The human brain has the overall processing equivalent of 60 * 86 billion bits per second, or 480 gigahertz. Its storage used is a few gigabytes, let’s say 10. Its RAM, working memory, less than a terabyte, especially if you simplify what is being processed, or only simulate in the brains what they notice, only having to live up to their limited detection of realism and you could condense it even further by making brains seem (to them) to have a better resolution/more detail in their simulation, even up to infinite, by controlling their perception and reasoning.

The ability to control these things means you can make their experience as simple, small and brief as you like and make them perceive and reason it to be however you like. Anything else would be wasteful. Its processing could, in the future, be matched by 192 cell-sized cores, with internal RAM and memory. Even if we were to say that we needed 1 terabyte of RAM and the same amount of working memory, all individually the size of a neuron and each of those was 10 micrometers, they could still fit in 140 micrometers cubed, less than six times the width of a neuron. In ten cubic centimeter, there could be over three hundred trillion brains, each with the usable storage, combined power and speed of a human brain, an entire universe in a small box.

You can then make it seem to them and to you, by manipulating your reasoning and perception using technology, and manipulate their reasoning and perception like there are any number of people, the universe has any degree of complexity and any nature and you could such manipulation to make their experiences seem, to them and each other, to reflect a real reality, technological progress and them doing the same thing (with universe made as simple as you want and made to seem more complicated to the brains through perception and reasoning manipulation), without them actually doing the same thing, except for some of them being in control of some others and some of them being in control of some other, etc, until it loops around. Do this and you can have our universe’s past and future.

Furthermore, you could make people perceive spending any amount of time alive and make them incapable of telling the difference. All the suffering could be illusory and their happiness/fulfilled preference could be set to the maximum value (infinity), without them knowing it, so no ethical quandaries are in the way. Maximum form factor and energy requirements: a desktop computer. “Timmy, stop playing with your universe and come down for lunch”, you could imagine. Lunch is probably obsolete by then. The aim here is not creating the universe you think you're living in, its creation a simulation of that universe that seems like the universe you think you're living in, then making you you think you try to distinguish your universe from that from that and think you fail.

If there are enough conditions in the universe, multiverse, whatever for a designer to exist, a designer exists.

How do we explain the universe? Design or not design? Not design? You now have to justify the universe not being designed and a convenient opposing explanation to the intuitive one (throughout history) being the right one, and, by the way, you could be wrong about your beliefs. How do you justify that? Evolution. The universe evolved. You now have to justify evolution having not been designed and it's convenient existence as anything other than a purposeful deception on the part of the designer. You could be wrong about that, too. The antropic principle. Now you have to justify the anthropic principle conveniently existing to explain it and not having happened by chance. You also have to justify an entire multiverse existing by chance. You still haven't justified any of these things happening by chance. You now have seven things to justify. Until you justify or drop any one of them, you're making seven assumptions. If you fall into this group, your beliefs are irrational, drop them or continue being an idiot.

How many assumptions do I have to make? None. Let's look at the alternative. We explain the universe with design. We now need to justify it being designed. Easy. It looks designed. By designed, I mean designed by an intelligent being. Done. Fault my reasoning. I dare you. I DOUBLE dare you. And if you think you found a fault, maybe you made a mistake. It happens A LOT with novices.

So, the answer is clear, is it not? There is a designer and an intelligent one at that. Did you miss it? Consult an expert, novice, and don't take your pathetic judgement as the be-all and end-all. It's not.

So, why the heck doesn't NASA, TED talks, the government, an official company give us the answer, whether that's what I think it is or what you think it is. Their qualified to know, the public aren't. Do they want to preserve people's "right" to an opinion by hiding the facts. They could either say "A designer exists.", "A designer doesn't exist" or "We don't know". It has to be one of those and they must be able to figure out which one, so why are they leaving the public in the dark? This is intolerable. DEMAND them to say which one it is. DEMAND them to stop keeping it a secret.