Drew_2017

[Solomon Zorn]

Our values and morals are based on a process called survival of the fittest?

YES! Our morals have evolved by the same rigorous process as all other things. The morality which best serves the living, is the morality that survives. That is why Judaeo-Christian morals are being surpassed, by a more modern and universal application of the Golden Rule. Christianity is not the perfect example of Love, that it claims to be.

[Drew_2017]

I can simulate a simple harmonic oscillator (mass and spring) on a spreadsheet.  And per Pythagoras, that is analogous to the actual thing.  But I could have just hand calculated it, instead of using a computer.  In what way is the graph of the variables on the spreadsheet which recalculate each time I change the parameters of the model more ... creative ... than using pencil and paper?  A mathematical system can be used to simulate nature, but not emulate it.  A small wooden boat (such as used in ship design) is an emulation of the larger ship ... as is the small airplane model in the wind tunnel an emulation of the full airplane in flight.

I agree a model of something is a model...not the real thing obviously. You're correct that if the model doesn't produce the similar results its a sign something is missing or something is added that shouldn't be. That's a good thing, it leads to knowledge and refinement. However, my main point is by scientists using knowledge, engineering and purposely creating virtual universes they are unwittingly demonstrating the theistic model of the universe in that such are intentionally created by sentient beings using intelligence and knowledge.

If there was a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence by happenstance it would be good for comparison.

 

[PopeyesPappy]

If there was a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence by happenstance it would be good for comparison.

You mean like The M(atrix) model of M-theory or Cosmology from quantum potential? The second one says there was no Big Bang singularity, and the visible universe has always existed.

There are plenty of others out there for your consideration.

[Mike Cl]

However, my main point is by scientists using knowledge, engineering and purposely creating virtual universes they are unwittingly demonstrating the theistic model of the universe in that such are intentionally created by sentient beings using intelligence and knowledge.

If there was a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence by happenstance it would be good for comparison.

Your main point is wrong.  There is no 'theistic' model.  There are millions of them; each theist has their own model with is different than any other model.  Scientists aren't "creating" anything.  They are building a model which reflects what they see and what they understand (by testing and retesting) the underlying physical laws to be.  They are trying to build their simulation of what they see so they can come to a deeper understanding of the underlying physical laws.  Theism is built upon faith--which means reasoning does not matter; theism basically equal fiction.  All religious texts and teachings are based on a man made fiction of one sort or another.  How does one go about testing a fiction?  Yeah..........I'd like to test and see if the Tooth Fairy really exists.

[Baruch]

I agree a model of something is a model...not the real thing obviously. You're correct that if the model doesn't produce the similar results its a sign something is missing or something is added that shouldn't be. That's a good thing, it leads to knowledge and refinement. However, my main point is by scientists using knowledge, engineering and purposely creating virtual universes they are unwittingly demonstrating the theistic model of the universe in that such are intentionally created by sentient beings using intelligence and knowledge.

If there was a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence by happenstance it would be good for comparison.

Logic, math, science, engineering ... all involve abstraction.  Abstraction implies that something is left out ... otherwise even going to the toilet would be an intractable problem ;-(

[Solomon Zorn]

I agree a model of something is a model...not the real thing obviously. You're correct that if the model doesn't produce the similar results its a sign something is missing or something is added that shouldn't be. That's a good thing, it leads to knowledge and refinement.

It also leads to the conclusion, that this is the original pattern, and not a copy.

However, my main point is by scientists using knowledge, engineering and purposely creating virtual universes they are unwittingly demonstrating the theistic model of the universe in that such are intentionally created by sentient beings using intelligence and knowledge.

You do NOT have a "model." You have a myth, that you are trying to rationalize.

I will give you credit for one thing: I've never seen the virtual universe angle taken so seriously before.

[Mr.Obvious]

I will give you credit for one thing: I've never seen the virtual universe angle taken so seriously before.

I remember casparov.
I Like The new Guy better though.

[aitm]

What evidence supports this declarative statement?

The entirety of life on this planet and others when we find it. You certainly have provided nothing for your so-called virtual universe being that which we live in.

[aitm]

Any virtual universe created is an example of how we can trace the existence of a virtual universe to sentient creators.

which is fine and dandy for xbox and assorted other games.....so far you have provided absolutely nothing that suggests a creator for the "real"universe other than your emotional demand for one.  I understand your fear and ignorance, try reading some real science instead of Ham or bacon or pork...

[Drew_2017]

which is fine and dandy for xbox and assorted other games.....so far you have provided absolutely nothing that suggests a creator for the "real"universe other than your emotional demand for one.  I understand your fear and ignorance, try reading some real science instead of Ham or bacon or pork...

I understand your need to believe Naturedidit. In order for theism to be true (not just believed but actually true) there are certain facts that need to occur. There are no facts necessary for naturalism to be true. As a thought experiment suppose we could have this conversation apart from the universe existing and I said to you I think a creator known as God exists. You'd say that's interesting what fact leads you to believe that? I'd say nothing just a hunch. The claim many atheists and naturalists make, there is no evidence God exists would be true! Its false now its just a meaningless slogan. Now suppose there is a universe, you ask the same question and I point to the existence of the universe that God exists. Barring some other non-God explanation its as good as any competing idea. Suppose however, that the universe is just absolute and utter chaos with no discernible or recognizable laws of physics and of course no life. I could still claim God caused it but I couldn't say any reason God would create a universe of utter chaos with no other known purpose and a naturalistic explanation would be just as plausible. Suppose we observe a universe with discernible laws of physics that allowed for the existence of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies. Now I can make a much better case we owe the existence of this universe to an agent that wanted to cause planetary systems to exist and created laws of physics to accomplish that. Now what if these same conditions not only caused stars and solar systems but this universe also had the necessary conditions to cause life and not just life but at some point sentient life? For theism to have any credibility at all a host of conditions have to be true in order for us to even discuss whether its true. Do you have any counter explanation for why unguided naturalistic forces would cause a multitude of conditions to obtain that would lead a person to believe we owe our existence to a Creator? There is a reason about 85% of the people of earth believe we owe our existence to a Creator and its due to what we do know, not what we don't know.

[aitm]

I understand your need to believe Naturedidit.

ah, there is your problem, you think something "did" it. Nothing "did" it... it happened.

[Baruch]

ah, there is your problem, you think something "did" it. Nothing "did" it... it happened.

Ironically, from an eternal perspective, you are correct ;-)  That is what predetermination means.  "Did" implies choice.  Atheistic versions of Hinduism and Buddhism would agree of course.  If the ego of man is false, then the ego of G-d must be false too.

[Baruch]

which is fine and dandy for xbox and assorted other games.....so far you have provided absolutely nothing that suggests a creator for the "real"universe other than your emotional demand for one.  I understand your fear and ignorance, try reading some real science instead of Ham or bacon or pork...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8u8Z3bUQfs

But I am immune to your porcine temptations ;-)

[Sorginak]

There is a reason about 85% of the people of earth believe we owe our existence to a Creator and its due to what we do know, not what we don't know.

Lack of reason comes to mind, considering that you just pulled an Argumentum ad populum.

[Mr.Obvious]

Lack of reason comes to mind, considering that you just pulled an Argumentum ad populum.

And indoctrination. Those are the two key players.