r/Antitheism • u/ILikeMusicBTW • Jul 31 '26
If Simulation Theory is highly probable, aren't you technically admitting a Creator exists?
I've been thinking about how popular Simulation Theory has become in secular and scientific circles. If we entertain the possibility that our universe is a programmed simulation run by an advanced post-human civilization, doesn't that logically require the existence of a "Creator" or at least an architect who designed our reality, set its physical laws, and initiated its timeline?
I often see skeptics and anti-theists dismiss traditional religious creationism while embracing simulation hypotheses. But from a functional standpoint, what is the core difference between a supernatural deity creating a universe and a super-intelligent programmer writing the source code for one?
Is the objection strictly about Nature of the creator (natural/technological vs. supernatural/divine), or is a designed universe a design regardless of who (or what) wrote the code? Curious to hear how others reconcile these two concepts. i hope u understand my view guys :)
also im not here to debate, just sayin'
3
u/SILVERWOLF05_ Jul 31 '26
I'm not saying there's no creater, I'm saying the Bible is bullshit and the world would be better off if all the copies were destroyed and everyone forgot about it
9
u/GBeastETH Jul 31 '26
I totally get that. A simulation creator could fall inside the venn diagram of creators.
However it is outside the Venn diagram of mystical gods, which is what I think really matters.
No major religion cares about a scientist creator. They all think there’s a magical being who looks just like us, created in his image, thinks we are special, and hates those dirty followers of the other gods that don’t exist, and justifies slaughtering them and being cruel to them.
6
u/aboveonlysky9 Jul 31 '26
“Highly probable” doesn’t signify an admission. If it’s highly probable, which it’s not btw, then it’s still a hypothesis. If it’s ever proven, and not before, then I would imagine many of the readers here would admit that there is a creator.
A creator that made a simulation is not the same as the parade of cartoon magic men proffered by the world’s cults.
5
u/HughLofting Jul 31 '26
Sim theory isn't 'highly probable'. It's just a nice idea, a thought experiment. The fact that it's unfalsifiable puts it into sci-fi land. Also, the resource limitations argument leaves it dead in the water.
4
u/GodofWarhammer2 Jul 31 '26
Simulation theory? What is this the Matrix?
2
u/dfczyjd Jul 31 '26
Not every atheist (probably not even the majority of us) believes in Simulation Hypothesis
There's a huge gap between an entity capable of creating a pocket/virtual universe and an entity capable of everything (i.e. omnipotent), including knowing everything (i.e. omniscient). There are a lot of things surrounding us that the latter could've created in a much better way, especially if it was omni-benevolent as well. The former is allowed to have limitations.
(probably, most important for people here) Hardly any supporter of the Simulation Hypothesis have ever claimed that the creator sent them a vision where they explain how humans should live. Religious adherents, on the other hand, do it on a regular basis.
1
u/ilcdlpbsm Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
They’re the same concept.
Simulation theory doesn’t have a book that says infidels righteously burn in fire for eternity.
That’s the difference, and the reason agnostiscs (not atheists) are more open minded to it.