3 ms·
Occam's razor ("Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity")? I mean, God, isn't one enough? Honestly, it's too much for me!
by giardini 5mo ago
Occam's razor ("Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity")?
I mean, God, isn't one enough? Honestly, it's too much for me!
- yawpitch 5mo agoBy that argument zero is sufficient.
- croes 5mo agoIn nature everything has a opposite or opponent. That would make at least two.
- yawpitch 5mo agoShow me the opposite, or the opponent, of a black hole.
- croes 5mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
- yawpitch 5mo agoI said show me, not point me at a hypothetical entity with no known pathway to reified existence.
- croes 5mo ago> hypothetical entity with no known pathway to reified existence. More realistic than god.
- yawpitch 5mo ago> More realistic than god. No argument there, but “in nature everything has an opposite” is just as illogical; many things have no opposite, thus it’s not “at least two” it’s zero asshole gods in a nihilistic atheistic universe, one asshole god in a true monotheistic universe, one neutered god and one not-quite god representing the bit that’s been neutered off in a false monotheistic universe, one good god and one bad god in a morally balanced duotheistic universe (looks identical to the zero god(s) option), or a variable number of variably asshole gods in a polytheistic universe.
- mrkeen 5mo agoLet's settle on having three then. (If you had just one, it would look pretty silly calling himself father and praying to himself.)