Fictional Universe/Religion chat
"If you've given up intellectual integrity, "... i did?
Yes -- I don't even know how you could deny that at all -- you've practically literally admitted it.
I'm pretty sure you've said that you believe in YEC and a 'higher power' because of some vague feeling you have.
the former is well.. former... and the second has fuck all to do with "intellectual integrity"
To me, once you've given up needing evidence to believe in things as big as 'higher powers', yeah, your intellectual integrity is pretty badly stained, if not fatally soiled.
i consider the universe to be proof something beyond exists. Always have.
That's just a lazy cause-and-effect assumption; it's like thinking that there must be a god that makes it rain, and the same type of thought processes govern both.
rain is simple, rais is easy. i can make it rain with a garden hose.
the universe is more, the universe is complex, the universe is chaotic, the universe is... beautiful and amazing.
...Which exactly proves what I just said. If you lived 10,000 years ago, you'd probably be saying the same thing about rain that you're saying about the universe. It's sort of a strange, pseudo-reversal god-of-the-gaps thought process -- as we learn more about the world around us, god (or a 'higher power', whatever the fuck that means) retreats to bigger and bigger things, things we don't understand.
And seriously, how does you seeing the universe as complex, chaotic, beautiful and amazing prove anything? If you thought it was ugly and horrifying, what would you think then?
Do i say you have to believe me? Do i say "its 6k years old?" do i say "evolution isnt true, the big bang isnt true, X or y isnt true?" No. I haven't. Atleast not in this discussion. The fuck does it matter to you what nearly atheistic belief i might or might not have?
It's an interesting point, but postulating the existence of the universe as proof that the universe has a cause is not the same as proving that Specific Belief X is true. You move your hypothesis out of the realm by which supporting evidence for it is meaningful and so can never express confidence in it, indeed your confidence is only non-zero because of the probability quirk you can't really have absolutely zero confidence (for the same reason you can't have 100%, or infinite, confidence, it's an odds ratio thing). Even if you take the most broad and inclusive idea into account, you're almost certainly going to be wrong.
Though there is a more fundamental problem with this; are you balancing both sides of your deductions properly? If you assert that "something beyond" (doesn't matter what it is, unicorns, Yahway, goblins or sub-atomic particles of strange matter) created the universe then you are saying that this thing is causally connected to the universe. But what do we call something that is causally connected to the universe: well, the universe. This "something beyond" would necessitate "something beyond" that too. You need to seriously unpack what you mean by "the universe" before you can really start talking about this. Is it matter than you can see right now? In that case "the universe" is just what is inside your light cone at any one point and so "beyond" that is merely parts of the universe you haven't yet observed or interacted with - yet you wouldn't really consider such things to be truly "beyond" because they still posses physical and causal connections. We can continue linking things together to our own sensory experience like this until we hit the edge, or not. Anything "beyond" that simply doesn't exist by any meaningful way you care to define the term "exist" - it has no causal connection to us.
Anyway, sorry to make a longer thread longer.