Theism is a lot like conspiracy theories: Even if they exist, your proposed one is unlikely to be accurate or helpful.
-
-
Replying to @drethelin
@drethelin That would be true if the theos concerned had no (surreptitious) causal input into the production of the theism.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness
@Outsideness can you restate this? I think I know what you mean but I'm not sure1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drethelin
@drethelin The theist would surely argue that the theistic 'theory' is itself an aspect of its object, rather than an independent hypothesis2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@drethelin A 'good' conspiracy would also be causally implicated in its theorization, but with roughly inverse (suppressive) implication.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@Outsideness so: any god you hear about it is MORE likely to be real but a conspiracy you hear about is probably disinformation?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @drethelin
@drethelin Roughly, but the 'more' there is Pascalian -- and thus probabilistically badly behaved.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@drethelin The safer implication is that any theism which considers itself to be merely a theory -- even if a true one -- is confused.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.