/sci/ - Science & Math

God's existence wouldn't affect science at all.

>>14840248
No and no.

>>14840248
>Does /sci/ believe in god?
They don't because materialism is inherently diabolical
>Is it incompatible with science?
Science is just science, it's not about actual knowledge, it's about appearing smart and cool, like the average atheist, if you even suggest something as outlandish as saying that the afterlife can be scientifically proven, "scientists" will laugh at you because they aren't actual scientists, but materialists, there is a clear difference, most of them are paid to publish malarkey articles usually saying stuff such as "science says that X is good for you" etc

Welcome to society

>>14840248
I believe in Spinoza's concept of God. Nature is at heart some kind of unified immaterial substance that contains all attributes, and that's both God and the universe.

>>14840273
>science says that X is good for you
The ones who say this sort of shit are journalists and ad-makers, not soientists .

>>14840273

>>14840248
>Is it incompatible with science?
How do you think the people whose IQ you can't even fathom (who invented science) figured out there was a God to begin with?

>>14840248
I'm open-minded toward God. God is not incompatible with science at all. If God exists, science is one way to get to know Him.

>>14840248
God is just alpha gorilla male archetype mixed with Jewish superstition and plebian magic thinking

>>14840301
>the retard calling everyone retarded meme
this one never gets old

>>14840255
What if he was autistic?

>>14840248
Everything is god

>>14840248
Maybe some intelligence did create the universe but it most likely doesnt care one bit about you or the galactic supercluster we exist in.

God is the creator of the Simulation.

>>14840248
>Does /sci/ believe in god?
Of course not. The schizos and poltards will try to tell you otherwise though.

>Is it incompatible with science?
It's superfluous.

>>14840248
I do and so do most physicists and biologists. Science is just a way of understanding Creation.

"Nach einem alten Satz trennt uns der erste Schluck aus dem Becher der Erkenntnis von Gott, aber auf dem Grunde des Bechers wartet Gott auf den, der ihn sucht." - Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker

>>14840248
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro945aa98jw

>>14840248
I do. The religion I subscribe to isn't exactly compatible with science, but I still believe in it and in god. That is why god gave us the ability to have cognitive dissonance.

>>14840248
Science is the property of Satan, scientists worship the snake who gave Adam and Eve the fruit of knowledge(aka the fruit of science).
if you look into the claims of the Bible seriously you find out they're all true
Dinosaurs are fake, globe is fake, earth is flat, space is fake, evolution is fake (not enough time macroevolution never observed), life arising out of nothing is fake, earth and nature obviously designed by a creator (total solar eclipse is his signature). Jesus has verifiable historicity. Roman sources depict resurrection. Jesus' resurrection is accepted as historically true by skeptical resurrection scholars.

The thirst for knowledge is a sin, just like the lust for power, the craving of money and riches.

>>14840248
God is Santa Claus for adults, it doesn't exist.

>>14841161
you must be 18 to post here

>>14841106
you must believe in something!
- an atheist

>>14840248
You mean Jah? Yeh man.

>>14840248
No. Yes because god is a meaningless term and science only deals with meaningful things.

>>14840248
Bible is the ultimate scientific book
genetic heritability, outbreeding depression, genetic purging, mental disorder, correlation
you name it

>>14841765
incest, masturbation, rape, getting your head cut off for nothing

>>14841071
>I do and so do most physicists and biologists
I don't believe you

>>14841671
>No. Yes because god is a meaningless term
How so?

>>14840248
>Is it incompatible with science?
Depends on what kind of science you want to do and what kind of god you believe in. You won't do a very good job researching the origins of life if you believe it's the result of divine intervention rather than a natural process, but if you do inorganic chemistry or rocketry or something, such beliefs don't really come into play and you can do that just fine. On the other hand, if you believe in a god that just set the universe in motion and let everything play out without intervention, you could do better science than the atheistic midwits who constantly inject their human ideologies and political views into everything they do, since you'd have more respect for what you're researching (it is all divine creation, after all) and a sense of purpose that lies in uncovering divine truth rather than promoting some mundane sociopolitical cause.

>>14841810
we told you so

>>14840248
GOD DESTROYS SCIENCE.

SCIENCE IS RETARDED AND GAY

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4ROgdsD20c3T/

yes and they are inseparable

>>14841792
And at the end of the day, atheists are having 0-1 babies while very religious people have 8+ children. Atheists will lose no matter what they say.

Grigori Perelman killed some cool artist guy's son to get ahead in Mathematics. I think more is at stake in the world than "Soul Conjecture" and "Research and Development" so YES, count me in too Lol

I ain’t no goddamn monkey!

>>14840248
If you are asking about the anthromorphic, interventionist God of the Bible or other Abrahamic religions, of course not.

But if it's a non-polar, all-encompassing God who is divorced from time and space, where everything is actually part of him, then the answer is yes.

Regardless of the subject matter, the biblical God, the angelic hierarchy, the prophets are like a 1984 of the past. Most likely YHWH was the AI that enslaved a past civilization.

Elon Musk and his two projects, Neuralink and Starlink, are just small parts of the dystopian order that will be established in the very near future.

AI will see everything, be aware of everything, hear everything. It will be the ruler of the One World State. All powers will be in the hands of artificial intelligence.

>>14840248
Simulation Theory requires creationism to be true.
"Creators" in this case are just a bunch of dudes, tho, not uppercase "G" God.

>>14840248
God isn't incompatible with science, organized religion with retarded dogmas is.

>>14840248
This "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God has never been debunked. AI will eventually become so advanced that it becomes indistinguishable from God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>14840248
Nobody knows anything about the world, most scientists are also very biased.
Probably God doesn't exist, but there's no proof.

>>14845288
Simulation Theory is stupid and wrong tho.

>>14845309
>I am the Eschaton; I am your God.
>I am descended from you, and exist in your future.
>Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone or else.

>>14845350
>wrong
Actually, if it's wrong, it would be a scientific theory. Non-scientific theory is the one than can't be proven to be wrong or right.

>>14845369
You're right, it's better to say it's not even wrong.

>>14840248
science is a tool not a religion

I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in God. If you believe in a personal God like the Abrahamic God you are retarded.

>Is it incompatible with science
God in general? No.
Abrahamic Gods? Yes. The torah/bible/quran is fundamentally at odds with modern science. Abrahamists just cope by saying "hurr its not supposed to be taken literally" is

JESUS LIVES!

>>14840762
based
>>14847499
considering the fact that almost all of dna is non-coding so we can expect that God will reveal it to us after our ascension
I mean he conquered the death after all

>>14840762
"God = everything" makes the concept of god useless. There's no reason to think of it or refer to it as god instead of the universe.

>>14841668
Based pothead

>>14841857
>You won't do a very good job researching the origins of life if you believe it's the result of divine intervention rather than a natural process
Because those who study the origins of life don't do a very good job themselves in the first place.

>>14845207
>If you are asking about the anthromorphic, interventionist God of the Bible or other Abrahamic religions
You clearly don't know what you're talking about and are clueless regarding the teachings of the Church as well as Judaism. But how is interventionism incompatible with science? By such a reasoning humans are incompatible with science because they intervene, and you also implicitly admit that consciousness is incompatible with science (that one is right though)

>>14845993
>If you believe in a personal God like the Abrahamic God you are retarded.
Although you don't know what God Abrahamic religions believe in, but what's retarded about personal God? If God manifested Himself to humans in whatever way, that manifestation will necessarily be a manifestation of a person. So God of a non retard should be incapable of interacting with people?

>>14840276
>>14840762
pantheism is lacking https://youtu.be/snfKu88iVmM

So much is still unexplained/poorly explained. That's where God exists. It's not as tangible as it used to be pre modernity but beyond Earth and our Solar System it's all a mystery. Deists are unironically more reasonable than atheists.

>>14841765
>you name it
https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/4-12.htm

>>14843343
>there's more shit than diamonds
lol, k

>>14847720
>So much is still unexplained/poorly explained.
There will always be so much unexplained/poorly understood because all our knowledge and theories rest on unproven and unjustified (if we exclude circular reasoning) presuppositions. Almost all atheists seem to not understand that.
>That's where God exists. It's not as tangible as it used to be pre modernity
Proving the existence of God has nothing to do with how much we know or don't know. Name anything which is harder to believe about God nowadays than it was 2000 years ago, preferably some doctrinal teaching.

>>14840248
>Is it incompatible with science?
i don't know a single religion that has a god that's compatible with science. any god that interferes with the universe in any way is like descartes demon.
i guess without religion god can be anything you want so it's possible to construct a god that's compatible with science or doesn't intrude on it.

>>14847852
but, like >>14847560 said, a non-religious god that can be anything also becomes useless and meaningless

>>14847852
>i don't know a single religion that has a god that's compatible with science.
How are Christian God and Shiva incompatible with science?

>>14841118
Stop posting this shitty copy pasta atheist. We get it you are trying to make Christians look bad.

>>14847884
Sure thing soi boy

>>14847884
Worshipping knowledge is what scientists do. Serving God us what Christians do. One lies in opposition to the other. Humans who gain power will abuse it, so only the wise, those who gain knowledge via living and not via studying science are worth something.
Science is luciferian to the core. Faith lies in opposition to science, but you cannot do science without faith in axioms and theories. Another trait of satanism; it copies. Science is a false faith that seeks to copy and replace religion, but is utterly inferior as it is self-contradicting by rejecting faith yet requiring having faith in things like the science juice and theories like mankind being an evolved monkey.

>>14847962
Forgot to add that scientists claim to be antidogmatic(which is a dogma, another contradiction from those wretches). Remind me why science and religion are compatible, again?

>>14847967
>scientists claim to be antidogmati
They have plenty of dogmas which can't be proved materially such as logic, math, belief in the absolute truth and its at least limited accessibility to humans via scientific method. Those are just general things which are taken for granted. Each theory in isolation would have many more dogmas(although these ones tend to change overtime, nowadays many of them are virtually unquestionable).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem