Athiests: Calling You Out As Theists

Scientific proof were not living in a simulation and don't have enough computing power to in the universe to even simulate "a few hundred electrons ":
-Physicists Confirm That We’re Not Living In a Computer Simulation
>pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-confirm-that-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
-Gravitational twists help theoretical physicists shed light on quantum complexity
>eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/uoo-gth092617.php
-The actual publication: Quantized gravitational responses, the sign problem, and quantum complexity
>advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758

Given: To create something, you cannot be part of it beforehand, since it doesn't exist (scientifically verifiable/observable--causality).
Our definition of the universe (system) is man made (within system) and not testable against a premise defined as being outside said system (creator of system):

>Premise: To create something, you cannot be contained in it beforehand, since it doesn't exist. (causality)
>Our system has an origin (big bang, scientifically verifiable).
>Therefore, our system has a creator (causality).
>Therefore, our creator is outside our system (God/energy/unknowable computer,semantics).
>Therefore God is unknowable.

Maybe that's why we can't conceptualize anything before the big bang.
>2d man trying to conceptualize 3d
Bu, bu, bu maybe we just don't know know enough science.
>you just became a theist without acknowledging it
>your god is now 'science' which is contradictory to the tenants of science.
>you fool yourself with semantics to deny God.

Bu, bu, there is no sky god
>strawman, look above to the unknowable part
Bu, bu, maybe there's a computer outside of our universe operating with different physics.
>you fool yourself with semantics to deny God.

Other urls found in this thread:

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/uoo-gth092617.php
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/147886871/#q147886871
zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-05/soros-myth-european-democracy-shocking-revelation
archive.is/wCvZ1)
archive.is/pzO4k
m.youtube.com/watch?v=QAwvTC4YU3g
dystopiausa.com/storm-week-4-cresting-sticky-post
farleftwatch.com/
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-confirm-that-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758
ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory
youtube.com/watch?v=QiZLlpqAQ7U&t=43s
youtube.com/watch?v=-RMOGFaOLSQ&t=6sv=QiZLlpqAQ7U&t=42s
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01
youtube.com/watch?v=so37M7JFSPs
hooktube.com/watch?v=so37M7JFSPs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/uoo-gth092617.php
>The researchers identified a particular physical phenomenon that cannot be captured by any local quantum: Monte-Carlo simulation. It is a curious effect, which has been known for decades, but has only ever been measured indirectly. In the field of condensed matter physics, it is called the "thermal Hall conductance" and in high-energy physics it is known as a "gravitational anomaly".

>In plain words, thermal Hall conductance implies a generation of energy currents in the direction transverse to either temperature gradient, or a twist in the underlying geometry of space-time. Many physical systems in high magnetic fields and at very low temperatures are believed to exhibit this effect. Interestingly such quantum systems have been evading efficient numerical simulation algorithms for decades.

>In their work, the theorists showed that for systems exhibiting gravitational anomalies the quantities which are involved in quantum Monte-Carlo simulations will acquire a negative sign or become complex. This ruins the effectiveness of the Monte-Carlo approach through what is known as "the sign-problem". Finding a solution to "the sign problem" would make large-scale quantum simulations possible, so that the proof that this problem cannot be solved for some systems, is an important one.

>Premise: To create something, you cannot be contained in it beforehand, since it doesn't exist. (causality)
>Our system has an origin (big bang, scientifically verifiable).
>Therefore, our system has a creator (causality).
>Therefore, our creator is outside our system (God/energy/unknowable computer,semantics).
>Therefore God is unknowable.

It's truly insane that someone would consider this evidence of the existence of god. I sincerely hope that you realize how deluded you are when you graduate highschool.

tanks bro
>not an arguement

Must see:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cnyPwAuVLo

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZuUamivGeM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiG_4JFM7gw


War is unavoidable. Read: archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/147886871/#q147886871

If we want to maximize the chances of a hot war to be avoided, we need to achieve 5 main objectives (in order of priority):
1- Destroy the anti-free speech bias in Silicon Valley (tech and big-data);
2- Put pressure into and exposing the Soros payed corrupt politicians (list of names here: zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-05/soros-myth-european-democracy-shocking-revelation AND here: archive.is/wCvZ1)
3- Destroy the globalist backed MSM that keeps lying to the normies;
4- Destroy the jew backed entertainment industry that keeps trying to manipulate the normies;
5- Destroy the globalist/commie entrenched grip that has taken over the education system and is using it to fill the ranks of the alt-left with Western naive children.

If we win the war against the anti-free speech bias in Silicon Valley, we can win easily all other battles because the left has nothing but lies, appeals to emotion, shaming and censorship.
We have the facts and the truth on our side, if we can destroy the censorship, we can easily spread the truth and convert the non-retards to fight against the globalist machine.
Read: archive.is/pzO4k
Watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=if1bo00_RVo

--
Why jews make it easy to support Hitler:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb64HIAG96w
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxbV3RsyQwI

--
Why antifa needs to get done by the authorities:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5018141/ISIS-connection-anarchists-revealed-Ed-Klein-book.html

The Antifa "Professor" who advocates preemptive violence:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=QAwvTC4YU3g

--
Keep uptaded on the storm: dystopiausa.com/storm-week-4-cresting-sticky-post

Also must read sites:
www.europeancivilwar.com
www.anonymousconservative.com/blog
farleftwatch.com/
#FollowTheWhiteRabbit

>Bu, bu, bu maybe we just don't know know enough science.
>>you just became a theist without acknowledging it
>>your god is now 'science' which is contradictory to the tenants of science.
>>you fool yourself with semantics to deny God.

speak up when you have a counterpoint

its ok to say "I don't know"
You don't need God to fill the gaps

Anything beyond that is pointless dick wagging

acknowledging ignorance is the only acceptable answer.
but then again, you're agnostic and this thread isn't for you.

>to avoid war you must destroy
>destroy power systems with a ton of material resources that probably don't want to be destroyed
>somehow this is how you avoid war

this is how people on meth think

k

to clarify, there are theists and agnostics
atheists are just self-delusional theists

>Scientific proof were not living in a simulation
If you needed proof of that you're a retard

This is now a tanks post

To further clarify:
Systematic use of logic + observation = science
Science currently points to a creator
>See causality and big bang/simulation observations
So you either believe in god (via some form of semantics) or proclaim ignorance (which is not a negative).

Atheists are by far the most annoying people in the world. They’re worse than Christians in that they never shut up about their beliefs.

>Herzog Zwei

You are joking right? That is exactly what christians are doing on this board right the fuck now. have you actually been on more then an hour? I see constant Christians bring up something related to god every fucking thread. Christians = fedoras

pushing back on a bunch of self-loathing ignorant 'atheists' is not the same as shitting on people's religious beliefs while unwittingly advocating science as their religion (theism).

>Premise: To create something, you cannot be contained in it beforehand, since it doesn't exist. (causality)
There's no causality when there's no time

You are wrong buddy boy no one is pushing back atheists in these threads you fucking faggot retard. Christians post constantly about garbage in unrelated threads on Sup Forums constantly thanks to the reddit invasion they never know when to SHUT THE FUCK UP. They always derail conversions into religious garbage. Multiple larping posts in unrelated threads.

Christians are Sup Forumss fedoras. Sorry m8 but that is how it is. many people are sick of this shit and so am I. You need 90 fucking christian threads going with 1-2 people in the m bumping there own fucking threads while someone else makes another fucking thread about christianity. I

Anything beyond the point of origin (big bang) is speculation, not fact.
So i don't disagree and actually find that interesting.
We've never observed anything free of the advancement of time/causality so we start getting into theism with different semantics.

>said the fag with a meme flag

>fucking faggot retard
>atheist intellectuals

you know you're supposed to be over 18 to post here right?

>calling out
Nigger please. Yes, the story science tells does a great job of informing us about the empirical observable world but it tells us nothing of how to behave in the world. Religion, on the other hand, makes some silly claims about origins and miracles that don't effect your day to day but also shows you how to live a happy and contented life.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive stories as science does not (and cannot) evaluate supernatural claims. Use one to examine what exists in the world and the other to inform you how to behave.

Wait till *he* realizes no particular version of religion is being advocated in this thread.
Just that the logic/science *atheists* use reduces their own declaration of 'there is no god' to an absurdity.
You either believe in a creator (knowingly or unwittingly) or are agnostic.

>Our system has an origin (big bang, scientifically verifiable).
You failed science class. The big bang only picks a point in time when all the atoms of the universe already existed, not any point before that.

>Therefore, our system has a creator (causality).
Therefore, your creator has a creator (causality).

>Therefore God is unknowable.
That proves that everything you claim to know about these gods is a lie.

>Therefore, our creator is outside our system (God/energy/unknowable computer,semantics).
The Abrahamic religions have very specific claims about what and who their creators are, for example, your bible says Jacob wrestled with one of your creator gods. If that's true, then you're a liar. If it's not true, then maybe nothing in the bible is true. Nice job defeating your own arguments, dumbass.

>you fool yourself with semantics to deny God.
If you can't prove your gods exist, then we have nothing to disprove or deny.

>Bu, bu, there is no sky god
All creator gods are sky gods, or so the holy books claim. You're saying they're all wrong?
The talmud, the old testament, new testament, the koran and the hadiths, all a bunch of lies? Well, now you're starting to make sense.

which religion am I advocating?
see:

>Science currently points to a creator
No, there is no valid science in existence that indicates any such nonsense. You make shit up and you fall easily for the made up shit of others. You know what that means, right? You're an idiot.

...

But gravity is pseudoscience .

>which religion
it doesn't matter. my statement stands true regardless of what religion you fill the blank with. Science tells us what the world is; religion tells us how to be moral beings in the world.

So you're an atheist (there is no god):
Do you believe in causality?
Do you accept we're not in a simulation?
>pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-confirm-that-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
>eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/uoo-gth092617.php
>advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758
What, other than 'faith' in science not yet proven, do you claim to back up the notion that there is not a creator?
Being agnostic is not a bad thing, but it is not atheism.

>But gravity is pseudoscience .
Wew lad! Take a quick trip to the roof of your building, jump off and then let us know how that {{{ gravity is pseudoscience }}} thing worked out for you.

so were not really arguing here are we?
this thread is for atheists (idiots using science to disprove a creator) not agnostics.

ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory

>religion tells us how to be moral beings in the world.
It does the opposite. Humans knew it was wrong to kill each other a hundred thousand years ago, long before any religions were invented to control people. With religion, evil people can perform human sacrifices to please their bloodthirsty gods.

>Our system has an origin (big bang, scientifically verifiable).
>Therefore, our system has a creator (causality).
that fucking jump in logic lol

the fact of the matter is if you still believe in desert nigger bedtime stories or the idea that some magical interdimensional being created the universe then you're a humongous sheep. The concept of a creator is for lesser humans that can't comprehend a world without a divine being with human characteristics pulling the string, despite it being the far less likely scenario out of every single possible theory for our existence

K, let us know how you feels.
Observable science backs up causality, that we're not in a simulation, and leads us to the moment of creation but not beyond.
Yield you silly little bitch--at best you're agnostic because proclaiming 'there is no god/creator' relies of science which currently points towards a creator.
Else you turn science into theism which reduces atheism into an absurdity.

good day you low awareness fucks.

>So you're an atheist (there is no god):
I'm an atheist (I don't remember you ever proving your gods)

>Do you believe in causality?
No, not in the sense that Aquinas argued for causation in Summa Contra Gentiles, because it is a failed philosophy. I am a proponent of Newton's cause and effect because it does not rely on any leprechauns or gods to make it work.

>Do you accept we're not in a simulation?
Is there any compelling evidence that we're in a simulation? Rational thought requires logic and evidence, so the answer there is no.

>Humans knew it was wrong to kill each other
the scientific method didn't teach us not to kill one another
>a hundred thousand years ago
>long before religion
are you positing that the scientific method existed prior to the formation of religious thought in hunter/gatherer groups?
>With religion, evil people can perform human sacrifices to please their bloodthirsty gods.
with science evil people can kill billions using the nuclear and biological weapons. what's your point?
Truthfully the best thing we can do for the overall biosphere on this planet is eliminating 80% of the human population from the planet randomly selected but we know this is an immoral thing to do. Where does science teach us that it is immoral to kill one person for the benefit of another?

I don't know whether there is a god or not, but I'm not going to operate under the assumption that an unfalsifiable claim is true. Does that make me atheist or agnostic?

"This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers"
{{{ This satirical look }}}
You need to take that fishhook out of your mouth. It's a shame you're not bright enough to be embarrassed by this bone-jarring stupidity.

>Scientific proof were not living in a simulation and don't have enough computing power to in the universe to even simulate "a few hundred electrons "
>proof
ends the article with
>All this being said, some physicists say that we won’t ever be able to prove definitively that we’re not in a simulation, because any evidence we collect could itself be simulated evidence. It’s exhausting to think about—but somebody has to do the work of figuring out what’s real.
youtube.com/watch?v=QiZLlpqAQ7U&t=43s
youtube.com/watch?v=-RMOGFaOLSQ&t=6sv=QiZLlpqAQ7U&t=42s

>Observable science backs up causality,
Does it prove your gods exist?
Ooops.

>all these plumbers discussing science
>not a single user considers the scientific method's structural inability to evaluate supernatural claims
>not a single user considers the impossibility of demonstrating something doesn't exist
The scientific method doesn't >prove anything. It is a tool used to form questions and to disprove false claims/hypotheses. Seriously, do any of you niggers in this thread have formal training in the scientific method beyond 12th grade biology?

>the scientific method didn't teach us not to kill one another
False dilemma fallacy. There are far more ways to learn morality besides scientific method and made up religious nonsense.

>are you positing that the scientific method existed prior to the formation of religious thought in hunter/gatherer groups?
No, however, if you took anthropology and sociology in college, you learned that the earliest successful tribes built upon their knowledge by discarding irrational ideas. This is the infancy of our epistemology. The tribes that could not learn rationally vanished. Only when tribes were well enough established could a cancer like religion begin to flourish.

Yes - causality demands that something must create in order for something to be created.
>uh oh
>Premise: To create something, you cannot be contained in it beforehand, since it doesn't exist. (causality)
>Our system has an origin (big bang, scientifically verifiable).
>Therefore, our system has a creator (causality).
>Therefore, our creator is outside our system (God/energy/unknowable computer,semantics).
>Therefore God is unknowable.

Just proclaim ignorance (agnostic) if a creator disturbs you. It's ok.

>There are far more ways to learn morality besides scientific method and made up religious nonsense.
How about naming a few user.

Everyone wants to go to Heaven, but everyone's afraid to die.

what created the creator?

exactly, it's a process
extending logic based on current science leads only to a creator.
but those being called out are Atheists who affirm 'there is no creator'.
>ITT, a bunch of agnostics finding themselves.

You're wasting your time with that one.
The only response you'll get it "Hurr durr he's always existed!"

Religious cucks are insanely close minded

>anthropology and sociology in college
kek
yeah I took them when I was doing my general ed. I also took a year of gen chem, a year of ochem, a year of physics, two years of mathematics, and three years of evolutionary biology before taking my BS in Biology.
You should probably learn what the scientific method is and does before you start crowing about how it is the end all be all for answering all questions.
Here's a primer:
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01

>with science evil people can kill billions using the nuclear and biological weapons
Evil people abuse science. I'll wager all of them involved in the Manhattan Project were Jews and Christians with very few atheists.

>Where does science teach us that it is immoral to kill one person for the benefit of another?
Morality comes from humanity and science is a guide. Our ethics, deontology and teleology are based on the knowledge we have about our world. Science doesn't instruct us, it gives use the information we need to make good rational decisions. Rational people don't kill others without a sufficient reason.

Religions have tortured, maimed and put millions to death for refusing to believe in their irrational nonsense. 50,000 women put to death for being witches in Europe. I might be going out on a limb here, but I suggest not a single one of those murder victims was actually a witch.

Does that make it fact?

>Morality comes from humanity
now I know you're just trolling. Thanks for the (you)s

The fact the earth is flat proves that. No curve to be found. No spin detected.

>this much american educated
The eternal mutt strikes again.

>The scientific method doesn't >prove anything.
Right. Sparky was trying to use the Aquinas causation hypothesis in a logical syllogism. He doesn't understand that the moment you add a supernatural being to a rational equation, the equation stops being rational. He's in denial that his gods can be proven to exist. I'm saying that means there's nothing for atheists to disprove.

Nah go to war
Your fear of death will be gone before the first week is up

>You should probably learn what the scientific method is and does before you start crowing about how it is the end all be all for answering all questions
Except I never said that. You should probably go back and read what I wrote, then apologize profusely for getting my words so badly confused. Are you new here?

Survival of the species as an instinct.
Morality is a nice name given to a basic instinct.
All animal species cooperate and don't kill each other en masse because if they did they wouldn't exist.
Having said that, I'm still an agnostic.
The science cannot prove the negative and the theology cannot disprove a non existence of God.
In other words: we will know when we die : either it's a total blackness and we just cease to exist or we meet the creator.

Where is the experiment
that proves water can stick yo a spinning ball?

>Morality is a nice name given to a basic instinct.
Altrusim, golden rule-based morality has existed for tens of thousands of years. The origin of morality is not religion.

>You either believe in a creator (knowingly or unwittingly) or are agnostic.
What difference does it make?
If some supernatural being poofed the pre-big bang universe into existence, but hasn't affected it since, why does it matter at all?

>Scientifically proving we aren't in a simulation
You can't, you can't operate within the rules of a perceived simulation to determine we aren't in one...that said I don't think we are in one but it makes more sense than the atheist understanding of the creation of the universe. God created the universe and is beyond human comprehension, which is why faith is important, if you could scientifically proven god existed than faith wouldn't really matter

endless loop
recognize that and stop at the first iteration
this is the limit of our understanding of existence
>see god unknowable
>see 2d man trying to understand 3d
>see carp in a stream trying to understand flight
>see that acknowledging the 'who created' question acknowledges causality.
>see fool above proclaiming others are closed-minded

>Who created the transcendent being that does not adhere to the laws of space and time
Did you think you were smart asking this question?

>You can't scientifically prove we aren't in a simulation
The leading edge of science just did.
Onus on detractors to disprove, not the other way around.
Otherwise, using science as a theist
>semantics: unknowable computer aka god

>If some supernatural being poofed the pre-big bang universe into existence, but hasn't affected it since, why does it matter at all?
This is the new [camel's nose in the tent] fallacy that theists are floating. It's similar to getting people to fall for the creation stories by rationalizing it like "intelligent design". If you fall for the creator nonsense, then the next step is, "Since your IQ is already plummeting, why not fall for the Abrahamic creator while you're at it?"

This is the thing. Beliefs are inherently irrational. Theists are relentlessly trying to rationalize what cannot ever be rational. That's why you see them borrow so liberally from logic and science; the syllogisms, the premises, the pseudo analysis. In desperation, they come up with these obscure justifications that cannot pass the rational slightest scrutiny, but the gullible fall for them. Theists are OK with netting only the feeble-minded because they understand the power of stupid people in large groups.

>The leading edge of science just did.
Science did it? Are you 12?

Simulation theory is not science. You can't prove it nor disprove it.

You don't scientifically disprove something by the person making the claim being unable to prove it. That's not how proving existence works. If a child claims the sun is the center of our solar system but lacks the means of proving it, it doesn't mean some 7th century dickhead can go "haha you need a telescope first, I just disproved you" I'm not saying we live in a simulation but there's no shame in not knowing something.

Would agree:
Kanakogi Y, Okumura Y, Inoue Y, Kitazaki M, Itakura S (2013) Rudimentary Sympathy in Preverbal Infants: Preference for Others in Distress. PLoS ONE 8(6): e65292. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065292
youtube.com/watch?v=so37M7JFSPs
hooktube.com/watch?v=so37M7JFSPs
The golden rule is hardcoded

shh dont tell the pseudoscientist 12 year olds that, the thought of something being unknowable will make their head explode

have not defined a "supernatural being"
have specifically called the creator of system: God/energy/unknowable computer,semantics
aka origin
nice try though

Agnosticism is one step towards Christianity ... And well the redpill from atheism which is ignorance ... To agnosticism which is accepting that you really don't know is one of the hardest ... At some point I realized atheism is fedoras ... And modern Christian is cucked ...

Yea you are a faggot retard I dont give a shit what religion you are but Christians are the new fedora.

I don't give a shit what religion is being discussed here retard. Go to /his/ where you belong or rather back to fucking lebbit

>things falling is evidence for the theory of gravitation

why didn't humanity develop the theory of gravitation until a few hundred years ago? did things not fall before then?

the absolute state of scientific understanding...

>agnosticism which is accepting that you really don't know is one of the hardest
truth
we have our shared reality and we have logic which are at odds.
Some will sit there and use symbolic logic to swat down any and all assertions about a creator but then are trapped in a reality which defies logic, which ultimately call into question the use of it.

...

suck dicks fag - non/belief in religion stemming from god is the source of a large part of the political issues we see in the world.

>Our system has an origin (big bang, scientifically verifiable).
>Therefore, our system has a creator (causality).
This is a non-sequitur you fucking faggot

I reject your premis of causality existing prior to the big bang.

Your pics quote is wrong.

Well this is retarded, you're just going to use logical fallacies to tell people that they're now theists, even though theism is the most retarded thing ever and makes no sense. Which brand of theism do I now follow? Am I a muslim? A Christian? A Jew? A Hindu? A Sikh? Which of the hundreds of man made theistic religions do I now subscribe to based on your ridiculous semantics

What caused the big bang?

>have not defined a "supernatural being"
>have specifically called the creator of system: God

>have not defined a "supernatural being"
>have specifically called the creator of system: God

>have not defined a "supernatural being"
But you did, not only that, your made-up up creator-god outside-the-system-so-logic-doesn't-apply is a pretty specific claim of a supernatural being magical and shit.

>have specifically called the creator of system: God
You camel's nose in the tent fallacy failed. You tried a composition fallacy to see if you could slip an irrational being into the rational equation. You can't rationalize your irrational beliefs or your supernatural beings. Try leprechauns next time, maybe the Irish will fall for it.

>aka origin
That's a Type II logic error, falsely rejecting the true null hypothesis. Of all the finite possibilities for the creation of our universe, you would have us believe that your creator-god is the only possible explanation - only because you fell for it and it made sense to you? With every post you make your insane claims that much more laughable.

I can't wait until your older sister gets home from school and tells Mom you were shitposting on the computer again.

Gohan Blanco

>why didn't humanity develop the theory of gravitation until a few hundred years ago? did things not fall before then?
Religion controlled science and information for thousands of years. Who coronates the monarch/king/tzar? The church. Care to venture a guess what happened to people whose science was considered heretical?

Yeah this is all fine but doesn't prove that Christianity is true over Islam or Judaism or any other religion

It's a massive jump from these arguments to the claims that Jesus is the literal son of God who had to be created in order to forgive sins (including the imaginary original sin of Adam and Eve, who never existed) or that miracles happen or that Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead or that the creator is a personal being that answers your prayers or that Jonah lived for 3 days inside a massive fish after being swallowed or that Noah got 2 of every animal onto an ark or that we have souls

>all the atoms of the universe already existed
There's a certain point of ignorance on a subject at which point you shouldn't speak about i. Your getting pretty close to that point.
>Therefore, your creator has a creator (causality).
Well, an infinite line of creators going back forever would be a form of an unknowable creator.
>That proves that everything you claim to know about these gods is a lie.
This is an argument for deism or agnosticism, not for any particular religion. That goes for everything else you say in this post.
That being said, I still disagree with him, on the basis that I don't think that there was causality before the big bang.

Well you could just as much say that the universe is transcendent and doesn't adhere to the laws of the things within it, thus removing the need for a creator.

>Pop-sci magazine
>leading edge of science

That's a fair point, but you'd be wrong to claim it as scientific truth. Ultimately the correct answer should be "I don't know but I believe _____" it's the fedoras that are so set in their belief of the one true god science that is damaging to the conversation as a whole

>>Premise: To create something, you cannot be contained in it beforehand, since it doesn't exist. (causality)
But if we're created in a say, computer system, whatever created that system wasn't contained in it beforehand...?

ARGENTINA ES BLANCO

>falsely rejecting the true null hypothesis
The null hypothesis is never accepted as the truth. Either it is rejected or fails to be rejected.
It appears your education in statistics isn't very thorough.

First of all, the problem here is that we haven't even defined the word "cause" properly, Aquinas didn't use the word cause, he used something more like the word motion. And his definition is not "in fieri", but "in esse". This significantly changes how you would try to refute Aquinas. All of the objections here have been for "in fieri" causes. Of course, no one here has bothered to read Aquinas, not even 1pg out of his 17,000pg works, and they just parrot what others have told them about him.

>no time
Time means that there is the potential to get older. Pure Actuality has no potential. Since Time does not apply to Pure Actuality, Pure Actuality is timeless.

And in response of that first article, if OUR computers couldn't simulate it, how about an organic computer?

What if, we play with the idea, that someone makes computers out of brain matter, and has a computer the size of a planet made up of organic brain matter...
That would probably be enough to simulate an entire universe.