That logic is flawed. Just because we don't understand why there is something rather than nothing, there is no logical implication that there could be a higher being. "Coincidence" would seem to be a much more likely reason (until/if we understand why) - much like coincidence being the reason for most (all?) observed miracles
tj
joined 1 year ago
Elon Musk: "Hold my beer"
Also,
- What is your mother's maiden name?
- What is the name of the street you grew up on?
- What was the name of your first pet?
DYI NAS (mini-itx mobo with on-board atom chip and 8 GB ram and zfs) running:
- ssh (SCP/sshfs shared)
- smb
- jellyfin
- syncthing
- dovecot
- rclone for pull backups from Google drove, Dropbox, OneDrive, etc.
- restic for backing everything up to backblaze + azure
Intel NUC running:
- zwavejs
- deconz / phoscon
Intel NUC (DMZ) running:
- wireguard
- home assistant
- Doods (object detection for home assistant camera entities
- mosquitto mqtt
- unifi controller
- AdGuardHome
- roundcube email
- nginx reverse proxy for all services + hosting some static sites
Not at all. There is a huge difference in proving a positive (i.e. that God exists) than prooving a negative (i.e. that God is IMPOSSIBLE).
EXAMPLE: Could Trump be a lizard alien in a skin suit as some might believe? Absolutely. Am I gnostic by stating in a matter of fact tone that he isn't (and thus dependant on "faith" by extension of your argument? Probably not.
Just because someone once made a wild claim about God existing, doesn't make me require "faith" to call out he obviously made up story with absolutely zero facts to back it as such.