You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Viliam comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 14 March 2016 08:02AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (212)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (212)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Viliam 16 March 2016 07:11:01AM 3 points [-]

Positing a hyper-powerful creative entity seems not that epistemologically reckless when the more "scientific" alternative is "something happened".

Jumping from "something happened" to "a hyper-powerful creative entity happened" is not reckless? Especially when we have evidence that more complex things can arise from less complex things without a supernatural manager guiding the process.

What makes you look at the vast set of "somethings" that might have been responsible for the origin of the universe, and choose exactly the same thing that our ancestors considered a good explanation for the origins of thunder (and now we know they were wrong)?

Comment author: Brillyant 16 March 2016 01:04:38PM 0 points [-]

Especially when we have evidence that more complex things can arise from less complex things without a supernatural manager guiding the process.

This isn't being questioned. I'm asking about origins.

What makes you look at the vast set of "somethings" that might have been responsible for the origin of the universe, and choose exactly the same thing that our ancestors considered a good explanation for the origins of thunder (and now we know they were wrong)?

I don't consider it a good explanation. But others have. And I don't see why it's necessarily bad. So far, I've seen no reason on this thread to update and make deism an awful explanation.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit