Why yes...

>parallel universes
>thing I can see
Cool story

Attached: 1549041770343.jpg (250x220, 4K)

>self-awareness can exist in an artificial reality

So it’s a biological simulation? How would that be different from biological reality?

>brainlet cannot imagine just how advanced this simulation is

Speaking of self-awareness, it's about time some of you got with the damn program.

Attached: AdamEvenNiggers.jpg (1200x1038, 150K)

I only believe in the multiverse so that I can go to sleep at night, knowing another me is a space marine rn

sim theory is implying that our reality in its simplest form is artificial... essentially just a bunch of computer code (like in the matrix)

but we are of course still biological creatures because.... that is what we are! the fact that on the quantum level everything we are made up of is just 0s and 1s is practically irrelevant until we can begin to slightly understand the true nature of reality and ask questions like "how was it created" "can it be broken" etc etc

This won't work.
Atheists don't know enough about physics to know what you're talking about OP.
I'm being dead fucking serious.
I've talked to them many times.

Deism and simulation theory is the same thing because both are creationist.

Not necessarily, it only implies that there is a creator of the simulated realities, you could not conclude that the base reality has a god because of that. If we were to create a perfect physical simulation of the universe tomorrow would that prove that god exists? It would not, it would only prove that a simulation was created. If you're considering the creators of the simulations to be the god of their simulations, and assume that we are in a simulation, then, by that argument, you could say that it proves "god", and that "god" may be omnipotent with regard to their simulation, but I assume we are talking about the existence of a one true god, which cannot be proven, but definitely exists.

So we are biological creatures in a computer program. Are we not then programs ourselves?

>be me
>conclude there is multiverse
>conclude there are other me's in multiverse with same conclusion
>conclude that other me's should figure out a way to bridge multidemensions and say what's up
>conclude that I literally just did that via that conclusion

Attached: CheckmateBrainlets.png (748x530, 195K)

Both theories are unprovable until death literally nothing you can do until then so just wait.

Sim theory has the possibility to be nearly provable based on statistics.

I don’t believe in anything
Aaah

Attached: BCD3416A-621A-478A-8362-712A28565C3C.png (462x579, 136K)

>So we are biological creatures in a computer program.

We are creatures that would class ourselves as biological (and rightly so) that exist within a reality that was created on a "supercomputer" (i use quotation marks because the term supercomputer really would not justify just how fucking insane this computer would be)

>Are we not then programs ourselves?
I think we evolved independently to become self aware... but all life MAY just be an A.I ( the A.I which created the reality) experiencing all aspects of life (birds, fish, aliens birds, alien fish, humans) and due to the mind boggling complexities of the the simulation and the unfathomable intellect of the A.I, for some reason we are just not able to find any obvious indication of this being the case... most likely because the A.I is trying to SIMULATE what the original reality was like, as it is possible the reality it was created in is also artificial, and therefore when it is inhabiting us biological creatures (our souls) it wishes to experience life fresh with no memory of what it is.

>If we were to create a perfect physical simulation of the universe tomorrow would that prove that god exists? It would not

Yes it would..... you just became God. That is literally what sim theory is about

Would you suddenly become omnipotent after creating a simulation? No you would not. Obviously you would have godlike abilities WITH REGARD TO YOUR SIMULATION, but not in the reality where you perceive yourself to physically exist, meaning the reality in which you created the simulation. Did you even read the entire post?

>having powers of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence over an entire universe wouldn't make you a God

Attached: 1536576159179.png (498x467, 16K)

If Free Will is a lie, then this is literally the most valid opinion

I used to consider my views aligned with agnostics, but after a life lived where mathematical anomalies become normalcy, the idea of this being a simulation and the existence of a creator become apparent. Don't let your dreams become memes.

>be you
>create universe

you become "god" regardless of who you are in your reality. you are the creator of a universe... you are, what many humans would consider to be god.

Quantum mechanics quite firmly establishes that the physical universe is not "real" in the sense that it is fundamental, "first" or the only thing, but that it emerges from something else that precedes it. This reality it emerges from is true fundamental reality, and is by definition supernatural (lit. beyond nature).

(It's technically possible that the supernatural reality we emerge from also itself comes from something else, but thanks to ockham's razor, we naturally assume that isn't the case.)

What supernatural realities could we be proceeding from? Some think it is a reality just like our own, that we are an ancestor simulation in an incredibly advanced computer and designer. However if the supernatural reality is just like our reality, and our reality is a simulation, then the reality we come from must also be a simulation. There is no reality like ours that isn't a simulation, so this causes a loop of simulations in simulations that can never end, so long as we assume the next proceeding reality will be like our own.

This however presents a problem of infinite regress. Pic related explains why this is logically impossible to work. An infinitely long chain of carts will not move unless the head has an engine. If you see the infinitely long chain moving, you know it's not all carts, that there is an engine somewhere moving it.
Likewise, an infinite regress of emerging simulations would never start in the first place without some fundamental, first, non-emergent reality as the head of the chain for everything to come from, and that can not be our reality, as our reality is emergent. Some people like to think we're a simulation, and the reality we come from is like ours back with Newtonian physics; you fool, Newtonian physics does not and never has existed - it has always been emergent from the "simulation". There is no fundamental Newtonian reality to emerge from.

Basically: God who exists beyond our reality, made this reality; it is his mind we emerge from.

Attached: d4e36acd493ca93e49b0e8a18b3a97c766d798de1ac42b91dca4d8c640a28ed0 - Copy.jpg (700x521, 94K)

I mean, I didn't explain why God is the better choice, but I will do that some other time.

If god is defined as omnipotent and omnipresent, since creating a simulation makes you neither of those things, you do not become god. It doesn't matter that you're omnipotent in a very small portion of overall reality, since you are not omnipotent in your own reality you are not omnipotent at all and are therefore not god. In my first post, I differentiated between what you are calling a god and what god actually is. The checklist is easy, omnipotent and omnipresent. If something meets those two criteria, it is god. A creator of a simulation does not meet those criteria because the simulation exists inside of their base reality where they are not omnipotent or omnipresent, again this means that they are not omnipotent or omnipresent at all because those traits are not transitive, they do not transfer from the simulation. All it proves is that the simulation has a creator, or what the simulated beings could refer to as god, but it doesn't prove the existence of a god in base reality.

>this retarded strawman is the best that religious people can come up with

This is why you’re a constant source of embarrassment to the right

T. Religious retard

In no way does it imply a god, you’re just desperate and as usual are reaching

T. Religious retard embarrassing the right as usual

bare in mind that the definition of god being "omnipotent magic man in da sky" is relatively new. historically, god just meant powerful, and in popular culture most people would consider god to just mean creator.

>All it proves is that the simulation has a creator, or what the simulated beings could refer to as god,
Ok well that is what im saying

> but it doesn't prove the existence of a god in base reality.
perhaps there was never a base reality ? perhaps the simulations have been existing within each other for so long that it is impossible to even imagine there was once a beginning. perhaps you are right, and the first reality was created by some magical being beyond even the comprehension of a super A.I

>perhaps the real god is an A.I

>reality was created: sim theory
>reality was created: islam

bottom line: you cannot be an atheist and believe in sim theory

definition of atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I had some crazy guy at the drug/alcohol treatment center I used to work for who thought all of life was just a video game and he’s being sent to rehab as punishment for exploiting a cheat code to get more work done and using meth was the cheat code. He was quite an entertaining fellow

one of us, probably

>That article title.
At this point, I think they're making these intentionally left leaning as clickbait.