I still find the ai program that infers your age based on your age pretty funny :p and it never really get’s it completely.

You’re right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe.

How so? I don’t see what you mean here, it doesn’t explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.

what I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion.

If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don’t, so it explains nothing.

If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow.

Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)

What kickstarted it is by definition its creator.

If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.

And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.

Hmm, I don’t see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an “eternal always existing” modifier. We don’t know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn’t eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)

It is merely a statement that they must exist.

It is just assuming that something must exist, since you’re building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.

An effect must have a cause.

Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can’t get away from that without special pleading.

I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.

Water under the bridge :) No worries :)

Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.

No worries, I don’t care about the votes, interactions are worth way more than someone clicking an arrow :)

But that’s a theory isn’t it? I haven’t seen any scientific theories to gods how do we know anything about a god, much less what the nature of their being? It’s just not based on anything, (therefore my allusions to magic)

I don’t enjoy your tone policing… There are ways to do that without sounding pretentious and holier than though, please keep that in mind for the next time.

Why do you think the universe needs a beginning, but there are special rules for your god because of?.. magic?

How likely do you think it is that even with the heavy push anything more than a small percentage of people will switch.

maybe, at least it’s something to consider :) Now nothing wrong with liking the language if you do though :) just talking about my misgivings with it.

I was excited by rust, back when it used sigils instead of box and other keywords, it was an exciting language, I had some fun with it, but it wasn’t ready yet, so I went having fun with some of the languages in its family (ocaml, F#) And when I went back to rust some years ago to write a little tool for myself (https://codeberg.org/sotolf/tapet-rust) to try it out, and it was really cumbersome, and ended up rather slow. I really don’t like the rust syntax, and yes, that is kind of shallow, but there are so many bad choices, like a ; not being there rather than a return, it just doesn’t work for me. Error handling is decent, just that it’s syntactically cumbersome unless you use a package like anyerror, there are packages, so many packages, and what you wanted to make that is just a small tool now has 2 Gb + of build artifacts. I later found out about nim, and rewrote the tool in it, and got a more stable faster tool in a 3rd less code (https://codeberg.org/sotolf/tapet-nim) And the way to work in nim just fits me so much better.

The thing about the rust pushing people (They are funnily enough mostly people that haven’t really used it for much yet, but went into the hype) is not that they are exited about a language, sure I can get that, it’s the way they are pushing it, they talk down about other languages, demand people rewriting things in a language they are exited about, I don’t like the slow compilation and the huge stuff. It’s just not me. Don’t get me wrong I know it’s a good language, just too low level for what I (and most people really) need and it getting pushed for places where it’s not really suited, I don’t really think it’s a good thing. There is also this push for cleverness in their libraries and code, and cleverness in code is always a red flag to me. So it’s not you rust, it’s me.

I’ve been using it for 2 years or so, mostly for hobby programming, and I really love it, it’s been great for the kinds of things that I do at least :) Feels great and logical to write, and it’more or less works the same way my mind does, the type system is really good think something like Ada, and it can be both a pretty low level, and high level langauge. YMMV, but I really like it personally.

Aww, the hype got to ya… yeah, seeing it again and again, at least don’t do like everyone else who are starting to shill for the language without even having tried it. I’m just tired of rust activism, so tired.

For me it depends on the size, for small stuff like 1000-2000 lines of code that mainly I just work on alone, something like python is okay, if it is something longer, I miss types a lot.

The thing is nim is more than just a typed python, it just works really well, I’ve had a lot of fun with it the two or so years that I’ve used it.

But then again, I have a lot of fun testing out different languages, and don’t care about marketability, since I’m just programming as a hobby, and not as my profession, right now I’m playing around with picolisp, and it’s pretty fun :)

I was using python for quite a bit, but don’t like how cumbersome their types are, I really fell in love with nim when I was looking for alternatives, it’s an underdog, but personally I really like the langauge.

It’s kind of really hard to say if I belive in something or not when you don’t offer a definition, I don’t believe in anything outside of the brain, consiousness and what makes me me, which could be a definition of soul, I do believe in, but again, that’s just a result of my brain braining.