chat

8447 readers

233 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

107

I really like how the “empirical” evidence for god’s existence is just “math has rules and there are patterns in nature, therefore god exists” (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

94 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And you know what, that might just very well be true if we’re talking about some supernatural force that is indifferent to its creations, not out of malice, but because it simply is truly neutral.

But as evidence for the religious capital ‘G’ God, the one who communicates and plans every little detail because he loves us so much? What is the point of these “subtle” proofs that took thousands of years to be studied and recorded when he has shown that he can just pop up anywhere or perform miracles and whatever the fuck.

It is no coincidence that the vast majority, possibly 99%, of devout religious people do not give a shit about using math to explain god because it’s all proven in their holy books. It is no coincidence that the “empirical” evidence is, in reality, just pointing at the existence of features and concepts of math and science rather than utilizing said features and concepts to prove the existence of god. And no, philosophical musings about morality using the language of mathematical proofs does not count as utilizing math and science (literally, all the axioms in these types of "proofs" are subjective shit like "bad" and "good" and not, say, the difference between 1 and 0).

And I didn’t even want to make a post dunking on religion, but I’m irritated because YouTube recommended some dumbass video by a channel called “Reformed Zoomer” and one of the arguments is “there is an infinite range of numbers between two numbers, and if we turn those numbers into letters, then every book possible has already been written. Checkmate atheoids”. https://youtu.be/z0hxb5UVaNE?si=RpjF6S0fHiF71iH-

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think you're right in that an important question to first ask is what we consider to be God? Or, what comes to mind with the word 'God'?

If it means some grander, universal unity, then maybe there is proof to be found in something like mathematics. I couldn't say. But if it's something closer to the concept described as a 'Living God' in the traditions coming from the Abrahamic religions then I think we have left the realm of any possibility for proof. If it's any consolation, I am a very religious and philosophically oriented person and I think proofs of God are not just ridiculous but very near blasphemous. There is no objective proof for God and we all need to be able to accept that, just as well as we need to accept the objective proof of the more certain existence of other things, such as the theory of evolution and so on.

These proofs are usually of interest only to fundamentalists and literalists, who are the extremists of the religious world. Although there are plenty of good, and even Leftist, people who are religious so I think just assuming every religious person is a Right-wing ignorant lunatic or wholesale rejection of all religion or religious traditions as worthless lies to be erased from history (not saying you're saying any of this) is not the right path to take. I also think there are really good and intelligent people who are atheists or agnostics, there is no need to be religious to be an ethical person. Many atheists I have met were more ethical than religious people I have met because the responsibility lies wholly within their conscience without excuse or consolation. I usually even prefer atheists to religious people because they are usually not as weird. Then again, I was raised very religious and then became militantly atheist and now am again very religious. It was a very dialectical journey, which is not yet finished I hope, but I see potential value and disvalue in both: belief and disbelief. I think it really depends more on what is truly in the person's heart because that will color and project itself onto the "belief" and in that way they will reveal themselves to themselves and the world, for better or worse.

Religious belief is only one component of the existential responsibility which all people have, where they must choose how they will believe and how they will live their lives.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think proofs of God are not just ridiculous but very near blasphemous

I agree. I can’t speak for other religions, but the Bible always stated that faith is all you need. Jesus only showed proof inadvertently while helping someone. But other than that I can’t recall moments where he did anything just because someone doubted him, or at least it didn’t happen frequently.

I don’t dismiss every religious person as right wing reactionaries. My comment about most religious people not caring about “empirical evidence” was meant to say that most people are normal and don’t need validation from scientists and mathematicians or other complex subjects, meanwhile the more desperate and stupid try to dabble in those fields to seek the truth.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

I totally agree.

And I know you didn't, sorry if I put it that way. I just wanted to share my thoughts because usually a post like this will have comments following with anti-religious Leftists calling it reactionary or whatever, so just wanted to put out a different position which isn't always heard among Marxists.