Mauneam

7 ms·

1.
by Mauneam 5mo ago
You are that guy in early 1900s who would rather ride a horse than get in a car because cars "continued to make him uneasy."
2.
by Mauneam 10mo ago
No, it's not the "same as most other languages". C and C++ are actually the only mainstream languages that suffer from UB to this extent. The fact that, in practice, with Rust you get a crash instead of UB is 100% a reliabili
3.
by Mauneam 10mo ago
We are nowhere near that inflection point!
4.
by Mauneam 10mo ago
First, he didn't call the "crash()" function, he called the "unwrap()" function. The fact that they decided to call the crash function "unwrap()" is not the OP's fault, it's the language authors&
5.
by Mauneam 3y ago
> I don't understand? Really? You didn't understand me? That's weird, seeing as you claim to be able to understand none other than God. Contradiction > I've mentioned Aristotle and Spinoza as more clear examples
6.
by Mauneam 3y ago
First you repeat the claim that fine tuning does not commit you to a religion, and then you keep appealing to religion all the way throughout. That's self-refutation at its finest. You can stop saying "any particular religion&quot
7.
by Mauneam 3y ago
In an attempt to refute the point about the designer being beyond understanding, you appealed to religion, all the while claiming that you don't have to appeal to religion. Then you claim that one can't make a kind of an argument
8.
by Mauneam 3y ago
Ahh, theologians have made various claims about the designer? The same people that claim that he showed up as a burning bush one day, and as his own son the next? Theologians have made many garbage assertions throughout centuries. Just beca
9.
by Mauneam 3y ago
> Where in the argument is the designer defined this way? The argument is, roughly speaking: (1) The fine-tuning of universal constants is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. (2) It is not due to physical necessity or ch
10.
by Mauneam 3y ago
In your card example, the theory that posits that you picked the cards intentionally is something that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. We are allowed to ask where you came from, what caused you to form the intent, and then prove or
11.
by Mauneam 3y ago
It does not explain why the low-probability event of these constants being what they are occurred. It does not explain anything. All it does is move the goalpost for explaining beyond unreachable and trap the inquisitive mind in a box. As t
12.
by Mauneam 3y ago
They are both goddidit, just dressed up differently (slightly so). There is no baggage. You were trying to sell goddidit here as an "explanation" that should merit the same consideration as actual scientific theories, and deserved
13.
by Mauneam 3y ago
Youdidit is an explanation, because it doesn't terminate the inquisition. You can then ask what caused you, then what caused the thing that caused you, and so on until you get to the point of saying "and that's as far as we k
14.
by Mauneam 3y ago
That's quite rich, coming from somebody who took a hard line stance, used an abrupt term, put very little effort in and shut down the discussion by calling me a "troll." That said, intelligent design is shutting down curiosit
15.
by Mauneam 3y ago
Saying "because God did it" as an answer to any question has the same value as saying "because pixel cooked the music". If you want to consider those two groups of words "explanations" go for it. They are gramm
16.
by Mauneam 3y ago
>Well, it explains why the universe is fine-tuned, if you buy the argument. No it doesn't. Goddidit is not an explanation. >Yep, just like any other answer to the question, since it's a metaphysical question rather than a sc