In some respects there is very little difference between the belief found among some of the science-oriented that 'we inhabit a vast simulation' and the belief in a creator God. The former has two sorts of arguments behind it, one sort are purely probabilistic, based on the projected inevitability of simulations of sufficient complexity (the minimum possible complexity required to bring about all we can know about our universe, given that we ourselves are included etc.) being possible and then their comparatively low cost and hence likely multiplicity. This kind of argument, which falls short of a proof, is basically metaphysical and thus akin to the Prime Mover argument of Aristotle. It kicks in just when the latter is ruled out. The second kind of argument is from oddly discovered parsimonies in 'reality' which would include all sorts of coincidences, anthropomorphic principles and such like - these arguments taking the place of arguments from design. The simulation idea has an interesting consequence which illuminates something about monotheism. What is the only imperative of a simulation? Striving for the Good doesn't amount to much, what is more important is 'don't be boring!' - because if you are then who- or whatever is responsible for the simulation will wipe it out and start again. Extending this idea, you could say that in monotheisms, while the striving for righteousness has a place it is only to be desired in order to restrain the 'wrath' of God so that He doesn't wipe out the world and start again. Thus, in either case, the mainspring of morality is to avoid existential risk, and not the moral intuition based in ideas of radical substitutability - such as lies at the base of both the deontological (e.g. Kantian) and the consequentialist (Utilitarian) positions. Instead it is, admittedly, a kind of consequentialism, but an inscrutable, or at most aesthetic kind. Many interesting consequences follow...