Is the simulation argument more probable to be true than christianity/Judaism/Islam/Hinduism/etc.? Your arguments please.

More probable? No.

Either would be an unfalsifiable and ridiculously overcomplicated way to account for the facts of the world.
I will grant that the simulation argument requires less revision of our understanding of the universe than anything involving downright magic, as everything we call “laws of nature” now could be translated as “rules of the simulation”. Still, speculation on the existence of an entire universe outside this one is in the same ball park as speculation on all reality being created and overseen by some remarkably humanoid entity.

In my opinion, The parallels between the simulation argument and monotheistic religions put them right on the same level. Both state the existance of a higher power, one that inevitably controls all existance as we know it. Both, unfortunately, are improvable, and both hint at a preset of moral code. Most Monotheistic religions insist on it’s followers to become ‘good people’(by common social standards, that is.) However, the simulation argument ushers in a more Nihilistic perception. Since one is supposedly no more than a collection of positive and negative charges on a circuit board, than obviously there is no predetermined codes of morality, and thusly no sense in following any commonly accepted moral codes unless it is detriment to survival or creates a favorable position amoungst society.
when it all comes down to it, that idea is just as logical and legitimate as most other religions.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03
“than obviously there is no predetermined codes of morality, and thusly no sense in following any commonly accepted moral codes unless it is detriment to survival or creates a favorable position amoungst society.”
Or unless you just agree with the dominant moral code for rational but principled reasons. Ethics is a whole field of philosophy, it’s not all just a bunch of arbitrary cultural rules pulled out of a hat.

@Fyrius indeed. and welcome to SwineFluther

@ragingloli
Why thank you.

@Fyrius certainly, I wasn’t saying that. I apologize if it was worded poorly, I’ve been a little scatter brained this week. I was simply stating that, if one is a believer in what was stated in that website, that would mean that there are no consiquenses for ones actions outside the physical world(meaning no heaven or hell) so the only reason one would be moral(aside from humanism, that is), is to benefit the individual or society in the cognative universe.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03
Apology quite accepted, if you really found you needed to apologize for anything.

But I’m quite sure the “no consequences outside the physical world” thing is almost certainly true anyway, be the world a simulation or not. From our present knowledge it would be a huge, unsupported leap of faith to assume the existence of anything outside the physical world.

In fact, in my perception this simulation scenario only makes the idea of being judged after death quite more credible, since we already have a metauniverse with people who would probably have the means to scrutinize our behaviour all the time.
But if we can say anything about it judging from what this world is like, their criteria for passing or failing are probably along the lines of being strong, clever, ambitious, selfish, violent, remorseless and liable to backstab people. That’s what the world they created encourages us to be, at least in the way it was before we started changing our environment.
Which means they’re a bunch of dicks and we should do what seems right to us instead of what they want.