2 hours ago, dmwalker said:

I am not even slightly philosophical so I am probably misunderstanding your arguments but I have to ask, if you are looking at a person on a webcam, does the person exist or is it only the monitor and its display which exist?

The persons conscientiousness and the objects of their experience exist since they are subjects of the persons conscientiousness as objects of their experience. Their material self as an object of my experience doesn't exist, only the monitor and their image on it exist as an object of my experience. Think multiplayer VR game. It's akin to each of us being at the centre of our own sphere of experience. By analogy if we are standing in the same room looking at a chair we believe and agree the chair exists as a real thing in and off itself independent of our observation of it. Yet at the same time we also agree that the chair as an object of your experience and the chair as an object of my experience are distinct. However, if using VR headsets we were, with full knowledge of it, gaming in a virtual environment with a chair in it and we both are look at the chair in our respective VR headsets and agreed in conversation about the colour of the chair, its size etc. and many other characteristics such that in conversation we couldn't distinguish the chair in your VR headset from the one in my VR headset such that we agreed that both images where derived from one code. If we saw the code unless we were coders, there would be nothing chair about the code to us. It would bear no resemblance to the chair at all. Why would the objects of our experience and the hypothetical thing in itself be any different? This is one of the ago old problems of philosophy back to Plato, then Rene Descartes and even today and why research into conscientiousness and physics in relation to conscientiousness in so in vogue today.

8 hours ago, FBW737 said:

 Personally, I give credence to the theory that the universe is a simulation. Matrix like, if you will

Loved the movie, but the idea behind it is much older: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

7 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The origin of the universe is one of those things that I don't think can be discovered or proven

That is correct. There is impressive evidence for the Big Bang theory based on observations, that's why so many people believe in it. But since it cannot be verified by independent experiments on other universes, it will never be scientifically provable. 

9 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The Creation Theory of the universe is not religious.  It posits the existence of an omnipotent being or beings who designed and created the universe.  This does not involve religion.  Please refrain from creating(no pun intended) issues where there are none.

 

God defined:    

1. 1.

   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

    
2. 2.

   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

   "a moon god"

    

   Religion defined:

    

   the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.

   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

    

   If you think that its permissible to debate the existence of an omnipotent being that created the universe, a deity, a god, on the forum, then I think you are seriously misinterpreting the forum rules. I could quite easily, dive in and debate the probability of an omnipotent being existing, including the one you believe in,  and if I did, we know where that debate would lead.

    

   Now I know you have expressed to me in the past that you don't like the fact you are "censored" as you put it, and feel you should be free to say what you like, but that's unrealistic on a forum.

    

   I will ask a moderator for clarification, and if debating the existence of an omnipotent being, a god, a creator is permissible, you can expect me to dive right in.

    

    

9 hours ago, qqwertz said:

Loved the movie, but the idea behind it is much older

I'd credit Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method but perhaps Berkeley's writing's are more reminiscent of the Matrix. I haven't read either in decades.😭

 

Edited September 20, 20232 yr by FBW737

11 hours ago, martin-w said:

God defined:    

My goodness, you really do exhibit a lack of self-awareness sometimes.

It is, in fact, you who has injected religion into the discussion.  You just posted religious definitions.

I never mentioned "god" or "deity".  I stated "super intelligent omnipotent being(s)", whatever that may be.  It could be some sort of incorporeal intelligence that we can't detect, or extraordinarily advanced aliens who made this universe and perhaps others,

Dave

Edited September 20, 20232 yr by dave2013

These are the most common definitions of "Creationism". The very word has religious connotations:

“At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will.” 

“Creationism, the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo).”

“Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.”

“Creationism is based on the belief that the Bible is a credible source, which gives the story of Creation.”

“Creationism is defined as the belief that a deity created life out of nothing. This includes humans, plants, animals, planets and stars, and the entirety of the universe.”

“Creationism or Intelligent Design is the belief that life and the universe were created by a supernatural being (an "intelligent designer"), an omnipotent, benevolent God.”

“Creationism, a religious theory encompasses the belief that universes were created by a Supreme
Being.”

“Supreme Being: the most exalted being; God”

However:
“It is important to understand that Biblical creationism is not the only theory of creation, however; humans do have other theories regarding the creation of life by a supreme being.”

Are you saying that Creation Theory is not necessarily the same as Creationism?

Edited September 20, 20232 yr by dmwalker

16 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

Are you saying that Creation Theory is not necessarily the same as Creationism?

I don't care how scholars or Wikipedia contributors choose to define the creation hypothesis.

My belief is that all this was designed and *created*, by what or whom I do not know.

Dave

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

 I stated "super intelligent omnipotent being(s)", whatever that may be.  It could be some sort of incorporeal intelligence

Ah! I get it: ChatGPT

...

Just trying to put in some humor. The thread seems to get a bit tense 🙂

3 hours ago, qqwertz said:

Just trying to put in some humor. The thread seems to get a bit tense 🙂

What? I'm the comedian around here!🤔I've injected a ton of comedy here already (and a tone of drugs into my arm over the year😭). Please stay in your lane of scientific method dogmatism!🤣 Otherwise I'll have to jinx you and that definitely works.

Edited September 20, 20232 yr by FBW737

Although not found in the Terms of Service, the very description of the Hangar Chat forum politely enjoins participants to "Please refrain from controversial topics...politics, religion, conspiracy theories, climate change, COVID etc.", is explicitly disallowed as a subject matter for discussion.

Although thus far the discussion has been polite and informative, rules need to be enforced or they become pointless. As a result, I am going to reluctantly close and lock this thread before it inevitably goes off the rails entirely.

As one may have gathered, this very topic is of interest to me primarily because of my vocation. At the seminary, we proto-priests had some very interesting and sometimes tense debates. 😇😇