Both beliefs are fine, but please realize the hypocrisy

You're viewing a single thread.

241 comments

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
- 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
  
  Eh, we can prove that human DNA is 99% primate and that there was no great flood. Seems unlikely to me.
  
  It sounds like you're referring specifically to Christian theology but the comment was just about whether a god or gods exist in general
  
  The mere fact that humans are 1% removed from apes serves to undermine creationism in general.
  
  We're not talking about creationism or any particular brand of theism
  
  Considering that the overwhelming majority of religions out there are creationists, yes we are.
  
  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
  
  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.
  
  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...
  
  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.

241 comments