Entire history of the universe. 馃檭
Dank. 馃槍
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs]
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 7 more replies 禄
SW-User
@Pseudonym I am not shy of believing in greater things. I believe in God and am just going to point out that the video literally highlights many places that needed a solution at the beginning and answered them with "Oh look, it's just there like that" XD
Also, the only two currently popular and well argued explanations for our existence is either God or that we came from a lifeless rock floating in space by a random assortment of chemicals ._.
I don't choose to take the appeal to ignorance or the rock idea either with such obviously solved problems to the existence of life as we know it, down to any study, field, and system we spend our lives studying :v
Also, the only two currently popular and well argued explanations for our existence is either God or that we came from a lifeless rock floating in space by a random assortment of chemicals ._.
I don't choose to take the appeal to ignorance or the rock idea either with such obviously solved problems to the existence of life as we know it, down to any study, field, and system we spend our lives studying :v
Pseudonym 路 26-30, M
@SW-User Fair enough, although we must agree to disagree!
I think the appeal to ignorance is sensible. In fact, I can't see how anything else can be argued. I think every human doubts the foundations of their knowledge, but perhaps not everyone reaches Cartesian levels of doubt, and of those that do, I suspect only a few consider it with absolute sincerity.
That rabbit hole can lead you to the borders of insanity. It certainly destroyed my worldview, even before I discovered that a formalised version had long since been created.
The irony of course, is that true Cartesian doubt cannot be attributed to Descartes. For how could I ever prove anything other than I am? Whatever 'I' or 'am' mean...
That being said. It is true that at the most fundamental level all is belief, and the foundations for belief are unavoidably cyclic if you are to believe anything at all.
For me, I make the assumption that my senses are usually giving me some sort of representation of an objective reality that exists beyond myself. I can't prove it, but it's more interesting to explore that, than to believe that nothing actually exists.
Beyond that, I don't make any claims to know anything other than that which seems to logically follow what my senses tell me. As a thought experiment, I like to imagine if I were the only human being to have ever existed, with an infinite lifespan and a pseudo-infinite amount of time to learn; that I may have eventually been able to independently discover the same amount of 'knowledge' that humanity has collectively gathered. I'm talking a very, very long time.
The 'theory of God' to me is no more than a prime mover argument. Nor is it actually a theory in an empirical sense. There isn't enough evidence to call it that. It's more of a hypothesis. And even then, not a very convincing one. It's no different than saying 'infinity', which for all intents and purposes, is both an easier to explain and an extremely boring - not to mention impossible to comprehend - solution. 馃馃槄
I think the appeal to ignorance is sensible. In fact, I can't see how anything else can be argued. I think every human doubts the foundations of their knowledge, but perhaps not everyone reaches Cartesian levels of doubt, and of those that do, I suspect only a few consider it with absolute sincerity.
That rabbit hole can lead you to the borders of insanity. It certainly destroyed my worldview, even before I discovered that a formalised version had long since been created.
The irony of course, is that true Cartesian doubt cannot be attributed to Descartes. For how could I ever prove anything other than I am? Whatever 'I' or 'am' mean...
That being said. It is true that at the most fundamental level all is belief, and the foundations for belief are unavoidably cyclic if you are to believe anything at all.
For me, I make the assumption that my senses are usually giving me some sort of representation of an objective reality that exists beyond myself. I can't prove it, but it's more interesting to explore that, than to believe that nothing actually exists.
Beyond that, I don't make any claims to know anything other than that which seems to logically follow what my senses tell me. As a thought experiment, I like to imagine if I were the only human being to have ever existed, with an infinite lifespan and a pseudo-infinite amount of time to learn; that I may have eventually been able to independently discover the same amount of 'knowledge' that humanity has collectively gathered. I'm talking a very, very long time.
The 'theory of God' to me is no more than a prime mover argument. Nor is it actually a theory in an empirical sense. There isn't enough evidence to call it that. It's more of a hypothesis. And even then, not a very convincing one. It's no different than saying 'infinity', which for all intents and purposes, is both an easier to explain and an extremely boring - not to mention impossible to comprehend - solution. 馃馃槄
SW-User
@Pseudonym I respect your stance on these grounds and they seem to be driving you into a pretty logically safe corner