I appreciate your deep thinking and your straightforward presentation of this topic.
I was not raised in a Christian home and was not exposed to Christianity until some friends in high school invited me to a weekly Bible study. After several months of Bible study, I came to a point of affirmation that the God of the Bible is indeed the Creator of the universe and, more importantly, that I had broken the moral laws He established from the beginning of time, that there was nothing I could do to right the wrongs I had committed, that Jesus' death on the cross provided the sole means to right those wrongs, and that I must willingly surrender control of my life to the Lordship of Jesus in order to receive His gift of forgiveness and the promise and hope of eternal life. That was about 35 years ago and my life since then has been filled with a deep sense of meaning and purpose (that was completely lacking before then).
Prior to that time, I would say I was a Deist by default. For some reason, I believed there was a Creator; I just never gave too much thought to who that Creator might be and how or why that might be relevant to me.
If I were to describe my view of God and His creation (which 99.9% follows orthodox Christianity), it would fit perfectly within the Simulation Hypothesis:
- There is a Creator of all things, and we refer to that Creator as "God" (the God of the Hebrews)
- God created everything ex nihilo (i.e. 'from nothing).
- When God created everything, he did so by creating a complex set of rules (i.e. the physical laws that govern the universe) and, along with that, time and space and matter.
- God, in His personal interactions with the creatures He created, has and continues to work miracles. Those miracles take two forms -- miracles of 'coincidence' (wherein God directs the laws of nature to cause something highly improbable to occur at just the right time to accomplish the miraculous outcome He desires, such as when He caused a powerful wind to blow all night and to continue blowing so as to create a path of dry land through the Red Sea, see Exodus 14:21-22) and miracles involving 'supersession of the laws of nature' (wherein God temporarily supersedes the physical laws of nature to accomplish something that is truly 'supernatural' and defies any attempt to explain it otherwise, such as when Lazarus was brought back to life after being dead for 4 days, see John 11).
- God created sentient beings (humans) who observe and interact with their surroundings and do so with free will.
- God created those beings "in His image", which implies many things, such as our ability and desire to create and exercise our own creativity.
- God has chosen to play an active role in His creation, by revealing certain aspects of Himself to the creatures He created. Some of these aspects of Himself permeate nature itself; other aspects were revealed through writings that He inspired; other aspects were revealed through the person and words and historical actions of Jesus of Nazareth; other aspects were revealed through interactions with individuals, either directly or via intermediaries such as angels.
I could go on, but all the above 'truths' that most Christians would agree with, all fit within your definition of a "Simulation Hypothesis".
In fact, one could take this all a step farther and explain exactly what type of simulation(s) are compatible with each of the major religions. For example, Christianity insists upon a personal God, i.e. One who is intricately involved in the lives of people. This would not be consistent with a 'hands off' type of simulation, where the creator sets up the rules, starts the sim, then sits back and merely watches the results.
Similarly, the fact that Christianity acknowledges supernatural miracles would require a simulation wherein the creator has given himself the ability to change the 'rules' mid-simulation.
The fact that most Christians acknowledge that we as individuals have been granted free will would require a simulation that is more akin to a video game than a 'John Conway' type simulation; for example, a simulation with only NPCs would not be consistent with Christian theology (except possibly for some hyper-Calvinists).
I want to stress that I am not endorsing the Simulation Hypothesis nor suggesting that Christians should embrace this line of thinking. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that I have studied and adhered to the precepts of Biblical Christianity for 35 years and I see no contradictions between the Simulation Hypothesis (broadly defined) and orthodox Christianity. However, I am open to critiques or challenges to this viewpoint -- and will change my perspective if confronted by a persuasive argument to the contrary.
Christianity is not for me. I don't like organized religions. Yet if people were to pick one to follow and they stick to the moral teachings and things like was said on the Sermon on the Mount I see that as a net positive for the world. It is a problem when people revert to some of the things that occurred in the Old Testament and seem to use those things to justify abhorant/amoral behavior. They seem to miss the fact that Christ was here to change things. Those avenues of death, infanticide, rape, etc. Those things were no longer welcome though they were written of in the old testament.
A lot of people read the bible and they don't seem to grasp this. It can be used to justify some pretty heinous things if you use the old testament as a justification.
Thus, why I say... stick with the Sermon on the Mount and the things Christ taught. Stick to the 10 commandments (there are older similar commandments) and things are good.
Buddhists also tend to be pretty peaceful for the most part but it too has denominations and not all of them are as positive.
I am greatly opposed to Islam. It is not just a religion but also a system of rule. It is a government.
I think separation of church and state is important so one or more corrupt official does not gain control of a government that is merged with the religion and go on a spree of persecution. It has happened. Even with nations lead by Christianity. NOTE: I had an important word in there. "corrupt"
By extension since Islam is merged with a form of governance if you take it at face value the separation of church and state is impossible. If practitioners of Islam choose to ignore that or create a denomination that did not have the Shariah law stuff then I wouldn't have much of an issue with it.
I wouldn't agree with it. Like I said I am not a particular fan of organized religion MYSELF. I have zero problem though if other people benefit and find comfort in them.
When I was much a child "Noah's Ark" was without a doubt my most favorite part of the bible. I even ended up getting it as several toys.
As I became older and learned more and more it is one of the stories I have the most trouble in accepting. Though if we are in a Simulation it is possible. :)
I will admit I have a lot of reservations about the bible. I have seen it help people though so I try not to go out of my way to bring them up. Doing so can take what for someone like yourself can be a doubt free and comforting existence and try to throw spanners into it. If the person is not a deep thinker they likely would ignore me and be okay. If it is someone like you though I think it can do more harm than good.
I see little to no benefit in sharing my misgivings. I found myself writing about such things in a reply to someone (possibly you) the other day then I deleted them. I thought... "Why?" These are my conclusions, my research, etc. Would knowing these things do more harm than good?
If a person is at peace, feels good about their life, and is doing good in their life then yes, I think it can do more harm than good.
If on the other hand you were one of those "On Sunday I am at Church" Christians that then seemed to think that gave them a pass to act however they wanted the rest of the week... I'd come for someone like that both barrels blazing. I am no fan of hypocrisy.
I can tell you. I do live by the teachings of Christ as best I can. They make sense to me. I don't believe many things that I'd be required to believe and call myself a Christian.
I also like some things from Taoism. I like some things from Buddhism. I even like some Native American ideas.
So I take them... I try to be them, follow them, use them.
I call myself a Deist because as it is defined it fits. No two Deists are alike except they believe there is a Creator/God.
I doubt I'll ever embrace and organized religion. I instead hope my actions and who I am are representative enough.
For me, you asking probing questions would not end up doing more harm than good.
I consider myself first and foremost a 'truth and wisdom seeker' (see my Hive profile). As such, I do not seek nor desire a 'doubt free' existence. With that said, I do not desire to interact with folks whose primary goal is to sow seeds of doubt -- not much fruit to be had from those interactions. However, I am happy to engage with fellow truth-seekers. I used to teach a Sunday school class called 'Difficult Questions' where the aim was to invite folks to bring up those theological issues that they have genuinely struggled with. The presence of evil and pain & suffering in the world represent a couple questions folks commonly struggle with but might not have the courage to grapple with.
This is not to say that all such 'difficult questions' can be answered. Many times, our exploration of a specific question uncovered even more questions. The point of the class was not to provide 'answers' per se but to say that it's okay to have questions and to explore the ramifications of different viewpoints, even if we end up with no definitive answers. We should never fear honest inquiry.
If I am believing a lie or adhering to a belief system that misrepresents or misconstrues the 'truth' then I would rather have that fact exposed, so that I can abandon falsehood and seek truth along a different path. That is why I welcome genuine questions about Christian doctrine and theology, Biblical worldview, veracity of the Scriptures, etc.
Yeah, Noah's Ark is anything but a children's story. The annihilation of every human being on earth except 8 should never have been rebranded as a light-hearted bedtime story, imho.
A couple interesting thoughts about Noah's Ark for you to ponder:
I don't expect you to agree with either of the above points -- just providing them as food for thought.
The toys were more centered around having two animals of each type... so you ended up with a bunch of toy animals. If I remember correctly the toys didn't even have any humans. :)
I wasn't implying that there is anything macabre in the way Noah's Ark stuff is presented to children; just that it is a misrepresentation of that event -- a global catastrophe that no doubt broke the heart of God -- seeing His creation become so corrupt that He had to wipe the slate clean, and there was only one family on earth displaying any righteousness at all.
When Abraham confronted God about destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, God was willing to relent if there were as few as 10 righteous people in the city, but there weren't. At the time of Noah, there were only 8 righteous people in the entire world. Sad days. Sad time in history.
Yeah. I knew what you meant. I was just recalling what it was packaged as to me. A toy with a bunch of plastic animals.