How much should I lower my IQ so that I can become religious?
How much should I lower my IQ so that I can become religious?
Levi Wilson
Jace White
Browse Veeky Forums.
Kevin Kelly
I never measured it but I think my IQ is around 100~110, but I have never been a religious person. Maybe I'm too stupid to have a faith, who knows.
Evan Bennett
...
Christian Barnes
I don't know OP, what's you-- oh wait.
Ryder Thomas
I'm religious and almost certainly more intelligent than you, so you should be good to go OP
Adam Lewis
Hahahaha. Dawkins. Haha.
Jackson Lee
Still religious now? Pic related
Aaron Cooper
If you lower it any further, will you die?
Benjamin Torres
With the IQ of a 3 years old you should be fine. Around age 4 I started asking question and I was expelled from religion class.:(
Ian Ross
>mfw 'scientists' invent the idea of a multiverse out of thin air to avoid having to deal with the issue that our universe was almost certainly designed by an intelligence if modern cosmological models are correct
Austin Scott
>almost certainly designed by an intelligence
there is no evidence of this. Evidence, proof of a thing being so, you know as opposed to accepting the word of a 200 year old book and its adherents who make a virtue out of believing in things without evidence (faith).
Jaxon Thompson
>200 year old book
You must be one of those "young bible evolutionists"
Jose Nelson
lol 600... forgot that extra 0, didn't proof read the post. I deserve that.
Carter Richardson
>there is no evidence of this
Except every facet of the universe specifically tuned to within 1% of the necessary values for human life to exist sure.
>inb4 anthropic principle
Doesn't work. All the anthropic principle states is that anything we find out must necessarily be consistent with a universe that can create life because we're here, if it wasn't so, we wouldn't be. It doesn't say anything about why everything is so fine tuned in the first place
Brody Rogers
>specifically tuned to within 1%
not realizing life evolved to exist within the conditions of the universe. The universe wasn't created for the life that currently exists.
>fine tuned
stop it... you quoting that religious horseshit is too funny for this early in the morning.
Hudson Martinez
>you quoting that religious horseshit is too funny for this early in the morning
Yeah it's so ridiculous that physicists are creating imaginary multiverses just to avoid the implications of their own research in a single universe :^)
>Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.
discovermagazine.com
>Higgs seems to exactly counterbalance the huge contributions to its mass from gluons, quarks, gravitational states and all the rest. And if the universe is improbable, then many physicists argue that it must be one universe of many: just a rare bubble in an endless, foaming “multiverse.”
Wow, results are improbable, there must be a 'multiverse' :^)
Face it, all the evidence is pointing to the foregone conclusion, the universe was designed. Feel free to cling to your retarded multiverse for as long as you want though.
Ryder Cook
Another one for your consideration
> The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural. (There is wide disagreement, however, about what it would take to prove it.)
>“Ten or 20 years ago, I was a firm believer in naturalness,” said Nathan Seiberg, a theoretical physicist at the Institute, where Einstein taught from 1933 until his death in 1955. “Now I’m not so sure. My hope is there’s still something we haven’t thought about, some other mechanism that would explain all these things. But I don’t see what it could be.”
No new particles from the LHC so far. Looking grim for the poor old naturalists
Jaxson Hall
Have you met your great grandpa? How do you know he wasn't a monkey?
Daniel Mitchell
Dominic Wood
>Multiverse
Wow, a non falsifiable theory, the last refuge of the naturalist. Let's prove a creator is unreasonable with the only other possible explanation that just so happens to also be completely outside the scope of what we can prove. That'll show 'em.
Alexander Flores
Also string theory is fucking retarded, I have no idea why people are still clinging to that failed theory.
Luke Sullivan
Lower it by √-1
Carter Jenkins
>completely outside the scope
Ever heard of WMAP?
The small entropy in the beginning is rock solid compared to hypothetical giant jew in the sky.
Kevin Moore
>I have no idea
that sounds about right