So would he call this a win or a loss?

Comments

• EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  discovering how physics works doesn’t necessarily dis-prove the existence of a supreme being that designed the laws of physics

  I’ve said many times in my life that I hate all religion…But Jesus lives under one of the couches in my house so I guess he might be real.

  source

  • drolex@sopuli.xyz ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    He’s the messiah! Lisan al-Ghaib!

    source

    • massive_bereavement@fedia.io ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      So would he lead us against the butlerian jihad?

      source
  • fishos@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    how physics works doesn’t necessarily dis prove the existence of a supreme being that designed the laws of physics

    This is how Darwin felt about evolution. It was the answer to “how?”, not “why?”.

    source
• adam_y@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yeah, no.

  Newton was such a complex human. He seemed capable of holding many, sometimes opposing beliefs, at the same time.

  Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.

  There’s even a Wikipedia page dedicated to his religious beliefs.

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

  If you are into learning about him there’s also a rather good read, The Janus Faces of Genius, by Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, that looks into his occult work.

  Furthermore, for the sake of complexity, we can look into how, when he was the warden of the mint, he became responsible for the deaths of 19 people. He turned a largely ceremonial role into a task force, chasing down forgers and sentencing them to death.

  source
• atro_city@fedia.io ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  God cannot be refuted nor confirmed. It's like unicorns, elves, dragons, and many other myths: we have not seen proof of their existence, nor have any claimed proofs of their existence been confirmed to be a valid, but that doesn't rule out that we will never find proof.

  Such is my understanding science: there is no absolute certainty nor absolute confidence. I think only logical fallacies might never exist e.g an all-powerful creator immediately runs into the logical problem of "can god create a rock that it itself cannot lift?".

  But what if our universe were just a simulation within a machine of a highly advanced species? Their ability to modify the simulation to their will might make them akin to gods for us, but that also incurs the question: what if they were in a simulation themselves? That can be repeated to the root until a "real world" is reached, but that still leaves the question: how did everything come to be?
  We can thus cut out all the "if god exists, who created god" and focus on a world without the need to get distracted by the god problem.

  source

  • sylveon@programming.dev ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    God cannot be refuted nor confirmed.

    I’d say that depends on the specific god claim. Some of them are unfalsifiable, but others could be demonstrated to be true or false. I feel like your examples support this, because you could easily demonstrate the existence of a unicorn or a dragon by finding and capturing one. Also, the fact that they’re fairly large land animals and there’s zero confirmed sightings, no photographs and no captures is pretty good evidence that they likely don’t actually exist (on Earth).

    Generally, if the claim is that the god intervenes in some form, it should be testable. You could, for example, test whether prayer works. But if it’s more of a deist god that supposedly just created the universe and then fucked off then that’s probably not testable. But I don’t think any of the most popular religions propose such a god and it also wouldn’t really have any implications for human lives, so the claim isn’t as interesting to me.

    I think only logical fallacies might never exist e.g an all-powerful creator immediately runs into the logical problem of “can god create a rock that it itself cannot lift?”.

    I don’t like this argument very much because defining omnipotence in a way that includes logical impossibilities doesn’t really make sense to me to begin with. I think it’s more reasonable to define omnipotence as “can do anything that’s possible”.

    I do however agree with the sentiment that we can’t know anything with absolute certainty.

    source

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yes, the history of science is refuting claims about God or gods. What is left is the untestable vagueness of the God of the Gaps.

      source
• Zehzin@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “So then gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the Divine Power it could never put them into such a circulating motion, as they have about the sun”

  Nah, he rationalized the shit out of it

  source
• SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  How was it refuted?

  source
• veganpizza69@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Mental compartmentalization is very annoying.

  source
• Reddfugee42@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This is the bullshit that fundies are accidentally pointing to when they claim all the great scientists were theists

  source