Hacker News Reader

Comment by candiddevmike | Hacker News Reader

It's unfortunate that your research led you to religion instead of learning more about evolution

It didn’t. Just typical religious lies about how various things are too complex to have been “random”. The use of the word random gives it away.

Be a little kind, won't you? It's always an occasion of sorrow to see someone turn his face from the world, and certainly I'm not prepared to assume myself immune to the same pitiable fate.

I'm sure being mercilessly mocked is a contributing factor to these statistics.

Never underestimate the shamefully desperate desire of those who grew up being stuffed into lockers to find whom they may themselves stuff into other, presumably smaller and more easily closing, lockers of their own.

This is such an incoherent response. Evolution and creationism are absolutely in sync. Do you think it’s somehow beyond the reach of an omnipotent/omniscient being to set up an evolutionary chain?

Many, many scientists start gravitating back towards religion. I’ll never understand the cocky approach with this topic.

Who are these many many scientists? Real science I mean.

For a physicist for instance, being in god is symptomatic of a mental disease, probably multiple personalities disorder -- because these two concepts cannot live together in one brain that believes both.

It is explicitly anti-science to pretend you have any true idea what is outside the universe, friend. We can guess at it of course, but you’d have to be extremely early on in your education to think “the tool that explores the universe” is somehow incompatible with “something explicitly not inside the universe”.

I am indeed early in my education (I am an engineer and have a PhD in physics) but from what I know, science, roughly speaking says - "we know what we know". And what we know, we know it by thinking out some models and matching them with experimental data. If the model fits, it is good enough for now.

What we cannot model or measure yet - we do not know. Plain and simple. We do not try to push an agenda of a deity of some sort which did all of that and therefore the "explanation" is that god is great.

We admit that we do not know and, hopefully, we will know at some point but before then we do not put ourselves in the comfortable shade of someone sitting on a cloud in the sky who know it all (but does not want to share :))

Correct, the discussion of a creator rests purely within the philosophical realm. That’s my point. To make a decision absent any evidence, yet knowing it’s a realm that needs to be considered (the outside of our universe) is explicitly anti-scientific.

Again, it’s got nothing to do with a guy sitting on a cloud. Anything natural to the universe must comply with the laws of physics. Any “powerful dude” is only a god until a “more powerful dude” comes along, realistically speaking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com