What are the odds of a religion being the "right one"?

So you have no belief, how convinient. Why antagonize others who form them because they dont conform to thelack of?

Antagonising and questioning are two different things.

How dare you call god one human named Jesus!

I didn't

Let's get this straight right now

Your equation equals DICK

Prove it.


Here you go mate. You arent very scientific there are you....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp29hu.html

"always expands" is different from "expanding" you aren't very linguistic are you?



Than we have no problems. Next time you do it, i'll site this statement.

You do that.

You havent shown anything. I just did refute it. Your purposely ignoring the facts and perpetuating nonsense? Why. There is not one thing valid in your equation except that you think you know something because of a stupid hyperbole?

Again show me where my reasoning is wrong please. AlexG managed to find a flaw. Maybe so can you if you try harder. And do it in the thread dedicated to it. Thank you.

I would hope to got not over 500 religious posts in two weeks. I hope to god you get some fresh air. You might feel better. You might see the synchronization and like the feeling. You want everybody to feel as empty and shallow as you do? Before you say you aren't, why commit so much time to religion and peoples beliefs.

Is it wrong to be interested in religion if you don't believe in it?
I can't be interested in art either if i can't paint?
 
Antagonising and questioning are two different things.

I agree.



Right. You don't draw any conclusions but become hyper-critical when others do.

Prove it.

You continue ignoring my rebuttles. If you do we cant continue having any meaningful dialouge. You havent proved anything from your equation. I'm forced to ignore it due to its stupid nature it's just a hyperbole essentially your saying "Look how likely one idea is out of infinity"

You have no intelligence whatsoever, I give up on you. Your simply ignoring the facts and you continue to perpetuate nonsense.

"always expands" is different from "expanding" you aren't very linguistic are you?

Tell me the difference of "Always expands" and "expanding" and how it proves the point you were trying to make? You do know how to read in context, correct? You are smarter than that, arent you?

You do that.



Again show me where my reasoning is wrong please. AlexG managed to find a flaw. Maybe so can you if you try harder. And do it in the thread dedicated to it. Thank you.

Could you not read?? I've made several rebuttles on it on your topic and more. You simply are ignoring me and saying "show me" over and over again.


Is it wrong to be interested in religion if you don't believe in it?
I can't be interested in art either if i can't paint?

You said yourself you dont believe in god, its so improbable it should be ignored. Yet you spend most of your waking moments debating internet and in real life about gods existance. If you wasnt interested in art, would you care to paint? The anwser is no. Your logic of lack of only serves to prove my point further.
 
You continue ignoring my rebuttles. If you do we cant continue having any meaningful dialouge. You havent proved anything from your equation. I'm forced to ignore it due to its stupid nature it's just a hyperbole
essentially your saying "Look how likely one idea is out of infinity"

I ignore your "rebuttles" because the nature of them is to say that I'm stupid. Not pointing out why it's wrong. Look what happened when AlexG actually found a flaw in my logic.

You have no intelligence whatsoever, I give up on you. Your simply ignoring the facts and you continue to perpetuate nonsense.

You can keep up insulting me, but it won't change the fact that you never once managed to succesfully point out flaws in my logic.

Tell me the difference of "Always expands" and "expanding" and how it proves the point you were trying to make? You do know how to read in context, correct? You are smarter than that, arent you?

You said scientific consensus about the universe always expands. I asked you for a source on that. The link you sent me shows me that the universe is currently expanding.

Could you not read?? I've made several rebuttles on it on your topic and more. You simply are ignoring me and saying "show me" over and over again.

Again rebuttles where you just say that a hyperbole is stupid don't really deserve an answer. Find flaws in my logic please. I'm being sincere. I want to know if it's flawed.

You said yourself you dont believe in god, its so improbable it should be ignored. Yet you spend most of your waking moments debating internet and in real life about gods existance. If you wasnt interested in art, would you care to paint? The anwser is no. Your logic of lack of only serves to prove my point further.

I'm not painting. But I am interested in art.
Just like I'm not religious but I am interested in religion and human nature.
I used to be more into politics than religion but these days it's religion :shrug:
 
I ignore your "rebuttles" because the nature of them is to say that I'm stupid. Not pointing out why it's wrong. Look what happened when AlexG actually found a flaw in my logic.

So your admitting that you ignore my rebuttles because they make you feel stupid? AlexG found a flaw, as did I, the difference: you decided to acknowledge one and ignore the other. I said that your equation can be said about any possible thing and get the same result. Prove this is not the case

You can keep up insulting me, but it won't change the fact that you never once managed to succesfully point out flaws in my logic.

Your right I wouldent consider it logic at any rate.

You said scientific consensus about the universe always expands. I asked you for a source on that. The link you sent me shows me that the universe is currently expanding.

Dude there is more than just one article. On this forum I'm sure there are many who agree the universe is expanding or always expands. I suspect you dont know the difference.


Again rebuttles where you just say that a hyperbole is stupid don't really deserve an answer. Find flaws in my logic please. I'm being sincere. I want to know if it's flawed.

It's a hyperbole - it has no logic. You simply said how one belief is unlikely verse an infinite amount of beliefs. I accept this but it does not mean anything at all esspecially in regards to what we are discussing.


I'm not painting. But I am interested in art.
Just like I'm not religious but I am interested in religion and human nature.
I used to be more into politics than religion but these days it's religion :shrug:

Lmao I like how you switched it around. I'm not painting but im interested in art wouldent that equate I'm not preaching but im interested in religion?

That's not what your saying its more like

Your not interested in art but your trying to be a painter.

(Thats a more accurate analogy, learn to read in context, for the love of god) :eek:
 
7:30 PM EST, 04/14/2011

To whom it may concern:

(Actually, to whomever gets to it first) :)

I apologize in advance if I am not following correct procedure here. Please pardon my ignorance as this is the first time I have made such a request.

Could someone do me a favor? Please move posts 238 through 250, excepting post #248 (or perhaps later, depending on time and thread direction) from http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107474 (Why am I not banned?) to http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107478 (What are the odds of a religion being the "right one").

I admit complicity in derailing the "About the Members" thread, but I think we can perhaps bring both threads current by moving these posts.

Thanks,
Randwolf

cc:Enmos, Fragggle Rocker, glaucon, Tiassa, Trippy & JamesR
Also posted in http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107474
 
7:30 PM EST, 04/14/2011

To whom it may concern:

(Actually, to whomever gets to it first) :)

I apologize in advance if I am not following correct procedure here. Please pardon my ignorance as this is the first time I have made such a request.

Could someone do me a favor? Please move posts 238 through 250, excepting post #248 (or perhaps later, depending on time and thread direction) from http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107474 (Why am I not banned?) to http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107478 (What are the odds of a religion being the "right one").

I admit complicity in derailing the "About the Members" thread, but I think we can perhaps bring both threads current by moving these posts.

Thanks,
Randwolf

cc:Enmos, Fragggle Rocker, glaucon, Tiassa, Trippy & JamesR
Also posted in http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107474

Moderator Note:
Posts have been split into a holding thread for the time being, but the two threads will have to be merged by someone with Authority in the Religon forum.
 
2ely2wg.jpg
 
I feel like trolling your thread like you do so many others Papaya!
LOL. I won't continue with the narration above because its a circular pointless and regressive argument. You know the equation is utter shit, is invalid and is not "actually" an equation, so let's move past this, obviously you know you havent proved anything. It's a hyperbole, it's baseless and the equation itself is proposterous and threads on suppositions. So let's move on....

Let me ask you this.

Everything we understand about science is based on a frame of reference. You take this away and what do you have? Well. Nothing besides the desire to learn or the lack of in most cases. These are the usual extremes. You admit you have no frame of reference so I suspect you are of the latter extreme on the note there is many athiests here who are intelligent open minded and even engage in philosophy, etc. You dont want to learn so you render every argument that deals with it null and insult the belief systems of others not accounting to the fact that subjective reality some have may become actuality after death, who knows, what do you know about the fabric of consciousness? Not enough to insult those who dont conform to the lack of belief, why do you insist on trying to make people feel a certain way? It's like a thiest. Every time I see a person making claims on organized religions I simply remind them of there bloody historical context there religion was founded upon.

So if we simplify this in a meaninful way - we can come to understand that if we do not have a frame of reference - we cannot move foward meaningfully. I believe there is a god as the frame of reference for consciousness. I can't understand the purpose behind having consciousness in a sterile universe except than I conclude that the universe itself is alive through consciousness and that there has to be more. I just believe the mind is so powerful that one day we will manafacture reality like we do with dreams.

If this is not the case and I'm becoming hyper critical consequence of some bias I have for you than I retract my statements and apologize to you in the case that you do not insult the religious passive agressively or direct.

Quantum physics essentially states that everything is deprived from thoughts - you are objective to the extent of witholding irrational contempt in lieu of having nothing to contrast or to argue with besides clever ad homs and by demonstrating sheer arrogance and fatheadedness in face of people yearning to learn.

What are the odds of god not existing
Well let's see you'll have to prove alot won't you - don't worry - i'll save you the oh so clever "equation" which illustrates the possibility (conviniently infinity will be a variable) so do the equation. By god I mean - the first sense of matter that organized itself my theory as that it evolves on a cosmological scale and consciousness is some consequence of its evolution.

What is the point of your thread?

Is religion and god different? What is your definition of god? Don't worry you are most likely god, maybe everything is thats why we dont feel bad eating eachother :) Maybe we all just know life and death is more or less a game that doesent matter. I suspect that if we all were independant of reality that consciousness wouldent have organized. Actually let me ask you this,

If consciousness and physical reality (and the laws that it conforms to) is exclusive than consider what happens when we dream. Surely we are still conscious and we manafacture a reality within our own by a simple mental process alone. It doesent adhere to the laws in this physical reality. Than we wake up. Does that make any scientific sense when you really think about it??

How about those who lucid dream and control there enviorments in dreams, etc.?

I'll be eager to hear that response as to why it exists in the first place. I suspect we are all one. That one is god. Universe, me, you, a blade of grass, and that perverted thought you have when you see a certain somebody, I think it's all god.

Let me ask you this!!!!

If reality was any different (If we knew god existed, if physical requirements were not in place for consciousness, all the usual arguments against) would life be meaningful in the way it is now??

Could you even imagine yourself as lets say a butterfly? Or a monkey? Do you think it would be as meaningful? I think it would to an extent. If you have no frame of reference surely death is something to be wanted. I mean, you fall asleep right??? Why wake up when you don't have to? Sounds sweet to me. I just dont think this is the case. I think we will resurface as this consciousness is all in the same fabric (unless your arrogant enough to think otherwise) and we don't know what we will resurface as! Hopefully we will be animated. This is what god is about. It's about will.

Isnt it perfectly balanced, can you think of how you would be otherwise?? If things were even a little different, suppose everybody always got what they want, wouldent it defeat the purpose of want and render the associated feelings null untill pain and happiness was synomonus?
 
I feel like trolling your thread like you do so many others Papaya!
LOL. I won't continue with the narration above because its a circular pointless and regressive argument. You know the equation is utter shit, is invalid and is not "actually" an equation, so let's move past this, obviously you know you havent proved anything. It's a hyperbole, it's baseless and the equation itself is proposterous and threads on suppositions. So let's move on....

Ok. I don't think it's utter shit. I will leave it at that for now.

Let me ask you this.

Everything we understand about science is based on a frame of reference. You take this away and what do you have? Well. Nothing besides the desire to learn or the lack of in most cases. These are the usual extremes. You admit you have no frame of reference so I suspect you are of the latter extreme on the note there is many athiests here who are intelligent open minded and even engage in philosophy, etc. You dont want to learn so you render every argument that deals with it null and insult the belief systems of others not accounting to the fact that subjective reality some have may become actuality after death, who knows, what do you know about the fabric of consciousness? Not enough to insult those who dont conform to the lack of belief, why do you insist on trying to make people feel a certain way? It's like a thiest. Every time I see a person making claims on organized religions I simply remind them of there bloody historical context there religion was founded upon.

I don't insist on making people feel in a certain way. I'm sorry if i make you feel bad but my questions are based on genuine interest. I don't think i insult any belief systems. On the contrary, my equation is based on the assumption that all belief systems have an equal probability of being the right one. I think that is more than open minded.

Let me say this one last time: I'm not targeting organised religion. You're making this up, so you can make your belief seem more reasonable because you can point out the contrast between organised religion, which is usually the target of anti-theists, and your own version of belief that takes scientific progress into consideration. Whether it is more reasonable, I cannot be the judge of. I don't even find that particular point interesting as I'm not trying to criticise your beliefs.


Quantum physics essentially states that everything is deprived from thoughts - you are objective to the extent of witholding irrational contempt in lieu of having nothing to contrast or to argue with besides clever ad homs and by demonstrating sheer arrogance and fatheadedness in face of people yearning to learn.

Speaking of "clever" ad homs. Come on. Don't accuse me of it and then in your very next breath do it yourself.
If you want to discuss this like an adult, you should try and refrain from insulting me. Who knows... We might both learn something from it.

What are the odds of god not existing
Well let's see you'll have to prove alot won't you - don't worry - i'll save you the oh so clever "equation" which illustrates the possibility (conviniently infinity will be a variable) so do the equation. By god I mean - the first sense of matter that organized itself my theory as that it evolves on a cosmological scale and consciousness is some consequence of its evolution.

See now you're starting to ask interesting questions. This piece here is valuable to this thread. The odds of God NOT existing. I guess that depends on whether the universe(s?) is infinite or not among other things.
Maybe you can help answer this question yourself.


If consciousness and physical reality (and the laws that it conforms to) is exclusive than consider what happens when we dream. Surely we are still conscious and we manafacture a reality within our own by a simple mental process alone. It doesent adhere to the laws in this physical reality. Than we wake up. Does that make any scientific sense when you really think about it??

How about those who lucid dream and control there enviorments in dreams, etc.?

I'll be eager to hear that response as to why it exists in the first place. I suspect we are all one. That one is god. Universe, me, you, a blade of grass, and that perverted thought you have when you see a certain somebody, I think it's all god.

Interesting belief.


Let me ask you this!!!!

If reality was any different (If we knew god existed, if physical requirements were not in place for consciousness, all the usual arguments against) would life be meaningful in the way it is now??

Well some people do claim to KNOW that God exists. You should ask them. Personally I think it would make me go insane if i found out that a god existed.

Could you even imagine yourself as lets say a butterfly? Or a monkey? Do you think it would be as meaningful? I think it would to an extent. If you have no frame of reference surely death is something to be wanted. I mean, you fall asleep right??? Why wake up when you don't have to? Sounds sweet to me. I just dont think this is the case. I think we will resurface as this consciousness is all in the same fabric (unless your arrogant enough to think otherwise) and we don't know what we will resurface as! Hopefully we will be animated. This is what god is about. It's about will.

I don't understand what you mean by consciousness is all in the same fabric.


Isnt it perfectly balanced, can you think of how you would be otherwise?? If things were even a little different, suppose everybody always got what they want, wouldent it defeat the purpose of want and render the associated feelings null untill pain and happiness was synomonus?

Sometimes I just think you smoke a bit too much weed. That's ok though. I used to do that myself as well. :)
 
Whether the universe will keep expanding or stop and start contracting again is still a matter of debate among physicists, I believe....

We can either end up in a "big crunch," like the big bang but in the other direction...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
(Although I think it's more of a big squish)

Or the universe can fizzle out into a dismal, empty darkness, where everything conceivable has reached maximum entropy, yet keeps going on, dead, dark balls of matter drifting ever further from one another...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

:)bawl:WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!:bawl: but, um yeah...)

Hope that clears that particular point up?

suppose everybody always got what they want, wouldent it defeat the purpose of want and render the associated feelings null untill pain and happiness was synomonus?

How I can tell you should get out and meet more BDSM people...:D
 
Possibly. This premise is based on certain suppositions I would think though. It seems strange to me that any causeless force or effect would even exist in the first place. It seems like its sound enough I just have one question which may be very stupid I'm sure this is due to my naiive understanding of the material but why does entropy even exist? Why or what is an energy balance on a cosmological scale? Also in the sense that it can conviniently explain creation relating to everything and nothing inferred from nothing and everything.

Do you think maybe the contigent matter and frame of reference for our consciousness that was created is a result of the expansion of space or consequence of some other event in the cosmos attempting to experience itself so these anti particles and particles can eventually just be and not be upon will? Or is there some order that these particles work in?? It just seems like a causeless state isnt orderly and with what we know about quantum physics it just seems like the universe is trying to solve its own axiom with experience and entropy.

Which is basically aiming to turn the physical back into zero energy state and somehow our physical reality is created with one consciousness and infinite experience based on will? Do you think all that we can concieve could just be based on our limited perception and as a consequence we consider what we see as orderly and rationalize it scientifically? The unconcievable. I want to understand so much why a nothing can vaccum and create the oposite kind of particles. This is interesting to me, I will investigate and report back :eek:
 
@ Signal

Are those 2-3 you're referring to the Abrahamic religions? Christianity and the ones Christians consider "Right but misguided", Judaism and Islam? If so, how is it that the religions relatively in line with your beliefs are the "viable" ones to be taken into account? Are Hinduism, Bhuddism, Daoism, and any number of others not acceptable because they don't meet with your approval?

What about Luciferianism? The denomination of Christianity which worships Lucifer as the unfallen lightbringer, for bringing knowledge of good and evil to humanity. Is that a viable contender for the "Finalists" you would choose?

Also, yes, x does approach infinity, but the equation, as all "equations" work the same in reverse, and while it makes the possibility of god negligible, it could also be interpreted to make his existence imminent, so yes, your calculation is off, Yoyo, but only a perfect 50% so... The other half is perfectly correct. When scaling to infinity, an unnamed variable's probability extends simultaneously towards 0 and 1 the further out you observe.

Again to Signal, please elaborate on how any ultimate truth is indelible proof of predetermination. Also, reconcile Predetermination with Free Will and a Benevolent God, please. If our actions in this world are predetermined by God, Free Will does not exist, and all of us nonbelievers are fucked from the getgo by a god who obviously delights in sending people to their eternal torment.

Your logic's off.
 
Also, yes, x does approach infinity, but the equation, as all "equations" work the same in reverse, and while it makes the possibility of god negligible, it could also be interpreted to make his existence imminent, so yes, your calculation is off, Yoyo, but only a perfect 50% so... The other half is perfectly correct. When scaling to infinity, an unnamed variable's probability extends simultaneously towards 0 and 1 the further out you observe.

Doesn't that require us to know that the universe is infinite?
 
Possibly. This premise is based on certain suppositions I would think though. It seems strange to me that any causeless force or effect would even exist in the first place.

Maybe because our brain uses easy to store, simplified narratives for storing information that is too complex. I think this is one of the main reasons that we want to have a creating force/intelligence behind everything.

Do you think maybe the contigent matter and frame of reference for our consciousness that was created is a result of the expansion of space or consequence of some other event in the cosmos attempting to experience itself so these anti particles and particles can eventually just be and not be upon will? Or is there some order that these particles work in?? It just seems like a causeless state isnt orderly and with what we know about quantum physics it just seems like the universe is trying to solve its own axiom with experience and entropy.

Wooo doggy, I'm not smart enough to answer this lol :)

Which is basically aiming to turn the physical back into zero energy state and somehow our physical reality is created with one consciousness and infinite experience based on will? Do you think all that we can concieve could just be based on our limited perception and as a consequence we consider what we see as orderly and rationalize it scientifically? The unconcievable. I want to understand so much why a nothing can vaccum and create the oposite kind of particles. This is interesting to me, I will investigate and report back

Sweet! looking forward to it :)
 
420Joey said:
why does entropy even exist?

If I was smart enough to figure that out I'd probably be working in a physics lab.
If you want to see some people argue about it, ask that again in the physics forum.

ArmisExposcerePacem said:
Predetermination with Free Will and a Benevolent God, please. If our actions in this world are predetermined by God, Free Will does not exist, and all of us nonbelievers are fucked from the getgo by a god who obviously delights in sending people to their eternal torment.

That's pretty much the problem I had with Christianity...except that I don't buy into the idea that "free will" provides a mitigating factor for Jehovah's behavior.

Taking the postulation that He made us, he made us exceedingly weak and very prone to do what He is supposed to not want us to do...and then he's willing to torture us for being as He supposedly made us?! Forever?

I mean, what a sadistic bastard of a God!
He sets up a test that, say, 90% of his creations will fail by His design, and then tortures them forever for failing that test!

I forget when I figured that out, probably 9th grade-ish, when I was still trying to make the dominant faith work for me(and was really clinically depressed)...I know I did give Christianity one more try after that...mainly to try to find somewhere to socialize in the Boonies... but I couldn't even deal with a more progressive denomination.

Cognitive dissonance...I really can't handle it.
 
@ Signal

Are those 2-3 you're referring to the Abrahamic religions?

Read my posts again. I clearly specified that the three options are theism, atheism, and perhaps something that is neither theism nor atheism (although this option does nto seem particularly stable, and sooner or later develops into one of the other two).


Christianity and the ones Christians consider "Right but misguided", Judaism and Islam? If so, how is it that the religions relatively in line with your beliefs are the "viable" ones to be taken into account? Are Hinduism, Bhuddism, Daoism, and any number of others not acceptable because they don't meet with your approval?



Also, yes, x does approach infinity,

Only if you presume that
1. there is an exclusivistic competition among the various philosophies/worldviews/religions,
2. there is an exclusive and clear delineation between the various philosophies/worldviews/religions,
3. God (if God exists) is evil.


Again to Signal, please elaborate on how any ultimate truth is indelible proof of predetermination.

Who argued that it was?


Also, reconcile Predetermination with Free Will and a Benevolent God, please. If our actions in this world are predetermined by God, Free Will does not exist, and all of us nonbelievers are fucked from the getgo by a god who obviously delights in sending people to their eternal torment.

Your logic's off.

So is yours.

You actually believe in an evil God.
 
If I was smart enough to figure that out I'd probably be working in a physics lab.
If you want to see some people argue about it, ask that again in the physics forum.



That's pretty much the problem I had with Christianity...except that I don't buy into the idea that "free will" provides a mitigating factor for Jehovah's behavior.

Taking the postulation that He made us, he made us exceedingly weak and very prone to do what He is supposed to not want us to do...and then he's willing to torture us for being as He supposedly made us?! Forever?

I mean, what a sadistic bastard of a God!
He sets up a test that, say, 90% of his creations will fail by His design, and then tortures them forever for failing that test!

I forget when I figured that out, probably 9th grade-ish, when I was still trying to make the dominant faith work for me(and was really clinically depressed)...I know I did give Christianity one more try after that...mainly to try to find somewhere to socialize in the Boonies... but I couldn't even deal with a more progressive denomination.

Cognitive dissonance...I really can't handle it.

The irony is that even according to grossly fire-and-brimstone versions, we are all redeemed, simply because Jesus died for our sins. It is all already done, you needn't worry.

The scenario you outline would hold true if Jesus would not make the sacrifice.
It also shows that you accept the negative (ie. eternal damnation by design for the majority of people), but not the positive (ie. Jesus' sacrifice and potential redemption for everyone).
Accept both, or none.
If you accept just the first, then you are probably operating out of an ulterior agenda (such as thinking that you're up against an evil God and you need to prevail, or nothing).
 
Taking the postulation that He made us, he made us exceedingly weak and very prone to do what He is supposed to not want us to do...and then he's willing to torture us for being as He supposedly made us?! Forever?

I mean, what a sadistic bastard of a God!
He sets up a test that, say, 90% of his creations will fail by His design, and then tortures them forever for failing that test!

If were gonna go down that road then we would blame our parents for all our problems.
 
But there has to be exactly one universal truth. One explanation that is exactly right about everything. This one explanation is in the mix with all these other ideas/religions/beliefs (infinite). The fact that it is unknown which one, is a precondition for my equation.

your equation doesn't apply because there is no way to know the difference at this time. it's like asking among a hundred samples of apples, which one might possibly be an orange. and what makes you so deluded that one explanation is exactly right about 'everything'?

you are stabbing in the dark just like anyone else.
 
your equation doesn't apply because there is no way to know the difference at this time. it's like asking among a hundred samples of apples, which one might possibly be an orange. and what makes you so deluded that one explanation is exactly right about 'everything'?

you are stabbing in the dark just like anyone else.

The reason i use the unknown (x) is exactly because there is no way of knowing.
It's like having a deck of cards and having to choose the right card without what that card is. The only difference is that instead of having 52 cards there are close to infinity.

If you had cared to read the thread, you would have known that it doesn't matter (that much) whether one explanation is exactly right about everything.
If there is exactly one explanation the equation applies, if there are more than one, any theory/belief/religion claiming to be the objective true reality is false by default.
 
Back
Top