I honestly don’t get why everyone is agreeing with Windows on this one. I just love how explicit Linux is.

file.txt is fucking file.txt. Don’t do any type extra magic. Do exactly as I’m saying. If I say “open file.txt”, it is “open file.txt”, not “open File.txt”.

The feature isn’t being able to create filenames with the same name, nobody does that. The feature is how explicit it is.

It would be so confusing to read some code trying to access FILE.TXT and then find the filesystem has file.txt

I guess if my opinion makes them angry, they could have stopped with an “agree to disagree”. Personally, arguing doesn’t make me rage.

So I’ll give this to you before you get angry, let’s agree to disagree.

If it is falsifiable or not depends on how you define it.

It could be defined in many falsifiable ways, give it a try, pretty sure you can find many.

My point about Dark Matter is that it isn’t something we will likely have the means to falsify soon given the nature of the problem. It is also a pretty weak theory that contradicts many of the facts that we already know about the universe. So I could also create a very weak falsifiable argument about the existence of a creator and then call it a day.

“The creator was physically present in the origin of spacetime”. In theory, if we could look back in time, we could verify this. There are plenty techniques that allow us to “look” back, we may just need to discover a better one.

“God is physical and exists in the universe”

Making something falsifiable isn’t a problem.

You’re saying the concept of a god used by traditional religions isn’t falsifiable, which is right. But there’s no reason to limit the idea of a god to those traditional definitions.

I have experienced them, pretty sure you have too. It’s something common and it isn’t the type of guess I refer to. We have knowledge and experience about people behaving that way towards others. It’s based on knowledge.

Sure, I will

OK, so if maths were so clear about it, why very smart people who think logically didn’t think it was the case?

Could it be because maths have said many times in the past “Hey, this could be possible”… Only to find out that, yes, it is possible in maths but not in reality.

https://youtu.be/6akmv1bsz1M?feature=shared

And yeah, we don’t have the tools right now to fully unrestand the origin of the universe, so we can’t know how to make falsifiable theories around it. For example, Dark Matter is non-falsifiable because we don’t have enough knowledge about it.

We observe certain behavior in the universe, we call the cause Dark Matter even if we don’t fully understand how to prove or disprove it. We observe the existence of reality and we assume there is a creator even if we don’t fully understand how to prove or disprove it. We can observe reality, thus, theorizing about the existence of a creator isn’t absurd.

If something can’t be tested with current technology or theoretical knowledge, then it isn’t real?

Was electromagnetism real in the 800s?

I guess I can’t change your mind about that.

Yeah, I also have that in common with them. I was very religious as a child and then started changing because of the nonsense of religions. I’m trying to go a bit deeper here though, I think we can assume religions are just human ideas with no basis, so these are already discarded for me. I’m talking about an actual creator, not about our interpretation of it. I don’t think we have the tools, knowledge or experience to actually tell. The only thing we have is ignorance.

Yes, we discovered that AFTER the thought experiment. That was possible through knowledge and experimentation. Two things we don’t have about the origin of the universe… We have a lot of theories though.

Just because I’m arguing doesn’t mean it is in bad faith. I enjoy standing my ground and seeing what comes out of it. Otherwise it isn’t actually a discussion. I do feel some people are getting triggered by this, but I don’t care, I’m being respectful and explaining things the way I see them.

Maybe this is a bad habit of mine, but it’s when the good stuff happens. I’ve actually learned a lot through my stubbornness in this post.

Exactly, because we don’t have the means to prove or disprove it, we shouldn’t have any belief about it. A belief in this matter is just a guess based on personal preference. There’s no knowledge or evidence to back any position besides “I don’t know, I can’t know”.

I don’t think because we haven’t figured out how to test it so far it means it is impossible to do so. We may just need to get a better understanding of reality.

Pretty sure there are plenty of atheists that are constantly on the lookout to attack people who they don’t agree with. Anyways, shaping your life is not just about what you do but also about the way you think. Someone who believes God doesn’t exist because there’s no evidence, probably has other beliefs about things they don’t really understand. Letting go of those ideas that seem logical but have no basis helps lower the ego. Letting go and accepting ignorance feels much better than forming opinions without knowledge.

There is zero human evidence about most of the things that are actually happening right now in the universe.

It’s not about God working in mysterious ways, it’s about us having very little understanding of what constitutes reality. Like you know, this thing we’re experiencing right now. We don’t really understand it, or do you understand what’s happening right now?

It is indeed a mystery because we have no idea how reality works. Even if God doesn’t exist, reality is a mystery. We understand some things, sure, but we don’t really understand the things that would let us answer “is there a creator?”.

So saying “I don’t believe in a creator because there’s no evidence” just sounds so arrogant… As if humans had enough evidence to determine thst lack of evidence is good enough to reject something. The amount of evidence we have gathered about reality is probably extremely small compared to the evidence there is to gather.

I think I already said this before. If by “not believing” you mean “lack of belief”, we’re on the same page. I think lack of belief is the right approach to unknown subjects.

Give yourself the luxury of believing things only when you actually know about the subject. That means chances your belief is right are decent. Otherwise, don’t shape your life based on a guess.

Yes, because I don’t know then I don’t have a belief.

As I said, even Schrodinger’s paradox seemed logical and rational, he based his belief on it. Turns out he was wrong because he lacked knowledge, so his belief was just a guess. In his case, his belief was a good guess considering how close he was to the subject.

How close are we to understanding reality and it’s origin? Not close at all. Even if we used our rational thought, our belief would be a pretty wild guess, because we have basically no knowledge.

So can you believe without knowledge? Sure. If you believe with knowledge, that’s even better. Schdoringer believed based on a ton of knowledge and logical thought, and he was still wrong. Why? He lacked more knowledge. Now imagine me, believing with no understanding of the origin of reality… How close can I be to the actual answer. Not close. So, what’s the point of believing?

Can you believe without knowledge. Sure. But why? Lack of belief and accepting ignorance is the humble path.

The more you know about a subject, the more you should allow yourself to believe things on that subject.

I don’t know why you keep saying I’m saying belief and knowledge are the same. They are not the same. My point is that belief without knowledge is pointless. See? Not the same.

Belief based on knowledge = good.

Belief without knowledge = not good.

Do I have knowledge about the creation of the universe? Do I understand reality? Do I know anything about a creator? No. Thus, I choose not to believe anything about it. Anything I choose to believe without actual understanding is just a guess.

That’s what I do, I dismiss the claim. But just because their claim doesn’t make sense to me I won’t assume they are wrong.

If something doesn’t make sense to me, doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t make sense. If something makes sense to me, it doesn’t mean it makes sense. If there’s no evidence to prove something, doesn’t mean that thing is false…

I just feel my place in the universe is pretty far away from absolute truths. I prefer the humble route of just saying “I just don’t really know, do I’d rather not believe based on emotions or shallow perceptions”.

Again, not sure where that “it is binary” affirmation comes from. Is that what you believe? Or do you consider that to be an absolute truth?

There are some many things I honestly have no beliefs about. It’s like I’m a walking counterargunent to your affirmation.

Do I believe we live in a simulation? I honestly don’t know and I don’t know what to believe because I have no idea how reality works. Maybe? Maybe not? I honestly have no idea. How can I know if reality is real? I don’t know.

Is there a god? I don’t know. The question is too deep and if I said yes or no I’d be just guessing because I do not understand reality like that. There are things I do understand… how reality was created isn’t one of them.