>>11379983>this theory requires every bit as much of a leap of faith as the "backwards" beliefs they so fervently oppose in religionI'm not one of those guys, but this is false. For starters, we know that computers are real, and that they can simulate things; we even know the lowest level details of how this works. You only need to assume that a computer with an insane amount of resources exists, and then you've got simulationism (assuming that it means what I think it does). On the other hand, religion requires you to assume that gods can exist, then that a god exists, then that it's exactly the god you believe in, then that the people who relay his word to you are capable of understanding him, then that those people are being 100% truthful... And so on. And this doesn't even account for the possibility of others god existing, or a god that existed in the past and died, and others. The point is that simulationism is much more probable than a magic man.
