3 ms·
Furthermore, a lack of evidence for gods does not mean that scientifically there are no gods. True, but it implies the need for skepticism, especially given ho
by GW150914 8y ago
Furthermore, a lack of evidence for gods does not mean that scientifically there are no gods.
True, but it implies the need for skepticism, especially given how many people have desperately attempted to find said evidence. Depending on your outlook it might also imply that a degree of disinterest in warranted, because the world of “things for which no evidence can be found or is required,” tends to be enormous and frankly, not that interesting. Unless we’re very specifically talking about a god who will damn you for a lack of faith, then ignoring the whole issue seems like a safe bet, and when you die you either learn the truth, or you’re just dead. It’s not like a human can do much either way, again, unless your assertion is about a specific and judgmental god.
Tl;dr I think the whole god thing is even less compelling and worthy of attention than the Bermuda Triangle. It’s just another thing that’s possible among an infinity of possible things lacking evidence for their existence. That’s pretty boring.
- david-cako 8y agoVery true, but I think a neoplatonic view of reality is extremely worthy of attention. The notion that there must be some unifying, self-enforcing, by-definition dissonant/entropic (we're here, aren't we?) oneness that runs through reality, and that the mere knowledge of it lends towards a rationally and emotionally mature wu wei ("effortless doing") sort of existence. Like an infinitely self-referencing stack of the "first principle" unfolding into time, matter, and ultimately reconciled through the cognition of it. Self-help is one of the best selling genres, yet the most simple of which has been known to man for thousands of years.