= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (212)
Yeah. Okay. Is there any consensus about what caused the big bang? Like, how it happened?
It seems to me abiogenesis is super tricky but conceivable. The "beginning" of everything is a bit more conceptually problematic.
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)?
This isn't being questioned. I'm asking about origins.
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.