Question from an agnostic

[Foxaèr]

OP: you said, "if".  I personally only deal with ifs when writing fiction.  Otherwise, in reality, I deal with certainties.

Firstly, welcome new person to the best forum in the world.

Hey Kit, I though only theists deal with certainties

So do anti-theists.

[downbeatplumb]

Hello everyone, I'm new to the forums. I consider myself agnostic but I also consider myself to be a bit of an idiot (seriously).  It seems to me that quite a lot of athiests are pretty smart and I have a question I would like to ask.

If this reality were a simulation then there could be a base reality that we are unaware of that has no god. In this scenario would the creators and rulers of our simulation not be considered gods from our perspectives? or if this is base reality, I think it's possible that one day mankind could also create a simulation where the creators could be considered gods by the people inhabiting the simulation. I'm not saying anything either way other than it's just weird to think about.

For example IMO it's possible hypothetically that this is a prison of sorts, where our memories have been wiped and we suffer in all kinds of ways that we wouldn't have in base reality. Or if this is base reality, one day it might be more efficient to grow humans to adulthood and because they have a lot to learn their minds might be put into a simulation, while they grow, where they can learn and live out whole lives. Obviously these ideas sound crazy but it is interesting IMO how little we actually know (with absolute certainty) about our own reality.

I'm not atheist because it isn't obvious to me that this reality isn't a simulation and if this were a simulation then its creators would be our gods I figure because there's no difference between believing in a god in a religious way (in the sense that an intelligence started our universe and created it's rules) and believing that we are living in a simulation that was created by an intelligence. So if science finds strong evidence that our reality is a simulation then aren't they providing evidence for the existence of god (or gods)? I guess it depends how you would define a god but to me it's exactly the same but maybe i'm trip'n. I really want feedback from an atheists perspective on this. Thanks for reading

This is the "whats the difference between a god and a very powerful alien?" question. to which the answer would appear to be how we would view them.
Take Q in Star Trek, he displays godlike powers but we are still invited to view him as an alien and not a god.
In one episode Q meets Pickard in the afterlife and Pickard tells him to his face that he is not god.

[ignoramus]

Ends-justifying-means-god.

I don't know about you, but to me, if ebola was somehow a tool to enlighten a couple of people...I wouldn't exactly call that a net gain.  Could've just skipped ebola and went straight to enlightenment.

Unless Jeff's a shit programmer -and- a trash person...ofc.

Hey Khem. What if there is a God, or a programmer and something else is the thing being analysed to see how it responds to hardships.
They throw "us" in as the ebola to them! Why must we always see ourselves as the centre of everything???

We're just an npc .. not the one's being judged. But we sure like making a song and dance about it...

[chimp3]

I think the simulation scenario is one of the stupidest problems people worry about. Weclome to the forum.

[ignoramus]

I think people cling to a sim as it still has a creator ... Sort of like God Lite. For those weaning off religion...

I, like most here don't believe in either.
Evolution is real. Mother nature is our creator. She is blind, she doesn't care about our skin colour or our sexual preference. Only bad monkeys do that.

enough with the fantasy bullshit...

[robvalue]

I don't see any evidence that it is a simulation. Most reasoning that supports it is flawed or circular.

To me, something like arbitrary suspensions of apparent physical laws combined with weird messages appearing for everyone to see would be good evidence.

"We have temporarily turned off gravity and you can't die."

[The Grand Nudger]

We spent centuries searching for the respawn points, and all we ended up with was a massive k/d ratio.

[Succubus]

...I'm not atheist because it isn't obvious to me that...

Which god do you believe in?

[ohreally]

Even if all of your scenario is true, where does that get you? You personally can't imagine (or don't want to) a natural process to get to where we are now, so you've thought up this scenario that some being creates a simulation, OK where did that being come from? Just because you have less unsupported claims than most religions doesn't make your proposition any more plausible.

[robvalue]

I would agree that it isn't obvious this isn't a simulation, but neither is it obvious that it is. If someone agrees with that statement, then they would be an atheist even when calling programmers "gods". Atheist just means lacking a positive belief in gods; not necessarily that you have a positive belief that there aren't any.

I think the confusion about the word agnostic comes about because people often say "I don't know" as a shorthand for "I don't know what to believe". In other words, "I don't believe a particular statement is true, but neither do I believe it is false". If I ask you if you believe something and you say, "I don't know", you're really just saying, "No I don't, but neither do I believe it's false". If you don't know that you believe something, you don't believe it.

However, you can say, "I believe this is true/false, but I don't know for sure", which makes you agnostic on the position while holding a positive belief. If you have no belief either way, you're automatically (and redundantly) an agnostic.