What convinced you the universe alone is all that exists?

[Paulomycin]

Your feelings?

Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?

Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?

Something else?

Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can explain in clear detail without being painfully vague and ambiguous?

 

[JohnClay]

Like Elon Musk I believe I'm probably in a video game / computer simulation. He says "there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes". In a simulation it is possible for external beings to have god-like omnipotence and omniscience. I think they only interact in a way that isn't obvious to skeptics ("God" in Futurama says "When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"). I think it is possible that I forgot my true identity like when Morty played "Roy" or Alan Watt's dream thought experiment. Outside all of the simulations is "base reality". I think that could be all that exists and the simulations are part of it.

The belief that only "base reality" exists is due to my reasoning that ultimate/base reality is mechanistic.... using simplistic rules/physics.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your feelings?

Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?

Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?

Something else?

Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can ex

Like Elon Musk I believe I'm probably in a video game / computer simulation. He says "there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes". In a simulation it is possible for external beings to have god-like omnipotence and omniscience. I think they only interact in a way that isn't obvious to skeptics ("God" in Futurama says "When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"). I think it is possible that I forgot my true identity like when Morty played "Roy" or Alan Watt's dream thought experiment. Outside all of the simulations is "base reality". I think that could be all that exists and the simulations are part of it.

If I understand your last few sentences, you are saying that maybe you exist in this base reality, but have forgotten it? Or exist there in that base reality only as a figment of someone's imagination or program?

Anyhow, seeing you claim "other religion" do you consider God to be Omnipotent, First Cause? I.e. therefore, "The Programmer" or the the creator of the programmers or the default reality for the whole business and all 'realities' in some way?

 

[JohnClay]

If I understand your last few sentences, you are saying that maybe you exist in this base reality, but have forgotten it?

It is possible that our possible simulation exists within a simulation - similar to the Rick and Morty episode where they are in a simulation of a simulation of a simulation created by aliens. But anyway I think there are good reasons why people would want to forget their true identity - it's more immersive that way and you'd assume you are in a ordinary life.

Or exist there in that base reality only as a figment of someone's imagination or program?

Yes a program or game. Older cultures used the term "dream" (a bit like Inception).

Anyhow, seeing you claim "other religion" do you consider God to be Omnipotent, First Cause?

I don't think the creator of the world is necessarily the same being that intervenes... e.g. in "The Sims", Maxis was the main creator then players create some of the world and can intervene.... anyway I think the creator would be omnipotent and the first cause.

I.e. therefore, "The Programmer" or the the creator of the programmers or the default reality for the whole business and all 'realities' in some way?

Well each simulation would have its own creators and there could be many nested levels of simulations.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well each simulation would have its own creators and there could be many nested levels of simulations.

Well, yes, of course, but what I'm asking is if First Cause, i.e. Omnipotence, would be above (or beyond) all that, if there are other programmers. Roughly analogous to the view of possibly innumerable alternate universes, then God would not be 'a god of one universe', but God over all.

After all, if First Cause, then himself uncaused. Not part of a program, either, lol.

 

[JohnClay]

Well, yes, of course, but what I'm asking is if First Cause, i.e. Omnipotence, would be above (or beyond) all that, if there are other programmers.

I think base reality had no intelligent creator... I think its creator could be a Big Bang.

Roughly analogous to the view of possibly innumerable alternate universes, then God would not be 'a god of one universe', but God over all.

I don't believe in "God over all" since it implies intelligence and I don't believe in an intelligent origin for base reality.

After all, if First Cause, then himself uncaused. Not part of a program, either, lol.

BTW I think the creators of simulations can be said to have omnipotence and omniscience - but only within the simulation - their abilities outside of the simulation would be quite limited.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think base reality had no intelligent creator... I think its creator could be a Big Bang.

I don't believe in "God over all" since it implies intelligence and I don't believe in an intelligent origin for base reality.

BTW I think the creators of simulations can be said to have omnipotence and omniscience - but only within the simulation - their abilities outside of the simulation would be quite limited.

Well, but see that's the thing. Most people seem to never think past that point --but Omnipotence, or First Cause (both necessarily imply the other) necessarily means not subject to any other principle or fact. If 'omnipotent' only within a simulation, then not Omnipotent at all, after all, since subject to causes common to the simulation and itself. Only 'said to be' omnipotent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think base reality had no intelligent creator... I think its creator could be a Big Bang.

Where'd the Big Bang come from? What caused it? After all, it is illogical at least two ways to say it caused itself. 1 It would have to first exist to cause itself. 2 It was specific in its parts --not homogenous. It was not random, since through cause-and-effect it resulted in every particular thing we see nowadays. (There is no such thing as 'random' anyway, nor 'chance'. The terms only mean, "I don't know.")

 

[JohnClay]

.....If 'omnipotent' only within a simulation, then not Omnipotent at all, after all, since subject to causes common to the simulation and itself. Only 'said to be' omnipotent.

I disagree.... I think it is very meaningful to say an intelligent force could have omnipotence and omniscience within a simulation. BTW it is possible that a being who believes they are "God" could be created (like in this cartoon). This "God" believes they are the one and only source of reality and their true origin is hidden from them. If you insist that they need to have "true" omnipotence and omniscience then they'd be able to escape the simulation and had god-like power in the external universe too....

 

[JohnClay]

Where'd the Big Bang come from? What caused it? After all, it is illogical at least two ways to say it caused itself. 1 It would have to first exist to cause itself. 2 It was specific in its parts --not homogenous. It was not random, since through cause-and-effect it resulted in every particular thing we see nowadays. (There is no such thing as 'random' anyway, nor 'chance'. The terms only mean, "I don't know.")

Note that I'm not insisting that the origin of base reality definitely involved a Big Bang. Maybe atheists/agnostics could answer this question. Other possibilities for base reality include Max Tegmark's Mathematical universe hypothesis or Donald Hoffman's belief that "consciousness is the primary reality and the physical world emerges from that". There could be many universes that make up base reality rather than just one Big Bang creating it all....

 

[Mark Quayle]

I disagree.... I think it is very meaningful to say an intelligent force could have omnipotence and omniscience within a simulation. BTW it is possible that a being who believes they are "God" could be created (like in this cartoon). This "God" believes they are the one and only source of reality and their true origin is hidden from them. If you insist that they need to have "true" omnipotence and omniscience then they'd be able to escape the simulation and had god-like power in the external universe too....

You seem to be assigning this being who believes they are 'god' an intelligence less than human. Omnipotence by definition cannot be subject to external causes, and even within the simulation, not knowing better is not omnipotence, nor if whatever caused the 'god' also caused the simulation, then that 'god' is subject to a principle that operates independently from the 'god' within the simulation. Therefore, not first cause, not omnipotent, not God.

I cannot accept a 'god' who is merely super-human. God has to be omnipotent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Note that I'm not insisting that the origin of base reality definitely involved a Big Bang. Maybe atheists/agnostics could answer this question. Other possibilities for base reality include Max Tegmark's Mathematical universe hypothesis or Donald Hoffman's belief that "consciousness is the primary reality and the physical world emerges from that". There could be many universes that make up base reality rather than just one Big Bang creating it all....

I think Hoffman (whether instinctively or not) is on to something, but jumped to conclusions too fast). He is right about the necessity of consciousness, but not the plurality nor nature of that consciousness.
Tegmark, on the other hand, or at least what I understand of him, doesn't seem to be saying anything near that he has a cogent theory of everything, but rather simply a direction to go with thought and study. I don't see how anybody can deny he may be right, but that that only gives a point of view, or lens to look through. Neither of the two can rule out THE God of Base Reality, and both seem to me capable of accepting absolute First Cause of Base Reality, which itself easily enough can be logically pursued to 'With Intent'.

 

[JohnClay]

You seem to be assigning this being who believes they are 'god' an intelligence less than human

I think they could be "post-human" with a greatly enhanced mind.

Omnipotence by definition cannot be subject to external causes, and even within the simulation, not knowing better is not omnipotence, nor if whatever caused the 'god' also caused the simulation, then that 'god' is subject to a principle that operates independently from the 'god' within the simulation. Therefore, not first cause, not omnipotent, not God.

I cannot accept a 'god' who is merely super-human. God has to be omnipotent.

Well different people have different definitions about what is a god. There are games called "god games"... and using mods in games like Minecraft the player can do and know just about anything. It seem seems my ideas aren't very compatible with Christianity but it still involves god-like intelligences.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Your feelings?

Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?

Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?

Something else?

Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can explain in clear detail without being painfully vague and ambiguous?

For people who define “universe” as “everything that exists”, then the reason would be basic logic.

 

[Paulomycin]

For people who define “universe” as “everything that exists”, then the reason would be basic logic.

"Basic logic" sounds rather painfully vague and ambiguous.

 

[HitchSlap]

Your feelings?

Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?

Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?

Something else?

Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can explain in clear detail without being painfully vague and ambiguous?

I make three basal assumptions:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn some things about reality.
3. Falsifiable predictive models are the best models to learn about reality.

From there, confidence levels are commensurate with the evidence.

 

[Paulomycin]

I make three basal assumptions:

1. Reality exists.

Why do you presuppose an atheist reality?
Why do you presuppose your reality without evidence?

3. Falsifiable predictive models are the best models to learn about reality.

- Which is Karl Popper's philosophy, instead of actual science.
- This doesn't account for all reality. Just scientific categories exclusively.

From there, confidence levels are commensurate with the evidence.

But never certain. Also, in your reality, everyone gets to fudge with the magic words, "That's not convincing evidence."

 

[HitchSlap]

Why do you presuppose an atheist reality?

I don't.

Why do you presuppose your reality

I don't.

without evidence?

My worldview allows for all evidence. My personal ethics and integrity doesn't allow me to toss out what I find objectionable.

- Which is Karl Popper's philosophy, instead of actual science.

I'm not Popper, and I don't care what you think about him.

- This doesn't account for all reality. Just scientific categories exclusively. [/qutoe]

I assume all reality exists (or whatever nonsense you meant to covey).

But never certain.

Your reading comprehension sucks. I literally just told you I'm certain reality exists, we can learn about, and falsifiable models with predictive capabilities are best.

Also, in your reality,

Mine, yours, everyone's .... we're all in this together.

everyone gets to fudge with the magic words, "That's not convincing evidence."

The only one appealing to magic is you.

So tell me again how one ascertains whether your god/s exist in reality, or just in your head.

...

 

[Paulomycin]

I don't.

You're an atheist.
You assumed reality (your words).
Then it follows you assume an atheist reality. So answer the question.

My worldview allows for all evidence. My personal ethics and integrity doesn't allow me to toss out what I find objectionable.

"Not being convinced" is a form of objection.

I'm not Popper, and I don't care what you think about him.

I was just making the clear distinction between falsifiability and you know. . .actual science.

Your reading comprehension sucks. I literally just told you I'm certain reality exists, we can learn about, and falsifiable models with predictive capabilities are best.

A falsifiable reality is never certain due the the classical Problem of Induction. Yes, it's a thing. Totally related.

Mine, yours, everyone's .... we're all in this together.

Wrong. I'm claiming an exclusively theistic reality. Yours is exclusively secular. And what's worse is that you presuppose it without evidence.

So tell me again how one ascertains whether your god/s exist in reality, or just in your head.

Via proof and evidence. Deductive logic is bivalent algebra; therefore proof. It is in-fact so basic that you're literally without excuse.

 

[Yttrium]

For people who define “universe” as “everything that exists”, then the reason would be basic logic.

I don't think there are too many people who define the universe as "everything that exists". The universe is the matter, energy and spacetime that formed out of the big bang, from whatever existed prior to the big bang. Whatever exists within our big bubble of spacetime, that's the universe. A multiverse would include any parallel universes that might exist. A lot of people like the term "omniverse", which would include just about everything that might exist, maybe.

Personally, I'm a skeptic. I can only be convinced of my own existence. How much of existence is contained within our universe, I couldn't begin to speculate.