platypus_plumba
And yet, the worst design choice was how this meme template was used.
It seemed to me like you "concluded" there is no god. You even asked if it was unreasonable to conclude that. Maybe it's semantics but concluding something seems like there's a degree of certainty. Anyways, I have no issue if you decide to clarify that you don't really believe there isn't a god.
If you read where people said that not all atheists believe there is no god, you probably also read that I said "OK, I didn't know there were different types of atheists, I'm only talking about the ones that believe there is no god". Then, I'm not sure why you'd point that out now. My position is clear, I'm only talking about people who really believe there are no creators. For me, that's just that, a belief. I think we shouldn't believe matters we can't grasp, one way or the other.
An analogy is an analogy, it doesn't have to be a perfect analogy, the idea can be understood. In that analogy all of humanity is the blind person. We may be able to see the colors in the future once we gain more knowledge and understanding... Until then, we're just guessing. I'd prefer if people didn't guess, I'd prefer if people had no issue accepting their ignorance and their relevance in the universe.
"I don't believe there is a God because humans haven't gathered the evidence of it". That just seems too egocentric to me, as if humans had the universe figured out.
"I believe there is no god" and "I believe there is a god" seem just as likely to me based on what humans understand.
Yes, it is unreasonable to conclude anything when the subject is so out of our reach.
My point is that human perception, intelligence and understanding of the universe is comparable to a blind person and colors. Just because a blind person doesn't perceive colors or has evidence of its existence, doesn't mean that colors don't exist. Just because humans aren't intellectually capable of understanding the origin of the universe and the existence of a creator, doesn't mean a creator doesn't exist.
This whole "there's no evidence" isn't an absolute statement, it's more like "humans haven't gathered the evidence". Humans haven't gathered evidence for most of the things that are actually happening in the universe, and they are happening. We're miniscule. We're so small that we're trapped in the observable universe, which is probably miniscule itself.
Yet, we stand tall and say aloud "I firmly believe this doesn't exist because we, humans, haven't experienced it".
I hope you see my point now. An ant has no evidence of black holes, yet, they are. Yes, we have no evidence. No, we shouldn't BELIEVE something based on lack of evidence.
The thing I love about science is that it is a tool, it isn't concerned with questions such as "does God exist". Atheists use science as the basis for a belief that not even scientists are concerned with. Science is a practical tool to increase our knowledge, it doesn't take a stand on matters outside of it's reach. Science doesn't say "there are probably no gods because there's no evidence". That belief is not a direct result of the evidence we have gathered, that's just atheism thinking science and evidence have more power than they do.
So again, yes, it is unreasonable to conclude something besides "I don't know".
I honestly don't get why everyone is agreeing with Windows on this one. I just love how explicit Linux is.
file.txt is fucking file.txt. Don't do any type extra magic. Do exactly as I'm saying. If I say "open file.txt", it is "open file.txt", not "open File.txt".
The feature isn't being able to create filenames with the same name, nobody does that. The feature is how explicit it is.
It would be so confusing to read some code trying to access FILE.TXT and then find the filesystem has file.txt
I guess if my opinion makes them angry, they could have stopped with an "agree to disagree". Personally, arguing doesn't make me rage.
So I'll give this to you before you get angry, let's agree to disagree.
If it is falsifiable or not depends on how you define it.
It could be defined in many falsifiable ways, give it a try, pretty sure you can find many.
My point about Dark Matter is that it isn't something we will likely have the means to falsify soon given the nature of the problem. It is also a pretty weak theory that contradicts many of the facts that we already know about the universe. So I could also create a very weak falsifiable argument about the existence of a creator and then call it a day.
"The creator was physically present in the origin of spacetime". In theory, if we could look back in time, we could verify this. There are plenty techniques that allow us to "look" back, we may just need to discover a better one.
"God is physical and exists in the universe"
Making something falsifiable isn't a problem.
You're saying the concept of a god used by traditional religions isn't falsifiable, which is right. But there's no reason to limit the idea of a god to those traditional definitions.
OK, so if maths were so clear about it, why very smart people who think logically didn't think it was the case?
Could it be because maths have said many times in the past "Hey, this could be possible"... Only to find out that, yes, it is possible in maths but not in reality.
https://youtu.be/6akmv1bsz1M?feature=shared
And yeah, we don't have the tools right now to fully unrestand the origin of the universe, so we can't know how to make falsifiable theories around it. For example, Dark Matter is non-falsifiable because we don't have enough knowledge about it.
We observe certain behavior in the universe, we call the cause Dark Matter even if we don't fully understand how to prove or disprove it. We observe the existence of reality and we assume there is a creator even if we don't fully understand how to prove or disprove it. We can observe reality, thus, theorizing about the existence of a creator isn't absurd.
Yes, we discovered that AFTER the thought experiment. That was possible through knowledge and experimentation. Two things we don't have about the origin of the universe... We have a lot of theories though.
Just because I'm arguing doesn't mean it is in bad faith. I enjoy standing my ground and seeing what comes out of it. Otherwise it isn't actually a discussion. I do feel some people are getting triggered by this, but I don't care, I'm being respectful and explaining things the way I see them.
Maybe this is a bad habit of mine, but it's when the good stuff happens. I've actually learned a lot through my stubbornness in this post.
There is zero human evidence about most of the things that are actually happening right now in the universe.
Again, we don't really understand the nature of the universe. We barely understand some of its rules, probably in a very incomplete or scoped way. Whatever you choose to believe in this matter is just a guess.
One day we'll probably understand the inner workings, we'll probably be able to simulate the actual origin, we'll be able to figure out all the interactions. Until that day arrives, if it ever does, we should just stop playing this guessing game and accept we just don't know.
Is it really hard to just say "I don't really know, believing anything about matters I don't really understand isn't productive, let's focus on actually gathering knowledge instead of fighting about who's got the best guess"?