A Supreme Being created everything.

[°Leprechaun]

I could say everything except the Supreme Being, of course.

[Skill and Chance]

Yes.  Axiomatically, something has to exist outside of time and start the clock.  Single strongest argument for the existence of (a monotheistic) God, but not that widely used because no particular belief system follows from it.

[Blue3]

Yes.  Axiomatically, something has to exist outside of time and start the clock.  Single strongest argument for the existence of (a monotheistic) God, but not that widely used because no particular belief system follows from it.

Scientifically, not needed. It's counter-intuitive, but the "big bang" doesn't need a cause. It simply is.

Which some may call God. But there's no thinking being. It's just an emergent property of nature and the universe.

[vitoNova]

The one who unlocks the “counterintuitiveness” of cause NOT preceding effect…will be the next Einstein of our time. 

[Irenaeus of Smyrna]

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith. She believes in one God, the Father Almightym Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them. and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation. and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God.

[UWS]

God created the world

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Definitely yes

[RINO Tom]

Definitely yes

[Ferguson97]

Nobody knows, probably not.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Depends on your definitions of "being" and "created." There are myriad possible formulations of this statement which are true and myriad which are false.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We think of the God as an alien whom created Christ but we look at archeology to determine if it's true or not there are Ossuary Boxes that has Jesus son of Joseph on it but some of them can be fake.

Giving credents that with either there was no Christ or Jesus was only mortal or Jesus never had an Ossuary box and he resurrection

But, religion is all we know and something is better than nothing and power of prayer and Christ was here to do miracles

[°Leprechaun]

Depends on your definitions of "being" and "created." There are myriad possible formulations of this statement which are true and myriad which are false.

Both those words are difficult to define, but what word isn't?
I would say being is anything that exists. The only thing that doesn't exist isn't actually a thing, unless one argues that nothing is something. Create is an interesting concept and would require something that is alive taking something and making it more than it was. An example is Frankenstein.
There is a difference between life and existence. A description as to what the difference is, would be interesting to explore.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Whatever your higher power is you can believe whatever you want but we don't know definitely if one created one unless you die or course

[Antonio the Sixth]

it depends on your definition of "supreme", "being", "create" and "everything"

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

If you take the assumption that this Supreme Being has to be the God in the Bible (or any other religious text) out of the equation, I think at least some non believers would be more likely to agree.

I think there are multiple forms of evidence pointing to the existence of a Supreme Being creator.

[°Leprechaun]

If you take the assumption that this Supreme Being has to be the God in the Bible (or any other religious text) out of the equation, I think at least some non believers would be more likely to agree.

I think there are multiple forms of evidence pointing to the existence of a Supreme Being creator.

You make an important point. The choice between Christianity and atheism is not a binary one, but it is interesting to ponder how many people have turned to atheism as a reaction to the Christianity that they were taught as a child.

[Dr. Cynic]

I think there are multiple forms of evidence pointing to the existence of a Supreme Being creator.

Such as?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

These are some of the points of evidence I referenced above. There are books on these questions like 'Seven questions science can't answer' and 'Four questions science can't answer' (or whatever the exact titles are.)

From weakest to strongest (by general perception anyway.)
1.So called 'near death experiences' (which should actually be referred to as 'brain death experiences') and credible claims of reincarnation - generally accepted in Eastern cultures, along with such things as people who have dreams (if that's what they are) while in a coma (when the brain is supposed to be incapable of dreaming.)

"Their brains often show no signs of the normal sleep-wakefulness cycle, which means they are unlikely to be dreaming. Yet many people who have recovered from comas report dreams into which something of the outside world penetrated."
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/do-people-in-a-coma-dream

On reincarnation: [Evidence that suggest the reality of reincarnation]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26299061/

It is possible that these things are evidence of Carl Jung's collective unconscious and are not evidence of an afterlife (not that that's the question here) but they do provide evidence that there is more than just scientific materialism. Of course, the collective unconscious itself could be a form of a Supreme Being (like 'the Force' in Star Wars. George Lucas apparently was greatly influenced by Carl Jung.)

2.The existence of consciousness. How life came into being from non life doesn't seem to be that hard to have a general sense of understanding given the existence of sort of alive sort of non alive things like viruses and the understanding of amino acids, however none of that explains where consciousness comes from, which is well beyond amino acids (and there may be evidence that even single celled organisms have some form of consciousness, but there are other possible explanations.)*

Single celled intelligence (to be sure, not the same as consciousness, but one step at a time.)
Interestingly, learning and memory are not tied to the presence of a nervous system. There are several lines of evidence indicating that single-celled organisms also have the capacity for learning and memory which may be considered as basal intelligence.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37047260/#:~:text=Interestingly%2C%20learning%20and%20memory%20are,be%20considered%20as%20basal%20intelligence.

Of course, the existence of consciousness as evidence of a Supreme Being is denigrated by science as an example of 'the God in the gaps.'

However, this last one can only be a Supreme Being:
3.The fine tuned universe.

There almost certainly are just two explanations for this: either an infinite number of universes one of which is the universe we're in (I appreciate that some scientists now argue it doesn't take an infinite number of universes, but less than infinite can still be an impossibly large number) or a Supreme Being creating one universe.
On the fine tuned universe: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

To me, Occam's Razor suggests that one universe created by a Supreme Being is more likely than an infinite number of universes one of which is this universe.

A few years ago anyway, I think the scientific community was starting to come around to this because when the hypothesis that this universe is a simulation was thrown out (I might be being unfair to him, but I believe Elon Musk lied that he came up with this hypothesis) but when Elon Musk put this hypothesis in the spotlight, there were many scientists who replied "that would explain a number of things that don't currently make sense."

So, there seem to be many scientists themselves who have no problem believing in a creator of the Universe as long as it isn't named 'God.' (Of course, there are many religious scientists as well, but they'll often publicly say "I separate my scientific knowledge from my spiritual beliefs.")


*Single celled intelligence has nothing to do with any of the rest of this, I just find it fascinating.

[First1There]

From weakest to strongest (by general perception anyway.)
1.So called 'near death experiences...' [snip] ...along with such things as people who have dreams (if that's what they are) while in a coma (when the brain is supposed to be incapable of dreaming.)

"Their brains often show no signs of the normal sleep-wakefulness cycle, which means they are unlikely to be dreaming. Yet many people who have recovered from comas report dreams into which something of the outside world penetrated."
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/do-people-in-a-coma-dream

The (two paragraph) article goes on to say:

"Whether they dream or not probably depends on the cause of the coma. If the visual cortex is badly damaged, visual dreams will be lost; if the auditory cortex is destroyed, then they will be unable to hear dreamed voices. 
If the cause is damage to brain areas such as the reticular activating system, which controls the sleep-wakefulness cycle, normal dreams cannot occur but other dream-like states might. The term ‘coma’ covers many conditions. Until we understand them better, it is hard to say which ones can include dreams."

This a 100% material explanation of dreams in a coma.

On reincarnation: [Evidence that suggest the reality of reincarnation]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26299061/

This abstract starts off with:

"Worldwide, children can be found who reported that they have memories of a previous life."

Children are extraordinarily suggestible.

It ends with:

"The hypothesis of reincarnation is controversial. We can never say that it does not occur, or will obtain conclusive evidence that it happens. The cases that have been described so far, isolated or combined, do not provide irrefutable proof of reincarnation, but they supply evidence that suggest its reality."

The bolded is equivocation. Saying it could be one thing or it could be another is meaningless. But their equivocation is fake because they contradict themselves with the italicized bit. They feign neutrality to confidently assert what they believe anyway.

It is possible that these things are evidence of Carl Jung's collective unconscious and are not evidence of an afterlife (not that that's the question here) but they do provide evidence that there is more than just scientific materialism. Of course, the collective unconscious itself could be a form of a Supreme Being (like 'the Force' in Star Wars. George Lucas apparently was greatly influenced by Carl Jung.)

By scientific materialism I assume you mean methodological naturalism. It's a philosophical viewpoint that scientific study, as a discipline, will assume natural explanations. It doesn't make a judgement on whether natural or supernatural explanations are ultimately true.

Unless you are talking about scientiSTic materialism, which is an insult used by creationists to describe their idea of science.

snip

Of course, the existence of consciousness as evidence of a Supreme Being is denigrated by science as an example of 'the God in the gaps.'

Yes. Argument by assertion is a terrible way to argue.

However, this last one can only be a Supreme Being:
3.The fine tuned universe.

There almost certainly are just two explanations for this: either an infinite number of universes one of which is the universe we're in (I appreciate that some scientists now argue it doesn't take an infinite number of universes, but less than infinite can still be an impossibly large number) or a Supreme Being creating one universe.
On the fine tuned universe: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

To me, Occam's Razor suggests that one universe created by a Supreme Being is more likely than an infinite number of universes one of which is this universe.

The bolded is way too confident.

Besides that, you're not even fully thinking through your argument. There are four options under your formulation.

1. A supreme being that created infinite universes.
2. A supreme being that created one universe.
3. Infinite universes with no supreme being.
4. One universe with no supreme being.

And then, the fine tuned universe argument only works when you already know the conclusion. We are alive, so fine tuned argument supporters get to look backwards and say "wow, the universe must have been created in a way that allows us to live," because its impossible to ask the opinions of humans who haven't existed on the fine tuned conditions of universes that don't have human compatible physics. It's an argument that assumes its conclusion as its premise.

It's also a sample size of one universe.

A few years ago anyway, I think the scientific community was starting to come around to this because when the hypothesis that this universe is a simulation was thrown out (I might be being unfair to him, but I believe Elon Musk lied that he came up with this hypothesis) but when Elon Musk put this hypothesis in the spotlight, there were many scientists who replied "that would explain a number of things that don't currently make sense."

So, there seem to be many scientists themselves who have no problem believing in a creator of the Universe as long as it isn't named 'God.' (Of course, there are many religious scientists as well, but they'll often publicly say "I separate my scientific knowledge from my spiritual beliefs.")

Weasel words.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

From weakest to strongest (by general perception anyway.)
1.So called 'near death experiences...' [snip] ...along with such things as people who have dreams (if that's what they are) while in a coma (when the brain is supposed to be incapable of dreaming.)

"Their brains often show no signs of the normal sleep-wakefulness cycle, which means they are unlikely to be dreaming. Yet many people who have recovered from comas report dreams into which something of the outside world penetrated."
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/do-people-in-a-coma-dream

The (two paragraph) article goes on to say:

"Whether they dream or not probably depends on the cause of the coma. If the visual cortex is badly damaged, visual dreams will be lost; if the auditory cortex is destroyed, then they will be unable to hear dreamed voices. 
If the cause is damage to brain areas such as the reticular activating system, which controls the sleep-wakefulness cycle, normal dreams cannot occur but other dream-like states might. The term ‘coma’ covers many conditions. Until we understand them better, it is hard to say which ones can include dreams."

This a 100% material explanation of dreams in a coma.

On reincarnation: [Evidence that suggest the reality of reincarnation]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26299061/

This abstract starts off with:

"Worldwide, children can be found who reported that they have memories of a previous life."

Children are extraordinarily suggestible.

It ends with:

"The hypothesis of reincarnation is controversial. We can never say that it does not occur, or will obtain conclusive evidence that it happens. The cases that have been described so far, isolated or combined, do not provide irrefutable proof of reincarnation, but they supply evidence that suggest its reality."

The bolded is equivocation. Saying it could be one thing or it could be another is meaningless. But their equivocation is fake because they contradict themselves with the italicized bit. They feign neutrality to confidently assert what they believe anyway.

It is possible that these things are evidence of Carl Jung's collective unconscious and are not evidence of an afterlife (not that that's the question here) but they do provide evidence that there is more than just scientific materialism. Of course, the collective unconscious itself could be a form of a Supreme Being (like 'the Force' in Star Wars. George Lucas apparently was greatly influenced by Carl Jung.)

By scientific materialism I assume you mean methodological naturalism. It's a philosophical viewpoint that scientific study, as a discipline, will assume natural explanations. It doesn't make a judgement on whether natural or supernatural explanations are ultimately true.

Unless you are talking about scientiSTic materialism, which is an insult used by creationists to describe their idea of science.

snip

Of course, the existence of consciousness as evidence of a Supreme Being is denigrated by science as an example of 'the God in the gaps.'

Yes. Argument by assertion is a terrible way to argue.

However, this last one can only be a Supreme Being:
3.The fine tuned universe.

There almost certainly are just two explanations for this: either an infinite number of universes one of which is the universe we're in (I appreciate that some scientists now argue it doesn't take an infinite number of universes, but less than infinite can still be an impossibly large number) or a Supreme Being creating one universe.
On the fine tuned universe: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

To me, Occam's Razor suggests that one universe created by a Supreme Being is more likely than an infinite number of universes one of which is this universe.

The bolded is way too confident.

Besides that, you're not even fully thinking through your argument. There are four options under your formulation.

1. A supreme being that created infinite universes.
2. A supreme being that created one universe.
3. Infinite universes with no supreme being.
4. One universe with no supreme being.

And then, the fine tuned universe argument only works when you already know the conclusion. We are alive, so fine tuned argument supporters get to look backwards and say "wow, the universe must have been created in a way that allows us to live," because its impossible to ask the opinions of humans who haven't existed on the fine tuned conditions of universes that don't have human compatible physics. It's an argument that assumes its conclusion as its premise.

It's also a sample size of one universe.

A few years ago anyway, I think the scientific community was starting to come around to this because when the hypothesis that this universe is a simulation was thrown out (I might be being unfair to him, but I believe Elon Musk lied that he came up with this hypothesis) but when Elon Musk put this hypothesis in the spotlight, there were many scientists who replied "that would explain a number of things that don't currently make sense."

So, there seem to be many scientists themselves who have no problem believing in a creator of the Universe as long as it isn't named 'God.' (Of course, there are many religious scientists as well, but they'll often publicly say "I separate my scientific knowledge from my spiritual beliefs.")

Weasel words.

1.Maybe, but sleep/dream researchers have for a long time asserted that dreams only occur with the normal sleep-wakefulness cycle and there is no theory to explain dreams outside of that cycle. So, you can't assert that there is a material explanation until there is an understanding. So, your claim otherwise is also an assertion.

2.The claims by children in these cases are frequently not believed and they make the initial claim as to their claimed past life and not the other way around. If you want to believe all these children and/or their families are lying, that's fine, but you should know the evidence presented before attempting to refute it by throwing out generic arguments. Argument by ignorance is also a terrible way to argue.

3.No, I mean scientific materialism. I may agree with 'creationists' on a few things here, but if I do, it's due to the evidence presented and not because I'm pushing anybody's agenda.

Scientific understanding has led to great advances both positive and negative and the scientific method is the best process available for further understanding, but it's ultimately as flawed as humans are. That for a long time, as I think we've agreed here, that scientists assumed that dreams only occurred during the R.E.M cycle and dismissed claims otherwise as 'anecdotes' is a good example of flawed reality of the scientific method. I've read many non fiction book that touch on science and always find examples of assertions that were ultimately based on nothing but assumptions, including the recently debunked biological 'fact' that plants can't communicate.

"Plants obviously don't have ears and eyes, but past research shows they communicate with their surroundings by emitting chemicals known as volatile organic compounds, which we can smell. But just as people can speak so many words, plants can produce an array of these compounds for different purposes."  Some plants also make clicking noises when under distress which may or may not be audible to humans.

So, I'm skeptical of scientific claims that are ultimately assertions based on assumptions which I think is the best approach to any claim that ultimately rests on assumptions and I'm not referring to broad assumptions like 'materialism' (or scientific materialism) but to the little things I've mentioned like that dreams only occur during R.E.M sleep and that plants don't communicate and the similarly recently debunked related 'fact' that animals can't communicate with each other by making sounds outside of the human audible spectrum.

Of course, none of this part necessarily has anything to do with whether a Supreme Being, but it is a reason to be skeptical (not cynical) of even things that purport to be science. Whenever possible, always try to discern if there are arguments based on nothing but assumptions.

4.I suppose it is possible that there is only one universe and it's this universe. But, if you were to flip the odds, I suspect you'd say 'the odds are so incredible as to be impossible' (not that I want to put words in your mouth.) Despite what you said, the fine-tuned universe seems to be reality (even if not as extraordinary as previously believed) and you can't simply ignore these probabilities.

5.On the possibility of a simulated universe and scientific acceptance, three examples:
https://phys.org/news/2023-10-law-physics-idea-simulation.html

The theory is popular among a number of well-known figures including Elon Musk, and within a branch of science known as information physics, which suggests physical reality is fundamentally made up of bits of information.

https://protagonist-science.medium.com/are-we-living-in-a-simulated-universe-a3b0edee87e6
Perfectly rational explanations for a crazy thought

https://www.wired.com/2022/09/geeks-guide-sabine-hossenfelder/
Hossenfelder is also skeptical of the simulation hypothesis, the idea that we’re living in a computer simulation. It’s an idea that’s been taken increasingly seriously by scientists and philosophers, but Hossenfelder says it really amounts to nothing more than a sort of techno-religion.

You are correct that I don't have any documentation that 'many' scientists believe in the simulated universe or that many scientists are willing to believe the simulated universe but dismiss the notion of 'God. but I have heard podcasts from scientists who themselves have said that about other scientists. In regards to 'many' scientists saying they separate their scientific knowledge from their spiritual beliefs, I don't know why you'd have a problem with that. Maybe it's the podcasts I listen to, but it seems like every scientist I hear on them says that.

Interestingly, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who I think we can agree is the leading debunker of creation 'science', said that he came close to accepting the simulated universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmcrG7ZZKUc

Of course, there are differences between the arguments from 'creation scientists' and the 'simulated universe.'

Overall though, I have the same philosophy on these things as Neil deGrasse Tyson, even if we don't agree on all the specifics here.

"I don't associate with movements. I'm not an 'ism.' I think for myself."

I don't claim to be as smart as Tyson by any means, but simply because I might agree with 'creationist' arguments on a couple things based on the evidence, does not make me a 'creationist'

Similarly, just because I'm critical of some aspects of the actual practice of the scientific method does not make me 'anti science.' I happen to be well read and knowledgeable of a lot of books in a lot of (non fiction) fields.

As Tyson continued "the moment someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage, and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you."

I did not appreciate you doing that with me.

Edit to add: sorry I left this out. This article covers the things that scientists said didn't make sense to them that the simulated universe idea (likely) explains. These things are advanced physics which is totally outside of my area of expertise so I couldn't remember these things.

https://www.earth.com/news/simulation-hypothesis-are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

Quantum mechanics
The theory of quantum mechanics describes subatomic particles behaving in strange, unpredictable ways. Some argue this could be because our reality is simulated and small glitches occur at the smallest scales.

Astrophysical measurements
Astrophysicists have calculated fundamental physical constants, like the speed of light or the mass of protons, that seem finely tuned to allow for life in our universe. This fine-tuning resembles how parameters are set in simulations.

Computational limits
There seem to be limits to how finely we can measure and divide space and time. This could be because we live in a pixelated matrix with a finite resolution, much like a video game.

Some report experiencing glitches or déjà vu in reality, interpreting these as artifacts of a simulation. However, these experiences are subjective and prone to cognitive biases.

While intriguing, each observation has alternative explanations not requiring a simulated reality.

A simulated universe by definition has to have a creator.

[First1There]

snip

I like this response. A polite but firm response.

1. Yes, but considering the author gives multiple solely physical examples of how dreams are affected, and the damaged areas of the way correspond in the way you'd expect them too in dreams, I don't see a reason to assume a non-material explanation of dreams (or anything else) when it has been entirely positive physical explanations so far.

2. I did read a review, on science direct, of that survey online. So I am not arguing from ignorance on this survey.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830708000943?via%3Dihub#bib1

(The original survey by Ian Stevenson has 5 citations, so, in the scientific community, it seems to have been met with a thud)

I don't think the children, as a rule, are lying, I think they are wrong. They can sincerely believe they have lived past lives and still be wrong.

3. I can't respond to 3 unless I have your definition of materialism or scientific materialism. I looked up scientific materialism and got mostly religious references, and scattered communist ones.

---

I suppose it is possible that there is only one universe and it's this universe. But, if you were to flip the odds, I suspect you'd say 'the odds are so incredible as to be impossible' (not that I want to put words in your mouth.) Despite what you said, the fine-tuned universe seems to be reality (even if not as extraordinary as previously believed) and you can't simply ignore these probabilities.

4. I don't get the italicized.

On the bold. Well, I disagree. I mean, you're saying I'm wrong, but you've just repeated what you already believed to me. So I'm still unconvinced.

My argument is that there is not enough evidence to say with confidence one way or another. If one wanted to get evidence for how likely life was to evolve in a universe, well, you would have to look at this universe. But we already know it's 100% in this universe, so the most we can say about any other random universe would be greater than 0%, since we exist, and up to 100%, since we have a sample size of 1.

5. Simulation hypothesis is philosophy. There is no reason to add simulation to any existing theory of the universe. Its unnecessary detail. The main scientific theories on the origins of the earth and the universe are still there and being studied and improved. Simulation hypothesis hasn't overturned them. Individual scientists may believe in it, but there are just individual accounts, I won't be convinced that simulation hypothesis is significant by them. It doesn't surprise me that, since simulation hypothesis has the computer aesthetic, it made a little splash in popular culture. It's the trend with AI. Especially among the tech types. Sam Altman, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk.

That Earth article you gave argues by analogy. Physics is extremely complicated so we, non-physicists, can only really understand by analogy, but there is a difference between arguing that something is like a thing, and something being that thing. A computer, in the case.

Anybody jumping on board the simulation train reminds me of this meme:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F8ozin6yz74sa1.jpg

I don't have a problem with scientists compartmentalizing scientific and religious beliefs. Just pointing out weasel words.

I didn't mean to say you were one thing or the other.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

snip

I like this response. A polite but firm response.

1. Yes, but considering the author gives multiple solely physical examples of how dreams are affected, and the damaged areas of the way correspond in the way you'd expect them too in dreams, I don't see a reason to assume a non-material explanation of dreams (or anything else) when it has been entirely positive physical explanations so far.

2. I did read a review, on science direct, of that survey online. So I am not arguing from ignorance on this survey.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830708000943?via%3Dihub#bib1

(The original survey by Ian Stevenson has 5 citations, so, in the scientific community, it seems to have been met with a thud)

I don't think the children, as a rule, are lying, I think they are wrong. They can sincerely believe they have lived past lives and still be wrong.

3. I can't respond to 3 unless I have your definition of materialism or scientific materialism. I looked up scientific materialism and got mostly religious references, and scattered communist ones.

---

I suppose it is possible that there is only one universe and it's this universe. But, if you were to flip the odds, I suspect you'd say 'the odds are so incredible as to be impossible' (not that I want to put words in your mouth.) Despite what you said, the fine-tuned universe seems to be reality (even if not as extraordinary as previously believed) and you can't simply ignore these probabilities.

4. I don't get the italicized.

On the bold. Well, I disagree. I mean, you're saying I'm wrong, but you've just repeated what you already believed to me. So I'm still unconvinced.

My argument is that there is not enough evidence to say with confidence one way or another. If one wanted to get evidence for how likely life was to evolve in a universe, well, you would have to look at this universe. But we already know it's 100% in this universe, so the most we can say about any other random universe would be greater than 0%, since we exist, and up to 100%, since we have a sample size of 1.

5. Simulation hypothesis is philosophy. There is no reason to add simulation to any existing theory of the universe. Its unnecessary detail. The main scientific theories on the origins of the earth and the universe are still there and being studied and improved. Simulation hypothesis hasn't overturned them. Individual scientists may believe in it, but there are just individual accounts, I won't be convinced that simulation hypothesis is significant by them. It doesn't surprise me that, since simulation hypothesis has the computer aesthetic, it made a little splash in popular culture. It's the trend with AI. Especially among the tech types. Sam Altman, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk.

That Earth article you gave argues by analogy. Physics is extremely complicated so we, non-physicists, can only really understand by analogy, but there is a difference between arguing that something is like a thing, and something being that thing. A computer, in the case.

Anybody jumping on board the simulation train reminds me of this meme:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F8ozin6yz74sa1.jpg

I don't have a problem with scientists compartmentalizing scientific and religious beliefs. Just pointing out weasel words.

I didn't mean to say you were one thing or the other.

1.I think you make a point on the auditory and visual nature of dreams and the brain damage, but the article also says this: If the cause is damage to brain areas such as the reticular activating system, which controls the sleep-wakefulness cycle, normal dreams cannot occur but other dream-like states might.

'other dream-like states' where the brain has no measurable activity? There is no known mechanism for this. Of course, the most likely explanation is physical, but there are other possibilities.

2.I think the evidence is more compelling than that. The children often speak of past lives that they could not have known about that is later verified. This may not have been all the cases investigated, but it is the best evidence.

In terms of 'being met with a thud.' I don't suggest any conspiracy theory as most scientists are simply too busy working on their own projects, but there certainly is a bias against anything regarded in the scientific community as 'woo.' There has been research (not necessarily in scientific journals) for years into people with comas who claimed they had dreams that had been dismissed by scientists as impossible 'anecdotes' because it was a 'fact' that dreams only occurred during the R.E.M cycle. So, given that scientists already know 'for a fact' that reincarnation can't be real, obviously they aren't going to investigate it.

So, I'm certainly not saying the claims by these children is evidence of reincarnation or of the collective unconscious, but equally, the scientific community not being interested in it is only a comment on the scientific community.

3.By scientific materialism, I mean materialism. I added 'scientific' simply to show that it has been adopted by science.
Oxford dictionary: The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

So, there is nothing beyond that which physics recognizes or measures (or will have the ability to recognize or measure in the future.) so, unless there is some natural explanation for 'the collective unconscious' it can't exist.

4.There are some debates I'm aware of about the 'fine tuned' universe (yes, this is a hypothesis that has been adopted obviously by 'creation scientists') but it's recognized in mainstream physics/astronomy as well.

This is from wiki, which has an acknowledged enforced bias against anything that might be regarded as 'woo', and the Wiki editors are obviously aware that 'the fine tuned universe hypothesis has been adopted by 'creation scientists' but even they can't deny that there are a number of constants that are finely tuned for both the universe to exist and for life in this universe to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20%22fine%2Dtuned,terms%20of%20dimensionless%20physical%20constants.

From the article:  Stephen Hawking observed: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

You can't simply ignore this and say 'well the earth and the universe exists so we lucked out.' The probabilities are still real.

I'm not a physicist as I said, so I have no idea what these constants are, and I acknowledge that there is disagreement among scientists as to how finely tuned these constants have to be, but just to make this simple.

If the odds of one of the constants being precise to allow life is 1 in a million, and the odds of another constant is 1 in a million, the odds of life (are possibly) 1 in a trillion.

This is the area of debate I understand better. This mathematical formula only works if these constants are independent of each other, and even many physicists don't fully understand the concept of 'statistical independence.' So, it is possible that if one constant is one in a million, but if that constant fits the required range, the influence this constant has on the other constant (so the other constant isn't independent of the first constant because it's influenced or controlled by the first constant) means the odds of the second constant being in the right range as well are 100% and not 1 in a million.

The lack of understanding of 'statistical independence' is one reason why so many social science papers are junk (too small sample sizes being the other.)

My understanding however, is that many/most physicists still believe that the likelihood of the fine tuned universe creating this universe that we happen to live in by chance are still so small that it still virtually requires a near infinite number of universes to guarantee the existence of this universe.

So, given current understanding there are still only two possibilities
1.A near infinite number of universes with no creator required
2.One universe with a creator required

The likelihood given the 'fine tuned universe' of one universe with no creator is virtually zero, given current understanding.

Obviously there is also the possibility of an infinite number of universes with a Supreme Being (or maybe each with it's own Supreme Being) but that doesn't add anything to this discussion.

5.I have no opinion on the simulated universe, but it is true that there are a number of physicists who argue that it likely would explain a number of problems in physics, including the fine tuned universe.

[Progressive Pessimist]

No. The universe is a random, chaotic accident, perhaps neyond our comprehension, but in a scientific way, not supernatural.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Adonai is Jehovah or Yahweh