Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[Brian37]

I don't really have an opinion about simulation theory. And as far as time goes I see valid arguments of both sides between presentism and eternalism. That said I just wanted to call attention to a blog post by Scott Adams. He always has an interesting take on things.

Scott Adams on Simulation Theory

You have no business commenting on it considering your end goal is defending an old book of myth.

But, I can cut you a little slack in this case. I don't like even si fi fans, say fans of Star Trek twisting what real scientists say when using words. No, we are not the product of a old mythological sky hero, nor are we "simulated" by a bunch of si fi little Bill Gates or one giant Steve Jobs. 

"Simulation" does not equal Jesus.
"Simulation" does not equal Yahweh.
"Simulation" does not equal Buddha.
"Simulation" does not equal Brahma.
"Simulation" does not equal Klingons.

Not that I even agree with this theory. 

Tons of  Star Trek fans lost their shit masturbating over a NASA article a couple years ago regarding the "warp drive" as depicted in the show. If those idiots had bothered to READ the entire article it merely meant "on paper only" but the real life application would require all the energy in the universe to produce that effect. 

Woo is woo, old mythology, new age crap and even si fi woo. Unless you can prove it in a lab and have it independently peer reviewed you have NOTHING.

Now even with this guy, how much of the scientific community agrees with him? I don't think you are using the word "simulation" in the same manor a scientist does regardless. 

You have been all over the map in your history here. You cant simply quote the bible, so you try to debunk science. When you cant get away with that, you pull shit like this.