this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
825 points (95.8% liked)
memes
10280 readers
2508 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is a big difference between getting a solid idea for what will happen before testing and literally being able to see the future as clearly as the present. If a software developer literally can see the future and already knows what error will occur if he tries to run the code then he would not run it. Or to use the engineer example, let's say someone is creating a humanoid robot which is still in the early phases of development but the creator believes that it has just reached a point where it is able to sort of balance for a second. First of all, he can't KNOW that it's at that point without testing. And even if he has a very good idea that it is probably at that point he certainly won't know exactly how it is going to fail eventually during the test. If the designer is all-knowing then he would literally know every force that is applied to the robot as it attempts to stand, the exact way that it will stumble down to the minutiae, etc. There is no reason, not for fun, not for learning, literally no logical reason to run that test in that case.
I also agree that religion is a bunch of BS but if I were to try to come up with a justification to the question of why an all-knowing creator would test their creation, I would say that it isn't for the sake of the creator but rather to teach the person they are testing about themselves or some BS like that. That being said, I think there are many many ways that you can poke holes in the logic of a creator being all-knowing, just, and all-powerful; all three of which are claimed by believers. Alternatively, you can also focus on the all-knowing aspect specifically by illustrating that it is impossible for free will to exist if god is all-knowing. At least not the version of free will that most people refer to. If you want to claim that free will can exist even if there is only one possible time line then that's another argument.
No. No that is literally not how software engineers operate. At all. Ever. Most engineers think the tests will pass with flying colors. The tests are ran anyways.
So much BS is just people making assumptions about a being much, much smarter than themselves... Maybe God just wants to turn the wheel on the grinder, even though it would take an Act of God to ruin the result...
There is quite literally NO valid reason for God to NOT turn the wheel on the grinder... Saying so does not back up any specific religion, just pokes holes in any fallacious assertion that God has no reason to turn the wheel. He doesn't need one that makes sense to you. Period.
All God needs to do for free will and "all knowing" to be true is for God to decide NOT to intervene in personal decisions. Yes, that blows Christians and other morons who pray to God out of the water, but it does not invalidate the concept of God at face value to not line up with idiots' cliff notes of who God is.
Software engineer here. I run tests to work out where my code fails and to deduce why that is.
Do you not write unit tests? Do you only test in production? I'm not referencing the obvious manual tests, but the fact that things are tested constantly even when they are working. Unless you're doing something very wrong.
If things always worked, we wouldn't need tests. When something inevitably breaks because of some totally off the wall reason, we have tests to figure out why the code didn't work (or fail) in the way we wanted it to. I mostly work in game dev and HCI, and it feels like half the code I write for that owes its stability to hopes and dreams.
Exactly, and religion says we have free will, which supposedly removes us by choice from the control of "God". How can you fail to see how that's pretty damn close to a software engineer going, "fuck it, let's see what these little shits can actually do."? You could look at the variables going in to every separate character and know what they'd do 100% of the time. You'd almost certainly have an idea what the whole thing would lead to.
... and here's the kicker: you're not God! Any religious person readily dismisses problems with technically disproving allegory with what ultimately comes down to, "God is smarter than you". Since allegory is the only way to compare things that don't actually exist, you have to observe how each separate piece has a nugget of truth in it, and believers latch on to it, even if it's the mere appearance of truth.
"God works in mysterious ways" is very, very much an actual thought-terminating cliche for the religious. You and me see how the allegory doesn't hold up. They choose not to or sometimes literally cannot suss through all of the fluff.
I like how you claim that a software engineer "thinking" their code will work is comparable to a literal "all knowing god" as if they are remotely similar.
Are they the same, as in they are similarly fallible, or is an "all knowing god" more than the average software engineer? Pick one. You can't have both.
God doesn't make sense as described in the Bible either, so no it is not wrong to describe him in a way that "isn't how he works"
You don't know either. He doesn't work. At all. The Christian God is not real, and the fact you think you know better how "He" works instead of engaging with the idea I'm attempting to present is frankly pathetic. You're defending your own emotions, not making any logical defense of a God that LITERALLY CANNOT exist.
I'm attacking your argument, not you, you child.
Yes, and I am pointing out how you're not debating anything, because God's not real, dumbass. There are dozens of reasons God as described in the bible doesn't ACTUALLY make sense.
That's the main point I was working from, yet your dumb ass comes in here thinking, "but that still doesn't make sense tho" is making ANY point.
I STARTED by saying God doesn't mzke sense but the PIECES can in SPECIFIC ways.
You pointing out that God is nonsensical still is literally a non-point.
It's so obvious that you're way too emotionally involved for you to type correctly, let alone think or communicate clearly.
You're being an asshole for no reason, on top of being wrong in so many ways.
Go outside and get some real human interaction.
I don't use autocorrect because it's worse than normal typos. The fact you keep trying to bring it back to some personal failing of mine instead of trying to understand the point is fucking pathetic. Do better. "Ohh, you're being mean, that means you didn't make a point!" ... and you have the gall to call me the child. Fucking. Pathetic. Adults can take an insult without falling apart.
Ah I get it now. You're just a piece of shit.
https://lemmy.world/modlog?userId=1169165
What ever helps you sleep at night. Must suck having such paper thin skin you cannot even hold context...
I wonder if you know how much of a piece of shit you are, or if you are deluding yourself somehow.