I had a fun and interesting discussion with Canadian Catholic on his Global Skeptics podcast the other day. In the course of our discussion something clicked that has been loosely kicking around in the back of my mind. I have previously suggested that the argument from design is an argument for simulation and that the problem of evil is made much worse when thinking about why humans aren’t photosynthetic. I now think there is a general argument here.
- The traditional A Posteriori arguments (Cosmological, Teleological, etc) point, if one accepts their conclusions, to a creator but *not* to what kind of creator
- The traditional theistic God (all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect) is one candidate for being the Creator
- The Simulators are another candidate
- The traditional arguments do not distinguish between (2) and (3)
- The problem of evil (evidential) suggests that 2 is not the creator [especially the version emphasizing photosynthesis]
- Therefore, the traditional arguments for God’s existence provide better support for the simulation hypothesis than they do for the traditional God of Theism
What do you think? I could formalize it up a bit but I think I kind of like it!