1337
"Cancel Culture"
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
1337 points (96.0% liked)
Memes
45414 readers
568 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That is a subjective opinion. That is your subjective opinion. That is not you separating yourself from your own beliefs. That is not you presenting an objective fact to support your opinion, or taking a broader look at culture. That is you presenting your opinion.
There's nothing wrong with developing a subjective opinion, until you claim it is something other than a subjective opinion.
Do not elevate opinions beyond the mind that created them.
Sure its subjective, but the results of known, so we can make a judgment on their value as purposes.
Yes, we certainly can.
My judgment is that this opinion is a crock. The value I place on it is "worthless drivel".
My judgment and value is, of course, a subjective opinion itself, with no inherent value greater (or lesser) than your own.
Of course that is your opinion, you have been trained by the modern atheist types that religion is bad and that when its gone the world will be a better place. That idea is so obviously wrong with just a momentary glace at history.
You've been brainwashed by the clergy into that mindset. That idea is so obviously wrong with just a momentary glance at rationality.
What if you were brain washed into what you believe? What are the chances there is a God in your guestimation?
Ah, we're going to explore Pascal's wager?
There is a distinct possibility that God exists. There's another distinct possibility...
Scientists conduct experiments. Trials. They want to see if a drug is effective, so they arrange two groups of people, give one the drug, and the other a placebo. A "blinded" study. They hide as much of the study as the can from the participants, to rule out confirmation bias and other experimental errors.
When these scientists discover that their subjects have become aware of experimental conditions, the data is contaminated from that point forward.
Scientists don't just conduct experiments on people. They also conduct experiments on lab rats. They have a grand purpose for each and every rat in their study, but that purpose is to further development of a drug that will be used to save humans. They are completely unconcerned with the lives of their rats. The wants, needs, and noble purposes the rats might have for their own rat society.
The interesting part is when the scientists realize that the rats have discovered the scientists, the experiment. When they comprehend the objective of the scientists. What happens when the rats become unblinded to the experiment?
To answer your question, the likelihood that the Christian god exists is about as high as the likelihood of God being the principal investigator in some cosmic study, and our reward for discovering him is annihilation.
That was a long answer to say that you think with near certainty that there is no God, and that evolution would be the explaination?
Don't put words in my mouth. I said absolutely nothing about evolution.
I will be happy to summarize: for all you know, belief in God could end the universe.
I guess you can summarize, the question was "What are the chances there is a God in your guestimation?"
I answered your question, at length. You skipped over the first sentence in my lengthy response.
The likelihood that the Abrahamic god exists is equal to the likelihood that the Principal Investigator god exists, and if it turns out that those two are one and the same, you are responsible for annihilating all existence.
I have no reason to believe either of these scenarios is true, but both are distinctly possible.
That is a non answer.
It was a non question.
I very directly asked a question and your answer was not an answer. Your opinions are really not interesting enough for me to keep asking over and over.
If you want a better response, try asking a better question.
It was a simple question, if you dont want to give a clear answer, that is your decision.
Alright, I addressed one aspect of your question. Let's hit another. You inquired about probability.
The probability of rolling a 6 on a standard 6-sided die is 1 in 6. 1 actual solution from 6 possibilities. 1 in 6.
What's the probability as we go to dice with more and more sides? The more possible solutions, the less likely any particular solution will occur.
Rolling a 6 on 1d8 is theoretically 1 in 8, assuming we actually have a die, we actually roll that die, and we actually get a result. The chance of rolling a 6 on a 1d8 is less than 1 in 8 when "it landed in the campfire" is a possible outcome. That additional possibility doesn't make it 1 in 9, though, because "it shattered when it hit the table" is another possible outcome. "A meteor came through the roof and destroyed the die before it landed".
The set of possible outcomes of throwing a 1d8 is only 1 in 8 when we exclude every possibility except a single number between 1 and 8.
When we talk about the probability of the existence of a particular god, we can't limit the set of possible solutions to a finite number. we aren't just selecting between all of the gods ever actually conceived of by mankind, but all gods that can be conceived of, all gods that can't be conceived of, and the complete absence of a god at all.
The probability of god is one in an infinite number of possibilities.
1/♾️
Mathematically, this concept is indistinguishable from zero. That doesn't actually mean impossible: it just means that the mathematical discipline of "probability" is not equipped to describe the selection of a single (or finite) solution from an infinite set.
Asking the probability of of God is like asking the molecular formula of free speech, or the temperature of a vacuum, or how many kilograms are in a mile. The question is meaningless.
My previous answer ignored the impossibility of your question, and attempted to address your intended meaning instead.
When you can tell me the proper temperature for baking a pound of philosophy, I'll answer your question directly.
1/♾️ = zero, its not just close to zero.
You use too many words to answer the question. The question is not meaningless, literally I used the word guestimation, as in give it a wild guess. You writing an extremely long response to a question I can answer in a couple sentences doesnt make you look smarter, it just makes you kind of annoying.
I didn't say it was close to zero. I said it was mathematically indistinguishable from zero. "Mathematically indistinguishable from" and "=" are synonymous. Distinguishing between 0 and 1/♾️ would require the use of a tool other than mathematics. I do not know of a useful tool for addressing such a distinction. I do not think there is much utility in even considering such a distinction. I would say (and have said) that even contemplating such a distinction is meaningless.
You understand the 1/♾️=0 concept by simple recitation, not by comprehension. When you actually comprehend the meaning of that concept, you will understand why your question is indeed meaningless.
Asking for the probability of God's existence is like asking for vernier calipers to measure an amp of electrical current. Probability is a very useful tool, but the "measurement" it provides is entirely irrelevant to the object we are trying to to measure. It's the wrong tool for the job.
No, it is zero, this is not an argument, I am just telling you the answer to the math problem.
And again, not answering the question doesnt make you look smarter, it makes you one of those annoying teens that think they are smart but dont have experience to know what actual smart people are.
I'm sorry you don't like my answer to your question. What answer would you have preferred I given you?
An actual answer would be- "My guess is that the is W% chance there is a God, X% chance of pure evolution, Y% chance of simulation theory and Z% chance of this other one or something else".
When you do the thing where you write 20 paragraphs about simple concepts and pretend its deep, its just eyerolling.
And on what basis am I evaluating those possibilities? You suggested probability, mathematically, and yet you recognized that mathematically, W, X, Y, and Z are all zero.
You are standing at a welding table, with tool clamping your part to the bench, and you're asking me to tighten it up for you. I keep telling you that the tool you're using is a micrometer, not a C-clamp, and you keep calling me an idiot for not knowing how a clamp works.
I patiently explain that even if we ignore the idiocy of using an expensive, precision instrument for work holding, a micrometer is physically incapable of being tightened enough to secure your workpiece properly. And you tell me to shut up and crank it down.
I can think of three possible routes past this impasse. To stay with probability, we can find some way of limiting the infinite possibilities to a finite, (albeit unknown) number of possibilities, so that our probabilities are no longer 1/♾️, or "zero". Or, we can abandon probability and delve into a field of mathematics that can accept infinities. Or, we can leave mathematics behind, and move to philosophy.
I look forward to your next ad hominem.
Yeah I get it you keep a lot of words to convey very little meaning. I am fully able to use a micrometer, but you for some reason think its impossible, so you inability to do the task doesnt mean its impossible.
You are the one that erroneously has been using infinity not me. If you have no explaination for the existence of humans its fine, but then dont use math to pretend its relevent to this situation.
I clearly explained why I was using infinite. This is the first time you have challenged my use of infinite. I eagerly await a rebuttal against my infinite argument.
When did "existence of humans" enter the discussion? I thought we were discussing the existence of god(s). The probability of humans existing is 100%.
You brought math into the discussion, not I. I initially assumed you were speaking colloquially, and I responded with my "Pascal's wager" answer. Only when you doubled down and demanded probability did I respond with my mathematical, 1/♾️ answer.
If you don't like the answer, ask a different question.
So long story short you will never be able to answer the original question? Too complicated?
Indeed, it is a complex question.
How many answers do you want? I've given you the colloquial answer; I've given you a reasoned, rational answer, and I've given you the simple, mathematical answer 1/♾️, which you recognize and acknowledge to be zero.
I've answered you three separate times, respectfully and considerately, while ignoring your insults and denigration. I've patiently clarified and explained those answers, with reason and analogy, while you have mocked and belittled.
I'm going to move on from your question now, and ask one of my own: as a person you have mocked and denigrated and insulted and belittled, what would you now have me know about religion in general, and/or yours in particular?
I was just looking for a simple answer a human would give to another, but you seem to just keep writing long comments with midwit logic.
Isn't that how it always goes? We look for simplicity, and find unexpected complexity.
So, what would you have this midwit understand about religion?
It was never even about religion, but you had such an inability to answer a simple question that it got lost in your feeling of being intelligent.