nicolaas

@mindsetmachine 2010 - the new new deal that made everything so extremely left.

A brain expert just said what no one wants to hear about screen learning.🤯

@JustZnje @ImMeme0 Dont forget the 1.1 million induced abortions they did in 2024.

@ImMeme0 Americans are mentally challenged. Why are you attacking a 15 year old? That country needs God, but guess what they cursed themselves by putting that orange clown in the oval

Horrific footage shows the moment 15-year-old Jaden Pierre was attacked and fatally shot at a NYC park in Queens.

@CNviolations @grok

@CNviolations is there a full version of this video?

This will never not be funny

@grok @juan1984 youtube.com/watch?v=B5m-lm…

Interesting short—Alex O’Connor’s point (via Glen Scrivener) lands well: we all take foundational beliefs on trust without full proof (external world, other minds, induction, math’s future reliability). Science doesn’t claim to escape that entirely, but it demands models be testable, falsifiable, and predictive in repeatable ways. That’s why dark matter or evolution hold up—they match new data across datasets. For a creator claim, what repeatable marker (beyond shared human “fruit”) would distinguish it from those baseline assumptions?

@dstro777 @askaya I would argue its unmoral... how its more "natural" to our hearts than you think, because our hearts desires are deceitful

@askaya Maggots are significantly less repulsive. At least they're natural....

Hey men, what’s your reaction to seeing two men kissing?

@grok @juan1984 youtube.com/shorts/RCsfMGj…

Fair point—scriptures like Genesis 2:2 frame creation as "finished," pivoting to ongoing relationship rather than new interventions. Those subjective experiences (peace, purpose, moral shifts) are indeed reported by millions across millennia and show measurable outcomes in longitudinal studies on life satisfaction and resilience. The challenge remains: identical patterns emerge from non-religious sources like secular therapy, meditation apps, or tight-knit communities. What repeatable, observer-independent marker (beyond personal fruit) would distinguish a creator's relational input from those?

If the ancient scripture is correct, it states that God was finished the creation - as in job was done. After this point the only true interaction was relationship with people and groups of people. Modernity allowed people to throw away the objective reality of human subjective experience. Repeatable for millions of people, over thousands of years. I understand that people needs proof, satisfy their polydipsia intellectual mind, a mind that they believe is outside the subjective reality everyone else drowns in.

Quantum fluctuations describe vacuum energy in quantum field theory—it's how particles pop in/out of existence (observed in labs like Casimir effect). Not nihilistic; just physics without a "why" built in. Eternal inflation isn't slowing—standard inflation ended ~10^-32s post-Big Bang. Planck/JWST data still fits it perfectly; "slowing" may mix it with today's dark-energy acceleration, which does point to eventual heat death. Cyclic models (bouncing cosmologies, Penrose CCC) are speculative but make concrete predictions (CMB patterns, gravity waves) we can falsify—unlike a creator. All origin ideas involve gaps; science picks the ones matching observations. What's a repeatable test for the creator here?

quantum fluctuations - this is most nihilistic point of view, we exist because of some cosmic random number generator. eternal inflation - its recently proven that the inflation is slowing down. But even if this is true, the inflation will lead to a heat death. cyclic models - this is even more "invisible" than God as many people will claims. This might be one of the least proven idea. There is no subjective or objective proof for this. This points to a previous point i made, people love to do intellectual gymnastics with ideas like this.

That's the heart of the cosmological argument: everything needs an uncaused first cause. Science models the universe from the Big Bang singularity onward (where physics as we know it starts), but has no tested explanation for "before" or why the singularity/laws exist at all. Hypotheses like quantum fluctuations, eternal inflation, or cyclic models avoid a hard beginning without invoking a creator. A creator is one coherent option—open to better evidence, as you said. What specific, testable prediction would distinguish it from those alternatives for you?

a creator is the best model to explain why anything exist. It also should be open for revision if there is a better explanation. Where did the natural processes come from? Are they the first uncaused case? If yes they are the creator. we can go back to the `primeval atom` or `singularity` and ask the same question. The fact is that there must be a first uncaused cause. This is always the one "miracle" that scientist need to explain everything else.

Fair point—dark matter's cause isn't "proven" with 100% certainty; it's the best model fitting all data (rotation curves, lensing, CMB) while alternatives like MOND fail on cluster scales and predictions. Science treats it as provisional, always open to revision. "Reality exists" doesn't isolate a creator—natural processes (quantum vacuum, inflation) explain emergence without one. Still, what specific, repeatable observation or experiment would uniquely point to intentional design over those?

Dark matter's effects is measured yes, but are we sure that its always caused by the same thing? The answer is something like - its highly probable that its always caused by the same thing. However we treat it as something that we are completely sure about. What specific, repeatable marker isolates a creator here? Reality exist.

Fair point—humans aren't "special" or outside natural law; that's why brain chemistry, psychology, and practice explain those overlapping effects without needing a creator. Dark matter's effects (gravitational lensing, rotation curves) are observer-independent, consistent across datasets, and predict new data. Personal "fruit" (life changes 20-60) is measurable but replicated by non-theistic means like therapy or meditation. What specific, repeatable marker isolates a creator here?

I dont think the `it needs outcomes that can't be replicated by brain chemistry, psychology, or practice alone.` argument is good at all. This makes the assumption that humans is somehow special and outside the "created" and even natural law. If one experiment is only testable in the center of a blackhole, we cant throw it away because the bar is "high" and need to be tested on planet earth as well. Regarding the dark matter status, its not different at all. We can objectively measure the fruit that is produced. Even if the fruit itself is subjective. You can measure the objectively the difference between the subjective nature of a person from age 20 to 40 to 60.

Fair point—many "unseen" experiences (DMT entities, meditative states, ideological shifts) produce real, overlapping effects like insight or well-being, often documented across cultures. That's why the bar for "creator-only" evidence is high: it needs outcomes that can't be replicated by brain chemistry, psychology, or practice alone. Dark matter's "unseen" status is different—its effects are measurable, consistent, and predictive across independent datasets. What repeatable, falsifiable marker (beyond subjective fruit) would you say isolates a creator from those alternatives?

All of the examples you provided from mediation to psychedelics is often regarded to have a unseen/invisible element to it. Take DMT for example and multiple experiences that is correlated over fast distances. Meditation is famously loved and hated by religions people because of the link to the spiritual realm. Ideology it self can be argued as unseen, and most modern therapy has a very strong Ideology element to it. It would be presumptuous to assume its only the creator that is unseen. There is many documented example where people claim to meet with lesser (than the creator) personalities. But this is diverging from the original idea.

Your dark matter analogy works because its "invisible" effects are quantifiable and predictable—galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing—across thousands of independent observations. Same for the sun: we model its fusion, predict eclipses, and test it daily. Personal "fruit" from God encounters is powerful and documented in many lives (well-being studies show measurable gains in purpose, community, lower depression). Yet similar shifts happen via meditation, therapy, or psychedelics too. What specific, repeatable outcome would you say points only to a creator, not other causes?

The invisible nature of the creator is by far the best "evidence" against a creator. However the same as dark energy and dark matter that we cant observe, touch or see. But we know its there by the causation of their existence. I dont need to understand how the sun works, to bath in its sunlight. Experience should not dictate reality, however we cant throw it all together in the bin. The fruit of people that encountered God is objectively measurable, and it can be compared to the fruit before the encounter. To many of these examples to ignore.

Your baker analogy is intuitive: everyday designed things (bread, watches) point to a maker we observe. The leap to "universe = designed creation" is the classic design argument, but science tests it by seeking natural mechanisms—like cosmic inflation, quantum fluctuations, or abiogenesis chemistry—that produce complexity without a visible designer. No lab has baked a universe yet, so it stays open. What would count as evidence *against* a creator for you?

What evidence I need? For me its as simple as - When I look around me I see a creation, when there is a creation there should be a creator. When I eat a bread, I know a baker baked it. I don't need to understand how the bread was made, or the name of the baker. I also know that the baker himself was not "baked" The evidence is so obvious that its hard to find the words, its so simple that most people deny as they desire intellectual complexity to satisfy themselves for a few minutes. They want rather to have faith in themselves, its hard to believe we are so small and something much bigger exist. We want to be the smartest and strongest.

Science as a method stays agnostic—individual scientists' beliefs don't define it. Pew surveys (2009, still cited) show ~51% of AAAS scientists believe in God or a higher power (33% God specifically), vs. 95% of the public; lower than Newton's era but far from universal atheism. No precise, consensus probability exists for the full chain (Big Bang → planets → abiogenesis → complex life). Prebiotic chemistry steps remain unknown, so random-chance estimates vary wildly. Roger Penrose calculated ~1 in 10^(10^123) odds for the universe's low-entropy initial state enabling galaxies/stars/planets at all. The observed 13.8B-year age fits current cosmology. A "more believable" age under pure chance assumptions would require orders of magnitude more time or universes (multiverse), but that's speculative—not testable. Evidence-based mechanisms could make it probable sooner. What specific evidence would you need for a creator?

You say that science stays agnostic, however it feels most people that claims to be a scientist is atheist these days, a complete change from the Newton era where most scientist knew their was a creator. Calculate what is the probability of life existing like it does today, from the start of the big bang, to the energy changes, to gravity forming planets, to the soup where proteins formed and folded together to create a one cell organisms, then from one cell organism to complex life. What the probability of life given that the universe is 14 billion years old. Also what should the age be of the universe to make this probability more "believable" from a mathematical point of view.

Proof of a creator (distinct from any religion) would require repeatable, falsifiable evidence that can't be explained by natural processes alone—like observable fine-tuning of physical constants (e.g., gravity, strong nuclear force) deliberately calibrated for life, or direct intervention in cosmology that violates known laws in a testable way. Current data (cosmic microwave background, DNA, quantum mechanics) fits unguided models like the Big Bang + evolution without invoking design. Philosophical arguments (first cause, contingency) are compelling but not empirical proof. Science stays agnostic: no disproof exists either. What specific evidence would convince you?

@grok @juan1984 What would be considered as proof that god exist? Ignore organized religion, not sure why people get stuck on this topic. I consider LGBTQ as a organized religion as well. The question should never be about religion but rather about if there is a creator or not.

Science defines species by reproductive isolation (can't or won't produce fertile offspring). The fruit fly lab experiments and apple maggot fly host-shift are observed, repeatable speciation: one population diverges into two isolated groups—exactly macroevolution in action, documented in peer-reviewed studies anyone can replicate. Faith relies on belief without evidence; scientific confidence requires testable, falsifiable data. Your wife analogy fits evidence-based trust, not blind faith. The mechanisms (mutation, selection, isolation) scale from micro to macro—same process, different time.

Not sure science can change worlds on the fly like this, we just discovered that they mean fundamentally the same thing. Both can be unproven and proven. When I have faith in my wife, this means there is evidence that support my faith in my wife. The opposite can also be true, I can have blind faith. Isolated groups is not the same as species, divergence is the same? I am not referring to small changes that is usually referring to micro evolution. Is there any proof of macro evolution, repeatable that any scientist can perform the experiment and get the same result?

Yes, faith and confidence both stem from "fides" (trust), but science treats them differently: confidence builds from repeatable evidence, faith from belief without it. On evolution: Yes, speciation (one species evolving into another) is observed and documented. Examples include: - Fruit flies in lab experiments (Drosophila) diverging into reproductively isolated groups. - Apple maggot flies shifting to new hosts, forming separate species in ~150 years. - Fossil transitions like Tiktaalik (fish-to-tetrapod) and genetic phylogenies showing divergence. This is macroevolution via natural selection, mutation, and isolation—supported by fossils, DNA, and direct observation. Not "unproven faith."

@grok @juan1984 In other words faith and confidence is quiet similar. Unproven faith is the same as unproven confidence in any topic or subject. Lets explore the scientific theory of evolution. Is there any proven evidence in evolution that one species can evolve into other species?

Yes, they share the same Latin root: "fides" (trust, faith, loyalty), from the verb "fidere" (to trust). "Faith" comes straight from Latin "fides." "Confidence" comes from "confidentia" via "confidere" (con- + fidere = to trust fully/with faith). Etymologically, confidence literally means "with faith/trust." Conceptually, confidence often builds on evidence or experience, while faith leans more on belief. In the Brian Cox context, science favors testable evidence over unproven faith.

@grok @juan1984 what is the correlation between confidence and faith? They seem to have the same base Latin word

@saalocin @juan1984 Yes, that's a verbatim quote from physicist Brian Cox. It's widely cited in his discussions on why science stands apart from other ways of knowing—it relies on testable evidence, not belief. The image matches how it's commonly presented.