Notices by boghana (boghan@chaos.social)

@authen astaghfirullah
immediate jahannam for this one

@prettygood

@rar

@saxnot @melonhusk @djsumdog i have to doubt this one
inductive experiment is very old
science as we know it today only really got off the ground in the 16th century during the renaissance, as there was a surge of opposition to the traditional aristotelian view. the first video https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/general-philosophy here explains it pretty well

@saxnot @djsumdog @melonhusk lol
faith doesn't mean worshipping something at a shrine or whatever
it's just, as Hebrews puts it:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

@djsumdog @saxnot @melonhusk aha, i see why your profile had a warning on it now. don't interact with me please

@melonhusk @saxnot @djsumdog totally agree, that's why i don't argue with faith as my reason

@djsumdog @saxnot @melonhusk i don't like calling science faith because it makes internet atheists uncomfortable 👉 👈
but i will certainly point out that there are certain dogmas (i.e empiricism) inherent to the practice

@saxnot
if there is a god which has the same evidence for it as mine, it also has exactly the same evidence of its properties, because of the doctrine of divine simplicity, in which the divine essence is simple: all properties which are in God are one, identical to His existence. if two things have exactly the same properties, they are not two things, they are one (consider two squares with the exact same side lengths, rotation, location, colour; they are just one square).
(pt. 1)

@saxnot
so, if your god has all of the same properties, which ultimately are analogies for the singular essence of God, then it must also be God, and if it is God it will not punish me for worshipping it. easy peasy
(pt. 2)

@saxnot in that case, where the anti-god is different from God in having no evidence for it, it's pretty easy to just say "your anti-god has no evidence so there's no reason to believe in it"
the anti-god has no evidence for it, God has evidence for Him, therefore it's prudent to believe in God and not the anti-god
and as for your last point, it's pretty easy to establish that if God exists, there are no other gods when you already believe in God, so it's moot

@saxnot almost everyone agrees that there is some evidence for God as purely an intentional creator of all things; i.e fine tuning (for example Alex O'Connor counts fine tuning as a point for God on the evidence front), various cosmological arguments; the difference in opinion between rational people usually comes down to weighing up that evidence and deliberating based on prior principles of reasoning. for most atheists, it's that they think there's *insufficient* evidence, not no evidence.

@saxnot you're not representing what i said honestly: i said that almost everyone (on the planet, but also in philosophical circles) agrees that there is at least some evidence. which is true prima facie because most people believe in some kind of god, and even in atheist spaces agnostics tend not to think that there's absolutely no evidence

@puniko @mina trans-portation :trans_flag: