• bloopernova@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone religious wakes up tomorrow realizing that it’s just a social club and none of the god stuff is real.

    • milkisklim@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So in this scenario where you have a magical Genie, you would use a supernatural being to stop others from believing in supernatural beings?

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who said the genie was supernatural? If I can see the genie in front of me and sufficiently measure it’s existence, then it is real and natural. “Super natural” literally means “outside of nature”, i.e. stuff that doesn’t have any evidence of ever existing.

        • milkisklim@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          OP said so.

          OP called it a magical genie. Magic is by definition outside of nature.

          If presented by observable evidence the supernatural exists in one specific case (the genie) then it is reasonable to suppose there may be other supernatural beings.

          If this were a highly advanced alien with probability manipulating technology, that would be a different question.

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Magic is by definition outside of nature.

            A magician would disagree with you :D

            If this were a highly advanced alien with probability manipulating technology, that would be a different question.

            “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

            If presented by observable evidence the supernatural exists in one specific case (the genie) then it is reasonable to suppose there may be other supernatural beings.

            Imagine I was a person who had never seen a narwhal, and thus didn’t believe they were real; suppose I believed them to be supernatural creatures. So to prove me wrong, you bring me to an aquarium and show me a narwhal and say, “look, a live narwhal. See? They are naturally occurring creatures”. I could respond with, “well no, that’s obviously a supernatural creature, and now it’s reasonable for me to also suppose that unicorns exist!” Do you see any flaws in my logic?

            We’ve hypothesized of a situation where we have an observable creature in front of us. At that point, regardless of how “magical” we believe it to be, it is, by the definition of “supernatural”, not supernatural. However, when it comes to supernatural beings that we have not observed, this genie has not given us any more evidence for their existence.

            Happy halloween!

    • rivalary@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      They would still pretend. And, though it would solve a lot of problems, it would remove purpose for so many people.

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, when their purpose is to detonate themselves and kill as many people around them so they can get some heaven virgins, I think it’s a sacrifice we are willing to make.