There's a complete absence of evidence for everything you can just make up.
I claim that the universe was created by Ralph the Wonderllama who lives on Proxima Centauri B and who owns all albums by Simply Red.
But hey, no evidence of absence, right? So my claim is valid, right? And you suddenly don't care how unlikely it is, right?
Yeah. "This violent tornado missed my home so close! Oh thank you, god!"
Noone ever asks why their god created the tornado in the first place. Not even the neighbor whose house has been obliterated. He's probably thanking god for being alive. It's bizarre.
I know there's Godwin's Law. And yes, I always tried very hard not to bring up Hitler and not to compare Trump with him.
But as a historically inclined German I would like to point out that I simply cannot help but constantly find parallels between Trump / magaworld and the Nazis.
They keep hating on a small, completely innocent and harmless minority. They threaten their lives. It is truly shocking to me.
To anyone who still says "No, you can't compare Trump to Hitler", I say: Look at this list and tell me Trump isn't a vile, disgusting demagogue.
The only difference to Hitler being (thank fuck!) he's not hellbent on waging war on the entire world.
People only bring up this argument to distract from the fact that their real motivation is primitive revenge.
Well well well.
Suppose a normal violin has strings of ~33cm length. The E-string would have a frequency of ~660 Hz. Let's shrink that down to tardigrade dimensions (according to Google, it's about 400μm).
I'm just going to assume the tardigrade violin has a string length of 60μm.
The frequency of strings also depends on tensile stress and mass density - let's just assume that these scale proportionally.
So we can use the formula: f∝1/L (basically means, half the size means double the frequency).
Let's calculate the scale factor s for the frequency:
L(real) = 330mm, f(real) = 660 Hz L(tardi) = 60μm.
s = L(real) / L(tardi) = 0.33 / 6 * 10⁻⁵ = 5500.
This means that the frequency of the tardigrade E-string would be:
f(tardi) = f(real) * s = f(real) * 5500 = 660Hz * 5500 = 3,630,000Hz = 3.63 megahertz, which is 181.5 times above than the human limit of 20kHz.
Difference in octaves... log2(3.63 Mhz / 660 Hz) = 15.7
That means the tardigade E-string is almost 16 octaves above the human one.
Yeah, that's the kind of toxic family that one should cut off as soon as possible.
More like "I'm ultra right, but I can't admit that in public because so I desperately need to win over Germany's working class for my war plans, I even used the word socialism in our party name and we intentionally make our posters similar to those of the communists".
You’re getting really hung up on this idea of “god” when that’s not what I’m really talking about lol
This whole thread was about the likelihood of God's existence...
Maybe some people find the big bang theory far-fetched
Perhaps, but contrary to the god hypothesis there is a lot of science that makes the big bang theory very plausible.
just trying to keep your mind open
Forgive me, but I'm a person who follows science and the scientific method, so it seems ironic that YOU are trying to keep MY mind open. I will always change my mind according to new evidence, just as science does, being a self-correcting system.
There’s a HUGE difference between saying “this is real because we can’t prove it isn’t,” and “there’s a small possibility this is real, but we can’t prove it.”
True, but some things have an infinitesimal likelihood. And to me, the likelihood of God's existence is, while not equal to zero, so extremely close to zero that it makes no practical difference.
Like, saying something DOESN’T exist simply because you HAVEN’T seen proof of it
I never said god doesn't exist. I actually stated several times now that you cannot disprove the existence of anything.
you don’t believe in a god because you haven’t seen evidence of it. I’m just trying to point out the argumentum ad ignorantiam in that.
That's not an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Wikipedia:
"The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."
I never asserted that the proposition of god is false (as mentioned several times above). I refuse to make any definitive assertions concerning the existence of god (neither true nor false).
I only asserted that the probability of god's existence is infinitesimally small.
It's fun to think about a lot of things for sure. But everything you just said is well summed up in your sentence "I just think there's SO much we haven't seen and so much we don't know".
See, just because we don't know everything, saying that god probably hides somewhere in what we don't know yet, that's called "The God of the gaps". It's what Christians have done over the centuries.
They claimed that God created the sun and earth and the solar system, and that earth is the center of it all. Then Kopernikus came along. They claimed that god created the animal kingdom and that all species are unchanged since creation. Then Darwin came along. Etcetera, etcetera. Science has kept disproving religious claims, and it still continues to do so. The gap is becoming smaller and smaller for God to hide in. Christians always point to what science doesn't know yet (and it happily admits it doesn't know) and say, see, that's why God is still possible. It's why I used the word "desperate" earlier in our debate.
In general, believing in something because one doesn't know better is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam - and that's a logical fallacy. There is no good reason to come up with a far fetched claim, just because you don't have evidence to the contrary.
Have you ever heard of Russell's Teapot? It's a thought experiment that claims that there's a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere in between Jupiter and Mars. Just because it cannot be discounted, does that make it likely to exist? Is it sensible to assume it does exist? No.
I think about God the same way. Everything indicates that mankind invented God. After all, we know over 3000 different deities. It just doesn't make any sense to assume he's real.
By the way, I am well aware of the well known saying you keep alluding to, while using other words - if we fill a bucket with ocean water, doesn't mean whales don't exist just because there isn't one in the bucket. Or something along that line.
In the entire human history, and in all of the observable universe, no matter where we looked, no evidence for a god could be found - I never claimed that proved the non-existence of a god.
I even said that you cannot logically disprove the existence of anything. But the likelihood becomes very, very small indeed, and the claim becomes extremely far fetched. So far fetched that the amount of people still willing to believe in a god is way out of proportion. To me this shows how gullible people are, and how easy it is to fool them.
But I submit to you that it makes the existence of a god unlikely. Why? Because everything we can observe has also allegedly been created by God. And you have to admit, although it's a very tiny part of the whole universe, it's still a huge amount of things. Earth, animals, plants, evolution, chemistry, particle physics, elements, galaxies, everything. Nothing in the entire human body of knowledge shows even the slightest sign of having been created by a god or points to a creation.
And science does postulate that the laws of physics are the same in the entire universe, so there's no good reason to believe God could be hiding somewhere else. The "god of the gaps" is nothing but an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
It's purely emotional, irrational thinking, solely serves the purpose of giving a weak mind an easy way to feel better about bad things that happen.
My mind doesn't work that way, I can't auto suggest myself out of logic - and to me, that kind of thinking is what is fundamentally wrong about this world. It makes people susceptible to all kinds of intellectual dishonesty.
If you can lie yourself into believing obvious bullshit just because it's comfortable, you will also be easily influenced by liars, charlatans and demagogues.
I highly doubt that people like Trump would be possible In a predominantly atheist society with people who are used to scientific scepticism.