Both beliefs are fine, but please realize the hypocrisy : memes

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Could (a) god(s) exist? Possibly, it's hard to rule out the supernatural in natural terms since it's SUPERnatural

Could the universe be a simulation? Possible too, but also on of those things that's almost impossible to prove.

At the same time, it could be that your e a Boltzmann brain, and that literally nothing existed before and that your brain just kinda formed together spontaneously with all your memories.

All those are possible options that are over 99% likely to be false, but their cooouuullldd be true.

Point is not to rearrange your life on the off changlce that one of those are true. Especially religion, since religions tend to be "believe our particular god(s) or you go to hell for eternity" followed closely by "if you don't believe our particular god(s) we will help you go to hell right now". Nearly all human conflicts in Earth's history were either based on religion or used religion as a tool to whip up the masses to go kill the others.

There are also hundreds of Gods and over 3000 different religious figures out there and they're all pretty much exclusive or, they all claim to be the right one and the rest is wrong. Bold claim to make when it's all based off goat herders texts that were first abused for a completely different god (hello, Christianity!) and constantly conflicts with each other.

Simulation theory and Boltzman brain ideas are fun to entertain and talk and think about, but they've never been used to control who can love and have sex with who, they've never been a used whereas religion just IS abuse and control in every way possible.

I do not like religion

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Agree with most of what you said except the "over 99% likely to be false".

Like you mentioned it's not possible to prove either way so it isn't meaningful to describe it as likely or unlikely. We have no way of knowing (at least currently) so the likelihood is simply undefined

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Eh, we can prove that human DNA is 99% primate and that there was no great flood. Seems unlikely to me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It sounds like you're referring specifically to Christian theology but the comment was just about whether a god or gods exist in general

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The mere fact that humans are 1% removed from apes serves to undermine creationism in general.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We're not talking about creationism or any particular brand of theism

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Considering that the overwhelming majority of religions out there are creationists, yes we are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I understand your point and I feel like maybe I'm sounding a little argumentative. Sorry let me try to be more clear.

I understand your argument is that genetic evidence disproves existing religious beliefs that people have but that's a different argument to the point I was making.

Even if all global religions are incorrect, that doesn't mean that a god or gods couldn't hypothetically exist and my point is that there is no demonstrative proof of that either way.

If you check the original comment again, the question was about whether "a god(s) exist" and up until they mentioned the 99% that I was disputing, religion didn't even come into it.

You could disprove every creationist claim, every anti-evolution argument, and you'd be right, but you can't settle the question of "whether a supernatural being exists" because there simply isn't a way to do that within the natural realm that we know of.

It isn't just about God either. The simulation and Boltzmann brain hypotheses are similarly immeasurable

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

They aren't immeasurable. The reason you think I'm making a different argument to your point is that you're asking for every negative proof. This is never going to provide an answer, as it would be a competition to dispel the imagination.

Hypotheses and positive proofs are slowly answering the question of why we're here. We know that evolution is likely, DNA is irrefutable evidence. We know that it's likely our known universe began with a singularity because of the background microwave radiation accelerating away from a point of origin. We know the field and corresponding particle that gave matter its properties from the particle acceleration tests by CERN.

It becomes a much different question when one is not only seeking answers that fit their beliefs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No

You say it's not immeasurable but then all of the things you go on to describe are within the known universe, we can't possibly know or measure what's outside of it, because it is not known by definition.

I'm not asking for negative proofs in fact I haven't asked for proof of anything, I'm not sure where you got that from. I've simply stated that we can't draw statistics about things for which we have no evidence - which you now seem to be agreeing with.

I said you were making a different argument because you originally talked about existing religions which isn't what my comment or the original comment was about, I stand by that - nothing of what you had said was relevant to my response.

You can't possibly know that it's over 99% unlikely that the universe isn't a simulation or that it wasn't created by some entity since we don't yet have evidence pertaining to any hypothesis for how it was created. The statistic was pulled out of the air and has no scientific basis.

Do I think the universe is a giant Boltzmann brain or was created by an omniscient God? No, I don't, but it's still pointless to pretend it's something we can have any certainty about.

Not to be rude but this conversation isn't going anywhere, whether you don't understand or just don't agree, whatever I guess...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think you're forgetting that the supernatural is but another theory, put forth by humans, to explain our existence. It doesn't earn bonus points for being unobservable. I've seen 0 evidence supporting it, contrary to how many questions particle physics has solved.

I've simply stated that we can't draw statistics about things for which we have no evidence - which you now seem to be agreeing with.

I've posited quite the opposite of this. If there are two opposing theories, with one substantiated and one not, then the substantiated one is more likely. For example: you wouldn't say that a chicken's offspring being implanted in an egg by cosmic rays is just as likely as the egg being fertilized before it was laid because the latter is substantiated while the former has yet to have any observable truth.

I'd say 99% is a completely fair probability as the ratio of something to nothing approaches infinity.

we don't yet have evidence pertaining to any hypothesis for how it was created

I just gave you some? I don't know about you, but humans being able to replicate the exact particle that originated matter is a profound bit of evidence towards the universe not being a product of some higher power to me.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

Damn theists really are fucking morons, huh?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

The "belief" we're in a simulation is more like a interesting idea than something people organize their lives around. Is it possible? Yes. Am I going to praise the great programmer every Sunday? No.

The belief in God in most cases is not just belief in some general higher power but a very specific deity with weird morality, silly mythology and bunch of scam artists behind it.

I think there's a higher power...
Ok...
that got mad at us for eating fruits but then impregnated a lady with itself and pissed us off so that we murdered him and he could say he's not mad anymore.
... WTF?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This argument conflates belief with religious practice. The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed. And you can believe in the idea of a God without participating in any kind of formal religious practice. That "most" religious belief is wrapped up in a particular religious tradition is ancillary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed

The hypothesis of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The theory of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.

I think you mean "it may value nothing inside the simulation." Because what you wrote doesn't make any sense as it's written. In either case, my "thesis" is not a thesis. It's an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe's existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it "created." I think the only thing lacking here is your reading comprehension skills, as you're clearly adding unfounded assumptions onto my observation independent of what was actually stated. Also, I posted that like a fucking month ago. Either you're necroing dead threads looking to pick a fight or whatever instance you're posting to fucked up its syncing with its federation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It's an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe's existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it "created."

The universe just getting created by an external force, and your phrasing that it is "intelligently designed" has no similarity. You are just escaping from what you had stated. You yourself assumed that the core similarity is intelligent design. There is nothing to observe here. The only one lacking in reading comprehension is you, or you are probably trying to find the little ounces of loopholes you think you can find because you're just so disappointed by your thirty-day-old opinion but you also just can't admit to it, or whatever else the situation may be.

Simulation theory does not share any core similarity with creationism. Just simulating a universe does not mean it is intelligently designed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. "Intelligent design" as an ideology and describing something as "intelligently designed" are not the same thing. The core similarity is what I've already described. You want me to mean something beyond what I've stated because you're incapable of accepting what you read at face value. I have no interest in speaking further with someone without the intelligence to do something basic as understand the words they read.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You're getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. "Intelligent design" as an ideology and describing something as "intelligently designed" are not the same thing.

They are different things, and I am not taking the phrasing in an ideological context. Something being intelligently designed and just being designed, are not the same thing either. Your previous reply elaborates the phrasing of yours that I quoted in a broader way that only you can come up with, because the phrasing simply had an entirely different meaning. I am also uninterested in having any discussion with somebody who throws up words on the internet, expects to be taken seriously, but is bereft of the mental competence to even phrase their words correctly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I more or less agree, but you keep using "believe" when you ought to use "belief." Just FYI.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There’s no hypocrisy here.

On one hand, the belief in a god doesn’t just end there. There are beliefs in what that god does and what he has control over. So it’s completely logical to believe that there’s no god (although, as someone else pointed out, it’s also not random arrangements of atoms).

On the other hand, simulation theory is a logical theory to rationalize the “purpose” of why we exist. It’s not a belief. The simulation doesn’t respond to prayers or requests. It’s simply conjecture or hypothesis to explain the “why” of the universe. No one who talks about simulation theory (much less who “believes” in it) pretends that the creator of the simulation is uniquely interested in them and responds to their requests and tells them how to live their life. In fact, that would go against the entire concept of simulation theory.

Religion and religious belief have specific definitions. This feels just as dishonest as people claiming that LGBTQ ideology is a religion or that evolution is a “belief”.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

I completely agree that's what this basically boils down too. ST was an interesting concept I read about once and only briefly recalled twice since. Nothing more. This could be a valid criticism of individuals putting more stock into the idea but for anyone else it's a reach.

The belief system built around God affects me every single day of my life. I have family that are hardcore Christians that pester me about it regularly. Approximately half of the political ideologies being pushed in my country center around Christian dogma.

Honorable mentions: Foreign and domestic terrorism threat and future wars being incited.

Memes

Rules: