But you are making arguments against my statements that agree with you, based on your interpretation of how I reached them.
That is correct I agree with your answer but not your method you got there because you basis is priors that you prefer and I am simply saying be careful doing that.
I understand your argument that follows that you consider it remote and unlikely but again that appears to be a very subjective analysis rather than anything concrete scientifically.
To me you are still asking a rather silly question if we were a simulation
I don't know why it isn't a good question. Are you now arguing that there is a god and he created the computer that we are being simulated on?
No Bill I am telling you it is a silly question because it is ontological and can never be answered nor can any version of how the universe comes into being.
The start of the universe is a paradox to which there is no answer and never will be not in religion, not in science and not by any discipline .... it's simply a stupid question.
To create a start point for the universe immediately creates the paradox that there must therefore be something before the start point.
So religion for example says GOD created the universe but then it leaves open the problem if GOD existed before that universe then how did GOD come into being and did another GOD create GOD or are there other GODS?
You simply changed the question and if you lived in a computer simulation asking who created it is as stupid as asking does GOD have a GOD ... there is no way to answer that objectively because we have no data, no evidence and nothing to base and answer on.
Now lets really challenge you see if I can get you to work out possible ways to resolve the start of the universe paradox and I will probably need to give you some help so here is your first hint
Hint 1.) What causes the start of universe paradox?
