Hacker News Reader

Comment by timcederman | Hacker News Reader

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true.

It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial teacup or invisible pink unicorns. That's quite different to physical evidence of evolution.

The author of this test loves playing semantic games.

View on HN

I think it's getting at: say you had more actual evidence for the God theory than you did for evolution. Your response seems to indicate that you would STILL prefer evolution, as you would require certain, irrevocable proof for God. Your previous response said that you didn't need that level of proof for evolution, hence it states your views are logically inconsistent.

I made the same "mistake", as I intended to imply that I would need "very strong" (but not "certain" proof) for the God theory.

Basically, the question's are a bit ambiguous (especially with only True/False responses), but logically I think the site is correct.

-- Ayjay on Fedang

The previous question said "Is evolution essentially true?" Well, yes. Plenty of physical evidence for it.

I read the question as "Do you need actual evidence to believe in a God." I say yes. I don't see how my views are conflicted there - evidence means something is "true" (ah, but what is the definition of truth? We end up going down the rabbit hole about evidence, models, likely truths, etc)

I think the important word here is "irrevocable". Saying you don't need irrevocable evidence doesn't mean you don't need any evidence. Irrevocable seems to me to be pretty much the same as unfalsifiable which doesn't make much sense and would not be good evidence for the existence of god.

@Ayjay, What would consist as "very strong" proof?

Some of my thoughts on that: Any 'proof' God gives must be physical so we can measure it. Anything we can measure is a 'normal' part of the universe, and so can't be God.

Rainbows = not God because it's just water vapor and light

The universe = not God because it's what happens when you get some kind of powerful explosion that throws out matter and energy for billions of years.

God literally appearing in the sky in physical form announcing that He is God and that He's responsible for this creation = not necessarily God because it could be alien technology, or propaganda warfare from US evangelicals, or <insert theory here that will let us spend millennia arguing before deciding anything has been proved>

--Trindaz on Fedang

Anyway, theres a lot more to evolutionary theory than that we all evolved from single celled organisms many billions of years ago. Some of the theory has been proven (for example, we do know that organisms evolve by replicating and mutation and that environmental pressure will allow certain traits to survive and other die), so that doesn't necessarily make you wrong here. This test makes too many assumptions about your belief based on simple questions.

It really does seem like the questions are worded to create contradictions where there are none. Almost like the author is trying to trap people instead of being intellectually honest (or even a decent philosopher).

I got the same thing and I chose to bite the bullet.

Agree, it is a controlled environment...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com