Physics dis-Incentives: If I understand it correctly, this asserts that intervention would require modification of the laws of physics at various arbitrary points in time and space.

Management dis-Incentives: Why manage your creation when you can just make another one a little different until you get the best result? With unlimited resources for creation, having all the failed attempts as reference is actually beneficial to optimizing your creation.

Economic dis-Incentives: In a situation free of competition for resources, a creator won’t have economic incentive for intervening in the lives of his/her offspring because the creator has everything he/she could want. In a competitive situation, the creator will have dis-incentives for helping out his/her offspring. So the best case scenario is no incentive, and the worst is competition with the creations.

I would like to start by stating that the cosmic process is not just light. There’s also some darkness out there (in here), that we don’t understand well at all (as I’m sure you are aware), but in lieu of the lack of physical understandings about the light and dark around us, we can understand incentives through and evaluation of those that create and retract the value in our human experience.

While there should always be room for speculation and speculatively inspired exploration, the economic incentives still don’t show how a creator of light or super-physics has the incentive to intervene in the being of its creations. It wouldn’t add or subtract form the value of the human (+human) experience.

http://www.kneeoflistening.com

And then patiently examined every aspect of human culture for 36 years.
Culminating in 5 books especially these 3

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon
http://global.adidam.org/books/transcendental-realism.html

Plus this extraordinary essay on the Singularity or Reality & the Middle via:
http://www.dabase.org/s-atruth.htm

But knock yourself out.

The general ideal in the “new god argument” and the “simulation argument” are that — because we can create simulations now, its is probable that we will do it better in the future, so much so, that we’d create simulations like our own current reality. Its a bit like the “time/space continuum” theories of the 19th century.

My critique or counter argument is: Lets say that we are living in a simulation right now, it is still NOT probable that the creators if a benevolent God like entity that could intervene in our existence. I discredit the likelihood of this because of the lack of incentives that the creators entity would have to intervene, based on another argument that I established through and economic incentive model in my “Integrationalism” essays.

Why is this important? The ways in which we define the moral normative in the near/far future will determine the ways in which we can establish more harmonious interactions between +human individuals. I don’t think that a conservative God-centric faith can provide any value to those interactions, but it actually disincentivizes the harmony that the faithful seek.

They could.