We do live in a simulation, it's not like what you think. It's not like science fiction. We do live in a reality that you can partially control created by a POS "God".

>>18306
>simulation theory
Is what you get without a sound ground in the humanities, especially the history of ideas.

>>18316
Its funny, there are so many people who claim to be atheists but believe in the simulation theory.

>>18318
I'm convinced people are atheists only because of modern jewish run education and it's the cool thing to do like whatever else celebrities think.

>>18318
Well, why would atheism be incompatible with a simulation hypothesis? I guess what you're implying is that if the simulation was designed by a being then that being could be considered a god, but that would depend on how you define that word. For example, maybe the universe is just an accidental byproduct of the program being run. Maybe the being doesn't even realize that our universe exists (maybe we've created universes without realizing it). Maybe the being doesn't understand how changes they make to the program's memory affect our universe. Maybe our universe is a computer program, but one that wasn't even made by anyone, but that rather is the result of a fortuitous malfunction of the computer's physics that anyone has yet to realized is burning CPU cycles and should be terminated because it's interfering with the computer's useful work.

Just starting from "our universe is being computed" doesn't get you to "therefore there is a god" except using the broadest deistic definition of "some unknown thing that is the ultimate uncaused cause".

EXACTLY

EXACTLY

Do you know how many theories are viable? The question is if there is a reason to assume they are true. There is no reason to assume we live in a simulation.