No, it's not at that scale at all. "Is there a god?" is not falsifiable, so we can't prove that either way. Whether or not reality can be simulated is something we actually can know, at least in the affirmative: if we do manage to construct such a simulation, then it is obviously possible, and the answer is obviously "yes". Of course, as long as we have not created such a simulation for ourselves, we may not be able to prove that it is not possible to do so.

Certainly we don't know the answer now! And it's possible -- but not certain -- that we will never know. But suggesting that it's on the same scale as the god question is just not correct.

> Might as well go full theist if you want to entertain this possibility.

That's pretty unscientific as well. We can't reject the possibility of a god, even if we know that we can't prove or disprove a god's existence through science. Science, as a tool, does not have unlimited applicability. Declaring that it is not possible for a god to exist is just as religious as declaring that one does. For the record, I don't think gods exist, at least not in the sense of anything described by any human religion, as a creator of the world or universe, or an arbiter of morality. But I at least have the humility to admit that I don't -- and can't -- know that for certain.

(I do consider that hyper-intelligent, hyper-technologically-advanced beings might exist, that are able to -- through technology -- examine and manipulate space-time to whatever degree they desire. Are they "gods"? Not necessarily in the way any human religion would consider, but they'd at least have the omnipotence/omniscience bits down pat. And who knows if they even exist, or if such technology is even possible.)