They said if that were the case, not that people believed it.

I.e.: their beliefs overall would be more credible if we assume they’re wrong about this part.

Not personally agreeing or disagreeing.

Lol - POs looking at backend tests, as if

I feel like that’s more because you don’t want websites you visit running code than because you dislike this particular programming language

There isn’t really an agreed definition of a continent.

Arguably Afro-Eurasia is all one interconnected continent

They both seem to like the name Aiden for some reason

Also by destroying half of all life, presumably that includes animals and plants (and therefore food resources).

Doesn’t really seem like it solved anything at all

Elimitary, my dear Watson

Does it matter if those machines are an hour out for 6 months? Why not just keep them on UTC as a rule?

https://youtu.be/-8bqQ-C1PSE

“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government”

They probably didn’t forget it but it’s not preventing you from asking about random stuff

"It’s time to conquer all of India…

… just most of India"

It says right in your first link that it doesn’t support self signed certs

No, some podcasts still have sponsors embedded in the content but that’s not Spotify themselves.

Which entire country? This is lemmy.world

Not to be confused with a “Torquay Teary” when your family trip to Cornwall goes badly

No

You say it’s not immeasurable but then all of the things you go on to describe are within the known universe, we can’t possibly know or measure what’s outside of it, because it is not known by definition.

I’m not asking for negative proofs in fact I haven’t asked for proof of anything, I’m not sure where you got that from. I’ve simply stated that we can’t draw statistics about things for which we have no evidence - which you now seem to be agreeing with.

I said you were making a different argument because you originally talked about existing religions which isn’t what my comment or the original comment was about, I stand by that - nothing of what you had said was relevant to my response.

You can’t possibly know that it’s over 99% unlikely that the universe isn’t a simulation or that it wasn’t created by some entity since we don’t yet have evidence pertaining to any hypothesis for how it was created. The statistic was pulled out of the air and has no scientific basis.

Do I think the universe is a giant Boltzmann brain or was created by an omniscient God? No, I don’t, but it’s still pointless to pretend it’s something we can have any certainty about.

Not to be rude but this conversation isn’t going anywhere, whether you don’t understand or just don’t agree, whatever I guess…

I understand your point and I feel like maybe I’m sounding a little argumentative. Sorry let me try to be more clear.

I understand your argument is that genetic evidence disproves existing religious beliefs that people have but that’s a different argument to the point I was making.

Even if all global religions are incorrect, that doesn’t mean that a god or gods couldn’t hypothetically exist and my point is that there is no demonstrative proof of that either way.

If you check the original comment again, the question was about whether “a god(s) exist” and up until they mentioned the 99% that I was disputing, religion didn’t even come into it.

You could disprove every creationist claim, every anti-evolution argument, and you’d be right, but you can’t settle the question of “whether a supernatural being exists” because there simply isn’t a way to do that within the natural realm that we know of.

It isn’t just about God either. The simulation and Boltzmann brain hypotheses are similarly immeasurable

We’re not talking about creationism or any particular brand of theism

It sounds like you’re referring specifically to Christian theology but the comment was just about whether a god or gods exist in general