Re:Religious Discrimination at Google
by quantified on Sunday June 12, 2022 @04:12PM
(#31717861)
And I can verify the software to some degree there, or (more usually) find the bugs. So this is the bug-free simulation? It's easier to run the simulation and see what happens, so much state to initialize.
Without evidence, that's why it's called faith. There are thousands of unfalsifiable possible starting points, the Judeo-Christian one is laughable.
> Without evidence, that's why it's called faith
No one said faith should be based on blind belief. You can most certainly have faith based in evidence. It's not a dichotomy.
Re:Religious Discrimination at Google
by quantified on Sunday June 12, 2022 @09:07PM
(#31719853)
There are many religions, and across them they are mutually incompatible. Which ones have evidence for themselves that demonstrates another is false?
Just because there are many mutually exclusive religions, does not imply that none of them are correct. Look up genetic fallacy.
The "Abrahamic" faiths have demonstrated themselves, but only one remains uncorrupted: Islam. You can check out provingislam.com for some hard proofs.
Re:Religious Discrimination at Google
by quantified on Tuesday June 14, 2022 @09:19AM
(#31739010)
Which is correct, Sunni or Shi'ite?
Are you a software developer? Imagine that, for testing purposes, you want to test a particular state T in a simulation app that you believe can only occur organically after a large period of time.
Do you start the test simulation at a hypothetical t0 and wait to reach the desired state? Or do you simply bootstrap the simulation so that it starts in state T.
Well, you do the latter of course. So do the events at t0 need to occur for you to observe state T?