/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3474679

>implying "proven scientifically" has anything to do with me and my superior intellect.

indifference unless it affected my life directly somehow.

mind fuck, then later keep living life as i do.

>>3474679
A scientifically proven god is no god at all. So I'll make fun of Christians because their god was disproved.

If so, then maybe this board's rules will change.
In the meantime, you're reported.

Need exact definition of what this ``God'' is.
Powerful alien? Not God.
Matrix Lord(someone with exponentially growing computing power simulating this universe)? Not god, but close to it. If computationalism + any of the more general of multiverse theories are true (which I'm betting both are), we can safely do the same eventually.
Also, interventionist god? Whence comes evil then?
Non-interventionist? Why call it god?
Omnipotent? How do you get yourself out of those contradictions?
Wanting worship? What the fuck.
Human-like yet infinitely intelligent? Again, what.

Basically, if you try for omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent, I will go myheadisfullof.jpg and that would be it because everything we know contradicts this. I'm not calling Matrix Lords or highly powerful aliens gods as that's something we can become given enough time.

>mfw

>>3474716
what about interventionist and malevolent?

whence evil? from him.

Now what?

>>3474716
>mfw this guy has just scientifically proven we will NOT encounter god.

>>3474711
This is no religion versus science thread you faggot

>>3474716
He said hypothetical, what would your face be, not "show me how much of an aspie faggot you are". We know the idea is bullshit, you don't have to point it out Captain Obvious.

After receiving my red lantern ring for my predicted rage i would attempt to kill him, scientifically.

which god?

>>3474725
Not the dude you're replying to, but I'll reply nonetheless: IF there is a god, the meaning of "good" basically defaults to "God's will". Thus, the question "Wence cometh evil?" becomes "Are there things happening against God's will?". If there are, God is not omnipotent. So there aren't. But if there are NO things occuring against God's will in the first place, that's a contradiction with the assumption that God is interventionist. Basically, it's another omnipotence paradoxon.

Spoiler: There is no omnipotence.

>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750
>>3474750

>>3474716

>Also, interventionist god? Whence comes evil then?

God shows up and says "evil is not a thing" and that "you are matter with no good or evil tendencies".

BOOM!

>>3474750

>>3474752
Let me sort this out...

Omnipotence doesn't mean he acts on it. Just because you can doesn't mean you do.

And good only defaults to "god's will" if that god defines itself as good.

If we're dealing with a full-retard deity that creates life specifically to torment it, than "good" is anything that resists him.

>>3474739
> myheadisfullof.jpg
It would be a similar face to being shown that arithmetic was inconsistent (such as having a simple arithmetic statement that is both true and false and thus invalidating itself). I would be incredibly surprised and would review the evidence very carefully. Please keep in mind that in a hypothetical scenario where I die and some Matrix Lord decides to lift the informational pattern that represents my brain and implement it in his own simulation, I would admit what that being is (someone running an universe simulation), although what possible evidence could one give for omnipotence? Can one change truth value of 1+1=2 without using different axioms or notation? Can one do the (truly) impossible?

>>3474772
sure can.

Begin... preparations.

Pic related.

>>3474732
I disagree, but regardless it's trolling. And it's not science.

You're a faggot--and THAT'S science.

im okay with this

>>3474791
It's a discussion about a hypothetical scientific discovery. Faggot.

>>3474679