| HN Mirror

I skimmed through the first section of article and it seemed definitely focused on the constants and how they might prove existence of god and this is usually given by academics who believe in god

But some recent studies I think do show that the fundamental constant of physics aren't so much constant. I am not a physicist but it was something that I read. https://www.sciencealert.com/new-tests-suggest-the-fundament...

I do not really believe in the fine tuning argument or the first cause arguments, I know some people really love these arguments on both sides of the wheel atheism or religion but I think that another idea which is rather sheldom discussed is deism which states that the first cause may be something but that it doesn't really interact with us afterwards and especially not in the ways that any major religion follows

And so even if you believe in god or not, in the end, it doesn't really matter (deism/agnosticism/atheism). I like to believe in existenalism where one has to forge their own meaning in life and I like to think that some people can just take god as a boilerplate if they don't really want to deal with the emotional turmoil that it might generate within some people

Deism/agnosticism is severely under-rated and it solves many of the gatchas that atheism vs religious debates tend to follow and so, its just if you are a deist or atheist or agnostic, it really doesn't matter because the end result's the same in my opinion and I think more so that all of these are in bluriness between a complete yes, an idk/maybe and a complete no. But in the end nothing really changes if the answer's any of these unless one is theist itself but there are several arguments against theism itself.

Once again, to me, I feel like if someone's religious, its fine but its such a slippery slope because religion really doesn't want you to mix and match things (which one can do with existentialism and their own philosophy of life) but religion wants you to take everything usually and tries to create high stake emotional gambits and I find them extremely bad because they can be intolerant because intolerance towards certain things would be rewarded by what they presume as heaven so may be defined.

It's the intolerance within the religious community which drives off the scientific community because science isn't really trying to cherry pick certain things or not. Its impartial and will state clearly what's the truth. Religions have shown to be intolerant to certain parts of science and that intolerance is still pestering even modern science at times.

One should try getting a modern concensus of what it means to be religious, because what's happening is the peer pressure/echo chambers convert a longing desire for meaning into a pre-built package of opinions on capitalism/politics/religion in many places.

I once did a mild discussion with a religious person and that really just boiled down to, well you believe in it or not, they ended up agreeing to all my points and had to use chatgpt to counter or smth but like religion really doesn't favour modern science. It really just wants you to believe things the way they are or Religion is really really resistant to change and so its worth questioning what community one wants to be part of as well and if perhaps there are ways that one can connect to other people in similar manner like having a community while focusing on only certain parts and from a more secular point of view.

I feel like that everyone of us even secular can probably spin up some philosophical difference to any religion (some religions do in fact not believe in god as well) etc. but at that point, I don't really think one should call it religion but I guess we humans have evolved to have the need to be in part of a community.