Many religions have successful provided stability, of a sort, to different cultures throughout the years. Catholicism in Europe, Orthodoxy in Byzantium and Russia, Judaism among Jews, Hindu among Indians, and so on. Islam did the same in the Middle East and beyond, but that hardly provides any evidence showing that the supernatural claims made by its founder are actually true.
The simple success of a doctrinal belief to be widely accepted does not establish that belief's factual truth, or even provide supporting evidence for it. By applying this logic, one must also argue that Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, as well as versions of atheism, also have "evidence" of their supernatural "truth" since they have provided cultural stability and proven to be widely successful, yet their doctrines are often mutually exclusive.
Also, string theory and computer simulations for understanding the universe are merely postulations put forth as possible theories for explaining aspects of the universe, not provable facts. No one here is claiming they are proven, or even currently provable, however, simply having unprovable postulates doesn't make science any more or less absurd. If that were the case, then no theory would ever be put forth, because most theories are at first unproven. In this case, there currently exists no test for these two theories, meaning that they must exist in a holding pattern until someone develops a test, if they ever can, or a different, mutual exclusive theory is confirmed. As skeptics, we won't accept either of these two theories as fact until valid evidence is put forth.
