Can science and religion meet with Simulation Hypothesis?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Archivalist

Problem there would seem to be not all organised religions are claiming the same thing.

Quite the opposite infact.

Hence they cannot all be correct, or more than lightly none of them are correct in totality.

The universe is a big place, being able to know or even recognise God if he exists may be somewhat above our paygrade.

There are ways that all organized religions can be correct.

You can't prove that you are in the same Universe from one second to the next.

You might die in a different Universe than the person standing next to you, even if you both die at the same time.

"may be" I got paid with life itself, my paygrade is quite high. I wager it's the same as God's.

a reply to: Archivalist
Depends on a few things but the point is that moving because "what goes up must come down" isn't comparable to a religious belief.

It was just one example of how believing science isn't the same as religious faith, although some people like to claim that anyone who sides with science does so with the same devotion that some religious folk place on their beliefs.

Some might, but honestly, most don't.

a reply to: Archivalist

Might get it stuck in the firmament.

a reply to: Archivalist

Provide said proof then please.

You sounds like your going on about multiverse theory to me and that don't require the existence of God or religion.

As to pay grades, well your are stuck down here at the arse end of our Sun's gravity well, on the third rock from such, locked in a very mortal shell and existence, same as every other Human being and animal on the planet.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Nothin
Religious belief-systems like Science™ and Christianity™ seem to thrive on their differences

I dislike when people do this, go out in a field shoot an arrow straight up and just stand there.

Bet most people, even religious people, won't because science says that arrow is coming down sooner or later and you don't know where it will land. That isn't a religious belief.

Thanks for the heads-up.

No worries though : have put-up a metaphorical Acme™ umbrella, to protect from the metaphorical falling-arrow.

Because am agreeable that nobody knows where, nor when that arrow may fall.
Let-alone whether 'arrow' is or isn't a unanimous acceptance, of the entirety of the intention behind my original post.

But, uhmmm, just in case : when might we be expecting that arrow to fall ?

a reply to: Nothin
There is no arrow.

The entirety of your post is based on the POV that science and christianity are both religious beliefs when they really are not.

Sure, some people might be overzealous about science but those people are far and few between. "Show me" doesn't make someone one of these people, surely not to be covered by the trademark blanket cast in your post.

a reply to: daskakik

... The entirety of your post is based on the POV that science and christianity are both religious beliefs when they really are not. ...

Would that not be an unscientific observation ?

Assuming that the entire POV and intention was instantly known, and was never poked, prodded, nor tested ?

Science asks questions.
Belief knows.

But those are only my temporary opinions, and are also unscientific.

originally posted by: Nothin
Would that not be an unscientific observation?

Yes, but it is what you wrote.

I never said anything about intention, just what was written there.

In metaphysics this simulation hypo can be correlated to the 4 worlds principle: The worlds are reflections of each other.
Example: 4 WORLDS=1. BODY 2. MIND 3. SOUL-SPIRIT 4. God or reality. If you put a vertical stick into the 4-world matrix each viewer from each world would see a different version of the stick based on the perspective or substance of the world they were in.

The first world of the body would see one thing, the second world of the mind would see something else, the third world of spirit or soul would see something different and the fourth world of reality would be the source or reality of the stick.

Everything is a reflection of something higher than itself.

So, any simulation would be reflective of something else for sure, but still a level of substantial reality…

One needs a basic criterion of something to define their level of reality, such as the Buddhist concept of suffering, which is shared by most religions. And that is what humans are concerned with. The matrix idea( from the movie and beyond, including the simulation concept) uses the criteria of imprisonment or freedom as a symbol of that suffering...a limited and relative concept.

The Sciences perspective also ultimately revolves around either relieving suffering or gathering comforts. HEAVEN AND HELL MATRIX. So even science is based on religion ultimately.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

You know, reading this post and its responses, I can't stop thinking of the show Caprica.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Nothin
Would that not be an unscientific observation?

Yes, but it is what you wrote.

I never said anything about intention, just what was written there.

Nyet : it was how what was written was perceived by one person, and perception is what it it is : a biased viewpoint.
That was followed by an untested conclusion, that was what some folks call : wrong.

My opinion is that it was possibly an inaccurate perception of the intention, that led to the incorrect interpretation.

No need to be shy about admitting one's mistakes, as it might help a person improve the quality of their perceptions and hypotheses in the future.

a reply to: Nothin
No, it is there in black and white:

Religious belief-systems like Science™ and Christianity™

Clearly stating they are both religious belief-systems.

They are not, although some scientific minded people might seem religious about science.

a reply to: Nothin

"Belief knows."

Knowing something without proof or tangible facts and evidence to support you supposition is called a guess, or at least where religion is concerned blind faith.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Nothin
No, it is there in black and white:

Religious belief-systems like Science™ and Christianity™

Clearly stating they are both religious belief-systems.

They are not, although some scientific minded people might seem religious about science.

The quote and the interpretation are different.
The interpretation is off, because the perception is incorrect.
It's incorrect because it was assumed, and not verified nor confirmed.
It was based in belief, and not logic.

Seems like it jammed there, and is still stuck there.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Nothin

"Belief knows."

Knowing something without proof or tangible facts and evidence to support you supposition is called a guess, or at least where religion is concerned blind faith.

Seems about agreeable there andyroad.

Religion is NOT knowledge but a theory( which one has faith in) and not a scientific approach. A scientific theory is at least based on some proof. However, religion has primary evidence of truth through our existence: we know through empirical data that anything created has a creator or some creative matrix behind it. But religion adds theological dogma to the mix...and therein lies its problem!

According to the esoteric religious doctrine, religion can turn into experiential truth for an individual through cultivation and practice, but not the whole of humanity until, according to religious doctrine, the apocalypse or macrocosmic truth for everyone appears through some universal light, which is a time-based phenomenon.

So, religion is basically for the individual and is time-based for the whole or macrocosm.

a reply to: Nothin
There is no interpretation.

There is nothing to interpret.

No need to be shy about admitting one's mistakes.

a reply to: daskakik

OK . My mistake. My bad.
Sorry for having wasted your time, and for having bored any potential readers : when it was my gut-instinct from the beginning that it would end like this.

Let's please end our exchange there.
Have an agreeable day.


For others : am still interested in discussions, pertaining to the OP : as to the investigating of possible common-ground, between science and religion.

a reply to: Nothin
What you did was lump the two together. I have seen many religious members here try the same thing. Science is the new religion. Right off the bat you and they are wrong.

I keep saying some people might take it that far but it isn't a necessity of the system. It isn't like science demands that people deny all other gods and only pray to science.

You want examples of common-ground? People who work in scientific fields and still hold religious beliefs.

Now the problem I see with the OP is that while some scientific minded people might entertain the sim hypothesis the really religious folk are not having it. It doesn't fit their story and those who are adamant about that ain't having it.

I saw it in another thread where I proposed this very thing. What if this is a simulation and the programmer, the person running the holo-deck and anyone else involved are not superior to you? What if they are just equals?

Like I said, the members I was discussing that with didn't go for it.

a reply to: andy06shake

For now.

Like you.

We'll see where we stand again, after we take that journey.

I am entertaining possibilities, you and I have equal proof as far as I can see, taste, smell, hear, or feel.

Do you have some senses that I am unaware of?

I have one more, but it's not something that can be explained to others.