Can science and religion meet with Simulation Hypothesis?

People who support the simulation hypothesis generally believe a form of intelligent design but without all of the religious baggage which goes along with faith. Then you have religious people who believe that this world is not the ultimate reality and that the supernatural is more real. Are they both saying the same thing from different viewpoints and will science find a god?

A description of simulation hypothesis:
www.simulation-argument.com...

Biblical evidence of the universe being deleted at some point:
www.gotquestions.org...

A Christian ministry which teaches the universe is a video game:
www.golgothabridge.com...

A non-Abrahamic view on the universe not being real:
choprafoundation.org...

I'm wondering if it were proven that this world is a simulation, that would mean it's created. That would be the ancient faiths are likely pointing to the creator which would be real, so should we worship it?

a reply to: adamalluhol

Seems to me organised religious practice and science are incompatible.

You see where as religion and science both offer explanations for why life and the universe exist.

Science requires testable empirical evidence and observation to come to conclusion where as religion relies on faith and subjective belief in God.

a reply to: andy06shake

Science requires testable empirical evidence and observation to come to conclusion

LOL then how do they get to more than 2 genders?

a reply to: sciencelol

Apparently the idea of 2 sexes is overly simplistic.

Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary male and female.

But your barking up the wrong tree asking me as I'm inclined to believe that for most intents and purpose 2 genders is indeed the colour of our day.

How many genders does organised religious practice require?

How come Gods generally depicted as an old white dude with a beard?

Same a Jesus is depicted as a white fellow on a cross when that certainly would not have been the case.

If its inconsistency and contradiction you are after look no further than organised religious practice.

I guess science is starting to catch up, but as for people who don't want to believe in God it won't make any difference, believing in God is a choice after all.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: sciencelol

Apparently the idea of 2 sexes is overly simplistic.

How so ? I'm pretty sure there are genetically only two sexes.

In answer to the OP - Simulation theory can be religiously believed to the point of being unscientific.

as to the other sex stuff:

I wonder how far humans would have made it if when we were first evolving we had as many "genders" as we do now.

a reply to: Smigg

Your preaching to the choir for the most part Smigg.

Something along these lines apparently.

www.scientificamerican.com...
nautil.us...

Im not sure how much of it i hold with, but somethings i fail to understand, this would be one of them.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Smigg

Your preaching to the choir for the most part Smigg.

Something along these lines apparently.

www.scientificamerican.com...
nautil.us...

Im not sure how much of it i hold with, but somethings i fail to understand, this would be one of them.

Men and women each have their own defined natures which is evident throughout history, the problem is that we as humans are a product of our environment, this is evident today as we are seeing a push in our schools, MSM, movies, TV to steer our young in a certain direction, males are specifically targeted to become more feminine, boys don't get to develop their natural defined natures as they did in times gone by so the gap between males and females in a behavioural sense is narrowing.

The narrowing gap is now used to argue that there are more sexes than just two. The best thing about it is, it's all been done intentionally. If men don't know what they are they become easy control.

a reply to: Smigg

Guess some Men are easier controlled than others.

But that is what its all about, control that is.

Science is still preferable to organise religious practice.

At least it is if you like to look before you leap.

a reply to: adamalluhol

...I'm wondering if it were proven that this world is a simulation, that would mean it's created. That would be the ancient faiths are likely pointing to the creator which would be real, so should we worship it?

" Should " is a dangerous slippery-slope.
Who can say what another should, or should-not worship ?

Religious belief-systems like Science™ and Christianity™ seem to thrive on their differences, rather that seeking common-ground. Hence the back-and-forth endless arguments.

Not really sure though.
Don't know.
Don't have a belief-system to tell me what to do.

Science and Religion two horns of de'vile.

Massive information and missing data cliffs with both. let's play hide the truth for power.

(if you're wondering a data cliff is the bit the understanding car you driver crashes off due to missing data aka a hole in the theory)

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Smigg

Science is still preferable to organise religious practice.

The thread that binds science and religion is that they only hold true value if used correctly and without prejudice.

its the reason the scientific method is used for the observable universe and religion exhorts the practice of submitting to the will of God.

Both place emphasis on putting personal influence aside and paying attention to what is going on around us.

Two sides of the same coin and a valuable lesson for the ages from the ancient of days.

a reply to: Dalamax

I tend to find that science is a more open belief system, whereas religion tends to have a closed system of belief for the better part.

Science certainly wont answer all the questions regarding the universe, grand scheme and totality of the reality we assume we experience.

But it will allow us to at least pose some of the more meaningful queries.

To my mind, science asks questions, whilst religion proffers its own answers.

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.

Any scientist that can't formulate a world in which organized religion is truthful, simply hasn't offered the suBject enough thought.

There are a Lot of scenarios that are science fiction based, which this could be the case.

We have adapted, discovered, and invented things from science fiction in science fact.

Ergo, there is a non-zero possibility that not only is God real, bUt that organized religion exists for a "scientific" reason.


I approach all problems in my lifE from both perspectives. How do I solvE this pragmatically? How do I solve thIs under the assumption that God is real and is guiding my life for a higher purpose?

I attempt to reconcile theSe things, always.

If God is rEal.

God made scieNce.

Not a Hard leap to make, since God made Satan even.

UnfOrtunately, the God that is most often cited by organized religion is not a being of full omnipotence and full omniscience, because there is something that God can not do/could not do.

God can not do "nothing".

This is a logical extension, that anyone can determine. If God exists and created you, and you exist, then God can't do nothing, because God made you.
If nothing is something God can't do, then God can't do everything, because doing nothing falls under the umbrella of everything.

This leads to questions of the real extent of God's power.

Can God make them self?

If the approach I am using can be utilized to unravel the fabric of reality, as some say... This line of thinking leads to some very interesting places, beyond the reconciliation of modern science and modern religion.

Our existence may be planted in our Willingness to take on the burden of creating God, to create ourselves.

Why havEn't we time travelled to aid ourselves? If time travel is possible in the future, we would come back heRe and help ourselves, right?

Not if this timeline is the oNe that leads to the creation of the God that creates us. The creation Of a time travel paradox that interrupts THAT timeline, would literally keep you from existing.

I suspect this timeline may be one in which we are Very much required to create God.

This would mEan that organized religions, especially those that have scripture... (The Bible)
May be organically contrived instructions for constructing God froM nothing. The easiest way to do that in the short term, is leading us not only to creating time travel, But by leading us to creating time travel and God and developing this entire Universe is it stands, intact. (ThEre needs to be a better long term solution but I don't feel like typing out the reasons why.)

I have developed some shortcuts that will help us do this, but I don't want to give away all the details in a post heRe. If my suspicions are correct then it would explain many observations, which include advanced technology like UFO's or UAP's that do not communicate with us, but commit extraordinary acts on our planet and in space around us.

a reply to: daskakik

Hahahaha, there are circumstances where it is quite safe to shoot an arrow straight up and stand still. (Most actually)

Making it a matter of religious belief is possible. Good luck with that. I dare you to understand the gravity of my statements.

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.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: daskakik

Hahahaha, there are circumstances where it is quite safe to shoot an arrow straight up and stand still. (Most actually)

Making it a matter of religious belief is possible. Good luck with that. I dare you to understand the gravity of my statements.

Sure, science says that if the wind is blowing or if the arrow isn't pointing straight up it won't land where it was shot from.

Either way it isn't a matter of religious belief, more of a an err on the side of caution to haul out of there.

a reply to: daskakik

Depends how high you shoot.

Earth moves.