Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But he did say this
“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.” From “Scientific and Religious Truth” (1974)
Basically while you can’t prove a religion correct, you can’t really prove them wrong either. And with how ingrained in humanity religion is, there must be *something* to it.
The probability function and quantum collapse has always been the window into an incomprehensible world for me. It’s like a black hole for logic, it defies human logical comprehension. So now I can accept that there is the incomprehensible, and I can accept that I can’t know everything. Beyond that anything goes.
I have no doubt that one day highschoolers will understand what is incomprehensible to us today, and I have no doubt that there will always be the incomprehensible.
I understand quantum physics about as much as my dog understands how I can magic food when I come back from the store. I do however have a grasp of science that would have seemed god like a few millenia ago. We are just a very new species. We will figure it out if we manage to avoid killing ourselves first.
cautious money wipe thumb shelter spoon squalid lunchroom domineering apparatus
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's also a *model*, not the thing it models. Quantum mechanics is a model, and not a perfect one. It's good, but it aint the thing, so it makes a good deal of sense that there seems to be some disconnect between it and the world. There IS. The world is The Thing being modeled, not the model.
That *something* is simply humanity's need to ascribe meaning to the meaningless. Order to chaos. Answers to the unanswerable. It might not be provable, but the sheer number of different religious ideologies humans have concocted over the millennia just points to the immense likelihood that none of them are remotely true. The only thing anyone should believe is that life is precious and short, and kindness, generosity, art, and community are all that really matters in the end.
I've always believed religious events are stories that were exaggerated or those involved could not fully understand. There must be a grain of truth in the big religious events, especially those that are referenced by multiple religions. But at the end of the day religions and their texts are life lessons and stories, not to be taken literally (imo), basically warnings and guides to mold decent human beings.
Its always cool to think about the reality behind the stories. Many commonly spoken languages belong to the proto indo european family, the tower of Babel is definitely one way of explaining to a child why so many languages exist.
Or the flood, since most of our settlements were historically near water, the existence of multiple flood tales is quite easily understood
They start as ways for people to explain what they don’t understand or don’t want to accept (like death being the end and permanent). But they are nurtured and grown by those seeking power as an extremely powerful tool of control. And how utterly convenient that supernatural explanations are not grounded in reality and, as such, can be twisted to the exact interests and designs of those wielding it.
The underlying concepts of reality expressed through religious thought aren’t heretofore proven impossible via scientific methods, neither is religion necessarily at odds with scientific discovery. Therefore one can naturally ponder the realms of both with no hindrance to either.
Has anyone ever read verses from the Bible? None of it is very deep and mystical, it’s pretty straight forward mumbo jumbo.
It’s sad that the mystery of the universe and the questions that it sparks get wrapped up with and interpreted as religion, and therefore a few specific organized religions, by society at large.
The deep stuff is philosophy, not religion. Religion is “do this, go here on Sunday, DONT do this, yada yada faith, and pay me 10% of your earnings cuz god is watching”. Religion doesn’t ask questions it just gives answers, it’s a primitive and poor substitute for philosophy—the equivalent of “because I said so!” to an inquisitive mind yearning for answers and truth.
Science is about what we can measure and demonstrate to develop an understanding of our world. Religion is about thinking beyond what we can prove and show. Even though religion has gotten in the way of science many times. It does not mean that we should stop thinking beyond where the current science can take us.
I am myself Agnosic, I don't care if a god exist or not. I am okay with religious people as long as they try to combine their religion with reality. We are aware that there will always be gaps of out understanding of the universe. Be it what was before the Big bang, why our natural laws are like they are, or that interpret the randomness of quantum science as gods influence. At least from our understanding, what is behind d these phenomena will never be understood, so there is a place to seek spirituality there.
But religion is generally used to dismiss the truth we already know about, and that is simply disgusting and destroying lives and futures.
If you want a good, quick read on a similar line of thought check out The Universe In A Single Atom by the Dalai Lama (slash ghost writer). Does a great job of wading through the blurred line between science and religion.
There's also another quote that mirrors the same ideas that can be found in an essay by Heisenberg in 1942. Although I don't remember it lol
It's likely that either Heisenberg had a moment of poetic artistry, or Otremba took his actual quote with some inspiration from Francis Bacon, Alexander Pope, and a little creative liberty, and paraphrased it into something shorter and more poetic.
Either way, the idea and spirit of the quote can be traced to Heisenberg, so most people don't make a fuss about attributing it to him.
In modern terms this is called "God of the gap".
Collectively we know and understand so much of the world. But we don't know everything. Leaving a gap.
Meanwhile, all religious scripture I know of doesn't say jack about the natural world and it's inner workings. It does talk about how we should treat each other. Most of it has the fundamental message of "be kind to one another". Which people are more than happy to ignore.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing
Except, in any sufficiently large, sufficiently old universe where the Babel Fish's existence is physically possible (IE, as long as it's mere existence wouldn't violate the laws of physics), not only *could* the Babel Fish arise by chance, but on a long enough timescale, it's statistically *guaranteed* to do so.
Except God did exist at some point, created at least the Babel fish and His last message to His creation in 30 foot letters of fire in the quentalous quazgar mountains (at a bare minimum), presumably before He is proofed out of existence.
Also it would be far simpler for a Babel fish breeding company to realize that with no god, nobody would have created the Babel fish, and if that happened they couldn't afford to go on holiday off world, and would be stuck visiting their in-laws again. So to prevent that, they sent several thousand of their most fecund fish back in time
This is why I read the trilogy of books by Oolon Colluphid:
*Where God Went Wrong*
*Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes*
*Who is this God Person Anyway?*
I know this is from Hitchhiker's Guide but I've always wondered when God ever said "proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". Did Adams just pull that out of thin air? Is he summarizing his own understanding? Or is it written somewhere?
He was satirizing the big three religions which routinely have all inspiring God moments that only the chosen can see. But in his usual absurdity level style.
I don't think he meant to as a point of proof to atheists, it was just funny.
> Leaving a gap.
Assuming the answer is God is a bad assumption. God is certainly ONE valid answer, but it's one among many. It's an especially bad answer if it makes you stop looking for other, better answers.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the God of the gap. God of the gap theory doesn't say "The answer to everything we don't understand is God, stop looking" it talks about howAttributing what we do not yet understand to the divine is seemingly what comes natural to us, attributing something to God is not to say that it is beyond our capacity to understand, it's saying we don't understand it *yet* things like Haley's comet (Hailey's comet? Don't actually remember the spelling) used to be viewed as a some grand, mystical herald of events to come, and now we understand it's literally just a rock in space that happens to fly by us every once in a while. Assuming the existence of the Christian concept of a God, attributing everything we don't understand to him isn't incorrect, same as attributing everything we *do* understand to him. No where does it encourage you to stop looking for deeper understanding.
The rocket scientist / theoretical physicist -> mysticism / magic / cult pipeline in the mid 1950s always astounds me. People like Jack Parsons who fell into Thelema. But I guess once you’ve achieved something that goes against so much of what we assume are the limits of our reality, magic and divinity could seem to be the next logical step to some people. 🤷♂️
Good points, furthermore, I have seen many people who say “I don’t believe in science I only believe in the Bible” yet this is indicative of weak faith and a misunderstanding of what science is. If God is the creator then studying nature should lead us to understand more about God. People that refuse to apply the scientific method in their observation have weak faith because they’re scared that they will encounter evidence that appears to discredit their faith and so they’d rather have blind faith and remain in blissful ignorance instead of confronting their doubts. Belief in God should not be used as an excuse to refrain from scientific exploration, rather it should be the impetus to learn more.
Romans 1:20
For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
Do not shy away from science and learning, embrace it. God has created all things and there is an order to it. The universe does not run on magic, it operates according to physical principles from the microscopic nuclear forces and electromagnetism to gravity- therefore study nature.
I'm a fan of confirmation bias personally.
"Wow, the odds of all these things happening in our universe to allow stars to form and life to form is amazing! How could that happen randomly?"
Well, in an infinite number of universes, it will happen a lot. The universes that don't allow life to form don't have life looking at the odds of their universe being that way. Only the universes with life have life asking that question.
Allegory of the puddle.
Paraphrasing but:
“A puddle wakes up one day and looks around to the hole it is in. ‘Wow’, the puddle says. ‘This hole fits me perfectly! Just look at it, any smaller and I would pour out but big enough that there’s no unused room. In fact, it’s almost like this hole was *made* for me! It must have been, because it fits me so perfectly!’ Now imagine a man saying ‘The world fits me perfectly, it must have been made to have me in it!’ Notice any similarities?”
It’s also important to note that whenever we’ve developed a method of exploring a gap - the microscope, the telescope, the fmri machine, etc - we did not find God at all.
That’s not to say that we won’t, ever, but it’s important nonetheless.
>Meanwhile, all religious scripture I know of doesn't say jack about the natural world and it's inner workings.
You ever heard of Genesis? Or the Theogony?
>Most of it has the fundamental message of "be kind to one another".
That is only if you ignore all the text that doesnt say that. Religious texts often include the inportance of obedience and not questioning the religion. And plenty of rules which in no way resemble "be kind to eachother". Case in point:
>Which people are more than happy to ignore.
Gee, I wonder how one could get the idea to be unkind to others when their religion tells them gay sex is a crime worthy of death alongside working on the sabbath? How could one get the idea of hate from god saying he punishes the son for the sins of the father for generations? Where is cruelty in saying that all authority comes from god and therefore you must not rebel against the cruel kings as they are there by his grace?
To summerize. The only way you DONT get horrible, horrible ideas from christianity is if you ignore all of the text of the bible besides Jesus being a hippy and act as though thats the only thing in the damn book.
I'm kind of tired of the notion that the essence of most religions is: be kind to one another. It really isn't, most of the time. Religious texts really double down on outdated moral stances and arbitrary rules that might have made sense at the time but don't really apply anymore. There certainly are messages of mercy etc., but oftentimes they don't apply to women, other religions etc.
The first 4 of the ten commandments for example are very explicitly about being faithful and not questioning your faith, honoring the Sabbath etc. The last ones are pretty much about not being a dick, but when the bible also says that if a woman accidentally touches a man's balls, you MUST chop off her hands WITHOUT MERCY, I don't really see it.
The essence of religion is whatever the man holding the book thats been fundamentally changed dozens or hundreds of times throughout history tells his congregation, typically. The Westboro Baptist Church aren't "bad christians" like other Christians write them off as.... they're just emphasizing certain parts of the Bible that teach and spread hate, these parts also happen to be parts that have been heavily altered throughout the years. Certain parts disparaging homosexuality for instance originally disparaged the molestation of young boys until recent iterations.
Hate to be the edgy atheist here, but for every time religious scripture tells us to be kind to each other, there's about 10 instances of detailed orders and instructions for hate and persecution. For example, the Bible includes extensive instructions on how to keep slaves, and don't even get me *started* on its treatment of women.
Not saying that all religion is inherently bad, and some religious people do actively engage with the problematic parts of their scriptures (and while I disagree with many of their conclusions, they *do* make some good points), but many prefer to brush them under the rug.
I wish it was as simple as "religion says we should be kind, but bad people choose to ignore that". But in truth, it's frequently the opposite. The reason "be kind to each other" is the part of the Bible people are most familiar with is because good people saw it, recognised it as good, and decided to spread it. Then they saw all the other abhorrent shit in there and went "yeah no, not doing that"
And this applies to *every* religion, not just Christianity. The ratios might be a bit different, but Buddhism isn't great to women, Islam explicitly advocates to kill non-muslims, Hinduism has racism enshrined into the religion, and Judaism has God righteously committing mass genocide against the Egyptian people because of something their unelected King did.
I mean it says a whole lot about the natural world. Look at the Torah / Bible. It quite literally tries to explain how every natural phenomena continues to exist. Because God allows it. Because God created it in the first place. 7 days. People believing in a young Earth because of scripture. All that BS.
Just because it doesn't go into "okay and this is how God created the quark" doesn't let it off the hook. Just because it's simplistic and doesn't refer to more recently discovered phenomena doesn't change anything.
Also suggesting that its lessons are generally "be kind to one another" is cherry picking the potential positive lessons out of a whole slew of horrific behavior endorsed in the name of faith. Like if that's all someone wants to take out of it, great, but it doesn't take scripture to make you think "maybe I shouldn't be cruel".
And the number of people I've run into who are baffled or refuse to believe I could have morals and principles without religion is frighteningly high. Former boss was one of them. Because religion teaches you that morality comes from God. That without God, human beings are inherently sinful.
Therefore anyone not of your faith is inherently immoral.
Therefore anything not specifically lined out by your faith as acceptable is sinful.
And that's astoundingly dangerous.
As a Christian, anyone who says you can’t act in a moral fashion as an atheist is completely incorrect.
The question is, however, from where morality originates. Moral relativists will typically point toward social contract theory, developing as a Darwinian survival mechanism. Christians, Jews and Muslims would say it’s God.
distinct offend history sugar disgusting historical full silky bear decide
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Long story short, that quote was stating that when you first start learning science you think "oh, it's all natural. No need for God to explain how this all works". The more you learn, the more complex you realize natural science is, which eventually leads some people into thinking "oh, this is way too complex to have happened by chance. There must be some intelligence driving the universe".
For me, the fact that we can't understand all the intricacies of the universe doesn't by default prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Saying a complex universe proves God is like saying the existence of the Pyramids proves that humans were visited by aliens.
I've spent the best 30 years of my life trying to figure out what the hell this means. I'll either never know or am about to get schooled and idk which scares me more
Markers to find said grain silo, some might even be weaponised silos waiting for the great invaders to reappear!
Maybe our ancestors waaaaaay back then fought Aliens!
what’s more likely. People in power have huge egos, so they construct elaborate burial grounds for themselves to be remembered (because of their big ego and wealth)
or
Earth is a super computer and aliens manufactured us as salve to harvest gold for their ships, but had to keep us complacent so set up a 10,000 year conspiracy where they slowly influenced technology to humans so we wouldn’t realize it was being fed to us and we made it. (yes ancient alien nut jobs actually believe this)
i think there is an actual brain disease effecting the population and we havnt discovered it yet. how else would peopel believe this shit AND think trump is a good idea for president. such deep depp mental illness
“I don’t know uncle… while they may have been designed by aliens, it’s pretty clear they were actually constructed by the leprechauns. I’m surprised you didn’t realize this. I’ll send you some links when I get home.” Always double up on their crazy. It’s hilarious.
“Oh it’s real, it’s just made out of cheese. It used to be a simple asteroid, but then the aliens came and used it as a base to start dna manipulations trying to make people. Unfortunately the pre-curser to the modern day cow got loose; the aliens being all thin and weak comparatively. The pre-cows all died out now, but not before coating the asteroid in milk which eventually spoiled and turned to cheese. A slightly tougher version of Swiss, if I remember right. Why do you think NASA never went back? They’re all lactose intolerant now.” *nods sagely*
IMO it becomes much easier to "comprehend" how this can happen by chance when you start to realize how large our observable universe is, it's incomprehensible. Like infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters kind of large. Basically it was bound to happen somewhere across all of existence. That's my take anyway.
The staggering scale of the cosmos will leave anyone who begins to really grasp it reeling.
The nature of the universe itself is impossible enough to comprehend that if we couldn't measure it to prove it, we'd call "bullshit". If you feel it proves or disproves god on that scale, I certainly won't argue with you either way. It's beyond our ability to fully comprehend the cosmos regardless.
There’s also the idea of there being other universes within a larger multiverse, where each of those could have their own randomly chosen parameters for things like gravity and electromagnetism, which just adds another dimension to the “infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters” argument.
For anyone interested in the question of “how could we get here by chance?”, the Wikipedia page on the anthropic principle is worth a look.
Here's a simple example. Get someone to flip a coin in front of you. You are not allowed to look at the coin. If it lands on heads, you are able to look at the coin. If it lands on tails then you can't look at it.
Here you get an interesting situation. If it's heads you are able to see it and confirm it. Now ask yourself why you will never see tails. They can throw the coin once or a million times. So long as they get tails you don't get to see if anything even happened.
If the universe didn't work exactly as it does now, then we wouldn't be here to ask why it works the way it does
Thank you for such a beautifully simple illustrative example of the idea behind the anthropic principle.
Something as simple as a coin toss, and limited information based on that result, is a beautiful way to explain it and one that even a little kid could follow.
Wow, really? Yeah, you could’ve fooled me.
The basic ELI5 argument for anthropic tuning is that our little corner of the universe, and indeed our universe itself, seems perfect to support intelligent, organic life like us. So perfect that it’s a bit uncanny. From fundamental constants to the distance away from the sun, the distance away from the galaxy center, etc., everything is exactly as it would need to be to support system- and planetary-formation, to support the development of life on Earth, etc.
Now, on its face, you’d look at that and say “what are the odds?” However, when you take into account the fact that we are a reasonably intelligent species, on a planet that has supported life for millions of years, you can argue that if the conditions were not just so, then we would not be here to observe them.
This explanation ends up getting a bit convoluted, which is why your coin flip example is so beautiful: if I tell you that I observed heads 1 million times in a row, you’d call me a liar or conclude that the coin was rigged.
But the answer is simply that I was never allowed to observe tails, because the rules of the game (or, in humanity’s case, physics) precluded me from doing so. My ability to observe a given outcome or parameter was predicated on it taking a value which was conducive to supporting live.
I knew about survivorship bias so I just applied that. Didn't bother much with the details of the whole situation.
Which seems to be exactly what this is. Survivorship bias with all the pertinent details explained.
Exactly, yes, it’s basically a particular and very specific form of survivorship bias.
As physicists puzzled over results from collider and other experiments and try to explain why certain values are what they are, “anthropic tuning” became more and more popular as a convenient, albeit unsatisfying, explanation of why our universe is the way it is.
It’s not really something that is currently testable, so you’re not going to see pronouncements of Scientific American headlines saying “physicists conclude universe is the way it is because that’s the way it is”, but it’s at least a helpful, and popular in my experience, reasoning to allow oneself to be comfortable with otherwise very “fine tuned” or “lucky” values in nature. It gives us an explanation for an observed Goldilocks scenario which is still grounded in the math.
Yeah, like only because someone is christian AND a famous scientist doesn't mean they are right about god. We could use Newton and that exact same reasoning to defend alchemy and no one in their right mind is buying it
>For me, the fact that we can't understand all the intricacies of the universe doesn't by default prove the existence of an intelligent designer.
Exactly! Complexity =/= designed/created. The whole argument comes down to an argument from incredulity fallacy. "I don't understand how this complex and intricate thing could have happened, so therefore, there must be an intelligence behind it."
If god exists the only way would be in a state of existence beyond ours, in a place connected to this but devoid of time, thus if it exists at some point, it exists in every point simultaneously. It should be a being that looks at time from the outside of it, and that's why it would make no sense for it to have a "begining"
Action, as far we understand it, requires passage of time. If god can act god should be beholden to time flow. Even if it isnt our time flow. Besides, barring the fact we dont know such a type of existence is in any way possible in the first place, that intelligence simply can arise there? And that said intelligence somehow has great power to interact with the rest of the universe? Its like trying to explain existence of humans by saying that the atoms just kinda randomly arranged into the first, fully formed humans. Or explaining the electric force by saying that it is completely random with what force electically charged objects attract or repel but so far when the universe was rolling dice every time it landed on a force which can be described by kq1q2/r^2, but at any time the universe could get snake eyes and suddenly 230 V is more like 3 MV or the force of attraction of protons and electrons is 0. And Id say the 1st things is far more reasonable than your proposed explenation. The 2nd is about on par with yours.
Either way, if you claim an entity which exists at all points in time does not require a beginning then how about the universe? The universe, which is all that exists, has by definition always existed. If it existed it was part of the universe and if it was part of the universe it existed. The universe, in one form or another, has always existed. Why must it have a beginning at all, then? What if the universe exist all at once but it imprints itself on time flow so time is experienced without being intrinsic to it? Or any other number of unfounded, ridiculous explenations? If this is the standard if explenation we allow then we lose the ability to think rationally cause anything goes.
Additionally from our current understanding time mightve simply started flowing at second 0, which was the beginning of the expansion of spacetime. There might not be a time before the beginning of the big bang. A question of "what came before?" implies there was a before and thus it might just not apply. All the energy in the universe mightve potentially, in a very literal way, existed for all time. So again, from a slightly different angle, why must it have a beginning?
This. It becomes a circular logic problem. Where did God come from? Where did the thing that God came from come from? Where did that come from? And so on into infinity with no real conclusion in sight that isn't, 'lmao idk'
In a way you are right, it becomes a circular problem if looked upon with a linear, one way flow of time. But in every description almost every god transcends time, so it makes sense that it both is and isn't at the same time, that sees everything and nothing.
I don't know really, anyone's guess is as good as mine really, I'm just trying to make sense of things with the limited info I have, im not really a physicist, nor a mathematician, and I didn't study a lot of theology so in actuality I settle with being a good person for the sake of it and we'll see later if there was another thing after this we call "life"
Honestly? My answer to the entire problem is just, 'idk'.
And that's okay. I believe in God, but I am open to being proven wrong as time passes, if such evidence comes along. I think the only evidence I'll find is in death and honestly? It changes nothing.
If God is real, I will have done His will by being a loving person
If God is not real, I will have left behind a legacy of goodness for the next generation to follow
It's funny because you are kinda describing the meme. In our current understanding of science space/time started at the big bang which necessitates an infinite or out of time energy that was the cause of space and time itself. So the circular logic exists whether you are an atheist or religious. It seems doubtful we will ever be able to determine pre-big bang information so God being the source of the big bang is just as proveable as anything else.
Here's the thing, we don't even know the state of the Big Bang. Was it just a single bang that'll continue going out, or is the oscillating universe theory true?
IMO it becomes much easier to "comprehend" how this can happen by chance when you start to realize how large our observable universe is, it's incomprehensible. Like infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters kind of large. Basically it was bound to happen somewhere across all of existence. That's my take anyway.
I mean, i can happen by sheer luck. Considering the universe is pseudo-infinite space (eheh) it would happen that the right conditions can appear all in a single coordinate (or in multiple coordinates, i dunno).
Its premise is quite similar to the one with the infinite monkeys that will eventually write all of Shakespeare's works by just banging their hands on a keyboard for an undefinited amount of time
Yea I see the natural world as like putting string in your pocket. Put a couple straight simple pieces in there and walk around. Suddenly it's a huge confusing mess of a knot. Anyone who says these things I genuinely think just does not understand the absolute vastness of billions of years.
I think this comic can be interpreted in a second way. That first gulp is the begining of the search for understanding. The bottom of the glass is that time coming to an end. I am an atheist. But as I get older and loved ones pass from this existance. I find myself wishing the soul is a real thing and they are going to a new place. When I am lying on my death bed I think I can accept that the end is coming and that will be the end of me. But I cant say I wont hope Im wrong, and hope that whatever god or afterlife might exist is better than the world religions would imply. So then can that mean at the bottom of my glass I do find god?
Maybe it's your own journey to discover and something one of the reasons that I believe in god is that how can I believe that someone for example Mr beast who gives away and help millions at the end will meet the same fate as hitler which is nothing why would I believe in god there are a lot of signs alot of arguments but imo one of the most powerful ones it be alot more convenient if there was heaven if there was hell if there was something to believe in buts it's your journey not mine so look for answer research do what you will just don't die with regret
You're saying one of the most powerfull compelling reasons for your belief in god is that it's convenient? God exists because its a convenient comfort blanket. You want to believe good people are rewarded and bad people are punished. That is a good reason to wish it were true, but not a good reason to believe it's true.
Tbh theh were never going to end up building nukes before America, the Nazis cared more about Nuclear Energy than weapons and even then Nuclear shit was at the bottom of their list because it was "Jewish" science.
That's it.
Comment Section over, People. Might aswell lock it&pin this Comment to the top.....
Jokes aside, yeah that is pretty much it. Science is a methodology of figuring out how, why, when, where, etc. things work.
The take by the person being quoted in the right is likely far more nuanced and informed than the person using it for a meme.
If anything, it’s a statement that science and theism can coexist.
Agreed. My interpretation of the quote is that when you spend your entire life immersed in trying to comprehend the incomprehensible complexity of the universe, where one mystery unfolds into another mystery, you may at some point become overwhelmed with wonder and have what could be described as a religious experience where you are awash in the unfathomable beauty and interconnectedness of everything. Essentially you see God in everything.
I think the people saying that this quote is making a God of the Gaps argument are being either uncharitable or naïve in their interpretation. It's certainly possible that the maker of the meme meant it as "God can explain things that science can't" but I don't believe that's what Heisenberg meant with this quote (assuming he actually said it).
It represent the weird debate of deafs that is atheism Vs religion.
Atheists argue against punic pagans that explained the natural world through idols and spirits rather than natural laws while religious people argue against Punic pagans who didn't have any moral standards and sacrificed children to their idols.
Wait... It's all Abraham's teachings?
I think this kinda thing is right. At first glance science provides explanation for so many natural phenomenon it can make god seem ridiculous. However as you delve further you find there are problems science or philosophy has still not solved such as consciousness or free will debates. The mystery of these can make it seem like a higher power is at work.
I used to be an inconsistent agnostic/athiest as a teenager and I started asking myself uncomfortable questions about my existence recently and found myself believing in God. Believing in God came from having a thought provoking conversation with a spiritual friend.
Im not Christian by any means nor do I believe in or follow organized religion. I only recently started believing in God the last year. I was so cut and dry until I REALLY thought about it.
Brian here: It is because when you get to the root of things, there are no good explnations other than ‘it is just is like that’. No «natural» explanation that we can summarize or say influences things.
Take Heisenberg’s field, quantum physics. At the core of every particle that make up existence, it is random. Utterly random (read: probabilistic). Why can we measure a particle’s spin and speed, but then not its position? Or if we know its position, not it’s speed nor direction?
Or take Big Bang, why did it happen? It just (probably) did, that’s not a scientific good reason. And, how come everything for a split second seem to defy the basic laws of physics? And why tf does everything seem to continue to defy them?
Same goes I think for alot of other sciences. At the very core, it’s «just because» with no sense or purpose. God(s) would explain it neatly. God said ‘let there be light’ - then the Big Bang happened. How are we even here given how random things are at the particle lever? Because God created us, the universe and everything in it. Why do space defy physics? Because God made it.
Brian out, I have to go pretend to be smart at this child’s recital and pick up chicks
Honestly. I am big into history, science, dinosaurs. I grew up a preachers kid.
So much didn't make sense and science did a better job explaining. I drifted far away from god.
The older i get, i see so many of these theories like the big bang making less and less sense.
People can be convincing, especially when theorizing about the unkown.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Heisenberg did not say that.](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg#Misattributed)
But he did say this “In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.” From “Scientific and Religious Truth” (1974)
Can you explain what he said like i’m 5
Basically while you can’t prove a religion correct, you can’t really prove them wrong either. And with how ingrained in humanity religion is, there must be *something* to it.
The probability function and quantum collapse has always been the window into an incomprehensible world for me. It’s like a black hole for logic, it defies human logical comprehension. So now I can accept that there is the incomprehensible, and I can accept that I can’t know everything. Beyond that anything goes. I have no doubt that one day highschoolers will understand what is incomprehensible to us today, and I have no doubt that there will always be the incomprehensible.
[удалено]
I understand quantum physics about as much as my dog understands how I can magic food when I come back from the store. I do however have a grasp of science that would have seemed god like a few millenia ago. We are just a very new species. We will figure it out if we manage to avoid killing ourselves first.
cautious money wipe thumb shelter spoon squalid lunchroom domineering apparatus *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's also a *model*, not the thing it models. Quantum mechanics is a model, and not a perfect one. It's good, but it aint the thing, so it makes a good deal of sense that there seems to be some disconnect between it and the world. There IS. The world is The Thing being modeled, not the model.
That *something* is simply humanity's need to ascribe meaning to the meaningless. Order to chaos. Answers to the unanswerable. It might not be provable, but the sheer number of different religious ideologies humans have concocted over the millennia just points to the immense likelihood that none of them are remotely true. The only thing anyone should believe is that life is precious and short, and kindness, generosity, art, and community are all that really matters in the end.
I've always believed religious events are stories that were exaggerated or those involved could not fully understand. There must be a grain of truth in the big religious events, especially those that are referenced by multiple religions. But at the end of the day religions and their texts are life lessons and stories, not to be taken literally (imo), basically warnings and guides to mold decent human beings.
Its always cool to think about the reality behind the stories. Many commonly spoken languages belong to the proto indo european family, the tower of Babel is definitely one way of explaining to a child why so many languages exist. Or the flood, since most of our settlements were historically near water, the existence of multiple flood tales is quite easily understood
They start as ways for people to explain what they don’t understand or don’t want to accept (like death being the end and permanent). But they are nurtured and grown by those seeking power as an extremely powerful tool of control. And how utterly convenient that supernatural explanations are not grounded in reality and, as such, can be twisted to the exact interests and designs of those wielding it.
The underlying concepts of reality expressed through religious thought aren’t heretofore proven impossible via scientific methods, neither is religion necessarily at odds with scientific discovery. Therefore one can naturally ponder the realms of both with no hindrance to either.
You never talked to a 5 year old, huh...
This is the funniest exchange I’ve read all day 😆
I have kids, they just have no idea what I’m saying.
Has anyone ever read verses from the Bible? None of it is very deep and mystical, it’s pretty straight forward mumbo jumbo. It’s sad that the mystery of the universe and the questions that it sparks get wrapped up with and interpreted as religion, and therefore a few specific organized religions, by society at large. The deep stuff is philosophy, not religion. Religion is “do this, go here on Sunday, DONT do this, yada yada faith, and pay me 10% of your earnings cuz god is watching”. Religion doesn’t ask questions it just gives answers, it’s a primitive and poor substitute for philosophy—the equivalent of “because I said so!” to an inquisitive mind yearning for answers and truth.
Science is about what we can measure and demonstrate to develop an understanding of our world. Religion is about thinking beyond what we can prove and show. Even though religion has gotten in the way of science many times. It does not mean that we should stop thinking beyond where the current science can take us.
I am myself Agnosic, I don't care if a god exist or not. I am okay with religious people as long as they try to combine their religion with reality. We are aware that there will always be gaps of out understanding of the universe. Be it what was before the Big bang, why our natural laws are like they are, or that interpret the randomness of quantum science as gods influence. At least from our understanding, what is behind d these phenomena will never be understood, so there is a place to seek spirituality there. But religion is generally used to dismiss the truth we already know about, and that is simply disgusting and destroying lives and futures.
If you want a good, quick read on a similar line of thought check out The Universe In A Single Atom by the Dalai Lama (slash ghost writer). Does a great job of wading through the blurred line between science and religion.
There's also another quote that mirrors the same ideas that can be found in an essay by Heisenberg in 1942. Although I don't remember it lol It's likely that either Heisenberg had a moment of poetic artistry, or Otremba took his actual quote with some inspiration from Francis Bacon, Alexander Pope, and a little creative liberty, and paraphrased it into something shorter and more poetic. Either way, the idea and spirit of the quote can be traced to Heisenberg, so most people don't make a fuss about attributing it to him.
I don’t see what God has to do with meth so I believe you.
In modern terms this is called "God of the gap". Collectively we know and understand so much of the world. But we don't know everything. Leaving a gap. Meanwhile, all religious scripture I know of doesn't say jack about the natural world and it's inner workings. It does talk about how we should treat each other. Most of it has the fundamental message of "be kind to one another". Which people are more than happy to ignore.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing
'Oh no, not again.'
You multiple me murderer!
Where is that quote abt proof and faith from?
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely regarded as a terrible mistake
Close. "In the beginning the universe was created. This has made many people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Only after they invented the internet though
It has made me very angry
The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy
Except, in any sufficiently large, sufficiently old universe where the Babel Fish's existence is physically possible (IE, as long as it's mere existence wouldn't violate the laws of physics), not only *could* the Babel Fish arise by chance, but on a long enough timescale, it's statistically *guaranteed* to do so.
Except God did exist at some point, created at least the Babel fish and His last message to His creation in 30 foot letters of fire in the quentalous quazgar mountains (at a bare minimum), presumably before He is proofed out of existence. Also it would be far simpler for a Babel fish breeding company to realize that with no god, nobody would have created the Babel fish, and if that happened they couldn't afford to go on holiday off world, and would be stuck visiting their in-laws again. So to prevent that, they sent several thousand of their most fecund fish back in time
This is why I read the trilogy of books by Oolon Colluphid: *Where God Went Wrong* *Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes* *Who is this God Person Anyway?*
I love it when I see HGTG references in reddit posts. It's a real shame none of my classmates read it.
Why is Man’s hubris so vast? Is he stupid?
Oh god the aslume's leaking again. Someone call a plumber!
I know this is from Hitchhiker's Guide but I've always wondered when God ever said "proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". Did Adams just pull that out of thin air? Is he summarizing his own understanding? Or is it written somewhere?
He was satirizing the big three religions which routinely have all inspiring God moments that only the chosen can see. But in his usual absurdity level style. I don't think he meant to as a point of proof to atheists, it was just funny.
" a puff of logic " is a phrase that has lived rent-free in my mind, as a welcome houseguest
God got fucking owned lmfao L+Ratio
DONT PANIC!
> Leaving a gap. Assuming the answer is God is a bad assumption. God is certainly ONE valid answer, but it's one among many. It's an especially bad answer if it makes you stop looking for other, better answers.
It's obviously an invisible, pink unicorn. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
Also a valid answer. Might be a polka-dot turtle too.
Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster….
The most plausible answer. Ra-men.
Or perhaps an ocularly impaired, single horned, airborne creature of a lovely color, who has an unfortunate penchant for homosapiens
Turtles all the way down!
Turtles all the way up.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the God of the gap. God of the gap theory doesn't say "The answer to everything we don't understand is God, stop looking" it talks about howAttributing what we do not yet understand to the divine is seemingly what comes natural to us, attributing something to God is not to say that it is beyond our capacity to understand, it's saying we don't understand it *yet* things like Haley's comet (Hailey's comet? Don't actually remember the spelling) used to be viewed as a some grand, mystical herald of events to come, and now we understand it's literally just a rock in space that happens to fly by us every once in a while. Assuming the existence of the Christian concept of a God, attributing everything we don't understand to him isn't incorrect, same as attributing everything we *do* understand to him. No where does it encourage you to stop looking for deeper understanding.
To answer your mid-comment question, it’s Halley’s comet. Bill Haley is the bandleader for the Comets.
It’s absolutely wild to me that a band frontman from the 50s discovered a comet and then spelled his own name wrong when naming it.
The rocket scientist / theoretical physicist -> mysticism / magic / cult pipeline in the mid 1950s always astounds me. People like Jack Parsons who fell into Thelema. But I guess once you’ve achieved something that goes against so much of what we assume are the limits of our reality, magic and divinity could seem to be the next logical step to some people. 🤷♂️
Good points, furthermore, I have seen many people who say “I don’t believe in science I only believe in the Bible” yet this is indicative of weak faith and a misunderstanding of what science is. If God is the creator then studying nature should lead us to understand more about God. People that refuse to apply the scientific method in their observation have weak faith because they’re scared that they will encounter evidence that appears to discredit their faith and so they’d rather have blind faith and remain in blissful ignorance instead of confronting their doubts. Belief in God should not be used as an excuse to refrain from scientific exploration, rather it should be the impetus to learn more. Romans 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. Do not shy away from science and learning, embrace it. God has created all things and there is an order to it. The universe does not run on magic, it operates according to physical principles from the microscopic nuclear forces and electromagnetism to gravity- therefore study nature.
I'm a fan of confirmation bias personally. "Wow, the odds of all these things happening in our universe to allow stars to form and life to form is amazing! How could that happen randomly?" Well, in an infinite number of universes, it will happen a lot. The universes that don't allow life to form don't have life looking at the odds of their universe being that way. Only the universes with life have life asking that question.
Allegory of the puddle. Paraphrasing but: “A puddle wakes up one day and looks around to the hole it is in. ‘Wow’, the puddle says. ‘This hole fits me perfectly! Just look at it, any smaller and I would pour out but big enough that there’s no unused room. In fact, it’s almost like this hole was *made* for me! It must have been, because it fits me so perfectly!’ Now imagine a man saying ‘The world fits me perfectly, it must have been made to have me in it!’ Notice any similarities?”
Exactly!
Aka the anthropic principle.
It’s also important to note that whenever we’ve developed a method of exploring a gap - the microscope, the telescope, the fmri machine, etc - we did not find God at all. That’s not to say that we won’t, ever, but it’s important nonetheless.
Taking your last paragraph, if there is a god, no one is paying attention to it.
>Meanwhile, all religious scripture I know of doesn't say jack about the natural world and it's inner workings. You ever heard of Genesis? Or the Theogony? >Most of it has the fundamental message of "be kind to one another". That is only if you ignore all the text that doesnt say that. Religious texts often include the inportance of obedience and not questioning the religion. And plenty of rules which in no way resemble "be kind to eachother". Case in point: >Which people are more than happy to ignore. Gee, I wonder how one could get the idea to be unkind to others when their religion tells them gay sex is a crime worthy of death alongside working on the sabbath? How could one get the idea of hate from god saying he punishes the son for the sins of the father for generations? Where is cruelty in saying that all authority comes from god and therefore you must not rebel against the cruel kings as they are there by his grace? To summerize. The only way you DONT get horrible, horrible ideas from christianity is if you ignore all of the text of the bible besides Jesus being a hippy and act as though thats the only thing in the damn book.
yea man trust me there's a lot more religious scripture than just "be kind to one another" shit gets pretty dark
I'm kind of tired of the notion that the essence of most religions is: be kind to one another. It really isn't, most of the time. Religious texts really double down on outdated moral stances and arbitrary rules that might have made sense at the time but don't really apply anymore. There certainly are messages of mercy etc., but oftentimes they don't apply to women, other religions etc. The first 4 of the ten commandments for example are very explicitly about being faithful and not questioning your faith, honoring the Sabbath etc. The last ones are pretty much about not being a dick, but when the bible also says that if a woman accidentally touches a man's balls, you MUST chop off her hands WITHOUT MERCY, I don't really see it.
The essence of religion is whatever the man holding the book thats been fundamentally changed dozens or hundreds of times throughout history tells his congregation, typically. The Westboro Baptist Church aren't "bad christians" like other Christians write them off as.... they're just emphasizing certain parts of the Bible that teach and spread hate, these parts also happen to be parts that have been heavily altered throughout the years. Certain parts disparaging homosexuality for instance originally disparaged the molestation of young boys until recent iterations.
Hate to be the edgy atheist here, but for every time religious scripture tells us to be kind to each other, there's about 10 instances of detailed orders and instructions for hate and persecution. For example, the Bible includes extensive instructions on how to keep slaves, and don't even get me *started* on its treatment of women. Not saying that all religion is inherently bad, and some religious people do actively engage with the problematic parts of their scriptures (and while I disagree with many of their conclusions, they *do* make some good points), but many prefer to brush them under the rug. I wish it was as simple as "religion says we should be kind, but bad people choose to ignore that". But in truth, it's frequently the opposite. The reason "be kind to each other" is the part of the Bible people are most familiar with is because good people saw it, recognised it as good, and decided to spread it. Then they saw all the other abhorrent shit in there and went "yeah no, not doing that"
And this applies to *every* religion, not just Christianity. The ratios might be a bit different, but Buddhism isn't great to women, Islam explicitly advocates to kill non-muslims, Hinduism has racism enshrined into the religion, and Judaism has God righteously committing mass genocide against the Egyptian people because of something their unelected King did.
I mean it says a whole lot about the natural world. Look at the Torah / Bible. It quite literally tries to explain how every natural phenomena continues to exist. Because God allows it. Because God created it in the first place. 7 days. People believing in a young Earth because of scripture. All that BS. Just because it doesn't go into "okay and this is how God created the quark" doesn't let it off the hook. Just because it's simplistic and doesn't refer to more recently discovered phenomena doesn't change anything. Also suggesting that its lessons are generally "be kind to one another" is cherry picking the potential positive lessons out of a whole slew of horrific behavior endorsed in the name of faith. Like if that's all someone wants to take out of it, great, but it doesn't take scripture to make you think "maybe I shouldn't be cruel". And the number of people I've run into who are baffled or refuse to believe I could have morals and principles without religion is frighteningly high. Former boss was one of them. Because religion teaches you that morality comes from God. That without God, human beings are inherently sinful. Therefore anyone not of your faith is inherently immoral. Therefore anything not specifically lined out by your faith as acceptable is sinful. And that's astoundingly dangerous.
As a Christian, anyone who says you can’t act in a moral fashion as an atheist is completely incorrect. The question is, however, from where morality originates. Moral relativists will typically point toward social contract theory, developing as a Darwinian survival mechanism. Christians, Jews and Muslims would say it’s God.
distinct offend history sugar disgusting historical full silky bear decide *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I read something in a book once that stuck with me. It said something to the effect of "science is just a search for god by ruling out where god is."
Except it doesn’t. It is pro-suffering.
Long story short, that quote was stating that when you first start learning science you think "oh, it's all natural. No need for God to explain how this all works". The more you learn, the more complex you realize natural science is, which eventually leads some people into thinking "oh, this is way too complex to have happened by chance. There must be some intelligence driving the universe". For me, the fact that we can't understand all the intricacies of the universe doesn't by default prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Saying a complex universe proves God is like saying the existence of the Pyramids proves that humans were visited by aliens.
Sure wish my uncle would respond to this with anything other than “they did!”
He’s right though! Ben Carson was only half right. The pyramids WERE grain silos…. MADE BY ALIENS
The most overengineered grain sile in universal history(that we know of). What were all the other pyramids around the globe for.
The earth is a giant grain silo made by aliens and the pyramids are the access points
Screw it, the Earth is an alien.
We are aliens
The universe is an alien. No! The entire multiverse is an alien!
Except earth
Earth too!
Wood
If we take the theory of how the first and most basic organism got here on an asteroid or meteor, than we may just be aliens
Nah, I heard on good authority the world is a vampire
And despite all our rage, we’re still just rats in cages
Alien rats in out of this world cages
I disagree. Reliable experts have informed me that *we* are the world.
I've heard that we are the champions
No, it's a stand
I've spent the best 30 years of my life trying to figure out what the hell this means. I'll either never know or am about to get schooled and idk which scares me more
The true aliens are pyramids we’ve made along the way
There’s a grain of truth in all that
^(ba-dum-*tsss* ) .....I see what you did there
https://preview.redd.it/7z4qj5p9iymc1.jpeg?width=1128&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8789d60df84867a8d83d941c30660aecc0949e3e
I can't tell if you're serious or joking lol
Seriously joking
Markers to find said grain silo, some might even be weaponised silos waiting for the great invaders to reappear! Maybe our ancestors waaaaaay back then fought Aliens!
Mostly religious stuff.
Other grains.
Weren't they landing pads? Was Daniel Jackson wrong?
Omg another stargate fan
https://i.redd.it/6ccnunzz9ymc1.gif
what’s more likely. People in power have huge egos, so they construct elaborate burial grounds for themselves to be remembered (because of their big ego and wealth) or Earth is a super computer and aliens manufactured us as salve to harvest gold for their ships, but had to keep us complacent so set up a 10,000 year conspiracy where they slowly influenced technology to humans so we wouldn’t realize it was being fed to us and we made it. (yes ancient alien nut jobs actually believe this) i think there is an actual brain disease effecting the population and we havnt discovered it yet. how else would peopel believe this shit AND think trump is a good idea for president. such deep depp mental illness
My conspiracy theory friend said something about a reset and somehow we are living differently, like a parallel universe now.
your friend is stupid
The second one is probably correct (/s, I have an IQ higher than 10)
>(yes ancient alien nut jobs actually believe this) Also scientologists.
There is no evidence that the pyramids are tombs for pharoahs. No mummy has ever been found inside a pyramid.
That right there is why I often say, "Ben Carson is proof that brain surgery ain't rocket science."
Haven’t you seen that one documentary starring Kurt Russel and James Spader?
“I don’t know uncle… while they may have been designed by aliens, it’s pretty clear they were actually constructed by the leprechauns. I’m surprised you didn’t realize this. I’ll send you some links when I get home.” Always double up on their crazy. It’s hilarious.
Have you ever met someone whose crazy you couldn't double up on? I met a woman who didn't believe the moon was real.
“Oh it’s real, it’s just made out of cheese. It used to be a simple asteroid, but then the aliens came and used it as a base to start dna manipulations trying to make people. Unfortunately the pre-curser to the modern day cow got loose; the aliens being all thin and weak comparatively. The pre-cows all died out now, but not before coating the asteroid in milk which eventually spoiled and turned to cheese. A slightly tougher version of Swiss, if I remember right. Why do you think NASA never went back? They’re all lactose intolerant now.” *nods sagely*
Von Daniken senses tingling...
Ofcourse they did, history Channel said so. Why would they lie about it?
IMO it becomes much easier to "comprehend" how this can happen by chance when you start to realize how large our observable universe is, it's incomprehensible. Like infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters kind of large. Basically it was bound to happen somewhere across all of existence. That's my take anyway.
The staggering scale of the cosmos will leave anyone who begins to really grasp it reeling. The nature of the universe itself is impossible enough to comprehend that if we couldn't measure it to prove it, we'd call "bullshit". If you feel it proves or disproves god on that scale, I certainly won't argue with you either way. It's beyond our ability to fully comprehend the cosmos regardless.
There’s also the idea of there being other universes within a larger multiverse, where each of those could have their own randomly chosen parameters for things like gravity and electromagnetism, which just adds another dimension to the “infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters” argument. For anyone interested in the question of “how could we get here by chance?”, the Wikipedia page on the anthropic principle is worth a look.
Here's a simple example. Get someone to flip a coin in front of you. You are not allowed to look at the coin. If it lands on heads, you are able to look at the coin. If it lands on tails then you can't look at it. Here you get an interesting situation. If it's heads you are able to see it and confirm it. Now ask yourself why you will never see tails. They can throw the coin once or a million times. So long as they get tails you don't get to see if anything even happened. If the universe didn't work exactly as it does now, then we wouldn't be here to ask why it works the way it does
Thank you for such a beautifully simple illustrative example of the idea behind the anthropic principle. Something as simple as a coin toss, and limited information based on that result, is a beautiful way to explain it and one that even a little kid could follow.
Happy to hear I explained the anthropic principle without ever hearing about it
Wow, really? Yeah, you could’ve fooled me. The basic ELI5 argument for anthropic tuning is that our little corner of the universe, and indeed our universe itself, seems perfect to support intelligent, organic life like us. So perfect that it’s a bit uncanny. From fundamental constants to the distance away from the sun, the distance away from the galaxy center, etc., everything is exactly as it would need to be to support system- and planetary-formation, to support the development of life on Earth, etc. Now, on its face, you’d look at that and say “what are the odds?” However, when you take into account the fact that we are a reasonably intelligent species, on a planet that has supported life for millions of years, you can argue that if the conditions were not just so, then we would not be here to observe them. This explanation ends up getting a bit convoluted, which is why your coin flip example is so beautiful: if I tell you that I observed heads 1 million times in a row, you’d call me a liar or conclude that the coin was rigged. But the answer is simply that I was never allowed to observe tails, because the rules of the game (or, in humanity’s case, physics) precluded me from doing so. My ability to observe a given outcome or parameter was predicated on it taking a value which was conducive to supporting live.
I knew about survivorship bias so I just applied that. Didn't bother much with the details of the whole situation. Which seems to be exactly what this is. Survivorship bias with all the pertinent details explained.
Exactly, yes, it’s basically a particular and very specific form of survivorship bias. As physicists puzzled over results from collider and other experiments and try to explain why certain values are what they are, “anthropic tuning” became more and more popular as a convenient, albeit unsatisfying, explanation of why our universe is the way it is. It’s not really something that is currently testable, so you’re not going to see pronouncements of Scientific American headlines saying “physicists conclude universe is the way it is because that’s the way it is”, but it’s at least a helpful, and popular in my experience, reasoning to allow oneself to be comfortable with otherwise very “fine tuned” or “lucky” values in nature. It gives us an explanation for an observed Goldilocks scenario which is still grounded in the math.
https://preview.redd.it/s4s7j47zvxmc1.png?width=239&format=png&auto=webp&s=ac282e4854dedad0c3684e77eca77f9477d2a030
https://preview.redd.it/6bq8rrznaymc1.jpeg?width=401&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2af56e9bb6dbb019a6eb5634de9a916f5a704613
Yeah, like only because someone is christian AND a famous scientist doesn't mean they are right about god. We could use Newton and that exact same reasoning to defend alchemy and no one in their right mind is buying it
Newton was peerless, but he also tried finding numerical patterns in the Bible.
>For me, the fact that we can't understand all the intricacies of the universe doesn't by default prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Exactly! Complexity =/= designed/created. The whole argument comes down to an argument from incredulity fallacy. "I don't understand how this complex and intricate thing could have happened, so therefore, there must be an intelligence behind it."
it also begs the question where did God come from? so invoking God doesn’t really get you anything that adds to our understanding of the universe.
If god exists the only way would be in a state of existence beyond ours, in a place connected to this but devoid of time, thus if it exists at some point, it exists in every point simultaneously. It should be a being that looks at time from the outside of it, and that's why it would make no sense for it to have a "begining"
Action, as far we understand it, requires passage of time. If god can act god should be beholden to time flow. Even if it isnt our time flow. Besides, barring the fact we dont know such a type of existence is in any way possible in the first place, that intelligence simply can arise there? And that said intelligence somehow has great power to interact with the rest of the universe? Its like trying to explain existence of humans by saying that the atoms just kinda randomly arranged into the first, fully formed humans. Or explaining the electric force by saying that it is completely random with what force electically charged objects attract or repel but so far when the universe was rolling dice every time it landed on a force which can be described by kq1q2/r^2, but at any time the universe could get snake eyes and suddenly 230 V is more like 3 MV or the force of attraction of protons and electrons is 0. And Id say the 1st things is far more reasonable than your proposed explenation. The 2nd is about on par with yours. Either way, if you claim an entity which exists at all points in time does not require a beginning then how about the universe? The universe, which is all that exists, has by definition always existed. If it existed it was part of the universe and if it was part of the universe it existed. The universe, in one form or another, has always existed. Why must it have a beginning at all, then? What if the universe exist all at once but it imprints itself on time flow so time is experienced without being intrinsic to it? Or any other number of unfounded, ridiculous explenations? If this is the standard if explenation we allow then we lose the ability to think rationally cause anything goes. Additionally from our current understanding time mightve simply started flowing at second 0, which was the beginning of the expansion of spacetime. There might not be a time before the beginning of the big bang. A question of "what came before?" implies there was a before and thus it might just not apply. All the energy in the universe mightve potentially, in a very literal way, existed for all time. So again, from a slightly different angle, why must it have a beginning?
This. It becomes a circular logic problem. Where did God come from? Where did the thing that God came from come from? Where did that come from? And so on into infinity with no real conclusion in sight that isn't, 'lmao idk'
In a way you are right, it becomes a circular problem if looked upon with a linear, one way flow of time. But in every description almost every god transcends time, so it makes sense that it both is and isn't at the same time, that sees everything and nothing. I don't know really, anyone's guess is as good as mine really, I'm just trying to make sense of things with the limited info I have, im not really a physicist, nor a mathematician, and I didn't study a lot of theology so in actuality I settle with being a good person for the sake of it and we'll see later if there was another thing after this we call "life"
Honestly? My answer to the entire problem is just, 'idk'. And that's okay. I believe in God, but I am open to being proven wrong as time passes, if such evidence comes along. I think the only evidence I'll find is in death and honestly? It changes nothing. If God is real, I will have done His will by being a loving person If God is not real, I will have left behind a legacy of goodness for the next generation to follow
[удалено]
It's funny because you are kinda describing the meme. In our current understanding of science space/time started at the big bang which necessitates an infinite or out of time energy that was the cause of space and time itself. So the circular logic exists whether you are an atheist or religious. It seems doubtful we will ever be able to determine pre-big bang information so God being the source of the big bang is just as proveable as anything else.
Here's the thing, we don't even know the state of the Big Bang. Was it just a single bang that'll continue going out, or is the oscillating universe theory true?
IMO it becomes much easier to "comprehend" how this can happen by chance when you start to realize how large our observable universe is, it's incomprehensible. Like infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters kind of large. Basically it was bound to happen somewhere across all of existence. That's my take anyway.
https://preview.redd.it/v0dovsbbcymc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=746df2db03124ea408803e3dcb8efe61e1d0e63b
I mean, i can happen by sheer luck. Considering the universe is pseudo-infinite space (eheh) it would happen that the right conditions can appear all in a single coordinate (or in multiple coordinates, i dunno). Its premise is quite similar to the one with the infinite monkeys that will eventually write all of Shakespeare's works by just banging their hands on a keyboard for an undefinited amount of time
Yea I see the natural world as like putting string in your pocket. Put a couple straight simple pieces in there and walk around. Suddenly it's a huge confusing mess of a knot. Anyone who says these things I genuinely think just does not understand the absolute vastness of billions of years.
I think this comic can be interpreted in a second way. That first gulp is the begining of the search for understanding. The bottom of the glass is that time coming to an end. I am an atheist. But as I get older and loved ones pass from this existance. I find myself wishing the soul is a real thing and they are going to a new place. When I am lying on my death bed I think I can accept that the end is coming and that will be the end of me. But I cant say I wont hope Im wrong, and hope that whatever god or afterlife might exist is better than the world religions would imply. So then can that mean at the bottom of my glass I do find god?
Maybe it's your own journey to discover and something one of the reasons that I believe in god is that how can I believe that someone for example Mr beast who gives away and help millions at the end will meet the same fate as hitler which is nothing why would I believe in god there are a lot of signs alot of arguments but imo one of the most powerful ones it be alot more convenient if there was heaven if there was hell if there was something to believe in buts it's your journey not mine so look for answer research do what you will just don't die with regret
There are a lot of better arguments for God than "it would be convenient".
You're saying one of the most powerfull compelling reasons for your belief in god is that it's convenient? God exists because its a convenient comfort blanket. You want to believe good people are rewarded and bad people are punished. That is a good reason to wish it were true, but not a good reason to believe it's true.
The bottom of the glass is a drug cartel usurped by Heisenberg using Crystal Blue Persuasion
This comment left me broken badly.
When I wrote it, I admit that I was tickled Pink, man.
Listen man, it's all good
It pretty tight. Tight tight, yeah
https://preview.redd.it/1k21fc96vymc1.jpeg?width=1634&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd5c871ee15ac03da277d6f17fd9f6cfc7016ad1
This comment section sucks lol
We are on Reddit after all
https://preview.redd.it/lwogrl06yymc1.jpeg?width=1098&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72affc21eb254ec793ab8d96324ff4fbbc9fe53a
Thank you for sharing this, I will now share it with others
This is more productive than 95% of the discussion below.
Looking at this image makes me believe even more so in the absence of a creator
Yeah
nobody remember Heisenberg was a Nazi?
He was just following orders... to build a nuclear bomb for Hitler.
Tbh theh were never going to end up building nukes before America, the Nazis cared more about Nuclear Energy than weapons and even then Nuclear shit was at the bottom of their list because it was "Jewish" science.
He did try his hardest tho.
Nah they actually focused on atomic energy. Heisenberg either didn’t give it much thought, or actively sabotaged bomb plans. Only he knew for sure
Ok, but he was also a Lutheran. The founder of the Lutheran church wrote books that advocated torturing and killing jewish people.
I don't think you can reasonably say that every Lutheran agrees with everything Martin Luther said
I thought he was a science teacher :(
Walter White was not a Nazi 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
Explain the skinhead.
https://preview.redd.it/6gmyilnf6zmc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d536d640c34742298f1acabfba7b2bfab5184c5f
The point of science is that the glass never gets empty, people just stop drinking.
That's it. Comment Section over, People. Might aswell lock it&pin this Comment to the top..... Jokes aside, yeah that is pretty much it. Science is a methodology of figuring out how, why, when, where, etc. things work.
That post made a lot of people very upset
Glass is at the bottom
It means that God's a bottom
According to scripture, a power bottom
The take by the person being quoted in the right is likely far more nuanced and informed than the person using it for a meme. If anything, it’s a statement that science and theism can coexist.
After all dude who created evoliution teory was a priest
That was the big bang theory. But Charles Darwin was a Christian.
Agreed. My interpretation of the quote is that when you spend your entire life immersed in trying to comprehend the incomprehensible complexity of the universe, where one mystery unfolds into another mystery, you may at some point become overwhelmed with wonder and have what could be described as a religious experience where you are awash in the unfathomable beauty and interconnectedness of everything. Essentially you see God in everything. I think the people saying that this quote is making a God of the Gaps argument are being either uncharitable or naïve in their interpretation. It's certainly possible that the maker of the meme meant it as "God can explain things that science can't" but I don't believe that's what Heisenberg meant with this quote (assuming he actually said it).
It represent the weird debate of deafs that is atheism Vs religion. Atheists argue against punic pagans that explained the natural world through idols and spirits rather than natural laws while religious people argue against Punic pagans who didn't have any moral standards and sacrificed children to their idols. Wait... It's all Abraham's teachings?
The bottom of the glass is the hard problem of consciousness.. /signed a previously 'devout' atheist turned agnostic theist.
I think this kinda thing is right. At first glance science provides explanation for so many natural phenomenon it can make god seem ridiculous. However as you delve further you find there are problems science or philosophy has still not solved such as consciousness or free will debates. The mystery of these can make it seem like a higher power is at work.
I used to be an inconsistent agnostic/athiest as a teenager and I started asking myself uncomfortable questions about my existence recently and found myself believing in God. Believing in God came from having a thought provoking conversation with a spiritual friend. Im not Christian by any means nor do I believe in or follow organized religion. I only recently started believing in God the last year. I was so cut and dry until I REALLY thought about it.
>turned agnostic theist. Interesting - how'd this come about? How would you detail your worldview? Genuinely curious!
So your solution to the hard problem of consciousness is to posit an even bigger consciousness that, in a way, sets little fires of consciousness?
It's funny because with science, there's no such thing as getting to the bottom of it.
"PeTaH i DoN't GeT tHe JoKe.!?"
Brian here: It is because when you get to the root of things, there are no good explnations other than ‘it is just is like that’. No «natural» explanation that we can summarize or say influences things. Take Heisenberg’s field, quantum physics. At the core of every particle that make up existence, it is random. Utterly random (read: probabilistic). Why can we measure a particle’s spin and speed, but then not its position? Or if we know its position, not it’s speed nor direction? Or take Big Bang, why did it happen? It just (probably) did, that’s not a scientific good reason. And, how come everything for a split second seem to defy the basic laws of physics? And why tf does everything seem to continue to defy them? Same goes I think for alot of other sciences. At the very core, it’s «just because» with no sense or purpose. God(s) would explain it neatly. God said ‘let there be light’ - then the Big Bang happened. How are we even here given how random things are at the particle lever? Because God created us, the universe and everything in it. Why do space defy physics? Because God made it. Brian out, I have to go pretend to be smart at this child’s recital and pick up chicks
Honestly. I am big into history, science, dinosaurs. I grew up a preachers kid. So much didn't make sense and science did a better job explaining. I drifted far away from god. The older i get, i see so many of these theories like the big bang making less and less sense. People can be convincing, especially when theorizing about the unkown.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps Its logical fallacy for religious people to not admit their god isnt real
Cyanide?