To rally people in the Name of God

A favorite grouse of atheists and rationalists, when talking about religion or God, is that belief in religion and God has caused a lot of violence throughout history. The real answer may be more complex. In this post I would focus exclusively on monotheistic God and faiths. Non-monotheistic faith is not an area of my study or devotion.

During any war, short or extended, their is a great need for courage and also unquestionable obedience of the troops involved, be it a regimented army or a vigilante group or civilian mobs. And over the years people have found that rallying people in the Name of God is more effective than rallying for other causes or reasons. And it also costs less money, in fact people might act for free.

Mere mention of Will of God, or Name of God, has an affect on human mind. It triggers an urgent need to obey unquestionably and a lack of concern to the resulting consequence. It has for me at least, and maybe on other human minds also. Power lobbies everywhere have found this fact useful to rally people for their particular purpose. They have used words like 'For God' or 'In the Name of God' or some similar associated phrase as part of their campaigns, and added their particular concerns around these phrases, giving an impression that there is a Divine Sanction to their particular agenda, but which is seldom the case. In reality they may lack any concern for God's Will or His people, and only want to use God's Name as a catalyst. And who among us can claim to know the Will of God? Only a saint, or a delusional, or a liar, or whomever God chooses to reveal His words. This principle of influence would apply to any desired action, and not just war.

-
For the truly faithful,
God alone is enough,
God's Will is reason enough.

For the truly devious,
Or for the genuinely lost,
God alone is never enough,
God's Will is just a means,
To achieve a secondary goal,
To rally support for their concerns,
And concerns of people are many,
Concerns of kings, or queens, or nations,
Of lands and its people, of pride, or tribe,
And support for so many other things.

Human concerns are their own,

And remembering God can help,

Help them carry on in their quest,

But be aware, that God's concern is for all.

Many people of faith,
Have been led to violent wars,
And met with violent ends,
In the Name of God,
When not many knew,
What they were really fighting for.

Faithful lose way for lack of knowledge,
Knowledge of the Will of God.
If a person feels the need to serve,
Serve something more than God's purpose,
Know that the person may be lacking in faith.

It is important to realize that God does not need help,
Humans are in need of God's help,
If God needs a human to do His works,
Then probably it is not God.

And surely God does not need any help to fight His wars,
Nor to manifest His Will on Earth,
He may use humans, or anyone else for that matter,
But be aware that He is not in need.

We are helpless without God,
And not the other way round,
God does not need anybody to fight His wars,
We need God to fight our wars.

Anyone who uses God's Name,
To rally people to war or strife,
For an unjust or a wicked cause,
Know that blood is on their hands,
A cause is just or unjust as per Will of God,
And not by human choice or sanction,
And like most things in life,
Conscience and reason are our true guide.

--

Coming back to the original statement of this post. Are God and religion really responsible for death and destruction in society? For me the correct answer is 'No'! The correct answer may be that human beings are restless, and can go to any length to meet their objectives. Human beings have an insatiable desire for power, riches, glory and a lot of other things, and humans are crafty, very crafty indeed. They can use any possible reason to convince themselves and others of the justness of their particular cause, which may or may not involve violence. Some of the primary catalysts to move human beings to action are pride, honor, family, nationalism, divine will, race, caste, religion, greed, love, fear of loss, lust for power, hate, service of society, empathy, and many others. Of all these catalysts, God or Divine Will is the most potent, and power lobbies have found ways to mix their personal agendas with God's Will cleverly, so that it has become difficult for the faithful to discern the real motives behind different calls to action. Divine Will is a catalyst and not a reason for violence, and in absence of it, the power lobbies would have used some other catalyst to goad people to violence.

 -
If all religions preach peace,
But still there is war and strife,
In the Name of God and religion,
Then truly something is amiss,
More is hidden, lesser is known.

To seek knowledge is good,
But also seek discernment,
To see things as they truly are,
And not as you think they should be.

 -x-

The one true religion!

What is the one true religion? Most will name their own. But most likely this question cannot be answered convincingly by most people. Once I have selected a religion to follow, then that becomes the only true religion for me to pursue. Others may choose other religions to pursue, which will become the only true religion for them. A person cannot travel on two boats, at least that is what I believe. Each person chooses on which boat to travel, and it will most likely be only one. Trying to travel on multiple boats may seem like a challenge, or socially polite, but I am not sure, for the waters can be deep.

I do not know the one true religion,

But I do know this,

Sun is not the only star,

Rose is not the only flower,

Lion is not the only animal,

Eagle not the only bird,

There are many cities,

There are many highways,

World is rich in choice,

But each choice has its own color,

Each choice has a consequence,

Free to choose, but own your choice,

For each choice will have a consequence,

Each choice leads to a destination,

Choose wherever you are willing to go,

There may be as many true paths, 

As many the Creator wishes to create,

To insist otherwise would be to doubt the might of the Creator,

How many I do not know for certain, for I am just a human,

I am not privy to the Creator's mind,

Nor know all the nature's secrets.

Each religion has a theology and a philosophy, which may or may not overlap with other religions. But what each religion promises is a definite or an indefinite outcome for a practitioner who wishes to follow its path. Following are some of the different things promised by different religions to their followers:

1. A peaceful or blissful present life
2. A peaceful or blissful afterlife
3. Liberation from transmigration
4. Liberation from sin
5. Eternal companionship with God
6. Everlasting bliss
7. Personal deification
8. Fame in present life or afterlife
9. Wealth in present life or afterlife
10. Other material pleasures in present life or afterlife
11. More esoteric things like higher consciousness which are difficult to understand
12. Continuation of tradition, customs, and culture
13. Appeasement of ancestors, society, spirits, authority, gods, or other real or imaginary things
14. And maybe many other things...

A religion would generally promise a follower some of the above goals. So a follower needs to realize that focusing on some goals alone, may make the other things out of reach. Read the promises well, what is claimed and what remains hidden.

Now whether these claims are true or false I don't know. The belief in these claims started originally with the teachings of respective founders and prophets, and it is for each person to decide what to believe in and what not to believe in, what goal to pursue and what goal to leave, what path to follow and what path to leave behind.

The important thing here is to realize that apparently there could be everlasting consequences of the personal choice made by an individual. People might claim that all religions are same, and any could be followed. But studying about the different religions will give a person a more comprehensive perspective, and a better understanding about the goals of each religion. Saying all paths are same, may generally mean the person making this claim does not have much knowledge of any of the paths involved. I do know that different religious paths may promise different destinations to their followers, and have different deities and rituals, and it is up to each person what he or she wants to pursue in life. Where does a person want to invest or spend his or her life, and what return does a person expect from this investment in a lifelong faith? Is faith for an eternal goal, or for service of others, or for being one with the crowd? Where does your faith promise to take you?

There is a secondary and equally important question, after a personal destination (religion) has been decided by the person. The secondary question is, whether the path chosen will actually lead the person to the promised destination. This is a question which can only be answered in the seeker's mind, either by simply believing the teaching of the founders of religions, or by actually traveling the path, but few are known to reach the destination.

As with most things in life, 

it is almost impossible to make a definite bet. 

This is the ultimate gamble of life. 

Where will you invest your life, on which belief? 

Believe, or some would say bet, on what,

In ephemeral pleasure, or in pleasing society, 

or maybe on mortal or eternal goals. 

Welcome to the earthy casino of life,

Wheel is spinning, and the clock is ticking,

Destiny, the croupier with a wry smile invites you,

Invites you to place your bets,

Your eternal destiny is at stake,

For the price of this one life,

For the price of a decision and a belief,

Place your bet, for time is running out,

Time will run out, bet on an eternal consequence,

A consequence which each will meet alone,

Without the company of a friend or foe,

A consequence of suffering or bliss,

Indecision will not slow down the clock,

For some this gamble can be overwhelming,

And they may look the other way,

As they try to find meaning and reason,

Believing there is no substance in eternal fate,

But time will not stop, neither for me nor for you,

The game of life is already afoot,

Try not to let your mind fool you,

But who can claim to never have been fooled.

So like everything in this world, there is endless diversity. Each religion offers a path to follow and a destination. Paths may meet at some places, and may lead to similar or different destinations. Choose the path based on where you want to go. Each path may take you where it promises to go, and hope your map is accurate.

Know where you want to go before starting a journey,

If you do not know where your faith will lead you,

You might reach a place where you do not want to be,

 If a mentor refuses to explain in simple terms,

In simple words that do not confuse nor sting,

Then perhaps you are being taken for a ride.

-x-

Burden of proof?

One of the main point of contention between atheists and believers is that atheists insist that there is no conclusive and verifiable proof of the existence of God**. And they are correct, regarding objective proofs. Atheists claim that the burden of proof is on the believers to prove the existence of God.

Look at it from another perspective, if there is a verifiable objective proof of God's existence, then there would be no need for faith. If there is a verifiable proof, then everybody would believe in God, and fear God, and live a compliant life. Then not believing in God would be stupid and there would be no choice, no need for faith, no need for belief, as God's existence would be confirmed. A lot of drama in life would come to an end, many would even say that all drama in life would come to an end. 

If the headmaster is present in a class and the children know it,

They will not speak nor play, and would be all nervous and frozen stiff.

But this is not how this world seems to have been setup. The elusive nature of God seems to be by design. Please take a moment to stop and think about this, because faith is not about choice but about eternal destiny. Atheists, or scientists, or rationalists, or others did not design the world in which we exist. Nor does the world in which we exist needs to conform to any logical model conceivable to the human mind.

With existence of an objective proof faith and belief cease to be a virtue. I am not saying that faith is a virtue, but to believe in concepts taught be the prophets unquestionably is an essential part of any religion. Certainly there is every chance that a person starts believing in a prophet whose teachings may or may not deliver on their promise, or the student may not understand the teaching properly, and that is a constant persistent doubt in most believers. This is as if it adds different colors to the religious and spiritual landscape of society. This complicates the choices further, but again this seems to be by design - Nature is characterized by presence of extreme variety, and presence of many different schools of thoughts also conforms to this.

Coming back to the question of proof. The system of belief in this world seems to be such that glimpses of the unknown have been conveyed to few people, who are generally identified as prophets. And stories tell us that after their respective revelation the prophets lives did change, as they lived in awareness of God's presence, while rest of the people around them went on with their normal life oblivious of God. The drama of the world continued for people who were unaware of God's presence. Some people did heed the words of prophets. For others the life's test is to sift through the available teaching and paths, and try to find a way.

Life presents an endless maze of words and ideas,

Walk carefully picking your treasures,

Treasures of words, and faith, and belief,

Leave the wrong turns and take the right ones.

-x-

 **In this blog, by word God, I always refer to the Monotheistic ever present and all powerful God, the Creator of the world. I do not refer to the many different deities present in the many cultures and religions unless specifically highlighted.

-x-

Limits to science... can science be applied to everything (specially spirituality)?

Science by definition needs objective peer review to confirm validity of a phenomenon. Anything which cannot be objectively measured, or at least subjectively measured/observed by considerable number of people, is considered false or unscientific. In the current post we consider limits to application of science** to spiritual and/or religious experience.

The verifiable criteria for science is its strength and also it's weakness. It is, in a way, democratization of reality (more precisely, "democratization of our understanding of reality"), which neutralizes any possibility of outliers as unscientific, an anomaly. If an artist feels exhilaration while painting or performing a musical piece, but other people do not while doing the same thing, then is the artist's exhilaration fake (or unscientific) as it is not verifiable objectively (plugging in measuring equipment, assuming it can measure subjective experience, may cause change in artist's body parameters, by virtue of being plugged in)?

Reliance on peer review, approval and verification, also brings up an interesting possibility that "anything which cannot be peer reviewed and verified is beyond the scope of science, and science cannot be used to explain such phenomena as it is not equipped for it."

To elaborate, the scientific method has, when applied to spirituality, following main subjective steps (taken from Wikipedia diagram titled, "The scientific method as a cyclic or iterative process"):

1. Make observations
2. Develop testable predictions
3. Gather data to test predictions

Rest of the steps in the cyclic method are not considered for the purpose of present discussion. For the above steps, there is no reliable scientific equipment to measure subjective spiritual experience (not that I know of), and the human body/mind is the only way to make observations, gather data, and verify test results in such scenarios. The variations of human mind/body/mood/training/environment is so vast that it is difficult to measure any type of data reliably and make predictions. The same people attending the same classes display different characteristics. Experimental psychology and psychiatry have a very high level of approximation.

To add to the complexity of verifying spiritual experience, by definition spiritual experience has very low chance of manifesting itself (not everybody trying to hear from God does hear from God, but stories of prophets tell that they did hear from God, but it seemed like a special privilege). 

In a nutshell, the problem of applying science to spiritual/religious experience is "How can science be used to verify and explain sparsely occurring phenomena, for which there is no definite method to collect positive data" (positive data is that which can confirm the phenomena). We can say that a phenomena is just hearsay, or superstition because millions tried to get an experience but failed. But we need to remember that even if one of the persons who claim to have a spiritual experience is telling the 'truth', then it is real. And so perhaps the fact is that science is not mature enough to be applied to this particular set of problems.

Science is a very reliable hammer, but not every problem in the world is a nail.

Some religious and spiritual experience reported by few outliers may come in this category. No doubt there are more than enough false claims to fool the gullible, but even if there is a single 'genuine' claim, is that not a reason enough for further investigation.

To recap - as highlighted above, the most common equipment used to measure a subjective experience is the human body/mind itself. And going by the differences (physical and psychological) in the human body/mind as a measurement tool, there is a high degree of possibility that even true claims may remain unverifiable. How many times does it happen that in a jungle safari only a few people of the group may catch glimpse of an elusive animal in the act of a hunt, never to be seen again for a long time. Professional photographers have to pitch tent for years before they are able to get truly detailed pictures in some cases. How many of scientists are willing to pitch tent with same amount of patience for a glimpse of the unexplained, specially when there is no likelihood of getting a funding? Human subjects cannot measure/observe in equal capacity. This shortcoming is generally overcome by increasing number of subjects whose feedback is considered to reduce error and personal bias. But is voting a science (I called it voting because beliefs could potentially alter experience, so even if a person votes honestly, they might have experienced different things because of different beliefs)? Basically conventional science has little place for subjective phenomena, which is generally identified as an anomaly, but highlights the limitation of science also.

Another interesting aspect of a scientific claim is that it has to be falsifiable. So in effect all theories are true until we get sufficient data to disprove it, basically a theory is waiting to be invalidated as more data is gathered. A scientific theory is waiting to be replaced by a better theory. This brings up another interesting question - Can science really be used to explain and address absolute facts (absolute truths), as it might seem that there is no (or little) space for absolute facts/truths in science?**

-x-

**Note: My knowledge of the "philosophy of science" is limited, but it is an interesting subject which deals with what science is and how reliable it can be. I would encourage rationalists (and atheists), the self proclaimed champions of science, to spend time understanding where science can be applied or cannot be applied, before they "bet the ranch" on reason and science.
-x-

PS: The above post does not cover a person applying the scientific method on self, and systematically trying to understand personal experience which are of a spiritual/religious nature. I believe this should be possible (because the data gathering equipment remains same, the body and mind of self), but what may not be as effective is trying to get the resulting theories, which came out of personal experience, verified by the wider scientific community. So there is always the risk of misunderstanding a personal experience, due to lack of peer-verification.

-x-

This may well be a path on which you have to walk alone,

For if you seek the comfort of company,

Know that you might be on a different path,

You alone need to convince your mind,

Of the truth that you can perceive,
But if you do find a like mind, do not forget gratitude.

-x-

The myth of human intelligence and understanding God's reasons

Rationalists have vigorously argued the improbability of God's existence, based on their own inability to understand God's motives. Questions like the following, but not limited to:

1. How could God do this? Why would God do this?
2. If there is a God, why is there suffering, war, death, terrorism, etc in this world?
3. Why do good people have a bad experience?
4. Why do some bad people have a good comfortable life?
5. Why does not God show Himself?
6. Who created God?
7. I don't understand, if there is a God, then... <fill your words here>?
8. I can't imagine, if there is a God, then...<fill your words here>?
9. It does not make sense, if there is a God, then...<fill your words here>?

The answer to all these questions is: "We don't know", or more specifically, "I don't know". It is illogical to insist that our inability to answer any of the above questions means that there is no God, or that God is unreasonable, or anything else that we want to prove. Blaming all the ills in the human world to God, is like blaming parent's intention and power for a fight between their young children (and most young siblings do have some fights, which sometimes result in injury).

It does mean that the much celebrated human intelligence is not good enough to understand the world around us. How would the rationalists explain all the supposed bad things (crime, death, different life spans of different creatures, death of the young, war, etc) in the world, assuming that there is no God. Randomness and probability! Is that even an explanation, or an intelligent way of saying "I don't know". I believe, they surely will cook up reasonable sounding theories to explain it, but which cannot be proved as true or false for a long time, which does raise question about the validity of the theory.

How could people understand God's mind and reasons, when people don't understand their own minds and reasons. Human mind, including the champion of rationalists, will most likely be unable to answer the many philosophical questions about themselves.

1. Why does a person like a particular color over another, 
2. Why does a person like a particular food item over another, 
3. Why do different people have different answers for same questions (favorite color, music, food, career choice, marriage partners, etc), Countless other questions of human preferences where a reason for a particular choice remain elusive?
4. Why is a human being particularly good at somethings, and not others?
5. Why do people find difficult to kick their addictions, or phobias? Or, to change their habits?
6. Where does motivation, will-power, etc to change habits come from?

I agree there will be some incomplete theories about some of the above things, but if we understood answers to these questions well enough, then marketers would be able to sell even crappy products just by showing convincing advertisements, and mental hospitals would be empty as everyone's mind would be working perfectly.

Billions of human specimen are available for doing scientific research and understanding the human mind, and still we don't understand the human mind. Then it appears foolish to insist that we should be able to understand God's mind and reasons, whom we have never met.

To add another dimension to this question, why do animals do the things they do, how do their minds work? A lot of animal species are available for research, but human knowledge of working of animal mind remains rudimentary.

If people and science did understand the human mind and reasons, then mental illness would have more definite treatment and cures. Most mental illness treatments have a degree of unpredictability, and most times the illness is managed and not cured. The reason for mental illness has eluded the best minds of science.

Many scientists spend their whole life working on a handful of problems. If they were smarter probably they should have solved the problems in lesser time, and done more with their life. And a majority of the humans beings on the planet won't even understand the the problems that they work on. So it does tell something about the average human intelligence. Being more intelligent than a pet cat or dog, does not mean human intelligence is good enough to solve all the problems in the world, and explain everything in this world, or explain Creator's mind.

Most likely, a Noble prize winning physicist does not know how to perform a heart surgery. A genius mathematician may not know how to fix a car engine, or cook a particular dish. A charted accountant may not know the best technique to increase a farm produce. The basic idea is that human knowledge and skills are limited, and a very intelligent human being may be ignorant about knowledge of things beyond his/her immediate interests. So why would you expect 'expert' advice on theology from a biologist, a mathematician, physicist, or a common lay person (who may have struggled at many of the basic subjects in schools, maybe art/music, maybe science, maybe finance, maybe literature). Especially when the knowledge of God has a component of experiential knowledge (and even then, not everyone in a Gold-rush is lucky!).

Bottom line is that our knowledge of the human or animal mind will almost always be incomplete. It will keep increasing, but most likely remain incomplete. Human beings understand the working of a mind using experiments, observations, measurement, dissections, medical reports, etc, and there is no way similar data can be collected for the Creator's mind, assuming God exists. So how could we understand God's reasons? Is it even logical to assume that we could?

-x-

God, religion and atheism

Sometime I feel that atheists love to hate religion, or so it seems. I won't say whether the love and hate is justified, but I do find it amusing when their views and points on religion are used as proof to show that God does not exist. I believe God (as per monotheism) and religion are two different topics although closely linked.

To take a popular quote and modify it for the purpose of this article, I would say

If a finger pointing to the Moon is crooked, it does not mean the Moon does not exist. It just means that the finger is crooked.

 And, then again, if a beautiful finger pointing to the Moon appears to be crooked, it does not mean the Moon does not exist. It just means that the beautiful finger seems to be crooked.

Any particular religious theology is like a finger pointing to God. It does not mean that the finger has to be perfect, nor does it mean that it is imperfect. Maybe it is perfect in theory, but less than perfect in practice. I do not know. Like a country's constitution might be perfect, but that will not mean that there are no crimes happening in the country. Apart from theology a religion may also have social or political rules/guidelines, which are unrelated to theological aspects but may be influenced by it. Any apparent or actual flaws in the non-theological aspects of a religion is no reason to reject its theological aspects as well, without proper consideration.

To illustrate how atheists use apparent flaws in practice of religion to discredit the idea of a monotheistic God we could check following famous books:

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins - My copy of the book from Black Swan publishers has around 400+ pages, excluding Appendix, Index, Notes, etc. At page 189, the author states that the conclusion of the book till that point is that there is almost certainly no God. Maybe the book should have been called 'The Improbable God'. After page 189, the book discusses about possible roots of religion, morality, and apparent flaws in religious practice. To go back to the previous quote, the author finds it important to discuss the flaws of an apparently crooked finger, rather than discuss the possibility of existence of Moon, in more than half of the book. I do give credit to the author for devoting at least some part of the book to theology, but maybe it does not do justice to the title of the book. I am not saying that religion is impeccable, anything practiced by a 'group' of humans is hardly so and has its positive and negative side, be it religion, racism, nationalism, casteism, etc. Human passion for each of their respective group has had good as well as bad affect on society, and singling out religion may not be a correct approach. If anything needs to be singled out it would perhaps be human passion and inclination for unreasonable action, given a chance, a choice and a reason.

God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens - To be fair, I would admit that I could not complete this book, as this book has very less to say about God. The name of the book could have conveyed that the author will highlight the flaws of religion instead of the discuss the possibility of existence of God. A quick look at the table of contents of the book on Wikipedia would show that most chapters deal with highlighting the flaws of various religion, and not theology (there is some theology discussed here and there, but not much, but I would know better only if I completely read the book). Coming back to the initial quote, we could say that the author has presented an exhaustive critique of how ugly the fingers apparently look, instead of discussing the possibility and nature of Moon, that the fingers seem to point to.

My personal view is that if God exists, then existence of a monotheistic God would not be constrained by any definition of any particular religion. Maybe a particular religious theology has got some part correct. Maybe some religious theology has got a lot of parts correct, but we may not have understood it well enough. In fact, theology does insist that it is not possible to know and define God completely. This is not much different from a perspective that human knowledge about universe will always have missing parts, be it knowledge of space, ocean, or sub-atomic particles. There is always more to find out, and refine our understanding and theories.

Words explain some aspects, and are very important for transmission of knowledge, but never completely explain all the details, as the details could be endless. Consider the parable of the blind men who check out an elephant for the first time, without having any prior information about how it looks. Each touch a part of the elephant and describe it as per the part they have touched, and each give a different picture. This is not much different from human knowledge about God, where in a lifetime people have a chance to feel only certain aspects of reality and then describe it for posterity. It is hard to say what is true or false, but it is likely to be incomplete.

Atheists/rationalists do bring some value to society in going after charlatans who liberally populate the spiritual and religious landscape of society. But in matters concerning monotheistic theology their contribution has not been useful, in my opinion.

-x-

Creator's Puzzle

I believe in an all powerful, ever present, monotheistic God, but it was not always so. Like many I have had my time of skepticism, when I considered myself an atheist and thought of it being the only intelligent choice. But as time passed I found myself spending a lot of my time thinking over existence of God and on why this knowledge remains elusive to the human mind, if God actually did exist.

I believe the endless debate between atheists and believers is premature, and we have not stopped to think and find out whether it is possible to have knowledge of the creator in the first place. I call this problem the 'Creator's puzzle'. 

Creator's puzzle is - "Is it possible for the created to have knowledge of it's creator? And, if yes, then under what conditions can a created specimen have knowledge of it's creator."

People have long argued about the fact whether God exists or not, but a more fundamental question remains unanswered, whether can we know about existence of God, our creator. If yes, then what are the conditions of obtaining this knowledge and verifying the facts.

In reality, belief in a God could be a matter of perennial argument with very good for and against points. But the God Himself cannot be argued into or out of existence. God exists or does not exist irrespective of the fact that one wins or looses an argument. Belief in God has to be a matter of discovery to find whether God exists or not, and not a matter of arm-chair logic and reason. A lot of things in the universe exist irrespective of whether human beings can logically explain them or not.

Coming back to Creator's puzzle, which deals with any creator-created pair and not just God-human pair. In the remaining post I try to present a couple of models for creator-created pairs and explain conditions under which the created could obtain knowledge of the creator.

In the first model, consider a hypothetical computer simulation game, a biological simulation, with a single human player and actor controlling all the characters and life forms in the biological simulation (i.e. single player playing a computer simulation game). Assume also that the single human player is also a software programmer who has created the simulation program. So in the above model, the biological simulation game and its characters are the 'created' life forms, while the human player is the 'creator' of the simulation game and its characters.

Last assumption is that the different life forms in the simulation game have a form of basic consciousness programmed into it (consciousness as we claim to understand it, not necessarily as it is in nature).

Now as per 'Creator's puzzle' under what conditions would one of the created life-form, say a digital deer or dog or human, become aware of its creator. Any programmer could tell that this will be possible only if the programmer him/herself were to program the code for knowledge of the creator's existence. Or if not the actual code, the programmer would have to write code into the simulation software such that the knowledge of the creator could be obtained indirectly by a created life-form. Programmers realize that nothing in a computer program works unless it has been programmed to work that way. And if some unexpected or unpredictable behavior is observed then the system would have been programmed to display unexpected or unpredictable behavior.

A second but similar model could be considered where the created life-form is a type of self-replicating robots which have been let loose on a distant planet with conditions for the robots to have a self-sustaining existence. Something like a colony of self-replicating society of robots with human like, but man-made, consciousness, created by a scientific research organization. Now consider under what conditions would the robots know of the existence of the research organization which created them, assuming the research organization only observes the robots from a distance never revealing themselves. Only way may be for the organization to program this knowledge into the robots. Or, to program a behavior into the robots such that they seek the creator organization and stop the search only once predefined criteria of identifying a creator organization are found to match a discovery.

In both the above models, it is easy to see that logically speaking, knowledge of a 'creator' is not for the 'created' to find by its own effort, but by virtue of it being programmed into the 'created'. And another very important point is that a 'creator' is free to program different levels of knowledge into different specimen of a particular life-form, and different specimen need not come to same conclusion about any particular experience or discovery, if it has not been programmed that way. Also, trying to find an objective explanation of some subjective experience may not always be an intelligent and/or valid approach.

Coming back to the main topic for this post, the Creator's puzzle. Based on the above, It is my understanding that for a human mind to insist that it can get knowledge and experience of it's Creator by it's own efforts alone is logically and fundamentally flawed. I believe this knowledge and experience can only come from the Creator Himself, either directly or indirectly through a seeking behavior specifically programmed into human mind, which is very similar to the notion that God and His knowledge is revealed.

An implicit assumption here is that the above creator-created pair models are close enough to God-human pair, to justify a comparison. Maybe the above models are an over-simplification, but that is not much different from a large number of scientific theories which explain, with reasonable accuracy, a very complex world using simple models that human mind can grasp (but this will probably be a topic of another post).

-x-

PS: As with all human understanding and theories it is possible that my understanding will increase with time, and in future I may be able to share better/deeper insight.

-x-