Simulation theory question

Hello I was browsing the web and this article appeared about the universe being a simulation. It basically said that the odds were 50-50 and that it would make logical sense. What is a good counter to this argument and how do we show it is god that is the designer and not just some person who runs a simulation?


You can try asking, “If we are in a simulation, who programmed it?” This assumes, of course, that the person to whom you are talking to knows what a simulation really is. I know that Scientific American knows, but I will bet that many laypersons do not. David Klinghoffer gives a humorous response at

This is a cousin to the panspermia theory. It simply moves the goalposts. If someone brings it up, just ask who programmed the simulation or who created the aliens. Keep peeling off the layers. Reason eventually stops at God. Sadly, “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Romans 1:21, ESV)


Great question, because we really want to be ready to engage a person within their assumptions and perspective.

While the title of the SciAm article promotes 50-50, more than half the article considers problems with it. Only in passing does it ask what “consciousness” really is, which is a most important consideration. That would be a useful point to engage.

The article @blbossard links is brief and also has the important point that intelligent design is implied by simulation.

A couple of years ago I heard Dr Rosalind Picard of MIT state that you can teach a robot to have “soul”, but a robot will never have “A soul.” In other words, it can be made to move and act and appear human, but at the end of the day you can switch it off and you’re not committing murder. A computer has no unprogrammed “identity.” You could ask the person raising this issue how they would feel about being “switched off” (which is the atheist view of death).

If we are in a simulation, we have no free will since all the supposed decisions we make would be the result of code.

Another major area mentioned briefly by Kipping in the article is that the entire question is untestable, so it is not science. And since a person bringing this up is discussing metaphysics, perhaps you could ask if they are willing to consider other metaphysical solutions (or if they are only interested in metaphysics that does not include God).

Hope these are helpful!

1 Like