Dont let your kids go to college
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (79)
sorted by:
While I normally also sperg out and post a counter-manifesto to such a long post, I'll simply pull one jenga piece from your tower and let the rest fall apart.
People don't "deny" that the universe itself is larger and greater than man. We simply don't imagine an anthrocentric universe with a governing intelligence that somehow is responsible for a universe of supreme scope that nevertheless hyperfocuses on a bunch of barely evolved apes on an insignificant planet in an insignificant galaxy.
Or, to put it in small words, we don't need to imagine a god to explain the universe. We accept that the universe is, and we're not self-obsessed enough to demand to personify it, and we lack the absolute hubris to imagine that, were there some greater being that created reality, some bronze-age goat herders in a desert were able to accurately identify and describe it to us, when odds are greatest that if there IS a god or gods out there, they'd be more akin to the friendly beings you encounter in H.P. Lovecraft's works.
And don't imagine me, if you'd be so kind. I don't want to be part of whatever fantasies you have fermenting in your skull.
Begging the question here. No religion states that God hyper-focuses on humans.
Then you'd have to accept that it, once again, has rules. And there is no such thing as a system with rules without having those rules defined.
That's like claiming software programs exist simply because, while denying the fact that software engineering dictates the rules upon which those programs exist. No program exists in a vacuum without being written.
Ergo, every rule is part of a system and every system is designed.
False dilemma. Where was it stated that those in H.P. Lovecraft's works don't exist?
Nonsense. Every religion insists their god hyperfocuses on humans, either directly, like the abrahamic faiths that insist their god created the world for humans, or indirectly, like the pantheons of the greeks, japanese, or hindus, whose gods have entire universes to run and yet insist on getting involved in human affairs. And then there are the religions that aren't just hyperfocused, but who directly appoint "divine rulers" of the earth, like the chinese mandate of heaven.
False equivalency coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. Reality doesn't have rules, reality has interactions. There is nothing telling like charges to repel or heat to flow from hot to cold, there are only the interactions of energy fields.
And the systems, such as they are, emerge from the equilibrium points of the interactions of these energy fields. Reality isn't software, created by someone with a purpose. Reality is instead the gorges, ravines, and overhangs created by wind and water. Sure, a stream can be used by us for water, clay, and silt, but it came into being by a simple interaction of earth and water, not by any plan or intelligence. Stars do not fuse hydrogen and helium because that was the best way to warm planets; they simply are, the direct and natural consequence of their makeup.
Reality was not designed.
Your religion, and every other religion. Also, yes, his books exist, you muppet. But nyarlahotep and al azoz and azatoth do not.
You really need to re-read the original texts. God didn't create the universe or Earth for man, he gave man dominion over the Earth. The Bible also directly states that the Earth is just one realm, and there are many well beyond the comprehension of man. The Book of Enoch even goes over the multi-versal spectrum of dimensions well beyond our own.
An oxymoron. You said reality doesn't have rules and then described a RULE that dictates the flow of energy.
Which is, again, a hierarchical interweaving of complex systems sculpted within the rules of our physical reality.
This goes back to my point about solipsism and the lack of introspection from atheist.
I'll be the first to explain this to you because in your atheist communities they will never go over this (and I'm not doing this to be antagonistic, but to get you to see beyond the veil you've been draped behind).
Reality has rules because otherwise we would have the Uncertainty Principle operating marcocosmically -- we would see quantum field theory apply to ALL matters of energy and matter. Things would appear or disappear, materialise, or immaterialise, or dematerialise without consideration or adherence to systemic negentropy; all things would be encapsulated within entropy, indefinitely.
But obviously the process of life follows rules, the process of energy follows rules, and concepts like gravity also follow rules, strictly enough that -- as you pointed out -- we are able to ostensibly observe them with our senses, empirically observe them with tools, and systematically catalogue them with developed and rote scientific principles.
If reality didn't have rules, you wouldn't be able to observe patterns.
Sir, you will retract that absolute gang rape of quantum theory, or I shall see you on the dueling field in the morning. This level of misunderstanding is so complete as to become intentional and malicious lie.
There are no "rules" to reality, I will restate, only field interactions. And we do see quantum effects macroscopically; they are the underpinnings of reality. That you think that there is some intentional restriction keeping this organized, and that you fail to understand that the uncertainty observation refers to an inability to humans to measure quantum scale interactions past a certain level of precision, and rather imply that there is inherently some level where reality stops working, are all evidence of a deep and permeating confusion on the matter that you attempt to pass off as fact. Just because we are limited, at the quantum level, to attempting to guage the true nature of cats by throwing other cats at them at speed and seeing what happens, does not mean information theory suddenly stops applying, that just because we cannot tell electrons apart doesn't mean their spacetime coordinates are not wholly unique.
Retract your nonsense, and return once you have understood the difference between a rule and a tendency.