@FvckY0u I noticed that. I like the fuck off better, though.

I promise you most people would have zero interest in having that long and in depth a discussion with you, but suit yourself....

@TomMcGiverin
If a stranger asks me such a question, he doesn’t get to choose what kind of answer I give. If he doesn’t have patience to listen, all the better.

@Garban
I’m not aware of any evidence that supports the existence of any such sentient being. But that’s a question of God’s nature - not of God’s existence.

@skado Few would have the patience to listen to all that, so If I were you, I wouldn't even bother to begin an answer, but suit yourself....

I deny its existence.

@Garban Personally, I do not have a big serious problem with people saying that god is equivalent to the laws of physics. It is just my opinion that, if god is equal to the laws of physics, then it would be better to call "It" the laws of physics, just to avoid confusion. While if people want to say that the laws of physics are worthy of worship, then I would say, that it is better not to worship anything, but if you must, then the laws of physics (Biology chemistry etc.) are probably better than anything else I know of.

But you have also to consider, that attemps to sow confusion may sometimes be deliberate, since confusion makes a good smoke screen for a hidden agenda, or an empty vault.

@Garban That is one of the most amusing disections of the simulation problem I have heard.

@Garban
I don't really approach it from a physics perspective. I approach it from the angle of human experience. It is human nature to anthropomorphize things, and to assign agency to things that are just random occurrences. It appears to me that that is what early (and current) humans have done with the collective existence and movement of the universe. But just because they attribute agency and human characteristics to something that, in reality, doesn't have any, doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. It just means its nature is different from what they assumed.

@rainmanjr
OK, now I've met one person.

@Garban I'm not so different. I don't tend to anthropomorphize things either, myself. Just trying to understand how 80% of my species came to be the way they are, and find a non-inflammatory way to regard and interact with them that doesn't compromise my sense of objective reality. If it allows me to find some common ground with my fellow humans, I'm willing to learn a new language. It doesn't prevent me from speaking my native tongue also. I don't tolerate literal interpretations of symbolic language in my personal worldview. Symbols are just a linguistic expedient.

Or the Easter Bunny.... or Linus's Great Pumpkin....

@TomMcGiverin Oh! Don't forget the Tooth Fairy and the Boogeyman...

And if you are feeling somewhat less than polite?

@anglophone Anything I feel like saying up to and including oh just fuck off already.