chat

8175 readers

534 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 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

115

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 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

127 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] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I guess it is a fundamental misunderstanding between us. My understanding was that qualia had some atomic quality. That they are the parts of emotion or experience that are irreducible or inviolable.

However like atoms they have been proven to reduce able to even more fundamental and less meaningful parts. So I don't at all understand the way you mean it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I don't know how to explain this differently but I'll try one more time.

The difference between knowing our consciousness (which includes all our senses, subjective sense of self, thoughts, feelings etc...) and knowing anything outside of it (other people, the physical world etc.) is we know the former directly and innately and we don't need any justification for explaining its existence because it just so inexplicably appears to exist to us.

All the knowledge about the other stuff is filtered through our consciousness that we experience directly and innately so that means the existence of the other stuff also hinges on the base truth of our own consciousness existing.

For this reason alone I believe it is justifiable to treat knowledge of consciousness differently than knowledge of things outside of consciousness. This is also why I'm skeptical of reductionist physicalism because despite the overwhelming importance of consciousness they relegate it as just another material thing to be studied in the same manner as rocks and metals while also kinda ignoring the fact that all data they gather and models they produce are also merely contents of a particular scientists subjective mind and also on top of that while being nowhere near a coherent mathematical account of how consciousness arises.

Basically I think scientists jumped the gun on deciding that they've figured out the metaphysics of the universe, I think there are too many gaps in our knowledge to claim such a thing with such certainty. And yes physicalism is a metaphysic like any other, if you hear a scientists say "I'm not doing metaphysics" when talking about consciousness it's the same as a lib saying "I'm not ideological" while talking about how they want to let poor people die.