On 1/24/2014 6:43 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.01.2014 22:52, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>> On 1/23/2014 2:23 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> But that's exactly the point: How confident someone is about the
>>> existence of a supreme something /is/ painted with personal desire,
>>> fears, subjective observation, and all sorts of other things.
>>>
>> Well, I think my point is, there isn't going to be a lot of people
>> managing to dither themselves into a perfect state of, "I think the odds
>> are 50:50." Not unless they are doing it as a hypothetical, for some
>> silly assed equation. They are going to be on one end or the other, and
>> the gap between, if they ever do reach it, isn't one they will be on for
>> very long. Its kind of like a rickety rope bridge, or a narrow beam.
>> Sane people are not going to stay on it longer than necessary, before
>> either deciding that its not worth it to cross, or getting to the other
>> side as fast as feasible.
>
> What you're forgetting about is the abundance of people who think there
> might be some supreme something, but don't equate that to the guy from
> the Bible.
>

No, I am not forgetting that. No one has *ever* come up with a coherent 
description of what that thing would be, what its attributes would be, 
etc., without relegating it to something untestable, which, in context, 
means also a) irrelevant, b) undetectable, and c) unable to have any 
verifiable effects. You can't get around that. Either it effects the 
universe, and therefor is detectable, or it doesn't, in which case its 
even less sensible than string theory, which at least "can" describe 
mathematically plausible universes, even if the exact formula for this 
one hasn't yet been teased out.

They can think this all they want, and, in their case, most of them are 
not trying to attribute a set of absurd moralistic rules, which we "have 
to follow". Mind, "most". There are still some that make the 
incomprehensible argument that such an entity invisibly, and 
undetectably, without somehow violating physical laws, or mathematical 
ones, in any way we notice, "intends" everyone to act in some way that 
is.. mysteriously similar to a certain guy from the Bible.. But, most of 
them don't, unless its being used as a bate and switch, to defend belief 
in the latter anyway, by trying to pretend that the former is the same 
thing somehow.

In any case.. It just isn't a coherent argument. Its like someone 
suggesting that a kids football game has a strange, invisible, referee, 
because they somehow managed to actually negotiate the rules, without a 
visible one. I mean, its an "undetectable" referee, but.. just look how 
close to the rules they are playing!

Usually this also comes with stupid BS like "fine tuning" arguments, and 
various other absurdities, many of which have the same, equally absurd 
conclusions. I mean, after all, if an invisible god of quantum mechanics 
"fine tuned" the universe, why would they fine tune it so mere humans 
could break the earth, right? Or, why wouldn't he/she/it just twiddle 
subatomic particles, to stop it from happening? I don't see getting rid 
of the bearded dude as removing the idiocy from the argument that a 
"creator" wouldn't have either rigged the deck, and/or, be magically, 
undetectably, to the extent of somehow making all changes conform so 
precisely to predictions that they don't cause massive violations of 
basic math, changing the number on the cards, to get what he wants. Its 
just... the total lack of evidence that this is happening that is kind 
of.. problematic. lol

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message