Jesus may have been a real person, but real people aren't gods.
Sorry for delay FB....it's a busy week for us nutty Christians.
As to normal people being a god....how many people to you know that claim to be God? I don't know any.
Jesus, as far as I can tell, was either a liar, a lunatic or He was the Messiah, at the very least: the Christ.
We each have to make up our own mind and we won't be convinced by anyone else.
If you really cannot know, how can you make such confident assertions that it even exists, particularly when no such force strong enough or long-range enough to be significant has been observed, and no evidence (or even definition) of 'spirit' has been found?
It's really easy for me. Spirit is spirit. The spirit within us is not visible or weighable (new word), maybe it has weight; there have been some experiments but who cares.
A long time ago evil became a real thing to me. I've always been intrigued by good and evil, in books, movies. What causes this "evil"? I got to believing in a real evil first. Then I reasoned that if evil exists....and most days we get out of bed and feel GOOD,,,then good must exist too. Some would call this a born again experience. I think God is a very big Do and I'm not about to put Him into a tiny box...but I do use Christian language when necessary.
I believe Jesus is the awaited for Messiah/Christ. I believe man is born with a sinful nature, and I believe Jesus paid our ransom for our release from this sinful nature.
Once one becomes aware of God and satan....we start to understand everything in a different and actually, more REAL way.
We don't know that "everything had to 'start'". We only know that the big bang is the earliest time we currently have access to. Current thinking based on the physics we understand today suggests that the universe we see is very likely to be the product of some previous state - either a different type of spacetime, or the more fundamental state that Krauss describes as 'nothing' (it's not his idea alone - Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek said, “
The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.” - see Victor Stenger's article '
Why is there Something rather than Nothing'). When time itself is an emergent property, the concept of beginning and ending doesn't make much sense in more fundamental states.
IF there was a previous universe, space/time, whatever --- we're still faced with the same problem: Where did THAT come from?
As to something coming out of nothing, I've repeated so many times what I know about this that I just can't keep repeating it. I'll just say this AGAIN:
Scientists thought the universe ALWAYS existed.
NO BEGINNING.
Then we got the BB theory...which seems to be correct.
NOW they have the problem of HOW it got started.
What would be the point of calling a physical process, be it a phase change, a quantum fluctuation, or whatever, 'God'? where does that get you?
Call it what you will.
The FIRST CAUSE is GOD.
The idea of trying to remedy a lack of knowledge of the natural world by positing an entity that, by definition, solves the problem by being outside those constraints and therefore inexplicable and unknowable, is no explanation at all - again, I ask how it is in any way a better explanation than that other non-explanation, "It's magic!"?
I rather resent God being called magic...but atheists have no, or little, respect for what Christians believe. Whereas they expect "us" to be on our knees or they don't feel fulfilled, or they feel threatened, or something. WHY do scientists care at all what Christians believe? It's two different systems of explaining life. Philosophy is one way, theology is another way. We're all looking for the truth.
But I can say that whatever did all this IS our of the constraints you speak of. Time itself didn't exist...so it had to be something that created not only matter, but time...so it had to be something OUTSIDE of matter and time. If I make a watch, I'm not PART of that watch.
To further anthropomorphise it into a 'personal' authority figure looks like wishful thinking - what's the justification?
No. The justification is when you start to see God working in your own life. It's when you begin hearing Him speak to your heart --- and what He tells you turns out to be true. All Christians have had this experience - because they're OPEN to it.
Whitworth wasn't the originator of this idea (an argument can be made that even the Ancient Greeks had similar ideas), it was Nick Bostrom who, in 2003, wrote the '
Simulation Hypothesis' paper that became popular. Since then, there have been many criticisms and rebuttals, but fundamentally it was based on entirely speculative premises that could apply to any number of imaginative possibilities - the
Boltzman Brain idea is along similar probabilistic lines (albeit with greater justification).
I don't know much...but I hear it answers more question than any current theory. It would solve some problems that cannot be solved right now.
If you ask what, you're going to give me work to do...just trust that I've heard this or read it.
I'm a sci-fi freak besides being Christian, so anything can sound reasonable to me. What does not sound reasonable is that all we see came from NOTHING! So there's dark matter, and space is full of stuff --- that means NOTHING... Where did THAT come from?
Whitworth suggests that the physical properties of our universe are consistent with the properties of a digital VR simulation - but this implies that hyper-advanced entities that can simulate entire universes happen to be using the same kind of computing technology we currently use (and even that is being replaced by quantum computing and neural networks). The claim is that everything is quantised, including space itself; last I heard, it's too early to say that space is quantised, but it is expected to be because of the physical problems with infinite divisibility.
I understand what you're saying...but what's
infinite divisibility? Is it the "mirror" idea of never-ending images?
It's worth considering why we see quantised phenomena - it's because, for example, matter can't exist if the energy of electron orbitals isn't quantised, they'd fall into the nucleus, and so-on. But if quantisation is the key indicator we're in a simulation, this raises the question of what kind of universe the hypothetical simulators exist in - if it has electrons and atoms like ours, then it too will be quantised - that would put them in the same situation as us - do they think that they are also in a simulation?
Yeah! Dontcha love it?
And what created THEM???!
And if their universe is not quantised like ours, it must be very different - to the extent that it would be unlikely that they would have digital computing at all, and raises the question of why they'd simulate a quantised universe at all - certainly not for ancestor simulation, which was one proposed reason.
In other words, it's hard to imagine what a universe would be like if all the simulation indicators claimed by Whitworth for our universe were absent, whether it could support life as we understand it, and if it could support some kind of life, why they would simulate a universe utterly different from their own.
Why would it have to be utterly different from their own? What about our video games...they're very much like our world..just less dimensions...who knows how many dimensions are really in existence...we used to think there were only 3...
[The video also invokes the much-hyped Holographic Principle as support. This is a mathematical equivalence arising out of black hole physics that asserts that the informational content of any n-dimensional volume can be fully represented on its n-1 dimensional surface, holographically. So the informational content of a 3D spherical volume (e.g. a black hole) can be holographically represented on its 2D surface. This mathematical equivalence doesn't mean our universe
is a hologram, it just means it's mathematically equivalent. Carefully edited video snippets don't change physics in the real world.[/QUOTE]
You lost me. But that mathematician I had linked wasn't liked by anyone here. Math, Chemistry, every form of science is helpful in finding the truth.
(I just hate to argue so I let it drop)
I stopped watching halfway through.
No problem. I stop watching some theology videos mysef...they're either too simple or too dumb or too impossible to fathom.
Philosophically, whether we're a VR simulation or not is moot; for us, the world is what it is - we can investigate it to see how it works, and that is what we do.
Agreed.