4 ms·

Big bang has a lot more supporting evidence than a magical seven-day wishing-into-existence spree 6400 years ago. Closer to home, it makes a lot more sense that

Big bang has a lot more supporting evidence than a magical seven-day wishing-into-existence spree 6400 years ago. Closer to home, it makes a lot more sense that animals lived, died and were fossilized over millions of years than that they were added as hidden sculpture during the creation. Come on. And that particular god is very good at being useless since the Enlightenment. One thing religions don't do is give up their certitudes in the face of evidence. Or prove useful to human existence. The Abrahamic God is a father who shot his wad, abandoned the child, but still demands tribute.

ken47 4y ago
And that evidence is the state of the cosmos today? Are you a software developer? Imagine that, for testing purposes, you want to test a particular state T in a simulation app that you believe can only occur organically after a large period of time. Do you start the test simulation at a hypothetical t0 and wait to reach the desired state? Or do you simply bootstrap the simulation so that it starts in state T. Well, you do the latter of course. So do the events at t0 need to occur for you to observe state T?
- quantified 4y ago
  And I can verify the software to some degree there, or (more usually) find the bugs. So this is the bug-free simulation? It's easier to run the simulation and see what happens, so much state to initialize. Without evidence, that's why it's called faith. There are thousands of unfalsifiable possible starting points, the Judeo-Christian one is laughable.
  - ken47 4y ago
    I have no desire to discuss particular religions. As I said elsewhere, some religions provide explanations which are provably false.
  - azth 4y ago
    > Without evidence, that's why it's called faith No one said faith should be based on blind belief. You can most certainly have faith based in evidence. It's not a dichotomy.
    - quantified 4y ago
      There are many religions, and across them they are mutually incompatible. Which ones have evidence for themselves that demonstrates another is false?
      - azth 4y ago
        Just because there are many mutually exclusive religions, does not imply that none of them are correct. Look up genetic fallacy. The "Abrahamic" faiths have demonstrated themselves, but only one remains uncorrupted: Islam. You can check out provingislam.com for some hard proofs.
        quantified 4y ago
        Which is correct, Sunni or Shi'ite?
Gibbon1 4y ago
I disagree with the point about giving up certitudes. Really there are two sorts of religious sects. 1. Politically useful sects which demand followers and everyone else accept certitudes based on pure authority. 2. Politically useless to troublesome sects that don't. The overton window is set such that the second group can't be acknowledged.
azth 4y ago
You're presenting a false dichotomy. Islam doesn't say that the world is 6,400 years old, and as far as I'm aware, neither do most followers of Judaism and Christianity believe in that either. > One thing religions don't do is give up their certitudes in the face of evidence Which religions? All of them? Did you study each and every one in detail to be able to make such a claim? > Or prove useful to human existence Same question. > abandoned the child According to Christianity, but not to Islam or Judaism. A very common fallacy I see by atheists or secularists when these discussions come up is how they group all belief and faith systems into one thing called "religion", then cast the baby out with the bathwater so to speak, not realizing how easily falsifiable some of their claims are, or how they generalize across that which must not be generalized. You don't have to be an expert about "religions", but don't pretend you're one by the implications you're making.

ken47 4y ago

And that evidence is the state of the cosmos today? Are you a software developer? Imagine that, for testing purposes, you want to test a particular state T in a simulation app that you believe can only occur organically after a large period of time. Do you start the test simulation at a hypothetical t0 and wait to reach the desired state? Or do you simply bootstrap the simulation so that it starts in state T. Well, you do the latter of course. So do the events at t0 need to occur for you to observe state T?

quantified 4y ago
And I can verify the software to some degree there, or (more usually) find the bugs. So this is the bug-free simulation? It's easier to run the simulation and see what happens, so much state to initialize. Without evidence, that's why it's called faith. There are thousands of unfalsifiable possible starting points, the Judeo-Christian one is laughable.
- ken47 4y ago
  I have no desire to discuss particular religions. As I said elsewhere, some religions provide explanations which are provably false.
- azth 4y ago
  > Without evidence, that's why it's called faith No one said faith should be based on blind belief. You can most certainly have faith based in evidence. It's not a dichotomy.
  - quantified 4y ago
    There are many religions, and across them they are mutually incompatible. Which ones have evidence for themselves that demonstrates another is false?
    - azth 4y ago
      Just because there are many mutually exclusive religions, does not imply that none of them are correct. Look up genetic fallacy. The "Abrahamic" faiths have demonstrated themselves, but only one remains uncorrupted: Islam. You can check out provingislam.com for some hard proofs.
      - quantified 4y ago
        Which is correct, Sunni or Shi'ite?

Gibbon1 4y ago

I disagree with the point about giving up certitudes. Really there are two sorts of religious sects. 1. Politically useful sects which demand followers and everyone else accept certitudes based on pure authority. 2. Politically useless to troublesome sects that don't. The overton window is set such that the second group can't be acknowledged.

azth 4y ago

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Islam doesn't say that the world is 6,400 years old, and as far as I'm aware, neither do most followers of Judaism and Christianity believe in that either. > One thing religions don't do is give up their certitudes in the face of evidence Which religions? All of them? Did you study each and every one in detail to be able to make such a claim? > Or prove useful to human existence Same question. > abandoned the child According to Christianity, but not to Islam or Judaism. A very common fallacy I see by atheists or secularists when these discussions come up is how they group all belief and faith systems into one thing called "religion", then cast the baby out with the bathwater so to speak, not realizing how easily falsifiable some of their claims are, or how they generalize across that which must not be generalized. You don't have to be an expert about "religions", but don't pretend you're one by the implications you're making.