[rhapsodic]

>It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel.

Of course not. "Gospel" is a religious concept. They're claiming that it's a plausible, scientifically-supportable theory.

I don't think it's an interesting idea at all, nor do I think it's a good starter for philosophical thinking. I think it's Creationist nonsense.

[torstenvl]

A "scientifically-supportable theory"* is one that describes a phenomenon that can be observed sufficiently to form a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis by experiment.

In what way would you propose to test the simulation hypothesis by experiment?

(* I'm assuming you're using the word "theory" loosely here.)

[tskaiser]

Okay.