Comment by msla
2 years ago
And here you're equivocating on the word faith.
In your post, "faith" either means "accepting best current evidence and logic" or "believing that there's a supernatural explanation without any evidence whatsoever" and it can't rightly mean both, because those definitions are incompatible.
No. Recall the statement I was responding to:
> it requires faith to assert that the universe did not have its origin from some intelligent supernatural being
That is false. It does not require faith to assert this, any more than it requires faith to assert that the tooth fairy does not exist, simply because neither the tooth fairy nor ID have any supporting evidence. Actually, the tooth fairy does have some supporting evidence, namely, that people do sometimes get money when they leave teeth under their pillow. There is no evidence for any process with high Kolmogorov complexity at the root of creation. None. Zero. In the absence of any such evidence, it requires no faith to assert that whatever is at the root of creation is not intelligent.
I agree with you, which means I think we're talking at cross purposes and/or your replied to the wrong person.
Well, I was responding to "you're equivocating on the word faith" [1]. I don't believe I was.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39377297