Simulation Hypotheses and Epistemic Parity with Classical Theism

Recent discussions of simulation hypotheses often present them as methodologically naturalistic alternatives to theological explanation. This paper argues that such hypotheses employ an inferential strategy structurally analogous to that of classical theism: both posit an unobservable transcendent cause inferred from observable effects. I contend that restricting admissible transcendent causes to contingent computational systems, while excluding supernatural causes without an independent epistemic criterion, constitutes a methodological asymmetry. The analysis concludes that either simulation hypotheses must allow epistemic parity with theistic explanations or their epistemic warrant is correspondingly weakened.