Well noted oselisan. It is an enormously ego-centric pursuit.
Your assumption is also that we have free will within the simulation, to attempt to escape it. If we do escape it, can we survive/exist outside it?

I'm still waiting for the Occam's Dollar Razor Club! High quality unified theories delivered for just a few bucks.

We now have iphone7 but human in other simulation might be better than us and have developed time machine in the same timeframe.

As I posted, I doubt that our goals would coincide with something that's beyond our understanding. I doubt that a very advanced civilization would find simulations as intriguing as we do at our level.

However, IF we are in a simulation...

Answering the question personally and not on a rational or intellectual level, finding out the purpose of the simulation would be my first priority rather than escape. If ever that's revealed, then probably my goal is to finish the simulation as quickly and efficiently as possible (i.e. satisfy its purpose and end it).

p.s. it might seem coldly logical on the surface but my personal motivation behind that path is entirely emotional/irrational.

Too many people think that if you group 75 things together, and then prove one of those 75 correct, you have proven the other 74.

The existence of a creator has neither been proven nor disproven. However, if we take that existence as a given and proceed:

This does not have anything to do with whether or not said creator still exists/is in the area/paying attention/cares at all. If you have a piece of furniture that's over 100 years old, what do you think the odds are the people who made it are still alive? If they are, do you think they know who had the furniture all this time? Do you think they care? Do you think they monitor you to this day to see how you're using/treating it?

This has nothing to do with how people should behave. Say Quakers made that piece of furniture, why would the current owners be obligated to live like Quakers? Maybe a Muslim or Buddhist will like it and buy it, bet they won't convert. They may not even know or care Quakers made it.

This has nothing to do with saying which idea about the creator is correct. How could it?

All we have is the word of people from ages past which are believed to have had divine inspiration. They were written down by a person originally, there's no doubt about that, but was that inspiration or imagination?

Jesus existed, Buddha existed, Mohammed existed, all these are facts. They were considered prophets by followers, also a fact. That they had divine knowledge they were charged with spreading to everyone else is not fact, it is a supposition you may believe or not. In fact, not all of them even claimed to be divinely inspired but were given that appellation by their followers many years later because their followers felt they had Really Good Ideas.
It's all just speculation. You can't prove book X comes from someone not human. Atheists say "prove it" while believers insist it you both can't and shouldn't be able to, so there will never be agreement.




The Jedi Master

Ahem, the three most infamous mass murderers of the 20th century were Atheists: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Jesus never hurt a single man, woman or child, ever.

edit: Not sure if Hitler as an atheist or not as there's evidence to the contrary.

That's actually a complicated argument, even if you assume that atheism inherently creating such damaging specimen as those you listed is a true statement.
The argument is, in effect, equating "truth" with the quality of being useful to society. Should one believe something because it's useful to do so, or because they think it's true regardless of what effect it has?

Or is this usefulness is what grants Christianity its legitimacy? I would concede that this is a convincing argument, however only given the current situation and relatively recent past. I imagine the Acient Greeks could have made a similar claim regarding their Pantheon, as could China in the Middle Ages. What if Christianity's time on top is nearly up, about to be replaced by a different set of beliefs more suited to our future society?