It’s the infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, infinite time problem. Given an infinite number of universes anything that can happen statistically will happen.
This video explains it in relation to entropy https://youtu.be/nhy4Z_32kQo
RadicalEagle
joined 2 years ago
Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?
Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?
(Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)
What exactly did I say that was gobbledygook?
Nothing I said defends or supports organized religion.
Christians don’t teach people that they are god.
Correct. Christianity teaches people that “God” created everything and that they are children of “God”. AKA that “God” is the fundamental force in the universe.
What religion works the way you described?
None of them. Yikes.
Pretty much all of them do…
“God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.
Most religions argue that “God” is behind everything, the good and the bad. The Christian Bible specifically calls this out
“ISAIAH 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.
What’s inane?
Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.
Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.
It sounds like you’ve let your valid criticism of hypocritical religious people prevent you from distinguishing “organized religion” from “belief.”
Sure there is. You can value evidence without requiring it for everything you believe. There’s no place for anything if you require evidence for everything. For example there’s no way to prove you are or aren’t just a brain in a jar. You can say “I think therefore I am”, but that doesn’t prove you are what you think you are.
Science accounts for this by saying we should adopt the simplest and most probable explanations, but what is “probable” starts to become hard to define in an infinitely expanding universe or multiverse.
The premise of any scenario we imagine or hypothesize can always be questioned. “God” is philosophically the circular logic that forms the basis for everything built on top of it. “God” is the “I am” that requires no justification or explanation (even if there might be one). “God” is the name people give to the “it is what it is” feeling that we fall back on when we start driving ourselves crazy thinking about free will or other seemingly paradoxical aspects of our observed reality.
There’s nothing atheistic about valuing evidence.
“Human nature” is a reductive term used to describe a set of complex behaviors that no one fully understands.
I’d say the biggest problem with AI is that it’s being treated as a tool to displace workers, but there is no system in place to make sure that that “value” (I’m not convinced commercial AI has done anything valuable) created by AI is redistributed to the workers that it has displaced.
From my perspective trust is all about belief. If something can be proven then there is no need for trust.
Can you prove free will exists?
Let’s say you believe people have free will and you loan a friend $60 for a game.
Your friend says they’ll pay you back. You can’t prove that they’ll pay you back because we’re operating under the assumption that they have free will so they could very realistically choose not to.
Do you think your trust in your friend a mental illness? Because I think the majority of people feel that trusting your friends is a sign of good mental and emotional health.