>>320019
The first thing you said is just a more specific thing of the second thing you said. I don't know why you think libertarianism says not to coordinate with each other. The point is they're coordinating freely, and not forcing anyone else to do anything either.
>>320017
Why do you do a line break after every sentence? It's not even like you're doing one sentence paragraphs, which would sometimes be appropriate. (Even then you should do a double line break and leave a blank line between paragraphs.)
God is magic. The point is that the things you're saying aren't provable or observable or repeatable or understandable, they're the work of a magic user that can break the laws of physics. You might not like the word magic, but it's the same thing.
>you believe that a permanent ignorance is preferable to a belief that requires a leap of faith.
I already admitted that nothing is 100% certain, so you could play word games and say that everything requires some degree of faith, but some things require more than others. I'm not 100% certain that the particles that make up my body won't line up just right and fall right between the particles that make up the floor, but I'm close enough to certain that I'm willing to act on the assumption that it won't happen. But the assumption required for your particular scenario is a lot bigger.
>What you don't realize is that what you don't know creates a hole in your knowledge, and that hole is something you cannot ignore.
That's precisely my point. The fact that I can't ignore it is good, because it means I still look for the actual evidence to actually lead toward the most likely answer. Making a big jump just so I can have some answer, however little evidence there is for it, would stop me from doing that. Acknowledging the holes in your knowledge is good. Because let's be clear, you have a hole in your knowledge, too. You're just pretending you don't by filling it in with an awfully big assumption. Anyone who has the least bit of intelligence will always admit that there is always a little bit of space left even in any hole in their knowledge they do fill in. That hole is uncertainty, because you can never be certain of anything. But you can get quite close to certain, and the hole gets smaller. But if you just use faith instead of actual logic to just cram the hole full, then you stop looking for answers, and that's no good.
>You have no explanation for death in the universe and across creation, but it is something that will inevitably affect you, that is 100% fact.
Of course I do. The physical mechanisms which sustain a life break down in very understandable ways. This isn't even a difficult one. You could have picked way better examples for this point, but it would still be stupid because my precise point is that I don't know things and admitting that is good. Saying I don't know things as if that's bad shows you are just not acknowledging my point.
>Pascal's wager
He's bad at gambling, because he assumes the only two possibilities are his religion and not his religion. There are tons of other equally possible options, including the one that God does exist but wants you to not believe he exists, hence giving you all this reasoning ability and no actual evidence of his existence. Maybe Heaven is real, but when you get to the Pearly Gates, God just asks "wait, why didn't you use your brain and all that evidence I left for you? It was a test. You failed." Then you go to Hell. Unlikely? Yes, but just as likely as the infinite other possibilities, including the one that Pascal's particular religion is correct.
>Instead, you deride his beliefs as "magic"
That's not deriding, it's just what it is. I've got nothing against magic, I'm just saying there isn't really good logic in favor of it being real. Different religious systems might have different terms for magic, but I'm just using a broad term for it. I could use magicks, like a faggot, but I went with the simplest one.
>while smugly proclaiming the value of science while conveniently ignoring how many prominent scientists believed in God throughout history.
It doesn't matter who they were and what else they did. It doesn't matter who it was who figured something out, the point is it was figured out and they pointed it out to other people and then we could all be like "oh yeah, that does make sense." Also, as pointed out, there are cases like Newton, who just gave up calculating the physics of further celestial bodies and figured it must just be that God moves them around. The man was obviously very smart, and figured out other, easier orbital paths, but when he got to ones that were too tough, he said "God did it" and stopped looking. Because that's what that answer is for, to make it easier for people to give up and stop looking for answers. Of course later people did keep looking and found out that other celestial bodies did movie according to the same laws of physics, and weren't the work of one powerful guy moving them with unknowable mechanics. If Newton hadn't given up, maybe he could have figured that out earlier.
>I guess all those Christian scientists in history were barely better than SJWs who justify their lack of complete knowledge to destroy themselves.
Again, it's not about the people, it's about the ideas. The claim I made that you are actually referring to here is that saying belief is proof is absurd. If someone can look for actual proof for some things, but then say belief is proof for others, they're still wrong for doing the latter. Again, belief isn't proof, or else we all live in different realities, since we all believe different things. This is the cornerstone of SJW doctrine.
>If anything, your arrogance and ignorance with regards to history showcases your ignorance.
It's not arrogance to admit I don't know things. It's arrogance to say you do when all you have to go on is a gut feeling that you admit you can't prove, and that is a large leap.
>If you can't explain something, conceding that you don't know is one thing, but believing it can't be another thing because you look down on the idea of it is arrogance
I didn't say this. It could be the thing you propose, but the odds aren't very high. There isn't that much evidence in its favor. There are other possibilities just as likely, that wouldn't require leaps as large, that wouldn't defy so much of what is otherwise very close to certainly known about how matter and energy works. Yes, it's possible, but so is literally anything else. There are other possibilities that are more likely due to operating within the same mechanisms that the rest of reality observably operates on.
Wait, holy cow, look at that line I just replied to and your next line after it.
>If you can't explain something, conceding that you don't know is one thing, but believing it can't be another thing because you look down on the idea of it is arrogance
<There are other possible ones that you'd dismiss despite having more basis in the physical, objective world.
>No, there aren't. They don't exist.
So you're the one saying that it can't be another thing. You're the arrogant one by your own definition.