Theories are essentially articles of faith until scientifically proven. With each new discovery, instead of being hobbled by naturalism, science should be free to (without prejudice), follow the evidence wherever it leads. Since our origin is an important question, it is imperative that we make the most logical leap.I'll take the red pillI'll take the blue pill
Consider this: New research has led scientists to theorize that we are living in a digital simulation. This could potentially answer many questions about the nature of our reality. (If our universe is rendered for us in what we know as real time, it might explain the Observer Effect...)
If true, this would raise a very important question. Who is running this simulation? Scientists hypothesize a future version of us, or aliens, but would God be a more logical answer?
If this is a simulation, could true reality actually be what has been previously explained to us as heaven? Having been immersed in hyper-realistic video game worlds, we can now easily intuit this, but how would you explain it to someone a hundred (let alone a thousand), years ago? (If you were writing a book to make sense of today's technology for people from a distant past, you wouldn't start with the technical details. You would draw on contemporaneous similes and understandable examples to ensure that the information was accessible by everyone.)
What if entering the 'afterlife' is really just departing this Matrix? If so, and if God, then what would be the purpose of the simulation? Perhaps to have the opportunity to make a binding choice to participate in reality, because once we are there, we are there forever?
Science validates theories with repeatable experiments. Until theories are proven in this fashion, they can be believed to be true, but it is important to realize that this is a belief. There is nothing wrong with that, it is how science advances.what consequences?yeah... no.
The important takeaway here is that any belief in our origins has potential long term consequences.