Shouldn’t evidence for simulations—and apparently the median belief is 10% for simulation—be evidence for Supernatural influences
A simulation is still a naturalistic non-supernatural thing, and it would just mean we see less of the universe than we thought we do. The question was, after all:
What is the probability that there is a god, defined as a supernatural intelligent entity who created the universe?
A simulation is still a naturalistic non-supernatural thing, and it would just mean we see less of the universe than we thought we do. The question was, after all:
See my answer to hairyfigment. Does that help?
I think you’re looking at it backward. You are trying to understand what the implications of a survey response are. This is the explanation.
Your philosophical objection to the logic behind the explanation doesn’t make it not the explanation.