Rob says in part:
?The answer is always somebody -till we reach the truly real world that is not a simulation, but a real thing. The answer to who created this world is no-one, It just plain exists. 1+1 can equal 3 in any simulation you like, but in the real world 1+1 will equal x, and that's the only way things can be, and those are the real laws of science.?
Rep: There is an old expression that, some one, cannot see the forest for the trees. You might also use it to disclose being focused on the forest to the exclusion of the individual trees. Your apparent impatience with my comments suggests that you are so entrenched in your views that discussion is beneath you. That view would be in error.
We are here and all the known laws of nature are here with us. You argue that this all came about by chance, some unknown but natural circumstance, and I am willing to consider that likelihood but I will keep an open mind on the issue. You speak of the ?real world? as if I do not. First of all I did not ask ?who created the world? and secondly I find your argument that ?it just plain exists? to be meaningless- we know that and the existence of the world is not at issue. Science has discovered the basic elements of nature, it did not create them. Science has discover, ala Newton, the basic physics of the Universe, it created nothing. These and all else was there waiting for us to discover them. My point is very simple. If you are willing to chalk all of this up to mere chance why are you so closed minded when someone suggests that the identical existence could exist if it came about as a result of creation. Can?t you see this?
jjw
