Thread:Lowkey done with life/@comment-37869175-20181224194711/@comment-37841075-20190211015106

mY RESPONSE GOT DELETED AND I SPENT LIKE 2 HOURS ON IT IM SO MAD I HAVE A HEADACHE

OKAY OKAY TIME TO RETYPE THIS

but shorter because I'm too lazy to retype everything and I can only remember like 80% of it anyway

To prove something to me, it needs to have enough evidence for it that it roots out the evidence against it. Invevitably, there will always be a shred of evidence against a certain idea, but it's a matter of which one makes more logical sense based on our sense of logic and our own sensory input. That's what I need to prove something as true to me.

Proof to me is what makes logical sense to me and in a general scope. There's proof I can bend my fingers. My hands are deisgned to move: the bones, muscles, and tendons mean that my fingers are allowed to bend, and should be bent. Maybe it's not absolutely full of knoweldge, I'm not omniscient. I just know "good enough." And good enough is good enough.

For the whole thing about science requiring faith, Ricardo Bevilaqua said it best, so I'll just quote him:

"If you had faith in your doctor in the religious sense, you'd assume he could do no wrong, no matter what wonky things he'd do or prescribe. But the kind of faith we really have in our doctor is a provisional and evidence-based one, the same kind of faith we have in science. How does physics, for example, need faith in axioms or assumptions, if physics' axioms can change with experiments and evidences? What cannot be settled by experiment, logic and mathematics is not worth quarrels and debates. What can be asserted without impartial evidence can be dismissed without impartial evidence.As science ultimately depends on fundamental unprovable assumptions, is science ultimately based on a kind of faith too? If the process is reliable, we don't have to be able to prove fundamental assumptions. By far the most important variable that determines your religion is the region of birth, but the claims of science do not. Science’s claims grow the precision of previsions, faith’s “explanations” are unverifiable. '''Science claims to be universal transcending specific cultures and replicable in any and every laboratory in the world. Religions rely on the acceptance by unverifiable authority of ancient books, subjective experience, and personal revelation'''. Credulity is high when as to accept the believer own religion purported miracles, but it is low to those attested by other religions. The use of science is justified because it works. If we are interested in finding out what causes malaria, no amount of waiting for a revelation will answer. We have to use scientific methods. Without evidences we simply have no way of distinguishing, among the vast variety of experiences with a supposed God, those, if any, which are the genuine from those which are not. The notion that there exists a God, or Brahman or Nirvana or Tao, is a belief as equally valid as believing that any fictional reality exists merely because it is impossible to prove or disprove its existence and the origin of belief is very old, just provided that some ad hoc unintelligible premises of impossible verifiability can be conveniently invented, like: “The supernatural is “outside” space-time.” The ancient Egyptians also believed that they were right because their supernatural beliefs were thousands of years old."

Let's not get into the nitty gritty of our existence, but for the sake of this let's say, yes, we exist. Yes, the chances of our existence alone are ridiculously, uncomprehensively tiny. The chance that our universe would appear at all is a 1 in a 10 to the 600th power chance. But if you look around, the universe is not made for us. If it was, why does 99.999999999999999999999997% of everything inside of it kill us instantly? The universe isn't tuned for us; we're tuned for the universe. The sun doesn't shine for us, our eyes adjusted to be sensitive to light. Life adjusts; the universe just is. The universe changes, but it stays stagnant enough that it will not bend itself backwards to allow life; it's life that needs to adapt. Just because we're fine-tuned doesn't mean there's a designer.

I think that's everything, but I'm honestly so exhausted and I have this awful headache and I need to complete this essay so I'm sorry if I missed anything. ;;

If I misunderstood anything, please correct me!!! Signing off with sincerest well wishes!