Mfw science has proven God exists

roflmao
>uhhhhhh this means nothing!!!!!
atheists irrevocably blown the everfuck out forever

stop sinning bye-bye!

The data points to a created universe, it doesn't necessarily follow that the creator is Jehovah or Allah. The simulation hypothesis still works. All we know is that it is extremely unlikely that our universe just randomly landed on these exact numbers, and that if that's the case then they must have been set by 'something'.

it has to go back to god, cause even if it's a sim here, wherever reality is it must also have a creator.

What I was saying is that the only way I see science conceptually being able to prove that a God exists is by proving we are in a simulation because then the programmer would be God.

Personally I believe that science and religion should just stay away from each other because it just results in retarded irl shitposting

it's Eashoa

you're just salty you aint god man

dude semi-classical de-Broglie waves were off too it just means our theories are not there yet.

But why go the loop to a higher power that creates the set of rules instead of just taking the set of rules as given

>The problem is there is absolutely zero proof for any other universe but ours and the idea that there are is an ideologically driven theory to avoid the inevitable conclusion that our universe was designed.
The problem with that is that is there is absolutely zero proof for any God existing and the idea that there is is an ideologically driven theory to avoid the inevitable conclusion that there are multiple universes.

I believe the problem with the question of the existence of God does not lie in the beginning. No one has been able to prove 100% that a Big Bang happened where nothing turned into something out of necessity. And it is also very difficult to understand the existence of a God. Where did he come from? How was he made? But we should look at life. Without it, we would not be able to wonder of such things.

DNA is highly complex. Imagine the difficulty for just randomness to turn into an organized life form. I believe in a God out of the mere existence of life.

>The difficulty for randomness to create in a universe that is infinitely huge.

The shroud of Turin proves the Christ story, unless you cucked into total denial.

>answersingenesis.org

omfg the name of that site. the stupid shit that Christ cucks will believe is too much.

It's definitely gravity perturbations my bro, and at the universal level only, calculable, causal, and deterministic. i think Wolfram's work supplements this well, irreducible, fractal,iterative, dualistic, this is a masterpiece of infinite clockwork

...

>Oh shit I can't dispute the argument
>I know I'll try to discredit the source!

The exact same issue is written about here:

discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

and here:

scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/

>“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.”

>Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?

Multiverse theory was ripped straight out of science fiction to hold onto the hope that there can still be a natural cause for our universe. If there are infinite universes than the improbability of our particular universe is 'solved', but it's just a hope and the clear alternative is Intelligent Design.

>Literally no-one supports the idea of multiple universes until the 90s when results revealing the improbable nature of our own universe start to be revealed with the accelerating expansion of the universe
Wow, what a fucking coincidence hey. It's like all these scientists just suddenly decided multiverse theory was a good idea despite it being profoundly unscientific right around the same time we start seeing clear evidence that our universe is 'unnatural' in the way it has formed.

multiverse theory might conceivably one day be testable, God cannot.

You are aware that god might exist as well as a multiverse, right? They don't exclude each other.

the universe IS god

>multiverse theory might conceivably one day be testable, God cannot.
Wait, what? Neither are testable because both are beyond the scope of our universe. And if you somehow conceivably found some way of escaping the confines of our current universe, which current physics says is impossible, then how the fuck do you know you wouldn't just end up in a heavenly realm instead of a multiverse? It's the exact same shit. Multiverse, God, both of them are pointless intellectual exercises that are not falsifiable and only serve to end the line of inquiry with a "The multiverse/God did it"

In fact you might as well just say that the Multiverse is the naturalists God since it's an infinite that literally gives rise to all possible things. Also the philosophical ramifications of a multiverse that encompasses all possibilities is absolutely disgusting. It means nothing matters anywhere because everything has been done, will be done, and will keep being done for all eternity. Fuck that shit.

Depends on your definition of god.

mfw I want to post but then dont

This.

false,
You can't test for God, because the definition of god is already flawed enough to disprove itself
on the other hand, in a multiverse, even if the other universes are beyond scope, they might be able to interact with each other which would bring some kind of reaction within scope, which would be measurable. That depends on the model of the multiverse. It might as well be as you say, and stay untestable forever, but we don't know... with god... you can't never be sure that whatever you just measure is or isn't "god" which makes it pointless to test for. You can't make a prediction like "if event then probably god" because it might as well be a different being that does not fall into our silly definition of what a "god" is.

>because it's literally impossible the values that physics is returning 'just happened'.
Oh those values are unlikely are they? Feel free to let us know what the probability distribution is for those values since I'm sure we'd all love to know. How likely is it that c could've been half what it is? Or ten times? What exactly drives these distributions? Care to tell us how the fuck you know all this??

>You can't test for God, because the definition of god is already flawed enough to disprove itself
Omnipotent being that created the universe. Really not that complicated.

>Oh those values are unlikely are they?
So unlikely that physicists feel the need to invent and infinite multiverse to explain how our universe could exist without the intervention of God, yes.

i thought the higgs boson was exactly as they had predicted?

You mean manipulated some symbols?

It had several orders of magnitude less mass than predicted. This wouldn't be a problem if Supersymmetry was true, but so far the LHC hasn't found a single new particle other than the Higgs, which is a massive problem because it means the Higgs cancels out near perfectly for seemingly no reason whatsoever.

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2013/02/why-is-the-higgs-so-light/

If we start finding new particles we can possibly solve it. If we don't find anything else then the Higgs cancels out near perfectly for seemingly no reason whatsoever other than it had to be that way for a universe that supports life. Spooky.

I'm tired of the simulation meme now can it be banned from Veeky Forums

Does no-one else understand the implications of finding the Higgs and NOTHING else? It's terrifying.

speak for yourself, my dubs say Kek is the one true God.

>All we know is that it is extremely unlikely that our universe just randomly landed on these exact numbers

We don't know shit. The numbers might be the natural outcome of having something rather than nothing. We just don't understand the equation that governs this fractal.

nice try, but this is how it's done

>Simple self replicating molecule spontaneously forms (these have already been designed from scratch in labs)
>Fast forward billions of years + natural selection
>Extremely complex lifeforms that are essentially glorified machines for self-replicating molecules

1800's argument pls go

>Using an example of an intelligently designed replicating molecule for why there is life on Earth
Really makes you think, huh? For the record the only thing they've managed to get to spontaneously form without intervention is a few amino acids, which is a fucking long way from an actual self replicating molecule.

The multiverse exists, ergo war and peace.

>look! we designed it! it must have happened by chance?

wew, it's a good thing we're not intelligent! Otherwise that might be evidence of a creator!

Heres a better question my little chaotix~
Where is God on the Dungeons and Dragons Alignment chart?

truest neutral there is. my guess is that good and evil mean nothing for him, he just invented it for us to keep order

>when you want to post and reply to a thread but realize its either a troll or someone incapable of using logic

They mean one thing for him.
Art.
Entertainment~
To dance is better than not to dance~

>>when you want to post and reply to a thread but realize its either a troll or someone incapable of using logic

90% of the 'content' on Veeky Forums

You mean Yahweh? Lawful Evil

>or our model of physics is so hilariously wrong that it can somehow get things wrong by 10 orders of magnitude.

Ding ding ding. Dark Matter is also just a way to hide this.
Not proof of God though.

Top Kek

I know a way to test for the multiverse. Worse still, if God is an interdimensional being I can crack into heaven. I can do it all with a machine.

>Different universes can communicate with each other
Kys. Back to meme physics 101

Explain how?

>Also the philosophical ramifications of a multiverse that encompasses all possibilities is absolutely disgusting. It means nothing matters anywhere because everything has been done, will be done, and will keep being done for all eternity. Fuck that shit.

So we're justified in dismissing a potential hypothesis because we don't like the ramifications of how we might not be special, it seems.

Sweet. Now I can ignore my cancer results because the philosophical ramifications of me dying of lung cancer, meaning I'm not immortal, are disgusting.

There's more to this than OP says.

wired.com/2015/06/new-theory-explain-higgs-mass/

Scientists are coming up with new explanations other than multiverse, as shown by the above. This model still requires testing, but it's a possible explanation, and it's dishonest of OP to not show these links as well.

But then again he clearly has an agenda.

>inb4 "u dumb atheist"

I'm a deist so OPs God idea would be fine with me. But they should have shown the whole picture.

Why call it god then

Paradoxes and nonsensicalities arise when you include a truly omnipotent being in any accurate model of reality. Things like God creating the rock so heavy God can't push it.

Only if that's the way you define omnipotence, which is what people do deliberately to create paradoxes and nonsensicalities to attack the concept of God. Most reasonable people would define omnipotence as the ability to do all things that are possible to be done. Logical contradictions are impossible, and therefore outside the realm of omnipotence. God can't create a triangle with 2 sides because the number of sides defines a triangle, if it ceases to have 3 sides it is by definition no longer a triangle. That's not a knock against Gods powers, it just reinforces the idea of omnipotence being defined as the ability to do absolutely everything, even things that are logically contradictory, inevitably leads to that kind of silliness, which is why you don't define omnipotence that way because it's a meaningless concept.

This is their standard logic, but at least this is more factual. Usually it's more like
>here's a recent object
>we used a radioisotope dating method that doesn't work on that type of object or that age
>got wrong result due to wrong methods
>therefore no dating methods work except for reading the bible our specific way

But then you can't call it "God", since you'd be referring to something else, if it's not all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent.

Only you define the attribute 'all powerful' as being able to cause logical contradictions. It's an idea that makes zero sense. It's a childs idea of omnipotence. If you insist that the ONLY valid definition of omnipotence includes the ability to create logical contradictions then it's incumbent on you to give a suitable answer to all the paradoxes that result, if you can't then you need to accept it's a fundamentally meaningless idea.

Again, you can't call it "God", that's a name for a specific deity. You could say you believe in "a god", but cap-G is a specific guy with specific lore.

Yes? Very few theologians consider omnipotence including the ability to cause logical contradictions. Your idea makes no sense from both a logical and theological perspective. The Christian God isn't paradoxical, you're arguing against a strawman God you've made up yourself.

Then he can't be all knowing or omnipresent. Not much of a god.

Based on absolutely nothing but your own misunderstandings.