The enormous scale of the Universe cannot be compared. — Gus Lamarch

It might be possible in the future, string theory highly suggests of multiverses. Once we find another one, we can compare them. Then again, theory works, until it is proven wrong.

the monumental dimensions of the Universe — god must be atheist

Could you open what this means, I'm not knowledgeable of the term, thanks.

I believe @Gus Lamarch used it, I just quoted him. Please ask him instead of me, seeing it is his expression, not mine.

We like to pretend that we can achieve this greatness of it. — Gus Lamarch

Ah yes, i'm understanding it a little bit more. Isn't this what the large hadron collider is for? To learn more about our universe, because we know so little?

Think of yourself as a clock, which has a limited amount of time, depending on it's battery. Once time runs out, clock stops ticking — Yozhura

Here you want to pose cosmic questions and you haven't got the clock right. A clock powered by a spring goes "tick tock" as the escapement meters out the power wound into the spring. A clock powered by a battery (LCD display) is silent, or if it the little motor turns 'hands' it might make a clicking sound, but no tick tock.

Exactly, no matter how much we hypothetically think of the problem, our technological advancements aren't enough to determine what is life and our universe. — Yozhura

How can we understand the universe when clocks baffle us?

However, I want to be wound up regularly, giving me another crack at showering humankind with the blessings of my fecund mind. Hey!!! I'm 74; get over here and wind me up; time is running out!

you haven't got the clock right. — Bitter Crank

Is the definition of clock wrong in my experiment, or can you think of something multiple ways? Once you give enough context for something, you can paint a picture, even though it could be painted in another way.

Isn't this what the large hadron collider is for? To learn more about our universe, because we know so little? — Yozhura

That's why I said that the future can be completely different than we hope. It could be much worse.

totally agreed with, what you said there.

Technology advances at an exponential rate, which means, how many more folds do we need? — Yozhura

If that is true, humanity as organic beings will not be the future.

humanity as organic beings will not be the future. — Gus Lamarch

This is the most probable conclusion, or that we are in a simulation. You can think of the folds as years, we're at a point, where every year will bring huge changes and those changes can't be imagined.

we're at a point, where every year will bring huge changes and those changes can't be imagined. — Yozhura

I still think we are going to fall in the near future.

or that we are in a simulation. — Yozhura

If this is true, whats the meaning of this simulation? If there are creators, the simulation hypothesis could be considered a theist hypothesis?

I still think we are going to fall in the near future. — Gus Lamarch

Agreed.

whats the meaning of this simulation? — Gus Lamarch

We as humans are already simulating universes in many ways, our technology just isn't advanced enough to create simulation that is indistinguishable from reality, but at some point that will be the fact. Unless we can prevent our extinction before we're able to make one. The chance of us being the base reality is highly improbable.

The chance of us being the base reality is highly improbable. — Yozhura

If there are creators, the simulation hypothesis could be considered a theist hypothesis? — Gus Lamarch

the simulation hypothesis could be considered a theist hypothesis? — Gus Lamarch

That is what i think at least, not sure if it's a correct way to think. If someone can prove it otherwise, that is what i believe.

That is what i think at least, not sure if it's a correct way to think. — Yozhura

It is the correct way to think.

Concept of God:

"The sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes"

If we are in a simulation, we can guarantee that there is a creator, or creators, and that they would therefore be God. Finally, the simulation hypothesis is necessarily theistic because it believes that our Universe is the creation of some other higher being.

If we are in a simulation, we can guarantee that there is a creator, or creators, and that they would therefore be God. Finally, the simulation hypothesis is necessarily theistic because it believes that our Universe is the creation of some other higher being. — Gus Lamarch

God is something we ourselves have defined, once we made the hypothesis, that simulation is a possibility. We created a god. Everything we can't understand is defined as a higher power, a god. But the question still remains, is there a supreme god among all the gods, that we've created?

is there a supreme god among all the gods, that we've created? — Yozhura

Let me quote myself for a bit, If there always has to be a god. Wouldn't even the highest of being, the highest of all gods, still have a god for himself, even if he is the actual God of everything.

But the question still remains, is there a supreme god among all the gods, that we've created? — Yozhura

We are trying to answer this question for more than 5.000 years. And at least until now, no one has any clue...

at least until now, no one has any clue... — Gus Lamarch

Exactly, quite interesting isn't it.

even if he is the actual God of everything. — Yozhura

If he is all-powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, he would not need a God, because he already is the maxim of Being. He is but he is not.

If he is all-powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, he would not need a God, because he already is the maxim of Being — Gus Lamarch

Even if that was the case, wouldn't that God want to create a higher entity than himself?

higher entity than himself? — Yozhura

I don't think so. This discussion in leading nowhere, so I'm out. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your time. — Gus Lamarch

Thanks for your time as well.