First of all, sorry for any grammar or spelling issues but English is not my first language.

The article mentions the possibility of communicating to those who created us, which, if done, would be irrefutable proof. For the religious among you, what would you do should it be proved irrefutably that we are indeed inside a simulation?

I already have proof that God exists and the Bible is true. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not. But for me I am 100% percent sure that we are not in the matrix.
So if it would be proven that we are inside a simulation then that could be only possible if that experiment would have an error somewhere or if it would be a constructed lie (again with an error somewhere hidden) to mislead people.

First of all, sorry for any grammar or spelling issues but English is not my first language.

[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355463825' post='5010485']
The article mentions the possibility of communicating to those who created us, which, if done, would be irrefutable proof. For the religious among you, what would you do should it be proved irrefutably that we are indeed inside a simulation?

I already have proof that God exists and the Bible is true. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not. But for me I am 100% percent sure that we are not in the matrix.
So if it would be proven that we are inside a simulation then that could be only possible if that experiment would have an error somewhere or if it would be a constructed lie (again with an error somewhere hidden) to mislead people.
[/quote]
I already have proof that God does not exist and the Bible is false. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not. See how that works both ways?

I am just happy to be on the winning side of this endless debate. It’s also fairly easy to be on the correct side:
Step 1: Have a brain.
Step 2: Use it to think for yourself.
-> A: Don’t just absorb everything your parents tell you. Question everything and seek true understanding.

The irony of what you posted is that you were completely unable to consider even for a fraction of a second that there might not be a God. This is a result of brainwashing that dictates that should your faith ever waver you will be punished.
This type of brainwashing is very easy for humans to impose upon other humans, especially children.
The reason this negates anything you say is because it causes you to believe what you believe no matter how conclusive the evidence before you is. We could discover that we are just a simulation, receive contact from our creators that confirm it is so, and you would still be too afraid to contradict the childhood doctrine taught to you to in any way consider that it is the truth. A simulation would have told you that there is a God, and as fake as the lesson itself was you would hold tightly to it just because you were young and incapable of thinking for yourself when it was taught to you.


When I said there was proof I was not lying. Without going into details, there are things you can tell children that are ridiculously false that they will end up believing for life and under any costs. Experiments show that they pass these beliefs on to their own children who then grow up believing them again at face value, never questioning their virtue.
I exaggerated when I said the proof was only given to myself, but I wasn’t lying about the underlying concept, as I was part of such an experiment. Had I not had a brain for myself I would to this day be absolutely terrified of peacock feathers.
Luckily I have a brain and could reason for myself. Looking back it is easy to identify that the only reason I had a phobia of them in the beginning was that my mother had made it so. Back then I was truly terrified of them. Luckily I was able to reason my way out of that phobia. My sister however was not. She is to this day deathly terrified of peacock feathers.

Religion works the same way. You either reason your way out of it or remain scarred for life from it. Even a message from our simulation’s creators would not break you free from what you were told as a child.


L. Spiro

The irony of what you posted is that you were completely unable to consider even for a fraction of a second that there might not be a God.

You was right when you assumed that at childhood I received religious teachings. But I never had a 100% faith and for years I did not care about God or religion.
Now I believe in God because of some experiences that assured me that He exists.

*smells a does god exist debate incoming*

[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355464310' post='5010488']
Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.

It's not like they've pulled scientists of Team Cancer to stick them on this project. It's not an either/or situation.
[/quote]

You've kind of missed my point. The point is that the world has important issues that need to be solved. This is a bunch of wasted talent on a useless thought exercise. Cancer was just a random example of something important.

But I never had a 100% faith and for years I did not care about God or religion.
Now I believe in God because of some experiences that assured me that He exists.

Negated by the fact that I was taught that he does exist. I read religious books to my sister as a child in full faith that the words I told her were true.
Then realized that the things I was telling her did not make sense. I kept quiet about my disbelief so that I could have a fair chance to study both sides.

My only regret was that she was not as lucky as myself. I already realized that every other person would quickly try to step in and force their views onto me (I was 6 years old, so obviously aware of these kinds of psychological principals), so if I told her I would be risking everything. If she told anyone that I was seeking the truth instead of just following blind faith I would never be able to judge reality on neutral grounds.

The irony here is that her parent (guess what, she was only my step-sister, and her mother (her only parent) was not religious) never taught her religion. She learned it all from me.

So it is fairly obvious how religion spreads. I did it to my own sister. Everything she knows about religion came from me, and yet I myself never believed anything I told her (I was questioning things by the age of 4, which is when I began reading to her).

How is it not obvious to all religious people that this is exactly what happened to them?

You claim to be special. You were taught, then disbelieved, then regained faith.
Hardly. Whatever happened that caused you to regain faith would not have had the same result unless you had already been taught about religion in the first place. Firstly, no one learns about religion until taught. So no matter what your argument is it only ends up becoming religious because you were taught about religion at a young age. Nothing else. Even my 6-year-old self knew that.
You could experience any number of unexplainable coincidences, but you would never fall back on thinking it was a higher hand had you never been taught what a higher hand means. Unless you think for yourself from the start, everything you believe is just someone else’s thinking. Try to deny it.

The fact that you went back to religion simply means you never really left. Leaving religion means never going back. You simply understand enough to know that there is always a better explanation, and you are not so arrogant as to assume you know what that explanation is.

Ultimately you are nothing but a product of your upbringing, no matter how much you try to deny it.
The mental stability of children is precarious. I never really believed in God and yet I was the one who ended up making my step-sister into a devout Christian. Even to this day I could tell her it was all bullshit, and although I was the one teaching her, I knew it was wrong from the start, yet she would hold to her faith just because she was that young when I taught it to her.

You are no different. Even if the very people who taught you about God and Jesus were to turn around and tell you it was all just a joke or lie you would say to yourself, “This is just a test of my faith,” and continue living the lie.


You convince yourself that I am wrong because you believe you have special-case proof to the contrary that was apparently given only to you. Ironically, such arrogance basically condemns you to Hell. Nothing was given to you that was not given to anyone else.


L. Spiro

You simply understand enough to know that there is always a better explanation, and you are not so arrogant as to assume you know what that explanation is.

Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant. This is why I'm agnostic. Even if I personally feel there is no god, I can't say that with 100% certainty because I'm only human and there are limits to the human brain.

Edit:
And it doesn't matter whats "proved" or not. There is a nice little saying that gives religious folks a loophole for everything: "God works in mysterious ways." You can rationalize that forever.

And it would actually lend support to the intelligent design crowd if scientist were to conclude the universe is a giant simulation.

[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1355476254' post='5010537']
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355464310' post='5010488']
Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.

It's not like they've pulled scientists of Team Cancer to stick them on this project. It's not an either/or situation.
[/quote]
You've kind of missed my point. The point is that the world has important issues that need to be solved. This is a bunch of wasted talent on a useless thought exercise. Cancer was just a random example of something important.
[/quote]
Scientific research isn't about someone assigning scientists to specific research topics, people go into areas of research of their own choosing because that is what they are interested in. Some people have a knack for theoretical physics. Some have a knack for revolutionary biology and so on. It's a false dichotomy to say that either a team of researchers explore this area of physics or they explore an other area of biology, that's not how research is conducted. And who's to say that this team of physicists would be any good at biology? Who's to say that cancer research (or whatever example you give) does not inspire them like their current area of research does? In any case, it's not like cancer hasn't been a massive area of research for many decades or anything.

Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant. This is why I'm agnostic. Even if I personally feel there is no god, I can't say that with 100% certainty because I'm only human and there are limits to the human brain.

And it doesn't matter whats "proved" or not. There is a nice little saying that gives religious folks a loophole for everything: "God works in mysterious ways." You can rationalize that forever.

I'm not agnostic, but I generally approve of this message. So far as I have heard, and I have heard a lot, there is no logical proof for or against a god/gods. It's just as ignorant for a person of faith to try to argue logically that there is a god as for someone to logically argue that there is not one. The former being distinctly different than arguing logically that there might be a god.

It doesn't really make sense to argue faith on logic anyway. If faith based beliefs were backed by universally provable logic, it would be a fact based belief not a faith based one. The nature of it being faith indicates that it would not be provable universally.

ANYWAY, HOW ABOUT THE MATRIX!

Scientific research isn't about someone assigning scientists to specific research topics, people go into areas of research of their own choosing because that is what they are interested in. Some people have a knack for theoretical physics. Some have a knack for revolutionary biology and so on. It's a false dichotomy to say that either a team of researchers explore this area of physics or they explore an other area of biology, that's not how research is conducted. And who's to say that this team of physicists would be any good at biology? Who's to say that cancer research (or whatever example you give) does not inspire them like their current area of research does? In any case, it's not like cancer hasn't been a massive area of research for many decades or anything.

I never said anyone was assigned to anything. I think they are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. The worlds problems needs multi-disciplinary solutions (global warming for example needs physicists and biologists ect. ect. ad nauseum). Just because they chose to work on that project doesn't change the fact that it's a project that isn't worth the time. These are some of the worlds most brilliant minds working on something as important as figuring out the best way to win at tic tac toe. They may be passionate, but it's still a waste of human potential.