Point, Counter-Point (in regards to Dawkins’ “skyhooks”)
My brother: he mentions how physicists (and I think he also says cosmologists?) haven’t yet found the answers to the origin of existence. so he’s actually pointing out how in terms of “skyhooks” the question goes beyond biology and into another science where he’s not expert and where the question has yet to be settled. I think it certainly could be settled through baryogenesis or a science like it, but either way that whole section is a bit of a self-pwn and a bit of the ole science ‘I don’t know yet’ candor.
Me: that’s one of the best parts of science though, the ability to say “we don’t know yet” instead of making up some nice sounding bullshit.
My brother: well sure yeah but that still speaks to the heart of the matter, don’t it? God is still viable.
Me: calling your god viable because of a gap in scientific understanding has no more merit than saying the flying spaghetti monster is still viable. what do you gain from this standard of viability? it opens the door to all kinds of crazy, unsupported claims about the origin of the universe without any benefit to human knowledge.
the only correct answer to any gap in scientific understanding, other than a falsifiable hypothesis, is simply “we don’t know yet”. otherwise its just a bunch of wishful thinking and philosophical meanderings.
