The simulation hypothesis, popularized by philosopher Nick Bostrom, argues that we might be living in a computer simulation created by an advanced civilization. The argument goes: if it's technologically possible to create convincing simulated realities with conscious inhabitants, and if advanced civilizations would run many such simulations, then statistically we're more likely to be in a simulation than in base reality.
This is not profound philosophy. It's materialist nonsense wrapped in technological language.
Some try to reconcile the simulation hypothesis with Christianity, arguing that "the simulator" is just another name for God. This is theologically disastrous. The simulation hypothesis is fundamentally incompatible with biblical Christianity because it denies:
- The reality of creation - God created a real world, not a computer program
- The immaterial soul - Simulation assumes consciousness is computational, denying the soul
- The incarnation - Christ entered real flesh in a real world, not code in a simulation
- God's nature - God is not a programmer; He is the eternal, necessary Being
Why the Simulation Hypothesis Is Not Like Classical Theism
The simulation hypothesis superficially resembles theism—both posit a creator outside our reality. But the differences are fundamental and fatal to any attempted reconciliation:
1. God Creates Reality; Programmers Create Illusions
God created the heavens and the earth—actual, substantial, real creation. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). This is not metaphor. God spoke real matter into existence, real space, real time, real physical laws.
A simulation is not real creation—it's code running on hardware in a "base reality." Simulated beings aren't real beings; they're computational processes. This distinction is absolute.
2. The Incarnation Requires Real Flesh
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). Jesus Christ took on human nature—body and soul, united in one person. He was born, lived, suffered, died, and rose in a real physical body.
If we're in a simulation, the Incarnation is incoherent. Did Christ enter code? Did God the Son take on simulated flesh? This is theological absurdity. The Incarnation requires that creation be real, not virtual.
3. God Is Necessary; A Simulator Is Contingent
God is the necessary Being—He exists by His own nature, uncreated, eternal, self-sufficient. He is not part of any larger system. He is "I AM" (Exodus 3:14), the ground of all being.
A simulator, by definition, is a contingent being in "base reality" who chose to create a simulation. The simulator could fail to exist; the simulation could fail to run. This is categorically different from God's necessary existence.
The claim that "whether you say God is necessary or base reality is necessary, you're making the same move" is false. God's necessity is grounded in His divine nature. "Base reality's" supposed necessity is just materialist hand-waving.
4. Consciousness Requires Souls, Not Code
The simulation hypothesis requires that consciousness be computational—that sufficiently complex information processing produces genuine subjective experience. This is functionalist materialism, and it's false.
As I've argued elsewhere, consciousness requires an immaterial soul created by God. No amount of computational complexity produces actual consciousness. If we were in a simulation, we wouldn't be conscious—we'd be philosophical zombies, code that processes inputs and generates outputs with no one experiencing anything.
The simulation hypothesis and Christianity are incompatible because one denies what the other affirms: the reality of creation, the immaterial soul, and the incarnation of God in real flesh.
The Logos Is Not Code
Some claim that because reality has mathematical structure, it's "fundamentally informational" and therefore like a simulation. This confuses the map with the territory.
God's eternal Logos (Word) is not information in the computational sense. When John calls Jesus the Logos through whom all things were made (John 1:1-3), he's drawing on Greek philosophy's concept of divine reason and rationality, not computer science.
Yes, creation has logical structure because it was created by the Logos, the divine Reason. But logical structure is not the same as computational code. Mathematics describes creation; it doesn't constitute creation. The universe runs on physical laws ordained by God, not on algorithms executing in some cosmic computer.
When God spoke creation into existence, He didn't write code. He exercised divine power to bring real matter and energy into being from nothing (ex nihilo). "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible" (Hebrews 11:3). God created real substance, not virtual processes.
The Problem of Evil Doesn't Work in Simulations
The simulation hypothesis can't address the problem of evil—it makes it worse. If we're in a simulation, then the simulator deliberately programmed suffering into the code. Every cancer, every genocide, every childhood death was intentionally designed and could be deleted with a keystroke.
This isn't the Christian God who permits evil in the context of free will and His redemptive purposes. It's a programmer who coded suffering for... entertainment? Research? This makes the problem of evil infinitely worse, not better.
The Christian answer to evil requires that God created genuinely free beings in a real world where their choices have real consequences. A simulation removes this—simulated beings aren't free; they're executing programmed responses. Their suffering isn't real tragedy; it's simulated processes that could be paused or deleted without loss.
Mathematical Structure Points to God, Not Simulation
Yes, the universe has elegant mathematical structure. The precise physical constants, the quantum mechanical rules, the mathematical elegance underlying physics—these point to intelligent design.
But intelligent design by God creating real natural laws is fundamentally different from code executing in a simulation.
When we discover mathematical laws of physics, we're discovering the rational structure God built into creation. God created an orderly, intelligible universe because He is the Logos, divine Reason itself. This doesn't mean reality is computational—it means reality is rational because it was created by the Rational God.
The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" makes perfect sense in Christian theism: mathematics works because God created both our minds (in His rational image) and the universe according to His rational design. We can understand creation because we're made in the image of the Creator.
In simulation theory, the effectiveness of mathematics is just: "the simulation uses math because it's code." This explains nothing—it just pushes the question back. Why would simulators use elegant mathematics? Because their base reality has mathematical structure? Why? The regress continues until you reach actual reality with actual rational structure—which is what Christian theism provides from the start.
Quantum Mechanics and Planck Scales Aren't "Glitches"
Some simulation advocates point to quantum uncertainty, Planck scales, or wave function collapse as evidence of computational limits—"glitches" in the simulation.
This is backwards reasoning. These features of physics point to God's design, not to simulation constraints:
- Quantum uncertainty - Reflects the inherent probabilistic nature God built into the quantum level, preserving genuine indeterminacy and freedom in creation
- Planck scales - The fundamental units of space and time God established as the "grain" of physical reality
- Wave function collapse - The way God designed the quantum-to-classical transition
Interpreting these as "computational shortcuts" is materialist projection—seeing reality through the lens of computer science and assuming limits must be computational rather than ontological.
Miracles Are Not Simulator Interventions
Miracles are God acting directly in His creation to accomplish His purposes. They're not "overrides" of code or "glitches" in a simulation. They're the Creator exercising His sovereign authority over what He made.
When Christ walked on water, He wasn't hacking the physics engine. He was exercising divine authority over creation as the incarnate Son of God. When God parted the Red Sea, He wasn't editing code—He was demonstrating His power over nature.
The simulation framework trivializes miracles by making them equivalent to a programmer pressing buttons. Biblical miracles are signs pointing to God's character, His redemptive plan, and His authority over creation. They require real physical reality to be meaningful.
Fine-Tuning Points to God, Not Simulation
Fine-tuning—the precise calibration of physical constants that permits life—is powerful evidence for God's design. The cosmological constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass of the electron—all finely tuned to incredible precision.
But fine-tuning by God the Creator is categorically different from "parameter selection" by a simulator:
- God fine-tuned real physical laws in real creation to accomplish His purposes in creating life and particularly human beings made in His image
- A simulator would adjust parameters in code that produces illusions of life, not actual living beings
Fine-tuning is evidence for the Christian God because it shows intention, intelligence, and care in creating a real universe where real life could flourish. Attributing it to simulation programmers multiplies the explanatory burden without adding understanding.
The Transhumanist Connection
The simulation hypothesis is popular in transhumanist circles because it supports their materialist, posthuman agenda:
If we're in a simulation, then:
- Consciousness is computational (supporting AI consciousness claims)
- Humanity can be "uploaded" (supporting mind-uploading fantasies)
- Reality is mutable and upgradable (supporting human enhancement)
- Death might be escaped through technological means (rejecting bodily resurrection)
- The "simulator" might be just an advanced posthuman civilization (rejecting God)
This is why Christians must reject the simulation hypothesis. It's not neutral philosophy—it's the foundation for transhumanist materialism that denies the soul, the body, the resurrection, and God Himself.
Nick Bostrom, the hypothesis's main proponent, is a leading transhumanist. The simulation argument serves transhumanist goals by normalizing the idea that consciousness is substrate-independent and that humanity's future involves transcending biological existence.
Christians cannot adopt this framework without abandoning biblical anthropology.
The Atheist Inconsistency
Some atheists embrace simulation theory while rejecting God. This is philosophically incoherent—if you accept an intelligent being outside our universe who created it, you've abandoned atheism.
But many atheists prefer simulation theory to God because:
- The "simulator" is finite and contingent (not the infinite God)
- The "simulator" might be indifferent or absent (not the personal God)
- The "simulator" is technological (fitting materialist assumptions)
- The "simulator" might be us in the future (supporting atheist evolutionism)
This isn't intellectual honesty—it's evasion. They'll accept any explanation except the God who created them, judges them, and to whom they're accountable.
Conclusion: Reality Is Real Because God Created It
God is not a programmer. Creation is not code. Reality is real.
The simulation hypothesis is a repackaged materialism that:
- Denies the reality of God's creation
- Denies the immaterial soul
- Denies the incarnation of Christ in real flesh
- Supports transhumanist materialism
- Replaces God with contingent "simulators"
Christians must unequivocally reject it. When we affirm "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth," we're affirming real creation, not virtual simulation.
The universe's mathematical elegance, fine-tuning, and rational structure point to God the Logos who created all things in wisdom and sustains them by His power. These features don't suggest we're in a simulation—they reveal that we're in a real creation designed by an infinitely intelligent Creator.
This universe didn't create itself, and it's not running on some cosmic computer. God spoke it into existence, and it is real, substantial, and good (Genesis 1:31).
The simulation hypothesis offers nothing except confusion, materialism, and the erosion of Christian doctrine. We need no "contemporary framework" that compromises truth. Scripture already provides the framework we need: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
Real God. Real creation. Real incarnation. Real resurrection. This is Christianity, and it requires rejecting the simulation hypothesis entirely.