• LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Technically this could all be true even if the universe were created 4000 years ago. As somebody says in Robert Heinlein’s novel Job: A Comedy of Justice, “Yes, the universe is billions of years old, but it was created 4000 years ago. It was created old.” (approximate quote from memory)

    I absolutely agree with science, but strictly speaking we can’t know for sure the universe isn’t the creation of some superbeing operating outside of it - or it could even be a simulation.

    • nfh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      5 hours ago

      We can’t prove that the world we live in wasn’t created last Thursday, with our memories, the growth rings in trees, and so on created by a (near) omnipotent trickster to deceive us. But science and rationality give us tools for determining what’s worth taking seriously, and sorting out the reasonable, but unconfirmed, claims from the unverifiable hogwash.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Actually the universe was created on Jan 1st 1970. That’s why computers sometimes have errors with pre-1970 dates, it’s the universal simulation glitching due to the high clock rate of computers compared to the universe’s. Anyone who claims to have been born before 1970/01/01 is a simulation that’s lying to you, and anyone born after is real, hence why now that its more player characters than NPCs things are going off the rails politically and socially!

    • madeinthebackseat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 hours ago

      We can’t know anything with 100% certainty. We can always imagine some razzle-dazzle, imagined scenario to counter the rational explanation if we like.

      The point of the scientific method and logical reasoning is to pick the explanation with the most evidence.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The existence of a god is something that can’t be disproven. You can always find gaps in knowledge and explain the gap by saying a god / multiple gods did that. As gaps narrow with more knowledge, you can always just say that the holy books were just a metaphor in this one case, but the rest of it is literally true.

      It gets even more complicated when you run into people who refuse to believe in any science, or anything outside their own personal experience.

      Personally, I believe the Earth is a sphere. I’ve been to Australia, Europe, Africa, Asia and North America. The time the flights took and the routes the in-flight maps showed make sense for a spherical earth. So did the scenes visible out the windows, and the day/night cycle. The mere existence of time zones and seasons strongly suggests the Earth is a rotating sphere tilted slightly off vertical. But, it could be that I’m living in a Truman Show world, where everything is a lie designed to make me believe something that isn’t true. I haven’t personally done all the math, all the experiments, etc. to prove the Earth is a sphere. And, if this were a Truman Show world, the producers of the show could mess with my experiments anyhow.

      For someone who doesn’t want to believe, there’s really nothing you can do to make them believe. The world really relies on trust and believing Occam’s Razor.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If we assume that god, by definition, must be omniscient, there is actually a way to disprove the possibility with the following paradox:

        This sentence is not known to be true by any omniscient being.

        There are also more traditional arguments like the problem of evil

        @science_memes

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 hours ago

          If we assume that god, by definition, must be omniscient

          Why must that be true by definition? Many of the Greek gods were clearly not omniscient, because the stories about them all involve intrigues and hiding things from each-other.

          Also, you can’t disprove a god’s existence by making a logic puzzle that’s hard for you to puzzle out. Just because it’s a toughie for you doesn’t mean that it disproves the existence of gods.

          That isn’t even a particularly difficult logic puzzle.

          • J Lou@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Self-referential paradoxes are at the heart of limitative results in mathematical logic on what is provable, so it seems plausible a similar self-referential statement rules out omniscience.

            Greek gods are gods in a different sense than the monotheistic conception of god that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Sure, so the argument I give only applies to the latter sense.

            @science_memes

            • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              Man I don’t know if I’ll ever get over seeing Mastodon toots on Lemmy and all of the other wild cross-fediverse fun the Fediverse enables