I have to make this short because I'm swamped with work, but I had to post something. Read this Times article and notice how the Times will comfortably allow scientists to posit an "intelligent designer" if that designer is some computer engineer and the world is actually just a dream. The world is "fine tuned", therefore there must be a designer, therefore it's probably some dude in his parents basement who has mad programming skills and a Pentium 4000 with a 10000000 Zillahertz processor. This magazine gives more credit to a "The Sims: Real World" hypothesis to explain our universe than the idea of God. Could you imagine the Times giving an Intelligent Design scientist the same space to talk about the fine tuning of our universe? And notice that the article concludes with a lone scientist challenging this "super-computer" idea by saying that the computer would have to be impossibly big. If this were someone like Guillermo Gonzalez who would argue that the designer could actually be (dare we say it?) GOD, there is no way the Times would have only one scientist rebutting the argument. Note the absurd lengths mainstream media and scientists will go to to explain away signs of design. One final thought, could it be that this, absurd postulation about reality is much easier for people to accept than the existence of God because a computer program makes no demands upon our lives and is, in fact, "cool", while accepting God's existence demands everything of us. Ok, enough of my rambling, read this, it's short:
Top scientist asks: is life all just a dream?