parallel universe stuff = multi verse ?

also? why has the "simulation hypothesis" become a thing. seems odd to me the 'science community throws everything they have against the creator idea then up and argues that its a created place? ..................which i find very amusing

This post was edited by TiStuff on Aug 12 2023 01:26pm

Ya basically any sort of multi-verse theory, it's all totally nonsensical to me, sure it could be true but it just doesn't mean anything or matter and is unfalsifiable

Simulation hypothesis is only a result of people watching too many science fiction movies and thinking it might be real, like The Matrix obviously. It's completely nonsensical and I don't think any legitimate academic has entertained the discussion. In fact the hypothesis only arose AFTER science fiction media presented it, thus planting the totally fictional idea in their heads

edit: its the same thing with people believing in alien UFOs on earth/ the typical depiction of the Roswell Grey. It's all planted in their heads through science fiction media

This post was edited by El1te on Aug 12 2023 01:28pm

my perspective
multiverse came out of desperation in response to the fine tuning argument.

simulation hypothesis because you dont get recognition by saying duh? seems the place is confounding, maybe they over reacting to the light slit experiment

ufo and greys......... you ever see the illustration aleister crowley made of the thing he claimed to talk to?


This post was edited by TiStuff on Aug 12 2023 01:48pm

I already said multiple times throughout this thread if it's all metaphor/allegory then it's fine I guess. I don't see too much harm if it's simply a story that supposed to pass on values or ethics. But even then it's still not a very good at doing that as there is many harmful teachings.

I cant remember didn't you start out believing the stories literally then finally shifted your view to a morality tale? Anyway good for you I have no more questions if it's not literal. Other then how can you tell the difference? How do you discern between what's a metaphor and not a metaphor? Did you come to this conclusion after debating it here in this thread or did you arrive at that based on your own?

The reason I ask is because there are still people out there who view it as literal then as soon as it's NOT convenient or when you point out how illogical or physically impossible it is. To not be embarrassed they immediately switch their stance and pull out the "OH its only a metaphor bro, I was just kidding haha (nervous laugh)."

This post was edited by addone on Aug 12 2023 02:20pm

I don't think I ever said the messages are physically literally true, just that the messages and morals of the allegories are true, therefore the story is true, just not in the literal physical material sense. The resurrection of Jesus Christ however I believe to be true.

For example the symbol of the snake is so obviously a symbol of treachery & deceit which other posters have constantly tried to tell you. Even a 4th grader can understand that

It just seems like you're trying to mock people of faith using bad-faith arguments that you already know the answer to. And mocking is so obviously not a rational way to get through to ultra-fringe fundamentalists who believe the stories to be literally true.

meh bullcht addone. life is full of literal and metaphor and no one else has any problem with it

ah? now i remember? the simulation idea, intrigging? when we dream we enter what one could call a simulation. so? we are already experience simulation?
when we are in it (dream state) its as real as anything is?

thou shall not seethe a babe in its mothers milk: