/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1199349
Wow, I never looked at it this way! Nice work OP, you've completely changed my view on the world!

2) A universally omnipotent being with unlimited knowledge spontaneously created the Universe while always being there. He was also first 'documented' over a thousand years before they found the Earth was round.

>>1199364
Well how can you cling to this dogma of Occam's Razor and this pseudoscientific view of evilution at the same time then?

>>1199349
true OP, enjoy your religion or whatever.

>>1199376
Thanks, I will because I'm not too close minded to reject the existence of things that aren't two feet in front of my eyes.

>>1199349
OP you really opened my eyes...I can't thank you enough you're an amazing person

OK i will say this again... just because something is mysterious does not mean your version of god is the agent.

You can be deist if you want - but the deist god is a distant figure with no influence other than setting the universe and life in motion. In fact M theory now says universes may be created like bubbles are formed in a bubble bath. The creation of our universe could be as mundane as the creation of a new island via geological processes - just on the cosmic scale.

>>1199349
1. occam's razor doesn't work like that
2. just because you make something sound more simple doesn't mean it actually is
3. Occam's razor is not a 100% predictor
4.I've been trolled, yes?

How are God's fingers created exactly?

Creationism is awesome : think, humans riding dinosaurs with lazor !!!

Thanks OP! I'm glad there isn't a large amount of supporting evidence that what we know as the universe was once concentrated in a singularity, thereby giving credence to idea 1. Also, I'm glad that it's not like cosmologists are quick to point out that they don't how this came about, and that it certainly wasn't for no reason whatsoever. Because that would totally prove you wrong, so it's a good thing it's not the case. It's also great that the theory of evolution is not far more complex than what you wrote, and the evidence backing it up totally does not include: fossil record, transition species, genetic similarities between species, endogenous retroviral genes found in different species, observed speciation (for example, in populations that stretch over large areas, such as salamanders in California), new proteins/organs appearing (such as the Lenski experiment that did not create e. Coli that developed 3 novel proteins for the metabolism of citrate that were not found in any related bacterial strains, or that population of lizards that were certainly not introduced by scientists to islands in Croatia and then definitely did not develop enlarged and novel appendices to help digest a new diet rich in plant material), etc.
It's also great that every major religion hasn't set up testable claims and been proven wrong about their god/s and or/saviour, like the history of their birth, their powers, and what they will do in certain situations.
I'm sure glad you posted this!

>doesn't understand principle of parsimony

get the fuck off of wikipedia and read a book

Didn't read post because you uploaded a shitty thumbnail.

> I put it in fewer words because shorter means simpler

>>1199349
OP, I'll *consider* your argument if you can answer ONE QUESTION to my satisfaction:

WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?

>>1199522
He retroactively created Himself.

>>1199560
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

>>1199560
PIEM TARADOX ! And now, for some vuvuzelas : BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

>>1199560
Wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey... stuff?

God is outside time and space so he can do shit he wants so he could retroactively create himself or always be there since rules of time and space do not apply to him.

Fucking St. Augustus figured it all out hundreds of years ago after he was all done fucking bitches and drinking and you fags are STILL arguing this shit.

Why not grow the fuck up

>>1199593

I meant St. Augustine I got sort of derailed by rage

>Creation of the Universe:

>1) The universe came into existence through some currently unknown process, eventually forming the earth. Life then arose through another unknown process to create life from non-living matter, at which point evolution kicked in to eventually for people.

>2) God existed forever, which does not create an infinite regress problem because he somehow exists outside of time while acting within it. He then created the universe over the span of a week while at the same time planting vast amounts of evidence to contradict his true order and timescale of creation in order to test the faith of his followers. He then waited a couple thousand years while humanity existed unguided before creating a book to direct his follower on how to act. A couple thousands years after that, he sent piece of himself to die as a sacrifice to himself so that he would be able to forgive the people that he created for not following the rules that he set. After this, the people finally had all the information they needed in the form of a second book from God.

Fix'd. You'd be better off making a flawed god of the gaps argument then trying to appeal to Occam's Razor, though.

>>1199604
>Implying that the seven days mentioned in Genesis are our days, based on the earth's rotation
>an earth that didn't exist then

I know science is about being absolute, but lrn2metaphor

Actually, it was aliens who visited earth around 33 BC and were appalled at all the shit that was going down. So they took our DNA and spliced together a perfect being programmed to teach people love but we just nailed the guy to some wood and generally lol'd.

So they were all fuck this shit and left, marking us the equivalent of Alabama on their interstellar maps.

>>1199623
You're my new prophet. I kind of think this happened like this.

>>1199622
Well, naturally I assumed you were a literalist since you don't believe in evolution. Otherwise you might as well just accept that evolution is God's method of creating humans and he guided it.

>>1199593
>St. Augustus
Oh, sure, let's believe what the Vatican has to say, because it's not like they have any vested interest in maintaining sway over the people or anything like that.

>>1199346

W ｗ Ｗ . A ｎ Ｏ N ｔ Ａ Ｌ ｋ . Ｓ e n lpbyoszb m gg g vfidy h gh ofkmxne

3) An omnipotent, omniscient, all good, all powerful mind, existing in the absense of a physical brain, "outside of space and time", having no beginning and no end, willed the entire cosmos into existence, from nothing, so that 13.7 billion years later he could bitch, whine and lament the tortures endured by himself impersonating his son who is actually himself, so that people who love and accept him into their hearts (the blood pumping physical organ), are rescued from the hell and eternal punishment he has already prepared for those whom he already knew before he created, would not accept him intor their blood pumping organs.

Yes. Makes pefect sense.

>>1199668

God exists at a quantum level operating on the random pop and sizzle of particles generating 0's and 1's all over the universe, he IS the world.

>>1199684
In that case, I'm inside of your god. And now every time you pray, he's thinking of me.

>>1199689

And everyone else. I am okay with this.

The very nature of a god is infinitely more complicated than the nature of quantum field theory. In fact, as many would believe, god is beyond mortal comprehension.

Therefore we have two choices, something that is within the grasp of human understanding and something which is beyond it. Which do you think is simpler?

>>1199345
Ｗ W W . A n Ｏ Ｎ ｔ ａ Ｌ ｋ . s Ｅ almfi mebopl ebuq uy kujck ccaqt gjxe xz

>>1199712

If god wants his constituents to better themselves (the point of the bible really, simplified to be understood by bronze age shepherds) which leads to refinement of himself in turn, I consider such a model to be very appealing.

If you consider it closer you can pretty much equate nature with god. Any ideas about a personal god must be however rubbish but I do not think it is stated explicitly anywhere in the scripture. The only prerequisite would be some form of sentience which we have.

As for God being empirically provable, this would invalidate the whole concept of people having to actually try bettering themselves instead of smugly kissing ass, and is in fact one of the stronger arguments for his existence.

>>1199740
Totally, the fact that there's no evidence is the best evidence for his existence. That's why I believe in the invisible pink unicorn; if I could see him, I would know he doesn't exist, so the fact that I can't see him proves that he must!

>occams razor
maximum trolling

>Shit just existed out of no where
>some omnipotent being just existed randomly (?) then somehow made everything exist
FTFY
Occam's razor suggests which now?