There's always OneDrive, or GoogleDrive/GoogleDocs or whatever it's called these days.

when I say it is a "scientific modeling simulation of a god", that is something very specific. ... It creates all of its reality, and plans the future of every individual "living thing" within its reality.

In an effort to throw a final constructive spin on this...

It is an interesting idea. Once upon a time it was a hot research topic. People were hugely interested in discovering if it was even theoretically possible to implement this.

The answer came back as a resounding NO. Big names started a whole new field of mathematics that eventually became computer science, all in an attempt to answer that question. Kurt Godel did a ton of research on it and came up with proofs that several parts absolutely cannot work, there are operations that fundamentally cannot be carried out, there are statements that can neither be proved nor disproved within such as system, and such a formal system cannot show itself to be self-consistent. Alonzo Church invented lambda calculus (horray!) in the process of trying to prove the parts of that simulation and ended up providing a proof of undecideability. Alan Turing had a parallel line of research and papers, and ended up working with Church. In trying to prove that such a simulation was possible they ended up discovering the opposite, they constructively proved that such a system cannot be made. Even Stephen Hawking dug into that problem for a while, and gave up on it as he wrote in his book "God Created the Integers".

Many mathematicians and computer scientists, both famous big names and minor researchers, have tried to construct rules and systems that work around those problems. Every attempt to solve it has resulted in negative results. Even in today's software, Mathematica was originally written in part to help visualize a potential solution around the problem using FSMs, but like every other solution ended up with negative results. Fine software for computing all kinds of things, but it offered yet another proof that such a thing cannot be made.

The basic idea of such a simulation is tantalizing. It seems a natural fit for exactly what computers can do. But as you get far along the process there are problems that so far nobody has been able to overcome. Back in graduate school our CS department had a series of lectures about this exact item. It is a holy grail, a thing that people seek out but likely doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a remote possibility you have come up with an idea around all the existing problems. It is possible you have designed a solution that doesn't trigger undecidability, doesn't trigger incompleteness, doesn't trigger the halting problem, doesn't break Piano's axioms, doesn't come across Hilbert's Problems. But really, unless you can articulate exactly WHY and HOW you get around that, nobody will give you the time of day. As the one proposing the idea, the onus is on you to show that it actually works. An enormous body of research has found reasons it doesn't work. If you found a way to make it work, you really need to prove it before anyone will listen.

No name that I'm aware of. Universal computability, perhaps? Computational universality? I didn't spend a lot of time with those studying the topic, and I really only learned enough of it to get me through the graduate qualifiers, and that was years ago. (Meaning I could teach the undergraduate theory courses with the help of a good book if I needed to.)

A bit of Google and Wikipedia shows it dates back to the 1600's, the mathematician Leibniz was building the first computing engines and wanted to build a machine that could evaluate the truths of the universe on its own. It closely matches the described "scientific modeling simulation of a god"; knowing all truths of the universe through mathematical means. Through the 1700s and 1800s it was a common theme, building computing machines and engines that could compute everything, seeing if there could be elements of the universe that were not computable, that sort of thing.

Over the centuries it evolved into the full branch of mathematics and computer science called "computability", and it includes proofs that certain properties within the universe absolutely cannot be computed. Some of them are provably uncalculable. Others are provably undeciable, you can never make an algorithm that is correct for it. Still others are calculable but are intractable, a solution could exist but the solution requires more effort or space to compute than the Universe can contain.

This type of scientific modeling of the universe can make simple simulations and gross approximations, but the full real thing of a complete universal simulation is believed to be noncomputable. In simpler terms, it is easy enough to make The Sims or Farmville, a lot harder to make an accurate weather simulator, but a simulation of "Our Actual Universe 2.0 (now with real physics)" cannot be constructed, it is believed noncomputable.