iNow

This is basically a reformulation of the problem of evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:[2] Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the 'logical' problem of evil. <...> A version by William L. Rowe: There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2] Another by Paul Draper: Gratuitous evils exist. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.

There's also the counter-argument that trying to navigate someone else's folder structure makes using the site LESS enjoyable and convenient. I, for one, hate trying to find a file in a folder hierarchy someone else created... I waste more time than I would if everything were just dumped into a single catch-all bucket en masse

It still cracks me up when I see it

Lol. I forgot about that one

After seeing Kanye as a choice on my US presidential ballot today, I decided to celebrate the best thing he ever did: But then I heard this and it’s. So. Much. Better

Who is we?

You can action this all you want when you start your own forum. For now, you're doing more harm than good by continuing to comment as you are. Logic dictates that you shouldn't act abrasively toward those from whom you need help to get what you want.

You should use a desiccant, or at least dry rice

No. It was a singularity such as those predicted at the center of BHs, but was not from a BH itself. Yes. For example, I’m pretty sure it didn’t come from Santa Claus. Approximately 50 Billion times the size of our sun. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28647-black-holes-have-a-size-limit-of-50-billion-suns/ No, not according to our current mathematical models.

Lack of sleep for long periods leads to hallucinations, whether or not the 80 hour threshold is crossed

Concussions, too... or low blood glucose levels

We’ve gotta make a decision. We leave tonight or live and die this way

Pretty fly for a white guy

Now that poor fly needs to quarantine for 2 weeks

Not enough members probably care. Philosophy forum itself is pretty quiet overall. Further breakdowns may be logical in terms of classification, but likely aren’t necessary

Q: “Why does science rely on <insert random strawman or obvious misunderstanding here>?” A: It doesn’t.

None of that is on topic. It’s not even on your recent tangent

Racism and misogyny and jingoism are also attempts to make sense of the world, and they're all garbage unworthy of either praise or credit. Your position is pretty weak since it doesn't ask that the sense they make be accurate or helpful toward advancement. No. Science makes hypotheses then puts those hypotheses to the test and discards ones that are wrong. It uses experiment in search of conclusions. Religion, however, makes up whatever it wants then goes searching for evidence that seems to support those already made conclusions and ignores the rest. No. You might find some numerology there, but not mathematics.

Your inability to conceive of it is not a valid argument against it as a possibility. My previous point was rather clear. Of course. I covered this already in my very first post to this thread:

And it seems you’re more interested in being an emotionally volatile, childish, entitled little twat waffle and acting superior to others than in putting forth a legitimate argument that may change minds

This is a faulty generalization fallacy. Some Christians take the teachings literally, but not all, yet through poor reasoning or sloppy language (or both) you suggest otherwise. Unfortunately here again you show the errors in your own thinking, this time by introducing the No True Scotsman fallacy. One can, in fact, be a “real scientist” while also believing in ridiculous fairy tales, so long as those beliefs and fairy tales are not part of their processes or methods.

A similar thought crossed my mind, but mine was focused more on the most religious survivors of the person who died. In my life, it’s extremely common that the death hits the theists hardest and is often for some reason more difficult for them to accept. One would think that they’d be happy their dad/mom/sibling/cousin/friend is now surfing along the clouds with Jesus, but alas... that’s not what I see. The sadness and hurt and pain seems in my anecdotal experiences to be far greater in the theistic survivors than in the non believing ones. That was Spock. 🖖

That would mean he was wearing kayaks on his feet, not sandals. I see religion not as wrong, but as misguided. There are obvious social benefits and a sense of belonging, community, and connection with something larger than ourselves, but religion itself is not needed for any of that. We can experience all of those same things without dividing ourselves into further tribes or accepting millennia year old myths as valid explanations for what occurs in our universe. Also, nobody thinks science explains everything. Science is a method of removing human bias from our conclusions. It’s always provisional and always changing, but also the single best option available to us. Try not to strawman it. It weakens your already weak position. Proof is for math, not science. He has a point.