1230
Another L for bigotry (europe.pub)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
330 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

provable

yes, theologians argue that logic is enough to prove the existence of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
If you refute logic/reason cuz you only like science that you experiment on, then you're too caught in the material buddy. Remember that math doesn't seem to follow the scientific method either you know ? Please don't tell me you refute it too.

I notice that the word I know in my language kalam is a little different from theology, but theology is the closest translation I have.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    theologians argue that logic is enough to prove the existence of God

    they have to. science keeps painting 'god' into a smaller and smaller corner every day.

    Remember that math doesn’t seem to follow the scientific method either you know

    LOLOLOL

    it's repeatedly provable, stood the test of time, like the scientific method, it's consistency and reproducibility weigh much more than philosophy stack exchange k thnks.

    this really isn't a discussion I'm interested in continuing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    they have to. science keeps painting ‘god’ into a smaller and smaller corner every day.

    I feel like I know who you're quoting, and I remember encountering: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
    to quote the part that appeals to me:

    In their 2017 paper (opens a new tab), published in Physical Review Letters, Turok and his co-authors approached Hartle and Hawking’s no-boundary proposal with new mathematical techniques that, in their view, make its predictions much more concrete than before. “We discovered that it just failed miserably,” Turok said. “It was just not possible quantum mechanically for a universe to start in the way they imagined.” The trio checked their math and queried their underlying assumptions before going public, but “unfortunately,” Turok said, “it just seemed to be inescapable that the Hartle-Hawking proposal was a disaster.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Mathematics is all about developing logical tools. Basically things like "if we start with this assumption, then you can make this conclusion". After you've developed all of these tools, then you can look at the universe around you and apply those tools to your observations in order to come to new conclusions about that same universe. There necessarily needs to be that input that ties it back to reality. Mathematics on its own doesn't tell us anything about reality.

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

    idk, it seems to have described so much about the universe with so few input. And can just study itself like in "Gödel's incompleteness theorems" to give constraints on what you aspire to achieve with it. I'd call math/logic/reason fairly strong by themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    with so few input

    Yes, few inputs. Not none.

    I'd call math/logic/reason fairly strong by themselves.

    What does strong mean in this context? It's a very useful tool. No one is denying that. It just doesn't tell us anything about the universe without input from that same universe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •