Biblical Hallucinations

[VVilliam]

From another thread discussion;

So now about my observation of your hallucination theory...can you answer those questions?

Twist. I won't buy in. I told you...I can see that technique. You're not fooling anyone.

I don't have a "hallucination theory." What I said was that you were describing hallucinations.

Indeed. I am not arguing you said anything else. I will continue to argue that you are willfully resisting [won't buy into] my rational argument against your own claims in relation to experiences people like myself and Jesus and Saul and Daniel and Adam and Eve and John the Beloved Disciple have.
I will also continue to point out that the creator obviously sees our universe as something he simulated, because that is the only rational conclusion one can come to based upon your claims about the creator.

In that, I have successfully argued that we should also learn to see our universe in the same way that the creator sees it.

It appears to be the [very interesting] case that there are two main types of individual who resist the idea that we exist within a simulated reality.

1: Christians who believe that this [the physical] universe is 'real'

2: Atheists who are compelled not to believe we exist within a simulated reality [creation] because to do so would move them from the atheist position

In that, both those types of Christians AND Atheists have something fundamental in common...

They cannot accept that we exist within a simulated reality.
[ One through resistance and the other through compulsion ]

Both would argue along the lines that anyone who has experienced alternative realities 'may' have been 'hallucinating' - and the Christians mentioned, would add to this other arguments such as "the devil is deceiving you"

I have successfully shown that Christians who believe we exist within a 'real' universe which their god 'created' MUST have to acknowledge that the creation has to be a simulation.

My reasoning for this is;

Why would a believer in this god called this universe [place] real?

Surely Christians can understand from what they have claimed about the creator, that he must see this universe as a simulation which he created.

Furthermore, he can interact with his simulation in order to make things appear to happen in relation to those within said simulation.

He can make Adam and Eve think they are talking with a Wise Serpent.

He can make the lions think that Daniel is non-edible.

He can make a group of men fishing think that Jesus was walking on water.

He can make Saul think he was encountering a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus

He can even uplift the beloved disciple John and give John a fully immersed experience of yet another simulation which said disciple then reports to other humans about his experience in that alternate reality.

[He can also give William [and others] a few experience in order to show William a thing or two about what William thinks/assumes about reality in relation to what actually is reality.]

So IF the creator can do as Christians claim, THEN the creator has to see the truth that his creation is a "simulation" which was created for a purpose.

Which then has me asking "if your god sees our reality as not really real, why would Christians insist that it is really real...even to the point of using a classical atheist argument [you could be hallucinating] in order to try to debunk alternate reality experiences as 'not real' while maintaining that the characters and heroes of their mythology did have real alternate experiences and are the genuine article?

Have the "sheep sent out among wolves" succumbed to the practice of wolvery themselves?

[DPMartin]

From another thread discussion;

Twist. I won't buy in. I told you...I can see that technique. You're not fooling anyone.

I don't have a "hallucination theory." What I said was that you were describing hallucinations.

Indeed. I am not arguing you said anything else. I will continue to argue that you are willfully resisting [won't buy into] my rational argument against your own claims in relation to experiences people like myself and Jesus and Saul and Daniel and Adam and Eve and John the Beloved Disciple have.
I will also continue to point out that the creator obviously sees our universe as something he simulated, because that is the only rational conclusion one can come to based upon your claims about the creator.

In that, I have successfully argued that we should also learn to see our universe in the same way that the creator sees it.

It appears to be the [very interesting] case that there are two main types of individual who resist the idea that we exist within a simulated reality.

1: Christians who believe that this [the physical] universe is 'real'

2: Atheists who are compelled not to believe we exist within a simulated reality [creation] because to do so would move them from the atheist position

In that, both those types of Christians AND Atheists have something fundamental in common...

They cannot accept that we exist within a simulated reality.
[ One through resistance and the other through compulsion ]

Both would argue along the lines that anyone who has experienced alternative realities 'may' have been 'hallucinating' - and the Christians mentioned, would add to this other arguments such as "the devil is deceiving you"

I have successfully shown that Christians who believe we exist within a 'real' universe which their god 'created' MUST have to acknowledge that the creation has to be a simulation.

My reasoning for this is;

Why would a believer in this god called this universe [place] real?

Surely Christians can understand from what they have claimed about the creator, that he must see this universe as a simulation which he created.

Furthermore, he can interact with his simulation in order to make things appear to happen in relation to those within said simulation.

He can make Adam and Eve think they are talking with a Wise Serpent.

He can make the lions think that Daniel is non-edible.

He can make a group of men fishing think that Jesus was walking on water.

He can make Saul think he was encountering a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus

He can even uplift the beloved disciple John and give John a fully immersed experience of yet another simulation which said disciple then reports to other humans about his experience in that alternate reality.

[He can also give William [and others] a few experience in order to show William a thing or two about what William thinks/assumes about reality in relation to what actually is reality.]

So IF the creator can do as Christians claim, THEN the creator has to see the truth that his creation is a "simulation" which was created for a purpose.

Which then has me asking "if your god sees our reality as not really real, why would Christians insist that it is really real...even to the point of using a classical atheist argument [you could be hallucinating] in order to try to debunk alternate reality experiences as 'not real' while maintaining that the characters and heroes of their mythology did have real alternate experiences and are the genuine article?

Have the "sheep sent out among wolves" succumbed to the practice of wolvery themselves?

or you're just way off base, way out there in left field and refuse to acknowledge it.

[VVilliam]

From another thread discussion;

Indeed. I am not arguing you said anything else. I will continue to argue that you are willfully resisting [won't buy into] my rational argument against your own claims in relation to experiences people like myself and Jesus and Saul and Daniel and Adam and Eve and John the Beloved Disciple have.
I will also continue to point out that the creator obviously sees our universe as something he simulated, because that is the only rational conclusion one can come to based upon your claims about the creator.

In that, I have successfully argued that we should also learn to see our universe in the same way that the creator sees it.

It appears to be the [very interesting] case that there are two main types of individual who resist the idea that we exist within a simulated reality.

1: Christians who believe that this [the physical] universe is 'real'

2: Atheists who are compelled not to believe we exist within a simulated reality [creation] because to do so would move them from the atheist position

In that, both those types of Christians AND Atheists have something fundamental in common...

They cannot accept that we exist within a simulated reality.
[ One through resistance and the other through compulsion ]

Both would argue along the lines that anyone who has experienced alternative realities 'may' have been 'hallucinating' - and the Christians mentioned, would add to this other arguments such as "the devil is deceiving you"

I have successfully shown that Christians who believe we exist within a 'real' universe which their god 'created' MUST have to acknowledge that the creation has to be a simulation.

My reasoning for this is;

Why would a believer in this god called this universe [place] real?

Surely Christians can understand from what they have claimed about the creator, that he must see this universe as a simulation which he created.

Furthermore, he can interact with his simulation in order to make things appear to happen in relation to those within said simulation.

He can make Adam and Eve think they are talking with a Wise Serpent.

He can make the lions think that Daniel is non-edible.

He can make a group of men fishing think that Jesus was walking on water.

He can make Saul think he was encountering a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus

He can even uplift the beloved disciple John and give John a fully immersed experience of yet another simulation which said disciple then reports to other humans about his experience in that alternate reality.

[He can also give William [and others] a few experience in order to show William a thing or two about what William thinks/assumes about reality in relation to what actually is reality.]

So IF the creator can do as Christians claim, THEN the creator has to see the truth that his creation is a "simulation" which was created for a purpose.

Which then has me asking "if your god sees our reality as not really real, why would Christians insist that it is really real...even to the point of using a classical atheist argument [you could be hallucinating] in order to try to debunk alternate reality experiences as 'not real' while maintaining that the characters and heroes of their mythology did have real alternate experiences and are the genuine article?

Have the "sheep sent out among wolves" succumbed to the practice of wolvery themselves?

or you're just way off base, way out there in left field and refuse to acknowledge it.

I am most welcoming of any knowledge anyone has which can show me that is the case. When that happens, i will acknowledge it.

Do you have anything to offer in the way of that, which doesn't amount to a simple one-line opinion?

[VVilliam]

I didn't find anything that implied an "altered consciousness" of any kind.

For example, is it your assumption that if Jesus walked on water, then it can only be the case that He didn't, but that the disciples hallucinated it?

It is not my assumption. Why would you assume that it is?

I remind you that it was you who argued "hallucination" in regard to my own experiences.

My reply back to you [who identified yourself as 'Theist'] was that if you could so easily label my [alternate to physical universe] experiences as "hallucination" - then why would you not do the same in regard to the biblical claims? Why do you not understand and argue those as also "hallucination"?

That's certainly not what the Bible says happened; and if it were a hallucination, you'd surely expect that the disciples would have all had very different hallucinations, not the same one.

Why would you assume that? One could explain that both [alternate to each other] universes merged in relation to the situation the whole group were in, and thus they all could experience the same "hallucination" {I am simply using the word you used on me]

There were no doubt many people in California in the '60s using LSD, but so far as I known, no two of them ever had the same hallucination...and certainly not at the same time, with all the same particulars. So hallucinations are always particular to the individual...but you want to say that everybody was hallucinating the same thing at the same time?

No. I am saying the biblical characters were not hallucinating at all, any more than I was when I had similar experience.

You see why I'm having trouble with that theory?

Of course. It is because you are conflating "hallucinating" with individual experience of alternate universe.

Or is it your supposition that when Daniel was in the lion's den...well, I'm not sure what your supposition would be on that one...that Daniel wasn't in the lions' den, but hallucinated it? That the people watching were hallucinating, so didn't see Daniel get eaten? Or that the lions were hallucinating, and so couldn't see Daniel?

See? You are shocked at that proposal/explanation whist willfully using the argument yourself, in an effort to debunk my own experiences as merely "hallucinations"

You're going to have to explain that one to me, because none of those look remotely plausible to me, and if I go with one you're bound to accusing me of mocking your theory. So maybe you'd best give me what your actual theory is on that. I won't guess yet.

That's what I mean about providing an example: say how you think it was an "altered consciousness" state or an "alternate reality."

See my reply above.

I am not doubting the biblical stories as merely hallucinations. I am thinking they possibly did happen due largely to my knowing through personal experience. Similar has happened with me.

[VVilliam]

The case of mathematics is a good one to illustrate a simple point about logic, because in maths we can verify that real answers exist with ease. In every other area of human knowledge, we have to settle for probability calculations: science produces very high probabilities, and random guessing produces low ones. So in other areas of knowledge we are never 100% sure in the way we can be in maths. Maths lets us check to see if we're right about the way we're thinking, because maths has verifiable right answers.

So what's the simple point about logic? It's that the presence of many answers does not imply there can be no correct answer. That is all I am drawing from maths here; no more, but also no less.

That simple principle is something we need to keep in mind in other areas of inquiry too. For example, we do not know how many fish there are in the sea: that does not mean that there are no fish in the sea, that there are infinite fish in the sea, that we could not (at least in theory) ever find out the true number, or that all guesses were equally close to right. Or consider that we do not know the size of the universe; does that mean the universe has no size? Surely not. Even if that size is infinite, then it's true that it is infinite, and every other number suggested is not correct.

If something is real, then true and false statements can be made about it. Aristotle realized this principle in his Law of Identity, a foundation of logic. It states simply that a thing "is what it is," meaning it exists or it doesn't: there are no half-way states of being. Like a light switch is always either on or off (or like pregnancy wherein there is no such thing as "a little bit pregant" -- either you are, or you aren't) "being" is a true dichotomy.

We need to keep this simple principle in mind when we come to *any* area of inquiry that has to do with something real (i.e. something "being"). If the question is, "Is God real," then the same rule will apply: He will, or He won't. There won't be any "He sort of exists," or "He exists for some people and not for others," because these terms change the meaning of "being" into something simply merely metaphorical, not what Aristotle means by "being." There will be true and false statements about Him, true and false suppositions about Him, though some estimations may be perhaps closer to true than others.

On the other hand, if there is no chance He is real, then what are we talking about? He has no quality of "being," then. In that case, true and false no longer apply because all statements containing the predicate "God" are false by nature. So then there is no answer because there is no truthful question to pose.

What I was pointing out to abepat was simply that his/her question incorrectly supposed that multiple answers proves no truth exists. Then, oddly enough, abepat got metaphorically "sympathetic" with God, then in the same sentence denied His existence. A question premised on such a flawed assumption and worded in such a self-contradictory and logic-contradicting way cannot be answered with an intelligible response. But the fault is in the question's wording, not in the concept of God per se.

I suspect that abepat was simply "sounding off" to get a reaction. Because in his/her better moments, he/she could surely frame a more precise question than he/she did.

Conclusion: We can ask about God, sure; but we have to use the basic laws of logic when we do, because if we don't we can't possibly make any progress, and we're bound to end up merely confused. Abepat needs to realize this simple principle: multiple answers do not imply that no answer exists. Maths proves it. I suggest, therefore, that we need to stick with it, even in reference to the "being" of God.

That's our starting point: logic works, even when the referent to our questions is "God," not "maths."

With the above in mind, we are left with one thing certain. That any type of enquiry first has to have something real in which the enquiry itself can be expressed from.

In that, the only real 'thing' is that which is making the enquiry. IF 'things' didn't exist in which to bounce off [make enquiry of] THEN what would one have to enquire about, except ones self?

Even if that which makes the enquiry is within a simulation, this does not mean that it is hallucinating.

Now IF we call this 'thing' which is doing the enquiring, "The Creator", THEN it becomes the source of everything else. [that which is being enquired about]

In that if we call everything else "The Creation" wherein does The Creator get what we in The Creation refer to as "materials" in which to do the creating with?

One answer is that the materials [as we experience them within said physical Universe primarily Planet Earth] are not 'gotten' from anywhere by The Creator, but are essentially The Mind of The Creator.

Therefore would could ascertain from this, that The Creators Mind has voids/blank areas in which The Creator imagines into existence "things" and these are referred to as "Creations" "Simulations" "Hallucinations" etc by the individuate consciousnesses within said creations, which experience these "things" as "real".

From this we could also ascertain that the individuate consciousnesses are not imagined and thus created by The Creator, but are actually [altogether] the consciousness [that which enquires] which is The Creator...essentially we are all [consciousness] The Creator experiencing The Creator's Creation.

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't find anything that implied an "altered consciousness" of any kind.

For example, is it your assumption that if Jesus walked on water, then it can only be the case that He didn't, but that the disciples hallucinated it?

It is not my assumption. Why would you assume that it is?

I mentioned it only because you cited that as an example of "alternate reality." I agree that that is an utterly implausible explanation. If you've got another way of explaining the walking on the water, I'm ready to hear it.

No. I am saying the biblical characters were not hallucinating at all, any more than I was when I had similar experience.

Well, as I suggested, a "hallucination" is an unlikely explanation for 12 people having the same experience at the same time. Did anybody else have your "similar experience" with you?

And what was your "experience"? Surely it wasn't somebody walking on water, was it?

[VVilliam]

I didn't find anything that implied an "altered consciousness" of any kind.

For example, is it your assumption that if Jesus walked on water, then it can only be the case that He didn't, but that the disciples hallucinated it?

It is not my assumption. Why would you assume that it is?

I mentioned it only because you cited that as an example of "alternate reality." I agree that that is an utterly implausible explanation. If you've got another way of explaining the walking on the water, I'm ready to hear it.

No. I am saying the biblical characters were not hallucinating at all, any more than I was when I had similar experience.

Well, as I suggested, a "hallucination" is an unlikely explanation for 12 people having the same experience at the same time. Did anybody else have your "similar experience" with you?

And what was your "experience"? Surely it wasn't somebody walking on water, was it?

I am not answering your questions while you continue to ignore the rest of what I post. The reason for this is that your questions show that you have not read or have read but failed to understand what I wrote. If you had read and understood what I wrote, you would not be asking those questions.

Thus if you have read but failed to understand what I wrote, you need to respond to what I wrote so I could ascertain exactly where you failed to understand and work at another way in which to convey the information, which I cannot do if you will not do.

It is a type of feedback relationship which is vital to good communication - a 'bouncing off of' - for that purpose. Otherwise I cannot comprehend what it is that you think is incorrect with my whole view.

Simply taking snippets and commenting on those only serves as an attempt to disengage from the rest, and in that take what I have written, out of context.


For now I will focus on one particular reported experience where no witnesses were involved. The temptation of Christ in the desert.

[Immanuel Can]

It is not my assumption. Why would you assume that it is?

I mentioned it only because you cited that as an example of "alternate reality." I agree that that is an utterly implausible explanation. If you've got another way of explaining the walking on the water, I'm ready to hear it.

No. I am saying the biblical characters were not hallucinating at all, any more than I was when I had similar experience.

Well, as I suggested, a "hallucination" is an unlikely explanation for 12 people having the same experience at the same time. Did anybody else have your "similar experience" with you?

And what was your "experience"? Surely it wasn't somebody walking on water, was it?

I am not answering your questions while you continue to ignore the rest of what I post.

Well, you can see the problem. There were 12 witnesses to that alleged "altered consciousness," and all had the same "altered" experience. That obviously presents a serious problem.

It was your list. I note that you "ignored" Daniel and the lions as well. So let's not pretend you're mortally offended if somebody leaves something out...you do it yourself, all the time. In fact, you dropped all your own purported cases of "altered consciousness," (presumably because you awakened to the fact that multiple people don't have the same "altered" experience). Moreover, you ignored my own question about your own case entirely, and I wouldn't have even mentioned that except for the fact that you've raised the issue.

For now I will focus on one particular reported experience where no witnesses were involved. The temptation of Christ in the desert.

Well, before you do, let's clear it up: the walking on water is no longer a candidate for "altered consciousness"? And the Daniel incident, also not a candidate? And how about the rest of your earlier list?

And if you are happy with that, we can go on.

[VVilliam]

I mentioned it only because you cited that as an example of "alternate reality." I agree that that is an utterly implausible explanation. If you've got another way of explaining the walking on the water, I'm ready to hear it.


Well, as I suggested, a "hallucination" is an unlikely explanation for 12 people having the same experience at the same time. Did anybody else have your "similar experience" with you?

And what was your "experience"? Surely it wasn't somebody walking on water, was it?

I am not answering your questions while you continue to ignore the rest of what I post.

Well, you can see the problem. There were 12 witnesses to that alleged "altered consciousness," and all had the same "altered" experience. That obviously presents a serious problem.

It was your list. I note that you "ignored" Daniel and the lions as well. So let's not pretend you're mortally offended if somebody leaves something out...you do it yourself, all the time. In fact, you dropped all your own purported cases of "altered consciousness," (presumably because you awakened to the fact that multiple people don't have the same "altered" experience). Moreover, you ignored my own question about your own case entirely, and I wouldn't have even mentioned that except for the fact that you've raised the issue.

For now I will focus on one particular reported experience where no witnesses were involved. The temptation of Christ in the desert.

Well, before you do, let's clear it up: the walking on water is no longer a candidate for "altered consciousness"? And the Daniel incident, also not a candidate? And how about the rest of your earlier list?

And if you are happy with that, we can go on.

I am going to carry on anyway. Your statements, while seemingly relevant are not necessity true. For one thing, they imply something which is impossible to achieve, but this does not align with the Christian theist belief that nothing is impossible for The Creator to make happen. More so if one also claims to be a Christian Theist.

Until you can explain WHY 12 witnesses to that altered consciousness experience cannot have had shared the same altered experience- "obviously presents a serious problem"... I see no reason to accept your statement as true.

I will go with the default premise that The Creator can make it so. You are left to explain why The Creator cannot make it so.

I choose the temptation of Christ as a good example to focus upon because it is short enough to analyze with minimum time and effort and consists of things which can be critiqued scientifically, and there are no witnesses to the alternate experience described in the story, so it allows for us to examine it in that light. Just Jesus in the desert, hungry and thirsty and having an alternate experience.

[Immanuel Can]

...they imply something which is impossible to achieve,...

Which is...what?

Until you can explain WHY 12 witnesses to that altered consciousness experience cannot have had shared the same altered experience- "obviously presents a serious problem"... I see no reason to accept your statement as true.

Very easily. If you want us to suppose that all 12 disciples had exactly the same "alternate universe" experience at exactly the same time, and in exactly the same way, then you would have to revise your considering the walking-on-water incident as any such experience.

Likewise with Daniel. Where is this "alternate universe" experience you promised us we'd find there?

Do you think people have exactly the same experiences at exactly the same time, purely by coincidence and utterly ungoverned by a common, stable reality? Is that what you want us to suppose?

[VVilliam]

...they imply something which is impossible to achieve,...

Which is...what?

Until you can explain WHY 12 witnesses to that altered consciousness experience cannot have had shared the same altered experience- "obviously presents a serious problem"... I see no reason to accept your statement as true.

Very easily. If you want us to suppose that all 12 disciples had exactly the same "alternate universe" experience at exactly the same time, and in exactly the same way, then you would have to revise your considering the walking-on-water incident as any such experience.

Likewise with Daniel. Where is this "alternate universe" experience you promised us we'd find there?

Do you think people have exactly the same experiences at exactly the same time, purely by coincidence and utterly ungoverned by a common, stable reality? Is that what you want us to suppose?

Are you therefore arguing that it is impossible for The Creator to make such happen? If so, then you are neither a Christian nor likely a theist and are simply arguing from the atheist position.

[Age]

From another thread discussion;

Twist. I won't buy in. I told you...I can see that technique. You're not fooling anyone.

I don't have a "hallucination theory." What I said was that you were describing hallucinations.

Indeed. I am not arguing you said anything else. I will continue to argue that you are willfully resisting [won't buy into] my rational argument against your own claims in relation to experiences people like myself and Jesus and Saul and Daniel and Adam and Eve and John the Beloved Disciple have.
I will also continue to point out that the creator obviously sees our universe as something he simulated, because that is the only rational conclusion one can come to based upon your claims about the creator.

In that, I have successfully argued that we should also learn to see our universe in the same way that the creator sees it.

1. There is NO 'other' Creator of this One and ONLY Universe. If the word 'Universe', literally by Itself means, ALL-THERE-IS, Totality, Everything, et cetera, there there just OBVIOUSLY could NOT be ANY 'other'.

So, that is well and Truly dead and finished with.

2. Why do 'you', human beings, use the MISNOMER "our" Universe?

Did 'you', human beings, create or own 'this' Universe?

If no, then WHY say such absurd and ridiculous 'things' like, "our universe"?

It appears to be the [very interesting] case that there are two main types of individual who resist the idea that we exist within a simulated reality.

1: Christians who believe that this [the physical] universe is 'real'

2: Atheists who are compelled not to believe we exist within a simulated reality [creation] because to do so would move them from the atheist position

In that, both those types of Christians AND Atheists have something fundamental in common...

What is ALSO 'very interesting' to WATCH and OBSERVE here is how some people actually BELIEVE that 'they' and 'we' live in some 'simulated reality'.

OBVIOUSLY 'we' do NOT, as has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN True.

They cannot accept that we exist within a simulated reality.
[ One through resistance and the other through compulsion ]

But BOTH do NOT accept this OBVIOUSLY False idea, through just plain old 'logically reasoned' views and thoughts, ALSO.

Both would argue along the lines that anyone who has experienced alternative realities 'may' have been 'hallucinating' - and the Christians mentioned, would add to this other arguments such as "the devil is deceiving you"

But both have also argued other ways. But you have NOT even entertained nor discussed those, let alone LOOKED INTO them FULLY.

I have successfully shown that Christians who believe we exist within a 'real' universe which their god 'created' MUST have to acknowledge that the creation has to be a simulation.

You have NOT "shown" this AT ALL.

Obviously, 'you' may "see" this, and BELIEVE this. But you certainly have NOT 'shown' this.

Even when you started this ABSURD notion it was PROVEN to be False and ABSURD, in the beginning.

My reasoning for this is;

Why would a believer in this god called this universe [place] real?

1. For the very SIMPLE REASON that even if 'you' are living in a 'simulated reality', 'that' HAS TO BE happening in Reality, Itself.

Surely Christians can understand from what they have claimed about the creator, that he must see this universe as a simulation which he created.

WHY?

Also, if 'this' is a 'simulation', that 'you' are existing within, then this is a REAL 'simulation', correct?

And, if 'this' is a REAL 'simulation', then it MUST BE occurring within a REAL 'world', or within Reality, Itself, OBVIOUSLY.

Furthermore, he can interact with his simulation in order to make things appear to happen in relation to those within said simulation.

LOOK, if you want to START to LEARN and SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', then you have to at least START SPEAKING and SAYING thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Your lies and misinformation is not ONLY confusing and deceiving "others" but confusing and deceiving 'you' AS WELL.

God is NOT a "he", and to even think such notion is even BEYOND the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

He can make Adam and Eve think they are talking with a Wise Serpent.

WHY do you even SAY 'things', which you BELIEVE are WITHOUT DOUBT False?

Do you REALLY BELIEVE that continuing to spread LIES and DECEPTION is the BEST thing to do here?

He can make the lions think that Daniel is non-edible.

He can make a group of men fishing think that Jesus was walking on water.

He can make Saul think he was encountering a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus

He can even uplift the beloved disciple John and give John a fully immersed experience of yet another simulation which said disciple then reports to other humans about his experience in that alternate reality.

[He can also give William [and others] a few experience in order to show William a thing or two about what William thinks/assumes about reality in relation to what actually is reality.]

So IF the creator can do as Christians claim, THEN the creator has to see the truth that his creation is a "simulation" which was created for a purpose.

Which then has me asking "if your god sees our reality as not really real, why would Christians insist that it is really real...even to the point of using a classical atheist argument [you could be hallucinating] in order to try to debunk alternate reality experiences as 'not real' while maintaining that the characters and heroes of their mythology did have real alternate experiences and are the genuine article?[/quote]

And 'I' will ask 'you', Do 'you' live in Reality, Itself, or in a 'simulation' of a "Reality"?

Have the "sheep sent out among wolves" succumbed to the practice of wolvery themselves?

Which is my POINT, exactly, about 'you' continuing on with the LIES and DECEPTIONS.

'Who', exactly, are 'you', "vvilliam", 'trying to' trick, fool, and deceive here?

[Age]

From another thread discussion;



It appears to be the [very interesting] case that there are two main types of individual who resist the idea that we exist within a simulated reality.

1: Christians who believe that this [the physical] universe is 'real'

2: Atheists who are compelled not to believe we exist within a simulated reality [creation] because to do so would move them from the atheist position

In that, both those types of Christians AND Atheists have something fundamental in common...

They cannot accept that we exist within a simulated reality.
[ One through resistance and the other through compulsion ]

Both would argue along the lines that anyone who has experienced alternative realities 'may' have been 'hallucinating' - and the Christians mentioned, would add to this other arguments such as "the devil is deceiving you"

I have successfully shown that Christians who believe we exist within a 'real' universe which their god 'created' MUST have to acknowledge that the creation has to be a simulation.

My reasoning for this is;

Why would a believer in this god called this universe [place] real?

Surely Christians can understand from what they have claimed about the creator, that he must see this universe as a simulation which he created.

Furthermore, he can interact with his simulation in order to make things appear to happen in relation to those within said simulation.

He can make Adam and Eve think they are talking with a Wise Serpent.

He can make the lions think that Daniel is non-edible.

He can make a group of men fishing think that Jesus was walking on water.

He can make Saul think he was encountering a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus

He can even uplift the beloved disciple John and give John a fully immersed experience of yet another simulation which said disciple then reports to other humans about his experience in that alternate reality.

[He can also give William [and others] a few experience in order to show William a thing or two about what William thinks/assumes about reality in relation to what actually is reality.]

So IF the creator can do as Christians claim, THEN the creator has to see the truth that his creation is a "simulation" which was created for a purpose.

Which then has me asking "if your god sees our reality as not really real, why would Christians insist that it is really real...even to the point of using a classical atheist argument [you could be hallucinating] in order to try to debunk alternate reality experiences as 'not real' while maintaining that the characters and heroes of their mythology did have real alternate experiences and are the genuine article?

Have the "sheep sent out among wolves" succumbed to the practice of wolvery themselves?

or you're just way off base, way out there in left field and refuse to acknowledge it.

I am most welcoming of any knowledge anyone has which can show me that is the case. When that happens, i will acknowledge it.

BUT, if you are REFUSING to even acknowledge 'it', then HOW could you, acknowledge 'it'?

Knowledge has ALREADY been provided to 'you' that even IF 'you' are living in a 'simulation', then this WOULD BE happening within 'Reality', Itself. Therefore, what you claim here COULD BE true, is NOT AT ALL True.

There is knowledge which can and does SHOW that you are just way off base, and way out there in left field. So, will you acknowledge this, or you will you just continue on completely REFUSING to acknowledge this?

Remember, what is ACTUALLY True can NOT be SHOWN to those who BELIEVE otherwise.

Do you have anything to offer in the way of that, which doesn't amount to a simple one-line opinion?

What I have just said and SHOWN you here is one 'thing' to offer you. That is IF 'you' are in a 'simulation', then this 'simulation' MUST BE happening within a REAL 'world' or a Reality.

Another, is the FACT that IF 'you' are living in a 'simulation' of Reality, then a Reality MUST EXIST, for there to be a 'simulation' of.

Another is, IF 'you' are living in a 'simulation', then there MUST BE a REAL 'thing', which created that 'simulation'. And, for there to be a REAL 'thing', then there MUST BE a REAL world, or a Reality.

All of these SHOW and OFFER you otherwise. If you are ABLE to SEE and RECOGNIZE this FACT is ANOTHER matter.

[Dontaskme]

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think people have exactly the same experiences at exactly the same time, purely by coincidence and utterly ungoverned by a common, stable reality? Is that what you want us to suppose?

Are you therefore arguing that it is impossible for The Creator to make such happen?

Not at all, if He wanted to. I'm simply arguing that when twelve people all experience exactly the same thing, we don't ordinarily assume they are being deluded. We generally suspect hallucination only when one person "experiences" something that nobody else does. When many see the same thing, as in the feeding of the 5,000 for example, or when there are over 500 independent witnesses to the resurrection of a dead man, we would say that's no "hallucination" at all. And we would need an awfully persuasive argument to justify us in taking any other view.

So let me pose the question again: when you had your "alternate reality" experience, did anybody else see what you saw? Were there a dozen on hand as witnesses? Was there even one?