[MangoToupe]

Exactly. How do you formulate "simulation" without such faith? The idea of demonstrating evidence of either god or simulation is equally nonsensical. The people grasping for such might as well grasp for the spaghetti monster.

[junon]

I agree with you, don't get me wrong. I'm just pointing out that comparing the two as if disproving an inherently empirical thing (we're in a simulation) also disproves a belief-system/faith-based thing (God or religion) is nonsensical in that the second isn't rooted in empiricism, algorithms, nor the scientific method. They don't believe God is something to be proven or disproven, he just is and that's that (as per their faith).

[MangoToupe]

That's kind of my point--speculating on simulation is inherently impossible from an empirical perspective.

[Dylan16807]

> The idea of demonstrating evidence of either god or simulation is equally nonsensical.

Finding evidence is nonsensical if you assume they set everything up perfectly and have never intervened.

That is a stupendously huge "if".

[junon]

Realistically, the same could be said about the simulation theory. I don't really buy the article as-written, despite also not personally believing we're in a simulation.

[MangoToupe]

> Finding evidence is nonsensical if you assume they set everything up perfectly and have never intervene.

Good luck. I don't know why anyone would spend money on this but... sure, go ahead. Let's go back to the tenth century. WHy not? We burn money are far stupider shit.

[Dylan16807]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Spend money on what?

The main thing I'm trying to imply is that if Jesus shows up and starts doing miracles constantly, the proof gets pretty simple. Same thing if someone sticks their digital finger into a simulation. Demonstrating the evidence would be pretty straightforward.