If we are in a simulation, it has a creator(s), who is almost god-like. But simulation hypothesis is more popular than idea of God in rationalist circles, which looks like a contradiction: P(simulation) = P(creator of simulation exists).
I would think that almost anyone who accepts the possibility of both a Big World and high-level transhuman (or similarly high level nonhuman) entities would assign high probability to the existence of god-like beings, even if only outside their own past light cone.
But I think “arguments for God” are different in the sense that anyone presenting such arguments usually has a goal involving higher simulacra levels than object level reality, and need to be treated as such. They may want to persuade you, or to sneak in implications that there exists some specific god they have in mind, or alter your behavior.
I do not think this was true, in general, of many founders of religions, or other founders of mystic traditions. I imagine most of them really believed they had found a profound truth.
This vast difference is only philosophical, but there is no practical difference: both (if they exist) are able to create miracles, install rules, promise paradise, immortality or hell after death. The only difference is the relation to the ontology of the Universe: the real God exists forever, and the simulation creator has evolved from the dead matter. But this difference doesn’t create any observables.
The important difference is that theists have a lot of specific assumptions about what the god(s) do(es). In particular, in the simulation hypothesis, there is no strong reason to assume the gods are in any way benevolent or care about any human-centric concepts.
It is hard from inside to the simulation to deduce what physical laws are in effect outside the simulation (for example that it is a materic universe).
Bingo. If my MMO toon became self-aware and developed the scientific method, he would discover scientific laws involving hit points, character classes, etc. He would discover the laws of <i>his</i> world, which do not always correspond to anything outside the simulation.
There could be authorless simulations. One could argue that animals having a field of vision is a kind of simulation of their environment and that is not handy to think in terms of authors.
If we are in a simulation, it has a creator(s), who is almost god-like. But simulation hypothesis is more popular than idea of God in rationalist circles, which looks like a contradiction: P(simulation) = P(creator of simulation exists).
I would think that almost anyone who accepts the possibility of both a Big World and high-level transhuman (or similarly high level nonhuman) entities would assign high probability to the existence of god-like beings, even if only outside their own past light cone.
But I think “arguments for God” are different in the sense that anyone presenting such arguments usually has a goal involving higher simulacra levels than object level reality, and need to be treated as such. They may want to persuade you, or to sneak in implications that there exists some specific god they have in mind, or alter your behavior.
I do not think this was true, in general, of many founders of religions, or other founders of mystic traditions. I imagine most of them really believed they had found a profound truth.
There’s a vast difference between being “almost god-like” and being God, and as long as you don’t equate the two then there’s no contradiction.
This vast difference is only philosophical, but there is no practical difference: both (if they exist) are able to create miracles, install rules, promise paradise, immortality or hell after death. The only difference is the relation to the ontology of the Universe: the real God exists forever, and the simulation creator has evolved from the dead matter. But this difference doesn’t create any observables.
The important difference is that theists have a lot of specific assumptions about what the god(s) do(es). In particular, in the simulation hypothesis, there is no strong reason to assume the gods are in any way benevolent or care about any human-centric concepts.
It is hard from inside to the simulation to deduce what physical laws are in effect outside the simulation (for example that it is a materic universe).
Bingo. If my MMO toon became self-aware and developed the scientific method, he would discover scientific laws involving hit points, character classes, etc. He would discover the laws of <i>his</i> world, which do not always correspond to anything outside the simulation.
There could be authorless simulations. One could argue that animals having a field of vision is a kind of simulation of their environment and that is not handy to think in terms of authors.
Better examples of authorless simulation are Boltzmann brains or dust theory.