/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes! But he wants to keep his identity a SECRET!

Even if there's an intelligent designer his existence is a random coincidence.

The universe exists just because it does.

>>3441523
Agreed. And his nickname is 'Slappy'.

there is an intelligent designer, it just doesnt care about the specks of nothing we call "humans".

so worship IT all you want, its of no benefit to you and it doesnt give a shit what you do.

I suppose you could argue that an intelligent designer started to exist the moment humanity became aware of itself and started making decisions as a group

Probably not...

>>3441375
Both are truth.

designers

I am not a "believer," but I find it interesting that, given a limited chemistry set and some physical laws, a creature arises that can contemplate this existence. "God" has no eyes, so "He" creates them. We are all "God," collectively.

Chaos is order we do not understand, yet. I don't think any of this is random, but I don't believe some separate mythical sky-man did it all. There are greater forces we may never understand.

the Earth is a TV show and you are an actor.

god cannot be seen because that would spoil his show,

you can write your own script.

mind = blown

>>3441375
This universe was created by Humans for humans. Yet you're not smart enough to obtain this information. As science is designed to keep you ignorant of humanities true origins as well as the starting history of mankind.

not this shit again. Stop bumping it.

>>3442074
We know who you are. And what you're trying to do. And frankly you lack the ability to have any power anywhere.

>>3442078
Oh man I laughed

if youre an idiot: random coincidence

if youre an intelligent thinking man, such as the theists who discovered quantum mechanics, newtonian physics, the big bang, etc.: then its intelligent design

>>3442097
>theists who discovered quantum mechanics

>>3442294

WHY WOULD YOU BUMP A TROLL THREAD YOU IGNORANT SHIT?!

>>3442119
oh im sorry atheist teen, were you under the impression that atheists thought of quantum mechanics? lolnope, it was a religious guy.

atheists havent contributed much of anything to science, in fact.

>>3441375
Why so mutually exclusive? What about an intelligent designer who created a whole universe made of random coincidence?

>>3442297
>anything that disagrees with my liberal/atheist religion is a troll thread hurrr

>>3442302
>liberal/atheist religion
>implying you're not a troll

ha

>>3442297

>>3442301
What about random coincidence creating a god who then created a universe?

The universe is a mistake. Things move forward in time because they can't go backwards. The universe is the scum of the void, it's the void that failed into existence. A gentle blow of wind lifted up some dust and all it wants is to settle and it will.

please stop bumping this...

>>3441375
> is there an intelligent designer or is this whole universe random coincidence.
(there an intelligent designer) ∨ (this whole universe random coincidence)
F ∨ F ≡ F
The answer to your question is no.

>>3442443
ummm your an idiot

>>3442414
>mfw

>>3442411
What if random coincidences created the universe, and then random coincidences created a god moulded on the frame of the universe. That way it might seem that the god had created the universe.

Crazy you say? Still not more crazy than thinking a magic man did it.

>>3442458
what if niggers

>>3442458
Nothing's crazy. I like this idea.

>>3442458
What if nonrandom physical processes created the universe, and then later the exact goddamn same physical processes led to the formation of a planet where the exact goddamn same physical processes had the right kind of material to make a form of life that was in this case protoplasmic carbon-based, and then those kinds of life forms told lies to each other about what caused thunder to cover up that none of them knew, and then just decided to make a history of lying and indoctrination "their thing" that makes them separate from the rest of the animals?
> Oh wait, that's what happened.

>>3442294

>>atheists havent contributed much of anything to science, in fact.

Pic related. And 60% of scientists worldwide are atheists, with 93% of the most acclaimed being atheists.

>>3442713
What if physical processes created the universe, then the universe created a simulation, and that simulation created you, and you are just an electric sheep?

Who designed the designer?

lol i broke intelligent design

>>3442414
>blah blah mistake. blah blah forward in time because blah blah backwards. The universe is blah blah blah blah blah.
>tl;dr: I'm a teenager

>A gentle blow of wind lifted up some dust and all it wants is to settle and it will.
Nice.

>>3442741
stephen hawking? the guy who spent 15 years of his life on a baseless theory only to later claim his theory is false and then support the new theory with even more imaginary math and no evidence?

oh wow atheists sure do have a high standard for contributing to science. is hawking even an atheist? i couldve sworn he was agnostic

>>3442741
Your pic related. A Theorist who preaches how is could be! if it was even. In which most of what this cock sucker says can't be proved. And this is why he basically talks about shit no one could figure out.

Oh yes if the wheel chair puppet was so smart why is he still stuck in a chair?

Science -1

>>3441523
prove it

>>3442771
>>3442782

Nope, valid example. You're struggling to downplay his contributions because he doesn't fit with your narrative.

What of the 93% of scientists in the NAS who are atheists? They are in the NAS in the first place because they're the best of the best. Non-NAS scientists average 60% atheist. Therefore the cream of the crop in science has a higher tendency to be atheistic.

Pic related, Richard Feynman, also an atheist.

im guessing something has to do with this "or" jive.

This universe was created by Humans for humans. As we were over populating one of our other universes. And another universe is being ravaged by disease. Enjoy what we created because honestly it could be a lot worse.

>>3442754
> What if ninja hackers in flying robot ships never actually ever broke into that simulation and rescued emo jesus superman from a life of wristcutting, and there were never any glitches in the program, nor agents acting to subtly manipulate the variables, so that the simulation never ever was in any way not exactly equal to reality instead of a shitty movie?
Then we'd call it reality instead of a shitty movie, and we'd be right.

>>3442741
I would hardly classify Hawking as a major contributor to physics. Being a celebrity doesn't make you a great scientist.

>>3442831
A highly interesting concept you have there.

>>3442822
Meanwhile the US shuts down the Space Shuttle program. Because it's not producing any viable results.

>>3442822
Argument from authority fallacy.

>>3442858

>>I would hardly classify Hawking as a major contributor to physics. Being a celebrity doesn't make you a great scientist.

You'd be singing a different tune if he were religious.

>>3442875

>>Argument from authority fallacy.

You don't know what that means.

The argument from authority fallacy is when you argue that someone is right because of their position/reputation.

My posts have been in response to someone who suggested that theists comprise all of the most influential scientists in recent history.

Showing that not to be the case by providing examples of the most notable scientists who were in fact atheists is not an argument from authority because it makes no claim as to whether or not they are right, only that they self-identify as atheists.

Of course I had to explain this to you because as a religious person your brain is defective.

>>3442097

>>3442889

>as a religious person your brain is defective

This actually makes you an idiot even if your post is overall reasonable

>>3442919
Cry moar, theistfag.

>>3442919

>>This actually makes you an idiot even if your post is overall reasonable

Of course it doesn't. It means that the portion of my post you quoted makes you angry because you're religious. That has no bearing on my intelligence.

If you mean to suggest it's an ad hominem, it isn't. Ad hominem doesn't mean any insult issued in an argument, it means substituting insults *for* argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrsQq0nCENY

>>3442931

I was not the guy you were quoting above, I was just passing by and happened to read that retarded statement

>>3442957

It isn't retarded. religiosity correlates negatively with intelligence. Correlation by itself doesn't necessarly imply causation, but if you can corroborate the link with hundreds of studies which use different metrics for intelligence, sample widely from different walks of life and the results are still the same, it can at least authoritatively be said that the religious are on average less intelligent than atheists and have been for as long as we've been studying the relationship.

>>3442970
religiosity is falsely portrayed as affecting those within religion. It also affects cults, singularity and geekdom.

It's basically a suggestion that abstract reality, regardless of how informed it is, causes a feeling of hopefulness and 'one' with the information.

At the end of the day, the object of religiosity is arbitrary.

>>3443013

>>At the end of the day, the object of religiosity is arbitrary.

If that were true we'd see no differences in the distribution of intelligent people across various religions and no religion. But we do.

The Universe was designed to act exactly as it does:
"Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God." Psalm 84:3

"Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God." Luke 12:6

If you are good at math, please calculate the neutron flux needed for diamonds to show C-14 ages of 30,000 years, and you will know radiometric dating and uniformitarian geology is essentially flawed.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X07002443

In fossil fuels

"Most man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 should have long since decayed. However, such deposits often contain trace amounts of carbon-14 (varying significantly, but ranging from 1% the ratio found in living organisms to amounts comparable to an apparent age of 40,000 years for oils with the highest levels of carbon-14).[16] This may indicate possible contamination by small amounts of bacteria, underground sources of radiation causing the 14N(n,p) 14C reaction, direct uranium decay (although reported measured ratios of 14C/U in uranium-bearing ores[17] would imply roughly 1 uranium atom for every two carbon atoms in order to cause the 14C/12C ratio, measured to be on the order of 10−15), or other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
But that was petroleum, diamonds eliminate the biologic contamination possibility don't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandomness

>>3443078
>But that was petroleum, diamonds eliminate the biologic contamination possibility don't they?

Of course not.

>>3443078
Randomness doesn't exist in our reality, before it, we do not know. This doesn't indicates anything about god.
This does only indicates the limit of our , constantly progressing, knowledge.

>>3443078
There's no randomness in the universe because motion comes from a reaction. Everything is interaction. So, not random.

>>3443078
Failed Statistics, did we?

>>3443289
welcome to quantum physics, newfriend