he is named Morpheus), came and told you that your world is created? Would you believe it then?

Could you imagine being Neo? He must have thought that his world was billions of years old too but he soon found out that the Matrix (his world) was only 200 years old.

Is Our Reality Virtual? by Chuck Missler

You could also read "The Great Divorce" by C. S. Lewis. He also thought our world may be virtual.

IMHO, I think our world, our reality, is a virtual simulation created by God about 6,000 years ago and sometime in the first 0 - 100 years a virus (sin and death) crept in and disrupted some of the programming. Eventually, the virus will cause the program to crash (we'll be "unplugged" or "raptured" before that happens) and a new program will be written much like the old one. And the virus-writer (Satan) will thrown into everlasting fire so that he can't disrupt the new creation.

 

[ebia]

IImagine that the above scenario is real and that you are a scientist in this virtual world. Would you be able to conclude that your world is created? How would you do that? Would you still conclude that your world is millions (billions) of years old and causeless? Would you still conclude all this even though little things like the evidence of design kept popping up?

That would depend on whether I had some way of telling if the things were designed, like some information about the designer's other designs, and perhaps some un-designed things to compare it to.

What if I made it easier? What if some nutjob (perhaps he is named Morpheus), came and told you that your world is created? Would you believe it then?

I can't say I believe every nutjob who comes along.

IMHO, I think our world, our reality, is a virtual simulation created by God about 6,000 years ago and sometime in the first 0 - 100 years a virus (sin and death) crept in and disrupted some of the programming. Eventually, the virus will cause the program to crash (we'll be "unplugged" or "raptured" before that happens) and a new program will be written much like the old one. And the virus-writer (Satan) will thrown into everlasting fire so that he can't disrupt the new creation.

So you would accept the world's evidence that it is designed (even without any criteria or sufficient information to do so), but not that same world's direct evidence of how it was built and how long it took? Not very consistent of you.

 

[depthdeception]

I got to thinking... I got to thinking that our world is like the Matrix. If you haven't watched the movie, the Matrix is a virtual reality computer program that holds the human race captive in order for "the machines" to harvest power from our bodies. The thing is that the Matrix is an exact replica of 21st century Earth. No one, except a faint few, know that their world is fake, that their world is created...

Imagine that the above scenario is real and that you are a scientist in this virtual world. Would you be able to conclude that your world is created? How would you do that? Would you still conclude that your world is millions (billions) of years old and causeless? Would you still conclude all this even though little things like the evidence of design kept popping up?

What if I made it easier? What if some nutjob (perhaps he is named Morpheus), came and told you that your world is created? Would you believe it then?

Could you imagine being Neo? He must have thought that his world was billions of years old too but he soon found out that the Matrix (his world) was only 200 years old.

Is Our Reality Virtual? by Chuck Missler

You could also read "The Great Divorce" by C. S. Lewis. He also thought our world may be virtual.

IMHO, I think our world, our reality, is a virtual simulation created by God about 6,000 years ago and sometime in the first 0 - 100 years a virus (sin and death) crept in and disrupted some of the programming. Eventually, the virus will cause the program to crash (we'll be "unplugged" or "raptured" before that happens) and a new program will be written much like the old one. And the virus-writer (Satan) will thrown into everlasting fire so that he can't disrupt the new creation.

Okay, so let's assume this analogy is correct. That means that God has deceived us (just like the Matrix). And what is the reason for which God has deceived us? The only reasonable answer can be so that the Genesis creation myths can be interpreted literally by a small and specific segment of the human population (after all, most Christians throughout history have not interpretetd Genesis "literally" in the way that YEC'ers do...).

Personally, that is a much more difficult idea to reconcile theologically than the reality of a 15-billion year universe.

 

[knownbeforetime]

That would depend on whether I had some way of telling if the things were designed, like some information about the designer's other designs, and perhaps some un-designed things to compare it to.

Well, he’s only got the one creation… Unless you’re in to Gap Theory which says there was a creation prior to this one. There’s information on the designer in the Bible. He says he created us in his own image. There’s info on the creation called heaven and there’s some info on the new creation in the Bible. The fact is that everything comes from God.

I can't say I believe every nutjob who comes along.

Would you believe God then? In the movie, Neo respected Morpheus very much and if Morpheus said that Neo’s world was created then Neo should probably believe him. Even so, Neo was presented with a choice: Red pill (and discover what the Matrix truly is) or the blue pill (and go back to regular life).

So you would accept the world's evidence that it is designed (even without any criteria or sufficient information to do so), but not that same world's direct evidence of how it was built and how long it took? Not very consistent of you.

I don’t only have the evidence but I have the Bible. The Bible has an eye-witness account of creation by a very credible observer, the same person we trust in for our salvation.


What would direct evidence matter in a virtual world? You could study an ample amount of rocks and dirt and conclude that they're million of years old. However, at the end of the day, your world is a replica of a timeless place. Our world is made to look "mature" (with fully grown trees, animals, people but not necessarily with fossils already in the ground, mind you...) because the place it is modeled after is timeless. Einstein even said that past, present, and future is just a stubbornly persistent illusion.

Okay, so let's assume this analogy is correct. That means that God has deceived us (just like the Matrix). And what is the reason for which God has deceived us? The only reasonable answer can be so that the Genesis creation myths can be interpreted literally by a small and specific segment of the human population (after all, most Christians throughout history have not interpretetd Genesis "literally" in the way that YEC'ers do...).

Personally, that is a much more difficult idea to reconcile theologically than the reality of a 15-billion year universe.

No, no, no! The Matrix was created by a malicious force (the machines). And, of course, I didn’t mean to say that we are really in power farms being harvested for our electricity.


Virtual doesn't mean fake. In the movie, The Matrix was real but when you got outside it, it looked vastly different. From the inside, it probably had the sensation of being a very old place. From the outside, however, you could probably conclude that it was only 200 years old.


From the inside of creation, it has the sensation (with sensory evidence and everything) of being very old. I think that when we get to see creation from the outside, we'll understand that a world like this couldn’t survive for more than 10,000 years at the most.

God is love. The reason for creation is so that God can have people that truly love Him. Remember, Adam and Eve were given a sort of "red pill/blue pill" choice also. And as Neo says, "It's all about choice."

 

[ebia]

Well, he’s only got the one creation… Unless you’re in to Gap Theory which says there was a creation prior to this one. There’s information on the designer in the Bible. He says he created us in his own image.

And what do we know about God that we can compare to his image (us). Hmm, loving, merciful, just. I don't think you can build a convincing case on that one.

There’s info on the creation called heaven and there’s some info on the new creation in the Bible.

Neither of which look anything like this creation, so I'll have to conclude that, if this creation is designed it looks like it was done by a different designer.

The fact is that everything comes from God.

That's a circular argument, but it also highlights the other half of the problem. If we don't have anything that is not designed by God, then we can't possible find a criteria for telling designed from not designed.

Would you believe God then? In the movie, Neo respected Morpheus very much and if Morpheus said that Neo’s world was created then Neo should probably believe him. Even so, Neo was presented with a choice: Red pill (and discover what the Matrix truly is) or the blue pill (and go back to regular life).

I'm not going to comment on the movie, because I haven't seen it.

I don’t only have the evidence but I have the Bible. The Bible has an eye-witness account of creation by a very credible observer, the same person we trust in for our salvation.

There are a whole heap of unstated and unsupported assumptions in that statement.

What would direct evidence matter in a virtual world? You could study an ample amount of rocks and dirt and conclude that they're million of years old. However, at the end of the day, your world is a replica of a timeless place. Our world is made to look "mature" (with fully grown trees, animals, people but not necessarily with fossils already in the ground, mind you...) because the place it is modeled after is timeless.

Then it is an incredibly poor model, because it doesn't look timeless, it looks very old. Very old is no closer to timeless than very young. So what we have is a fake creation made by a lying, incompetent designer?

 

[knownbeforetime]

And what do we know about God that we can compare to his image (us). Hmm, loving, merciful, just. I don't think you can build a convincing case on that one.

The Bible describes God several times, most notably in the beginning of the book of Revelation.

Neither of which look anything like this creation, so I'll have to conclude that, if this creation is designed it looks like it was done by a different designer.

Many things on Earth are shadows of things in Heaven. i.e. The Tabernacle. John described the throne of God and saw a new heavens and a new Earth coming down. For John to describe them as a “new heavens and a new Earth” they’d have to look like the ones he was familiar with.

That's a circular argument, but it also highlights the other half of the problem. If we don't have anything that is not designed by God, then we can't possible find a criteria for telling designed from not designed.

Hence, the title of the thread, “How would you know?”. This is the only world we have ever experienced. We haven’t been to heaven or seen the new creation for ourselves.

There are a whole heap of unstated and unsupported assumptions in that statement.

Are you saying you don’t believe the Bible? Is God credible? Yes. Does he say he was there? Yes. Does God lie? No. What can I conclude from this? I can conclude that the Genesis account is accurate.

Then it is an incredibly poor model, because it doesn't look timeless, it looks very old. Very old is no closer to timeless than very young. So what we have is a fake creation made by a lying, incompetent designer?

Yeah, I guess that was a poor description… And I didn’t consider the fact that the beginning of creation was very different from what we know as the world today. Sin has entered the world and is causing everything to breakdown. That is why I said “the virus” will cause “the program” to crash. I was trying to say that a timeless Heaven (which, in a sense, is billions of years old) translates into a creation (that isn’t timeless) that looks billions of years old or, at least, mature.



But you obviously didn’t read the last bit of my previous post. Virtual=/=fake and created=/=fake! Our world is just a different reality not the opposite of reality. In the movie, the Matrix wasn’t fake. It just looked different from the outside. Neo thought one thing about his world because his experience was limited to what little he could sense from the inside. When he got out, he could take in the whole picture, so to speak. The question is, “Could Neo have concluded that his world was created without Morpheus telling him?” Can we, without the Bible, conclude that our world is created? Obviously not…



How about publishing computer programs? Would you publish a computer program that a ton of bugs in it and expect the customer to buy a new version for every bug that is fixed? Or would you publish the version that had all the bugs fixed? Because evolution is like a computer program with a ton of bugs in it and, apparently, creation is supposed to suffer for the next “software update” to be installed. However, I believe God “published the software” of creation with absolutely no bugs in it but then it got infected with a “virus’’ which is causing the program to crash.

 

[ebia]

The Bible describes God several times, most notably in the beginning of the book of Revelation.

Not in ways that are particularly helpful in guessing what something he designed would look like.

Many things on Earth are shadows of things in Heaven. i.e. The Tabernacle. John described the throne of God and saw a new heavens and a new Earth coming down. For John to describe them as a “new heavens and a new Earth” they’d have to look like the ones he was familiar with.

John uses words about the earth to describe the heavens because that's all he has to work with. The only words he has access to are words to describe the earth, so he has to use those as best he can to describe something of what heaven is like. You get a sense of this "I can't really describe it, but I have to try" in the closing phrase of Ezekiel chapter 1: "This was the appearence of the likeness of the glory of the Lord". I.e. (at least) two steps removed from what it is actually attempting to describe.

Hence, the title of the thread, “How would you know?”. This is the only world we have ever experienced. We haven’t been to heaven or seen the new creation for ourselves.

The answer is we maybe.

Are you saying you don’t believe the Bible? Is God credible? Yes. Does he say he was there? Yes. Does God lie? No. What can I conclude from this? I can conclude that the Genesis account is accurate.

Theologically accurate, yes. Historically precise, no.

Yeah, I guess that was a poor description… And I didn’t consider the fact that the beginning of creation was very different from what we know as the world today. Sin has entered the world and is causing everything to breakdown. That is why I said “the virus” will cause “the program” to crash. I was trying to say that a timeless Heaven (which, in a sense, is billions of years old)

Timeless is not remotely the same as very old. It is no more like very old than very young. Timeless means without time.

Is something with no thickness more like something 1cm thick or something 1 billion km thick?

But you obviously didn’t read the last bit of my previous post. Virtual=/=fake and created=/=fake!

You misunderstand me. A world that looks old when it is actually young fake. A world that looks old when it is actually young and is supposed to be or look timeless is a bad fake.

Can we, without the Bible, conclude that our world is created? Obviously not…

Lots of people have done so. We can't prove that it's created.

How about publishing computer programs? Would you publish a computer program that a ton of bugs in it and expect the customer to buy a new version for every bug that is fixed?

Yep. Been there, done that.

Or would you publish the version that had all the bugs fixed?

Never happens. No computer program beyond the trivial has all the bugs fixed. If you waited till all the bugs were fixed it would never get published.

Because evolution is like a computer program with a ton of bugs in it

Um, not it's not. It's a self modifying program.

 

[TwinCrier]

Okay, so let's assume this analogy is correct. That means that God has deceived us (just like the Matrix). And what is the reason for which God has deceived us? The only reasonable answer can be so that the Genesis creation myths can be interpreted literally by a small and specific segment of the human population (after all, most Christians throughout history have not interpretetd Genesis "literally" in the way that YEC'ers do...).

Personally, that is a much more difficult idea to reconcile theologically than the reality of a 15-billion year universe.

Well, how deceptive to come out and flat out tell people how the Earth was created instead of letting the sinfilled little rebels figure it out with their own fabulous intellect!

 

[Donkeytron]

Well, how deceptive to come out and flat out tell people how the Earth was created instead of letting the sinfilled little rebels figure it out with their own fabulous intellect!

Strangely enough, the sinfilled little rebels have done a pretty good job figuring out the origins of life and the earth.

 

[knownbeforetime]

John uses words about the earth to describe the heavens because that's all he has to work with. The only words he has access to are words to describe the earth, so he has to use those as best he can to describe something of what heaven is like. You get a sense of this "I can't really describe it, but I have to try" in the closing phrase of Ezekiel chapter 1: "This was the appearence of the likeness of the glory of the Lord". I.e. (at least) two steps removed from what it is actually attempting to describe.

The point was that he was able to describe it all. It wasn’t an entirely foreign place. If Earth wasn’t in some way modeled after Heaven, John, Isaiah, or Ezekiel would have been clueless as to how to describe it.

Theologically accurate, yes. Historically precise, no.

If you really believe in God, you will truly believe that He is absolutely right or He is absolutely wrong. Which one will you pick? God will be always be right regardless of the latest historical or scientific findings.

Timeless is not remotely the same as very old. It is no more like very old than very young. Timeless means without time.

Is something with no thickness more like something 1cm thick or something 1 billion km thick?

I know what timeless means, thank you. I’m just going off what I know about the original creation. Everything was created mature, like it had been around for a while. In Heaven, I would expect to find much the same. In Heaven, past, present, and future are meaningless. So it’d be like the day it was created but you would see things that you would conclude had been around a while.

You misunderstand me. A world that looks old when it is actually young fake. A world that looks old when it is actually young and is supposed to be or look timeless is a bad fake.

Do you honestly feel cheated by the fact that God created full grown trees in the Garden of Eden instead of planting seedlings? Looking old doesn’t mean it absolutely has to be old. Haven’t you ever seen a woman that looked 60 but she was really 35? Would you try to tell her that she was lying to everyone by looking 60, something she most likely couldn’t help?

Never happens. No computer program beyond the trivial has all the bugs fixed. If you waited till all the bugs were fixed it would never get published.

But we’re not talking about any ordinary computer programmer. We’re talking about the Father of all computer programmers!

Um, not it's not. It's a self modifying program.

If it was perfect in the first place, it wouldn’t have to modify itself… It’s all about efficiency. God’s creation process is more efficient than an Evolutionary process. In fact, seeing that creation hasn't modified itself in the last 6,000 years, I'd say there isn't any such feature in the "programming".

Strangely enough, the sinfilled little rebels have done a pretty good job figuring out the origins of life and the earth.

Except they’re wrong…

 

[ebia]

The point was that he was able to describe it all. It wasn’t an entirely foreign place. If Earth wasn’t in some way modeled after Heaven, John, Isaiah, or Ezekiel would have been clueless as to how to describe it.

That simply doesn't follow. They use metaphores like everyone else describing the indescribable.

If you really believe in God, you will truly believe that He is absolutely right or He is absolutely wrong. Which one will you pick?

Absolutely right. But Genesis is not intended to be taken as historical fact.

I know what timeless means, thank you. I’m just going off what I know about the original creation. Everything was created mature, like it had been around for a while. In Heaven, I would expect to find much the same. In Heaven, past, present, and future are meaningless. So it’d be like the day it was created but you would see things that you would conclude had been around a while.

If it truely is eternal, not you would not. I'm sorry, but just because you can't imagine eternal does not mean "it's a bit like a very, very, long time".

Do you honestly feel cheated by the fact that God created full grown trees in the Garden of Eden instead of planting seedlings? Looking old doesn’t mean it absolutely has to be old.

We can read the history - the story - of years preceeding the supposed date of a young earth creation. If that history never happened, then it is a lie.

Haven’t you ever seen a woman that looked 60 but she was really 35? Would you try to tell her that she was lying to everyone by looking 60, something she most likely couldn’t help?

I'm sorry, but that's simply not analogous. We not only know that things are older than 6000 years old; we know what stuff about what actually happened and when.

But we’re not talking about any ordinary computer programmer. We’re talking about the Father of all computer programmers!

It's not my fault if your analogy didn't work.

If it was perfect in the first place, it wouldn’t have to modify itself…

It's perfection is in it's ability to modify itself.

It’s all about efficiency. God’s creation process is more efficient than an Evolutionary process.

That's a matter of personal opinion. In my opinion the evolutionary process is far more efficient and elegant.

In fact, seeing that creation hasn't modified itself in the last 6,000 years, I'd say there isn't any such feature in the "programming".

It has. Evolution continues to happen. It's a slow process, so we wouldn't expect to see huge changes, but we do see exactly what we would expect to see.

Except they’re wrong…

That's your opinion.

 

[knownbeforetime]

Absolutely right. But Genesis is not intended to be taken as historical fact.

There is nothing in the narative to suggest that it is other than historical fact. Genesis goes right from Adam to Noah to Abraham. Where do you draw the line? Why would God inspire a book that isn't truthful or, at best, half-truthful? What reason has God to write myths?

We can read the history - the story - of years preceeding the supposed date of a young earth creation. If that history never happened, then it is a lie.

OMGoodness, man lying! Shock and amazement!

It's not my fault if your analogy didn't work.

What are you talking about? The analogy does work. God wrote a perfect "program" with absolutely no quirks in it. Man can't write perfect "software" because we are imperfect.

It's perfection is in it's ability to modify itself.

THAT is the MOST nonsensical thing I've ever heard! If it's perfect, it doesn't have modify itself! Otherwise, it wasn't perfect in the first place!

That's a matter of personal opinion. In my opinion the evolutionary process is far more efficient and elegant.

The evolutionary process is the most ugly, inefficient, gross, disgusting, unloving thing man ever came up with. It ranks right up there with the Holocaust (which was also satanically motivated).

If the Theory of Evolution were proven beyond all doubt, I would cease to believe in God. The Book of Revelation has no meaning outside of the Genesis story. Christianity has no meaning outside of the Genesis creation account. If Genesis isn't accurate, you might as well say that Christ adopted a human body to grab a bag of Cheetos because, apparently, nature is improving itself and not in need of a redemptive sacrifice!

Romans 1:22-23 "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

2 Peter 3:3-5 "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

 

[ebia]

There is nothing in the narative to suggest that it is other than historical fact. Genesis goes right from Adam to Noah to Abraham. Where do you draw the line? Why would God inspire a book that isn't truthful or, at best, half-truthful? What reason has God to write myths?

Myths can be true. Genesis is true. It's a truthful account of God's purpose for creation and for us, and of how we stuff that up. True does not mean factual, and only someone living in the last couple of centuries would think it did.

OMGoodness, man lying! Shock and amazement!

Not men lying. The story written into creation lying.

What are you talking about? The analogy does work. God wrote a perfect "program" with absolutely no quirks in it. Man can't write perfect "software" because we are imperfect.

Apologies. I should have said the way you tried to use your analogy failed.

THAT is the MOST nonsensical thing I've ever heard! If it's perfect, it doesn't have modify itself! Otherwise, it wasn't perfect in the first place!

You have a very limited concept of perfection. Perfection means "can't be improved upon", not "unchanging".

The evolutionary process is the most ugly, inefficient, gross, disgusting, unloving thing man ever came up with. It ranks right up there with the Holocaust (which was also satanically motivated).

Proof by yuch factor. See the big whole over there? That's where your credibility just went. I guess I might as well finish this post though.

If the Theory of Evolution were proven beyond all doubt, I would cease to believe in God.

I'm sorry your faith is so weak, and built on a house of straw.

The Book of Revelation has no meaning outside of the Genesis story. Christianity has no meaning outside of the Genesis creation account. If Genesis isn't accurate, you might as well say that Christ adopted a human body to grab a bag of Cheetos because, apparently, nature is improving itself and not in need of a redemptive sacrifice!

This makes no sense at all. We can't "evolve" our way out of the theological hole called "sin". Evolution doesn't make us better - it makes us more suited to our physical environment.

Romans 1:22-23 "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

"I'm right and you're wrong, so nah, nah, nah, nah, nah."

2 Peter 3:3-5 "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

Seems to be the Creationists that keep worrying about that.

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

Perfectly true - theologically.

 

[shernren]

Firstly, it is not a new idea that you are presenting. It is an offshoot of ancient Indian philosophy, namely the concept of maya. In this concept, the world as we know it is illusory. Everything we see and experience around us does not in actual fact exist, but are simply the product of an infinite, impersonal Deity's dreams/thoughts. When the Deity wakes up all this will dissolve. This stream of thought came to the West as "solipsism". The counterpoint to this of course is that when we humans perceive evil, difficulty, or death in this world it is not something that actually exists, but rather a defect in our perception that makes us forget / not know that evil is also an illusion. Significantly, these two ideas (maya and ignorance) are fundamental ideas in modern New Age teaching, which is blatantly anti-Christian. I am saying this not to insinuate that you are less Christian than me but to warn you that these ideas have unsavoury roots. And we'll discuss exactly why these ideas are un-Christian later in the post.

Secondly, you are right: if we were living in a simulated world, there would be only one way for us to know: if we could escape it. It may very well be true. (But for it to be true is very, very contrary to Christian theology: which I'll get to later.) But if it is true, then we evolutionists are still not wrong. Why? Because it is one thing to say that "evolution is true" and another to say "evolution is scientific". Here's a parallel to the Matrix: in the Matrix, objects fall at the standard acceleration (9.8 m/s^2), and any object in the Matrix falls at that rate. A Matrix scientist would say "gravitational acceleration is a scientific fact", and he'd be perfectly right. In the Matrix objects do fall at that rate, and they keep doing so even if it's different in the outside world (if the body farm was, say, on the surface of the Moon). In the same way, even if our world is a "simulated world", evolution is perfectly consistent with the "simulated rules" of our "simulated world".

Thirdly, this does nothing to help Creationists. Arguing for a "virtual reality" universe in which God took six actual days to create the universe but programmed it to look old begs the question: What day is used in Genesis 1? This is an interesting take because whether a literal or metaphorical day, every mention of time in the OT is time in the "virtual" world. So on what basis could a Creationist say that "okay, the six days of Genesis 1 are "real" days, and every other day in the OT is a "virtual" day"?

Fourthly (and this is my number one problem with that idea) what would a virtual creation tell us about God? The Bible specifically says that "the heavens declare the glory of God" and there is even a psalm (can't remember which) which puts the glories of the skies next to the glory of Scripture and ends with the psalmist praising God for both. In The Matrix, how did you feel when you found out that the world Neo knew and lived in was actually a construct created by robots? Did you go "Wow, these robots must have been incredibly intelligent to create a fake universe!"? Actually, that's a possible first response - it must be an incredible computer that can model all the physics on Earth! - but I bet that's not your response. You thought "What the? It's been robots pulling wool over Neo's eyes all along? Go and frag the tincans!"

Christianity has been very important for science and this is directly because Christians believe that the world is real. As I said earlier, the idea that the world is virtual and human senses receive data about events that are just illusory is a Far-Eastern mystical concept. And if one truly holds to this then science is meaningless - if the universe is an illusion why study it? The greatest desire is not to master and understand this illusion we live in but to break out of it into Nirvana. Christianity, on the other hand, has believed that God created a universe - and a real universe. God's glory is real - it is something that exists and is true and has power, whether or not we believe in it. Therefore the universe reflecting it must also be real - the universe must not stop existing even if we try to "unplug" and reach beyond it. God is orderly, and so is the universe. God is the omniscient Creator and so He created a universe of orderly complexity. God is rational, and He reflects this rationality in two ways: firstly that we, who are made in the image of God, are also rational; and the universe, designed to reflect the glory of God, is also rationally understandable.

It is the last two statements that make the Christian contribution to science so powerful. In pantheistic, "virtual world" philosophies, since the world is an illusion why understand it? In Islam (if I'm not mistaken) Allah creates the universe just as a backdrop and its study is just something on the side - to obey God unquestioningly and slavishly is the only important thing in existence and only that much science is needed. The Quran fully reveals Allah and so nature need not say anything about Him. It is in Christianity that creation finds its proper place. Because God created creation to be studied and to reflect God's glory, studying God's creation actually becomes one of the reasons why God created man. Science is glorified in the Christian scheme of things. In fact, until the Enlightenment science was simply "natural theology" - knowing God through nature.

And what sort of a God would want to be known through a "virtual" nature?

(Aside: I don't actually think C.S. Lewis was advocating any "virtuality" of Earth in The Great Divorce. In the first place it was an allegory / parable; in the second I think his idea was not so much that it doesn't actually exist in comparison to eternity, but that what little of it exists is so trivial and small compared to eternity that we should live not for anything that exists within it alone but only for anything and everything which affects our eternity.)

 

[knownbeforetime]

Myths can be true. Genesis is true. It's a truthful account of God's purpose for creation and for us, and of how we stuff that up. True does not mean factual, and only someone living in the last couple of centuries would think it did.

That makes no sense. How can it be “a truthful account of God’s purpose for creation”, if it didn’t actually happen?

The story written into creation lying

I’m just trying to tell you what the Bible says. In six days, God created everything. That’s what the Bible says and that what I believe.

You have a very limited concept of perfection. Perfection means "can't be improved upon", not "unchanging".

If it’s not broken, don’t fix it…

I'm sorry your faith is so weak, and built on a house of straw.

My faith is the strongest it has ever been. It was only when my faith was weak, that I questioned the Word of God.

This makes no sense at all. We can't "evolve" our way out of the theological hole called "sin". Evolution doesn't make us better - it makes us more suited to our physical environment.

So evolution makes us more suited to a world that is breaking down because of the effect of sin? Again, why would we need a saviour, if we’re constantly adapting to a failing environment? Hey, maybe one day, we’ll evolve to be immortal! Definitely no need for a saviour there!

Perfectly true - theologically.

Then why don’t you believe it? My faith is the strongest it’s been because I finally started listening to what God’s word said.



To Shenren, virtual or created=/=fake. Why can’t anybody see that? Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the Glory of God and the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Why would David say that? Because God created it. David is admiring the creations of God.



In the Matrix, I felt lied to when the Matrix was revealed to be virtual. Why? Because the machines deliberately withheld that information from the population. God told us some 4,000 years ago how the world came to be and he said that it was created. When I get to heaven, I won’t feel lied to by God because he revealed all this long ago. However, a fair few of you in heaven just might feel cheated by the fact that your world was, indeed, created. Let’s be glad that the question will be settled in heaven.



I also do not believe that this is some weird dream of God’s. Why would God have a dream about a sin-filled creation? No, the Bible says that God is actively maintaining his creation. Colossians 1:17 says, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” God is actively trying to hold this universe together for a few more years.

I think his idea was not so much that it doesn't actually exist in comparison to eternity, but that what little of it exists is so trivial and small compared to eternity that we should live not for anything that exists within it alone but only for anything and everything which affects our eternity.

It is the last two statements that make the Christian contribution to science so powerful. In pantheistic, "virtual world" philosophies, since the world is an illusion why understand it? In Islam (if I'm not mistaken) Allah creates the universe just as a backdrop and its study is just something on the side - to obey God unquestioningly and slavishly is the only important thing in existence and only that much science is needed. The Quran fully reveals Allah and so nature need not say anything about Him. It is in Christianity that creation finds its proper place. Because God created creation to be studied and to reflect God's glory, studying God's creation actually becomes one of the reasons why God created man. Science is glorified in the Christian scheme of things. In fact, until the Enlightenment science was simply "natural theology" - knowing God through nature.

Again, virtual doesn’t equal fake and I don’t believe in Pantheism. However, it is true that God comes first in my life. Science is second (or maybe in the top ten). This creation of God is to His glory and is worthy to be studied. I hope to study physics (or, at least, mathematics, or possibly information science). Who says we can’t study gravity just because it’s created? All the while, we must remember that we are trying to store up “real” treasure, which is in heaven.

 

[depthdeception]

That's a matter of personal opinion. In my opinion the evolutionary process is far more efficient and elegant.

This is a good point. Many "creationists" (it's unfair that the term is limited to those who label themselves as such) that I talk to refuse to believe in evolutionary theory or big bang cosmology because of aesthetics. They feel that their conception of how God created the universe and all life is somehow more "beautiful" or "efficient" than what has occurred through evolutionary biology, etc. While the aesthetic is indeed a powerful lens through which to view the universe, it must be asked whose conception of beauty is to be the defining criterion for truth.

 

[knownbeforetime]

Well, I have to say goodbye. I'm going to St. Louis this weekend and I don't want to be mulling this over on the way.

Maybe later...

It's been fun y'all.

See ya in heaven!

 

[ebia]

That makes no sense. How can it be “a truthful account of God’s purpose for creation”, if it didn’t actually happen?

The same way a parable is. Stories can be true, without being factual.

I’m just trying to tell you what the Bible says. In six days, God created everything. That’s what the Bible says and that what I believe.

But Creation itself, which is also written by God, says that it was created over billions of years and gives us a lot of information about how that happened. The bible is not the only thing written by God, they all need to agree, and they do agree providing you don't try and read Genesis as something it was never intended to be - an historical account.

If it’s not broken, don’t fix it…

Change does not mean fix.

My faith is the strongest it has ever been. It was only when my faith was weak, that I questioned the Word of God.

Perhaps it is, but it is built with a flaw in the foundation - that the bible must be interpreted in one particular way.

So evolution makes us more suited to a world that is breaking down because of the effect of sin? Again, why would we need a saviour, if we’re constantly adapting to a failing environment?

The same reason you need a saviour anyway. Salvation is about restoring our relationship with God - you can't breed your way out of that one.

Hey, maybe one day, we’ll evolve to be immortal! Definitely no need for a saviour there!

Immortality is not a particually useful trait from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution deals in the success of populations, not individuals.

Then why don’t you believe it? My faith is the strongest it’s been because I finally started listening to what God’s word said.

I do believe it. That's the whole point. Like most of the Christian world I recognise that the opening chapters of Genesis are about theology, not history. That doesn't make them any less true because theology, in the long run, is far more important than history.

I realise that you live in the (only?) English speaking country where the right to say what you want is regarded as the most absolute right and stuff the consequences, but you still have a moral responsibility to consider the consequences.

 

[depthdeception]

Hey, maybe one day, we’ll evolve to be immortal! Definitely no need for a saviour there!

Salvation is not directly about immortality. While it is a benefit, God's offer of salvation is Christ is not limited to, "Hey, now you can live forever." The point of salvation--as others have noted--is to restore relationship between humans and God. Even if humans evolved to be immortal (which some are currently pursuing this technology), they would still naturally lack relationship with God, and would therefore be in just as much of need of a Savior as humans today.

 

[shernren]

To Shenren, virtual or created=/=fake. Why can’t anybody see that?

I'm getting what you're trying to say, but to be honest I don't really have the philosophical tools I need to deal with what you're saying, and I suspect that you don't have them either I think there's a Christian Philosophy subforum somewhere under the Christians Only section, maybe if you took this there you'd get a more in-depth analysis.

But I can say this: 1. If the world really is virtual, then evolutionism is the only theory that makes sense of this virtual evidence. Evolutionism is only as true as science itself is true. However, even if the world is virtual, we still are bound to this virtual world and have to interact with its biological contents - and evolutionism, as a theory that adequately explains their patterns, is a useful and viable theory for that reason, even if it only applies to "virtual" life.

2. The issue of parsimony - the idea that "if two theories explain the same body of evidence, all else being equal the simpler theory (the theory which presupposes the least unnecessary detail) is more probably true". What is the difference between saying,

"The world is 6,000 years old, and displays a history of 4.5 billion years" and
"The world is 4.5 billion years old, and displays a history of 4.5 billion years"?

After all, our only interaction with the past is with the historical evidence of that past. So whether or not those 4.5 billion years actually existed, they exist for us because we interact with what they have left behind.

3. The issue of the time of creation: what "day" is Genesis 1 written with? If a "real" day (from God's perspective) this amounts to a "days of proclamation" view in which there is no problem with an old universe, an old earth, abiogenesis and evolutionism. If a "virtual" day, then we face YEC problems all over again.