Because its one of hundreds of equally convoluted notions with no preferential evidence and fairly obvious flaws despite being supposedly divinely from an immaculate being and because it transcribes magical specialness to something that's frankly mundane.

What happens to the stream of outputs of this physical process when the physical process stops? I have a good guess.

I happen to disagree with the statements as presented but what he wrote is well reasoned in many aspects and he can bring to bear an incredible amount of intelligence to the matter. Like using the incompleteness theorem to argue that materialism (the belief that the only things true in this universe are what we can observe which is actually a core tenet underpinning the science philosophy since the enlightenment) must be false since incompleteness suggests there must be true things in the universe that can’t be proven through the laws within the universe. It’s a clever argument. The underpinning idea that the universe is rational seems like a leap and I’m sad his reasoning behind that isn’t articulated better. To me chaos theory suggests there’s probably no rationality and entropy suggest that order and rationality is a temporary ephemeral local phenomenon that degrades over time. While I disagree with Gödel on this, I wouldn’t be so bold as to discount his thoughts on the topic out of hand because they are sincerely argued by a person of great intelligence and intellect from their genuine exploration of the idea rather than appeals to authority or coming at it from a place of ignorance. If he’s wrong, his reasoning could still yield insights in how to approach the world.

Because the burden of proof is on the person claiming that pink elephants exist. I don't have to prove it doesn't, you have to prove it does.

> ...but why do you get to determine what is “utter nonsense”?

With respect, I've always found the "why do you get to decide" retort unfair. First, it actually isn't a counter-argument: it's an appeal to shame. Secondly, everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions and form their own judgements.

I do think the "utter nonsense" was a bald statement in that there wasn't much of a warrant given for it, but people tend to do that when something seems self-evident. Better to just ask for the warrant in that case.

BTW, why in the world did someone flag that comment?

> With respect, I've always found the "why do you get to decide" retort unfair. First, it actually isn't a counter-argument: it's an appeal to shame. Secondly, everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions and form their own judgements.

It is possible to explicitly state if one's statement is intended as an expression of fact or opinion, although having the presence of mind to remember that the distinction exists (wrt to one's own "reality") is typically required.

> I do think the "utter nonsense" was a bald statement in that there wasn't much of a warrant given for it, but people tend to do that when something seems self-evident.

Is the irony of technically delusional atheists criticizing theists for delusions not a bit too rich for your tastes though?

I am fascinated by what religion and religious ideas do to the minds of both believers and non-believers, it makes it very hard for me to believe that there isn't something supernatural ("beyond scientific understanding") going on here.