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] 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As a teenager, I had a conversation while stargazing with one of the oldtimers at the local astronomy club. We talked about science and the limits of human knowledge, and I learned that he was Catholic. I was still newly atheist at the time so I wasn't ready to discuss it publicly, but I listened with interest to his scientific arguments for the existence of God.

One of the memorable arguments was that the second law of thermodynamics proves that life is a divine creation, since entropy tends to increase, while a complex organism is an extremely low entropic state.

I didn't know what to say at the time, sounded credible because I was 14 or whatever and this was an adult with real science credentials. Of course during college I had a moment where I realized how absurd that argument is.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Years ago, my high school paper ran an opinion piece about atheism written by a student. Our super catholic chemistry teacher, a real winner, got pissed and wrote a response opinion piece the next month which included that argument.

I happened to be in physics class when that paper got delivered and got to hear the physics teacher roast him with the most open contempt I ever saw from him

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

So this tells me “entropy proves divine creation” is like an actual argument floating around