>be simulation theory>state that our world was created by people far more advanced than us>evidence is found all throughout nature (recurring patterns and sequences, ect.)>theory provides an explanation for why we are incapable of creating another simulation>nature functions so perfectly because it was purposely designed this wayI swear this is just believing in God for Atheists
>>38454499
>>38454499Simulation theory is for people who didn’t have good father figures.
Only a computer with infinite computational capacity could simulate our universe, because irrational numbers exist
>>38454499That's the /sci/ version of simulation theory; it's a watered down version of the occult metaphysics that's known thought out the ages.
>>38455843It is merely an illusion of a computer.
>>38455843What precludes the possibility of such a computer?
The simulation aspects like synchronicities could be sectional within this universe. Noosphere could be placed on this planet by more evolved species.I'm not religious, but the best quip is that there are many satans on a path to god. God being a symbol of higher power with benevolence and satans being higher powers with malevolence.
>>38454499I don't know why this isn't a philosophical shortcut for people.Atheists will support simulation but think God is a dumb idea, despite being indistinguishable from the coderChristcucks will call simulation heresy, despite it being indistinguishable from the creation storyDogma is memetic retardation
You guys really seem to overestimate how many atheists actually believe in simulation theory.
>>38454499it removes the notion of free willa deterministic universe or a simulacra of a deterministic universe has no place for free will; you're as conscious as a chatbot, subject to programming, a chain of cause an effect that stretches back to the inception of the universebut sure, it's creation theory for people that love heckin' science!>theory provides an explanation for why we are incapable of creating another simulationactually it states that if someone creates a simulation, then such simulations are so common on a universal scale that the odds of any 'universe' being real are infinitesimally smallnot being able to create a simulation is not evidence that this universe is not a simulationif a simulation can perfectly mirror an existing universe, that simulation universe contains a simulation, or at least the potential to create oneit's a rhetorical argument, not a proper scientific hypothesis. science has no deep understanding of the nature of the various cosmological phenomena that make up the known universe, let alone any means to predict the 'topology' of the unknown universe, so creating a theoretical model for a hypothetical simulation is far, far away for our civilization>>38456054a lot of the big esoteric groups emphasize the distinct nature of Thought and how it's not subject to the same laws of cause and effect of the material body that supports whatever Thought is.
>>38454499Idolatire costs being alone fakely together.
>>38454499>I swear this is just believing in God for AtheistsDon't most simulation theory believers believe that a more advanced civilisation created the simulation?Pretty sure no one believes that a single jewish incel god created everything on his own.
>>38455216Is this supposed to be an insult to those that don’t think like normal fags? If it is, its kinda lame, step your insult meme game up niga!
