= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Skepxian comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1953)
Thank you very much, I appreciate that.
however, I'm following from an assumption of a deity that wants to be known and moving forward. It certainly doesn't suffice for showing that a deity figure does exist, because if we follow the assumption of a deity that doesn't want to be known, or a lack of a deity, then any religion which has withstood the test of time is likely the one with the fewest obvious flaws. It's rather like evolution of an idea rather than a creature.
However, the existence of such a religion does provide for the possibility of a deity figure.
I used the word 'embed' because this implies the deity could (possibly) be working within the rules of physics. The relationship between the deity, physical time and whether it is immediately involved in human events would be an interesting digression. The timelessness of physics is a relevant set of posts for that.
I agree with your comments. Regarding the strength of implications in either direction, (the possibility of a deity given a vigorous religion or the possibility of a true religion given a deity), there are two main questions:
if a deity exists, should we expect that it cares if it is known?
does the world actually look like a world in which a deity would be revealing itself? (though as you cautioned, such a world may or may not actually have a deity within it)
If this thread is likely to attenuate here, these questions are left for academic interest ...