909
Divine tech support (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

We know this now, due to in large part very smart people trying to prove it can be done in scientific ways with real philosophical and logic systems, and failing.... Not just non-believers saying it's obvious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    well no, we know it because non-existence is the default status quo. if you want to claim there is a spaghetti monster running the world, the burden of proof is on your side, no one has a responsibility to prove you it is nonsense.

    so the effort of all these very smart people trying to find god would only be of interest if they had actually find him... in which case he should be handcuffed and brought to hague.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    I think you may be conflating burden of proof with the effort involved in that burden. Without a rigorous effort, the default claim is less strong and has not stood up to scrutiny. While it may seem too obvious for such things, we now know that science and physics can get really weird and complex... So ideas like "I think therefore I am", first cause / Kalam, all the way to modern logic and number theory, all bolster claims of Occam's Razor violation in a rigorous way instead of hand waving. We can think the outcome is certain and a waste of time, but really out of it has come some fundamental and valuable research into logic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Without a rigorous effort, the default claim is less strong and has not stood up to scrutiny.

    no. the default claim is true unless proven otherwise, that is why it is default. it does not have to stand to any scrutiny. it is the claim that there is an invisible man in the sky, who is allmighty, sociopathic, sadistic asshole, has been torturing people since he created the world and in spite of being allmighty needs you to go to church every sunday and bring him money, that needs to stand up to scrutiny.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    While you're clearly passionate about this, that's not how science works. The default claim is not by default true. Instead science calls it the null hypothesis. Then a rigorous study is performed to try to disprove the null hypothesis with a percent certainty. Failure to refute the null hypothesis often constrains the possible domain, which is where the philosophy "God of the gaps" comes from. What this structure does is promotes new out of the box thinking for very hard problems, even if they seem they actually are not provable or outright wrong. The tactic of trying to overwhelm the scientific process of very strong null hypotheses and weak counter arguments is called a gish gallop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    that’s not how science works. The default claim is not by default true.

    it is generally (lets ignore math) impossible to prove non-existence, you can only do it the other way around. so non-existence is the default claim, until you prove otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent