Aghhh not this again. This is pseudoscience/creationism marketed to scientists. It's impossible to flasify this, since any evidence for or against simulation can be a part of the simulation.
Anyway a universe simulation doesn't sound any more stupid (to me) than any other reason for the universe being here.
It's not science at all, pseudo- or otherwise. It's philosophy. And I see no link to creationism. If we're in a simulation, it's not turtles all the way down. Somebody's running the simulation. The same ontological questions we grapple with now simply apply to that person instead of to us.
and they are simulated, and so are they, and ..., until you reach turtles. Super smart turtles.
If I'm going to believe something silly it may as well involve super smart turtles.
Are they really turtles, though? Or are we subtley being tricked to think of them as turtles when in reality they are dolphins?
By turtles.
Anyway their ontological questions might not be anything like ours. Perhaps they ARE god, and don't need to wonder about that.
If they were, how would they know?
How do you know this for sure?
Also, this does not mirror creationalism. Here is your argument rephrased:
>any evidence for or against God can be a creation by God.