The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

Proverbs 18:17

It is a mistake to think that rationalists, atheists, physicists, materialists and so on think and speak with a uniform voice about our universe. Consider the following two articles:

Of Course We’re Living in a Simulation (Wired)

The only explanation for life, the universe, and everything that makes any sense, in light of quantum mechanics, in light of observation, in light of light and something faster than light, is that we’re living inside a supercomputer. Is that we’re living, all of us, and always, in a simulation.

And the interesting thing about this line of thinking from mostly it seems atheists is:

It’s been said that the simulation hypothesis is the best argument we moderns have for the existence of a godlike being. Chalmers agrees: “I’ve considered myself an atheist for as long as I can remember,” he writes. “Still, the simulation hypothesis has made me take the existence of a god more seriously than I ever had before.” He even suggests Reality+ is his version of Pascal’s wager, proof that he’s at least entertained the idea of a simulator. Not that he’s sure such a being deserves to be worshipped.

But others think this is ridiculous. In fact it seems that despite the theory mostly being advanced by atheists, the way it seems to present an argument for God is what gets other atheists’ goat.

The simulation hypothesis is a dangerous illusion (Big Think)

This sounds very much like a Calvinist view of the Universe, with God’s role played by hyper-intelligent gamers. Or maybe we can call them Super Advanced Gaming Entities (SAGEs)? Our fates, then, rest in the hands of posthuman entities with powers beyond our control. The key difference between God and a simulation (at least in this narrow context) is that God is presumably infallible, while simulations can have glitches. Well, the argument that we live in a simulation has some glitches of its own.

Interesting that the particular view of God they don’t like is the Calvinist one. The one with lots of predestination and preordained stuff going on. Lots of freedom for God and not so much for anyone else.

The simulation argument messes with our self-esteem. It concludes that we have no free will, that we are just puppets fooled into thinking we are free to make choices. To believe this is to give up our sense of autonomy. After all, if it’s all a big game that we cannot control, why bother? “Let the world go to hell, as it is now. We can’t change it anyway.”

It is, of course possible, that the world we live in does have a Creator but is also not a simulation. It is also possible that this reality has freedom both for the created and the Creator. He is Sovereign but we are genuinely free.