It's official: SCIENCE says God is real

[LucasWithLidOff]

I said for all we know you fuckwit. What if it expands forever?
What if there is more to the Big Bang theory than just starting at the Big Bang?
Have you heard of the pulsating universe theory?
Exactly. Shhh

It can expand forever but it's still not infinite since it has a beginning. Maybe you need to look up the definitions of the words you use.

 

[Ippwnage]

What I am saying is the universe is huge

no you weren't. this is really your response to me shooting down all the stupid shit you managed to crump into one post?

ps- where the fuck is my big mac you burger flipper

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Science has gone too far.

 

[TalkinNoise]

"It's official"


Top tier thread making

Uncontested evidence. Case closed.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

A response to the article by an actual scientist.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/12/letter-to-the-editor/

He's famous for the meme- something that can't be proven, and at face value makes 0 sense - and being a militant atheist. If it wasn't for the militant atheism everyone would be like "who?"

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

God will be proven true or false at death. Until then have a little faith and happy speculation

 

[Ippwnage]

He's famous for the meme- something that can't be proven, and at face value makes 0 sense - and being a militant atheist. If it wasn't for the militant atheism everyone would be like "who?"

well, he has to sell books somehow. funny how he is making statements that cannot be proven as his responses

 

[lts5025]

He's famous for the meme- something that can't be proven, and at face value makes 0 sense - and being a militant atheist. If it wasn't for the militant atheism everyone would be like "who?"

Except the article I posted wasn't written by Richard Dawkins, which you would know if you had actually read it.

 

[jehosafats]

I don't think this article comes as a surprise to those of us who've sought to approach the question of biologic origins rationally and impartially.

I began, personally, with a strong, strong faith in an intelligent, creating agency who was a benevolent, intercessory, Father-God creator - one who desired to reveal Himself to mankind and establish relationship with us.

The evidence, the reality of the human condition, led me to an anguishing rejection of this interpretation of the creator.

However, the statistical evidence for a creating agency - of some kind - has remained untouched, or I should say greatly enhanced, as I've gone ever deeper into the current science. Particularly aspects of quantum mechanics and the ideas of Michio Kaku. To say nothing of the entirely self-refuting theory of mutation and selection as the driver of evolution.

But I'm afraid that in the same way that most Father-God theists will desperately cling to that conclusion despite the mountains of empirical evidence against it, the majority of atheistic science cultists will continue to cling to their own dogma, in spite of the insurmountable problem of probabilities.

Ditto, on the collapse of the mutation/selection paradigm. It's looking more like processes of symbiogenesis and preadaptation, in a physiological context, drive evolution. To the extent randomness is a factor, it is probably like Bonner argues, a consequence of body size. Hardly the driving force of evolution.

This is why to explain innovation in nature we see new efforts to reassert a Platonic view of evolutionary development, like in Andreas Wagner's Arrival of the Fittest (2014).

I think S.J. Gould anticipated this problem, even going back on his anti-Platonic writings in "Full House," by his abandoning the theory of emergent characters and emphasizing emergent fitness.

Any time this comes up, I think of Younkins: "Is Agent Causation Spooky?"

It is. Why? Because it's likely the case neither randomness nor probabilities can explain the causual structure of an agent by themselves. If the development of a species is based on the actions and decisions of their ancestors, there is bound to be gaps in our knowledge in how they develop.

For example, a recent study by Zang et al., 2014 shows people base their decisions not on probabilities but the law of reciprocity. The way we make decisions more closely aligns with electromagnetism than rational choice systems. This is important for notions like code-duality and dual inheritance.

But I think it's just a quirk of our development to think there has to be a designer. Anything perceivable is perceptible. The universe just seems "intentional" to us.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Stopped reading at "the universe is infinite". No it isn't. It has a beginning with the Big Bang. Therefore it isn't infinite.

Depends on what you conceptualize as "the universe". It's turtles all the way down, unless you think there is such a thing as nothing, and believe spacetime spontaneously emerged from that nothing.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Does this mean I have to stop masturbating?

No, fwap away.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Except the article I posted wasn't written by Richard Dawkins, which you would know if you had actually read it.

Sorry, just saw the link as dawkins.

Btw- no need to read the article or the one the op posted either.

Edit: checked any way - krauss while more relevent to judge the op's article published A Universe from Nothing:Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing which was thoroughly scoffed at by everyone except Dawkins (whe said it was the greatest concept since Origin)and a handful of humanist/atheist magazines


-physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title

-physicist Sean M. Carroll asks "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called “the laws of physics,” and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don’t see how they could."

-physicist George F. R. Ellis, when asked whether Krauss has "solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing," notes that the "belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy . . . Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence)."

-Samantha Nelson, writing for The A.V. Club, gave A Universe from Nothing a 'B' grade and commented that it "is solidly in the New Atheism camp, a cosmologist’s version of Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker" but noted that "the concepts he explores are so complex, and filled with so many factors that top physicists and cosmologists don’t understand, expanding on them in print actually makes them more confusing." This is code for even us atheist no is bunk. lol

- In New Scientist, Michael Brooks wrote, "Krauss will be preaching only to the converted."

 

[TheyAreSurfers]

I'd like to see some stat figures on Jeebus defying gravity. Must be pretty astronomical.

 

[lts5025]

He's famous for the meme- something that can't be proven, and at face value makes 0 sense - and being a militant atheist. If it wasn't for the militant atheism everyone would be like "who?"

Except the article I posted wasn't written by Richard Dawkins, which you would know if you had actually read it.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

He's famous for the meme- something that can't be proven, and at face value makes 0 sense - and being a militant atheist. If it wasn't for the militant atheism everyone would be like "who?"

Krauss is certainly a scientist. And Dawkins would still be known, though less so, since he wrote the Selfish Gene.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Krauss is certainly a scientist. And Dawkins would still be known, though less so, since he wrote the Selfish Gene.

Which is what I said at face value makes 0 sense.

 

[AFewDollarsMore]

write down 50k letters and tell me the odds of that combination occurring? Must be god then

 

[Siderealmotion]

write down 50k letters and tell me the odds of that combination occurring? Must be god then

Don't even need to put in that much effort. Shuffle a deck of cards for a few seconds and then lay them out in order. There are more possible combinations of the deck than there are atoms in the known universe. Clearly every hand of poker is an act of god.

 

[Siderealmotion]

Truly mind blowing math - calculate the odds of the most recent lottery winner having won. Now calculate the odds of that person having been born, entirely discounting the likelihood of that person's parents meeting... Just the odds that that particular sperm would meet that particular egg. Then do the same for every one of their parents going back as far as possible. Now do the same for every winner since the inception of that particular lottery. Now calculate the chances of those people winning in that specific order.

Now contemplate the fact that despite the odds, that actually happened.

 

[andnowweknow]

Made up statistics are made up.

Furthermore low probability events occur continuously.

The probability of this random string is of characters is (1/26)^n if we just use the lower case alphabet. So a 12 character string randomly generated has a lower probability of occurring yet it's trivial to have a random one occur.

Furthermore #2, you can only have a universe that can generate self-awareness in a universe that can generate self-awareness. There may be an infinite amount of other universes are what not. We just don't know.

There may be a god but I doubt it's the type we would recognize.

this ends the thread with "GOD" in parenthesis. There are surely large parts of existence, whether in one or many universes that make up a "whole", that we simply do not understand at this point.