Strange

Hypothesis? No Model? No. Predictions? No. Experimental test? No. So, science? No.

No one, not even the most extreme fundamentalists, take things so literally. You are arguing against a caricature of how religion works.

But just redefining something doesn't mean it is science. You haven't used the scientific method therefore it ain't science.

"Scientific redefinition" doesn't really mean anything. Introducing symbols and silly Venn diagrams doesn't change the fact that you are just derailing a potentially interesting topic by insisting on using the word "god". You seem to have some sort of fixation or monomania. Are you able to discuss anything else?

I really recommend reading up on Cantor's work on infinity (if you haven't already). It is fascinating (and eye opening) stuff.

The tachyonic antitelephone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

No it isn't unpredictable. It is completely deterministic (but only in terms of probabilities). No. Tests of Bell's inequality show that there isn't some "hidden" information that we are missing. Not the definition of random.

Plus it can be seen pretty directly via gravitational lensing.

1. QM is not random. 2. The probabilistic nature is not an assumption.

That's fine because there is no science that says that. As you might know if you weren't so wilfully ignorant. Except of course it has been observed. Presumably you think it was just invented for fun. I'm one of those who doesn't see any conflict between science and religion.

And your point is? Two different people said two different things? I'm shocked.

Shrug. The individual believer, I guess. (Although it sounds like you want to do it for them.) That sound you can hear is every irony detector on the planet breaking.

They may be following different bits than the ones you have chosen.

Personal preference? And not all religious people are intolerant. Similarly, as you kindly demonstrate, not all non-religious people are tolerant. So that hardly seems relevant.

Why is it necessary?

Did anyone say it is the only option? Or that it can do things nothing else can?

You could discuss that without using the word god. As far as I know, our universe is the only one that has been simulated. That has nothing to do with simulating universes. It is also completely unnecessary to use the word "god" in this context. But ONCE AGAIN you have failed to demonstrate any science: Hypothesis? No. Model? No. Testable predictions? No. Experimental tests? No. You seem to have problems understanding the English language.

It was a question, not an attack. I assume the hypothesis was based on empirical observation of your behaviour. It is pretty obvious that your trivial definition of "simulation" as "god" does not follow the scientific method. You could show this assumption to be wrong simply by stating the hypothesis, then showing us the model, the predictions it makes and the experiments performed to test those predictions. Also, then explaining what would falsify your idea. As you refuse to do any of these things, it confirms the hypothesis that you are just making crap up.

No one does. This is another of your ignorant caricatures of the nature of science. Instead of repeatedly making these unsupported assertions in random threads, where they are nearly always off topic, why not start a thread to discuss this "quantum foam theory of gravity" of yours. No it isn't. If they can't be proved or disproved, then they aren't science. Science has no duty to provide explanations that "peasants can understand" (whatever that means). If you can't understand a theory or don't like the consequences, that doesn't make it wrong. Only evidence can do that. I assume that is intended as some sort of metaphor for the way you think science works. If so, all it does is show, one again, that you don't have a clue about science.

As far as know, it can go either way: up to down or down to up.

That is the same page. It shows you are bullshitting. Really? Then please state the hypothesis, then show us the model, the predictions it makes and the experiments performed to test those predictions. Also, please explain what would falsify your idea. As you have not done any (and can not do) of these things, it is not science. Also, science is a lot more cautious in its approach than your arrogant posts. You will find phrases like "it appears that", "the evidence is consistent with", "more work is required" because real scientists know that their results are provisional and could be contradicted by further evidence. It was a sarcastic caricature of your "science". It is exactly as scientific (and stupid) as your redefinition of the word "god".

Beta decay can occur when either a neutron changes to a proton or vice versa so neutrons are not exclusively involved. The weak interaction is the "cause" of beta decay. Protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and gamma photons are all involved (all required) but are not the cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

SF = science fiction. Bizarrely, that link contradicts your claim. It says: The overall process involves: making conjectures (hypotheses) -- Did you do this? No. deriving predictions from them as logical consequences -- Did you do this? No. then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct -- Did you do this? No. All you have done is said: "Humans are attempting to simulate the universe, I will call this 'god'". That is not science. It is just applying a label to something that already exists. Also, note that current attempts to simulate the universe look only at the large scale structure (galaxies and above). Not very god-like at all. Here is my "theory": Humans are attempting to simulate an entire organism; I will call this "satan". There you are, the devil no longer exists. Science proves it!

Science is not silly. The stuff you write is very, very silly. You write like a 14 year old. Actually, with all the colours, more like a 9 year old.

But you haven't posted any science. A silly redefinition of a word and a bit of cheap SF...