>Deduct that our universe has to be a simulation, makes no

>>8449387
>makes no sense otherwise
is less likely* at best

>widely accepted for years and years
by whom?

Define simulation.

File: dawkins_faith.jpg (153KB, 800x541px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 800x541px

>>8449387
>Doesn't believe in god, a greater being, a creator who created all life
>Believes that our world is just a simulation
Doesn't that contradict each other? Not saying that this is you, but I am sure there are a lot of edgy popsci fan atheists who happily bash religion yet totally believe in the simulation hypothesis since first hearing it. Pic somewhat related.

Why does everyone on /sci/ know absolutely no philosphy?

>>8449387
Yes, you knew that before it was cool. You're super hip. Now go away.

>>8449726
No, it's just that he rejects the christian god because that shit is straight up dumb.

I don't think atheists rule out some sort of alien creator that uses evolution as it's vehicle, but at some point the creators need to be created and it makes more sense that the very first creator (w/e that actually means if it even makes sense), would be an unintelligent one.

>>8449888

Philosophy is simply the description of science. Any philosophy which does not is not truly philosophy

>>8449387
Its "deduce" brainlet

>>8449888
Because /sci/ is actually a containment board for low-functioning savants.

>>8449726
So if I gene mod bunch of ants and stuck them into big jar to see what happens I create a simulation?

>>8449387
>Deduct that our universe has to be a simulation, makes no sense otherwise and is pretty much widely accepted for years and years
What a load of shit.

>>8449387
It's "deduce" not "deduct" you fuckin brainlet