Simulation Theory proves that God exists #simulator

[AndrewC]

So then Yahweh is the King of kings, the Elohim of elohim, and the Simulator of simulators 💪🏼

[JohnStweart]

This would just require another answer for "who is creator of the upper layer reality that sustains ours?".

[callum]

Quantum mechanics is the bridge that is going to make a lot of materialists spiritual

[plastic]

Algo bump, cuz you do great public Phil

[ShallowedOutGolf]

God is infinite consciousness.

Science is really pointing towards idealism.

[XKXXKXX]

The conversation will never be over, and when it is, it will begin again. By that, I mean that everything is possible. The theories will never be over, it's impossible.

[zetdota]

Just loose thoughts, how it could've been.

There was war in heaven.

The war ended with resolution in which we, humans, new creations of the Lord, volunteered to be tested in this simulated environment.

We did it to prove our nature or convince the Angels, or something hence no memory.

This ties up everything nicely

[davedeputyZX]

No, if we are in a simulation then the simulators could be a whole race of advanced creatures, not necessarily one being. Could be an ancient AI, could be a civilisation of advanced aliens, could be one super-being but which has no relation to the one described in the bible. Many different options.

[deepfritz]

Read "Your Digital Afterlife". The outline of the direction you're thinking of is explored there.

[CJ-swlc]

Because of the way the camera moves, and the fact that there are long words, this video reminds me of when I have a beer or two and then can't really understand what's going on very easily...

[JohnSmith-bqnf]

So Chalmers isn't a fan of contingency arguments? Personally I don't think we are in a simulation either way.

[watersoluble]

The best argument is the most obvious one: if it’s a simulation, then who created it?

[timelessadventurer]

God/Source/Spirit is just universal consciousness

[petewil]

"If a simulation exists, then there is a simulator, and I would like to call that God."

Fine, but what is the benefit in changing the definition of the word God? I dont get to redefine unicorns as zebras and then claim that unicorns exist. As a graduate student philosophy, I'm sure you see the fault in the construction of this argument.

[RightlyOrientedFamily]

Admittedly I've not read the book; and nor do I know a great deal about the simulation hypothesis. One question however: does Chalmers give any reason for thinking that the simulator is not themselves in a simulation?

Put another way: what features of *our* reality invite the inference that we're part of a simulation? are they features that just any contingent being, qua contingent being, shares? if so, the only natural stopping point for these arguments (for the simulation hypothesis) is a necessary being.

Notice that this wouldn't be a "contingency argument"; at least not as those are tradtionally cashed out. It would moreso just be that one has followed through the logic of arguments for the simulation hypothesis, to their more natural conclusion; which is that the simulator is a necessary being.

[petewil]

Isnt this just an Argument from contingency with extra steps? Why is there a need to add a simulation into it?

[Doctor.T.]

Don't forget Chalmers also said we should see as conceivabe philosophical zombies. You should listen to our mutual friend Keith Frankish about Chalmers' philosophical arguments. I'm not even going to get into the argument of whether God exists or not, just how little we should listen to Chalmers...about anything. As another philosopher once said, 'his arguments are an embarrassment to philosophy'

[matswessling]

no. if we live in a simulation and if god "exists" then he is also simulated.

[jp-wdqy]

Not one word you said was even understandable

[HyperFocusMarshmallow]

To my best understanding, D. Chalmers isn't actually a theist. I don't know anything more specific about his view on theism than that. But unless you know more, that doesn't actually put any lower bound on how bad he thinks the best argument for theism is. Saying it's the strongest argument might not be as friendly to theistic hypotheses as it sounds.