Re: The Joy of *small* business

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/12/2024 09:31, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:12:43 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>

    Those poor people ... caught between an ever-growing mountain of
    facts/evidence and equally-persuasive *belief* (which requires no
    facts). They TRY to find ways to splice it all together. It doesn't
    work well ...

 A friend was a Young Earther despite being a proficient programmer. Given
the premise God can do anything it's no problem for him to whip up the
Grand Canyon with all its geological layers in his spare time. He was also
well rehearsed in the creationist arguments against evolution.
 

>
The problem is, that both the scientific narrative and the creationist one are complete, logical and unassailable.
>
One posits a supernatural 'Big Bang' from which time, space energy and the laws of nature miraculously sprang, and the other posits a big Creation from which  time, space energy and the laws of nature miraculously sprang, just already formed as a complete *fake*, like someone today constructing a '1000 year old' house. Complete with faked history.
>
The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient intelligence with a Plan in charge.
>
Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply more complicated than necessary to explain this shit.

I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.
I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down waaaay too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, in reality "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the questions is lacking?