Well, Pluto being reclassified as a dwarf planet doesn’t really have anything to do with the scientific method. “Planet” is a manmade concept, we just changed the definition for that classification to avoid having to add the dozens of bodies we discovered since Pluto that would have also met the old definition.
It’s definitely harder after college, but not impossible. You’re just going to have to put in a bit of effort. The two best recommendations I can make are:
-
getting involved in some kind of hobby that’s either inherently social (board games, team sports, etc.) or puts you together in the same place with other hobbyists (I’ve done a lot of socializing at rock climbing gyms, despite it technically being a solo thing)
-
working a job that forces you to socialize in small doses (hospitality, customer service, etc). Being thrust into micro interactions dozens of times a day makes it a lot easier to approach people in casual settings.
Your appeal to evidence presumes we have the context to comprehend or evaluate a cosmic consciousness. Clearly individual cells have some rudimentary, bio-chemical-instinctual proto-consciousness which compels them to avoid chemical threats and seek chemical nourishment, but it would be ridiculous to expect them to understand the complex thoughts of multicellular organisms.
Extrapolate that to the relationship between humans and a cosmic consciousness. If such a consciousness exists, it would be so alien as to be inscrutable to us. The “physiology” of such a mind might take the form of the interplay of fundamental forces, the “psychology” might manifest as the mathematical laws of nature.
As to should vs. could, what is the hidden factor that decides? Where does it come from?
Plus the whole “necessarily existing and containing all properties” thing is a stretch imo.
I think this is a lot more obvious if you go through his reasoning.
Personally, I think it comes down to consciousness/subjectivity/experience. Is there an overarching “creative” consciousness? Obviously the bearded-man-in-the-sky model is childish, but if you think about consciousness objectively enough for long enough, I believe one of two basic explanations becomes necessary:
-
Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system, e.g. the human nervous system
-
Consciousness is some field/force/property of nature that conscious beings tap into in some way
No other explanation really holds up to serious scrutiny (though if you have a reasonable alternative, I’d love to hear it).
If 1, it stands to reason that entities larger and more complex than humans should develop consciousness of their own cosmic variety: stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, the totality of the energy composing the universe(i.e. God). It’s silly to assume that humans are the precise complexity level which develops consciousness, and nothing higher or lower has any comparable phenomenon.
If 2, that field is functionally indistinguishable from God.
I think the above mentioned bearded-man-in-the-sky, Sunday school conception of God as a glowing hand with a booming voice that descends from the sky muddles things. It’s a severe oversimplification and any thinking person is right to reject it, I know I did. Strip away the cartoonish characterizations and the literal interpretation of fantastical scenes from the Bible, and consider the fundamental properties ascribed to the concept. Seriously ponder the nature of consciousness, does any explanation make sense other than the Universe = Energy = Consciousness; omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient?
Not from Cali, not a programmer (though honestly I could be).