Henrik Danielsson

@calawow @wendelltalks Sure, but we have the experience to see that those assumptions are acceptable. Science produces valuable results and makes validated progress. We don't have to debate whether established scientific facts are real because they are demonstrably so. It works. Religious claims don't.

@two_d @wendelltalks The scientific method itself relies on Philosophical assumptions.

If you want to know why the universe exists read Genesis 1:1

@anchoredso37497 @limitandmind Science does not attempt to explain "why", and all religions do is yell loudly "here's why!". Then you take a closer look and it's all batshit insane guesswork and assertions which can't be verified in any way because it was derived from their delusions about magic.

I can’t believe I use to like NDT. Now I see him as a highly religious man with a heavy belief system and worldview. Science doesn’t *really* explain anything, it describes. It’s up to us as rational minds on how we interpret the data. I like your example of the molecule and they often demand that for God. Yet even then, biases and worldviews could lead them to misinterpret data and reject belief. I think what it ultimately comes down to is this: What is the best explanation based on what we know? What is the best explanation for the way things are? I find the atheist argument increasingly weak. The more we learn with the tool called “science”, the more everything points to God. And then there is Special Revelation from God which is a completely different topic. Sometimes the “atheist” is given a direct and supernatural experience and revelation from God… ripping him out of his comfy worldview against his will, removing his heart of stone and giving him a heart of flesh, and putting a new spirit within him. This is complete foolishness to the atheist and can never be believed by him until/unless it happens to him. God reveals himself to us in several ways, but creation is the first one.

This idea that scientists are impartial and infallible truth seeking machines and not people like the rest of us who make mistakes and have their own biases is inscrutable to me. It also treats the problem as if God is a molecule just waiting to be found by a sufficiently high powered microscope and that scientists would have no reason to reject him should they find him, neither of which are true.

@abdrhxyiii @CodeWithAmann Yeah, they're only focusing on looks tho...

@CodeWithAmann idk why, but apple's icon/logos of those looks to be luxury/richy

You can only live in ONE ecosystem forever. Which one are you choosing?

@div_it_is @CodeWithAmann Yikes. I don't know anyone who loves any of those, except maybe Excel, but they can't even use 5% of it because it's too complex.

@CodeWithAmann Microsoft contains the most important of the applications

@ValerianWaters @CodeWithAmann Wtf do Apple and passports have in common?

@CodeWithAmann Apple. Passport photos look the same in every country—need that consistency when I’m stuck forever.

@jkbdts @wendelltalks Special pleading.

@wendelltalks Is it backed up by anything special?

@calawow @wendelltalks As always in an unsatisfactory way and all philosophy is mere speculation and wild guesses with extra steps.

@wendelltalks “Why” is always answered by Philosophy and Theology, not the Physical Sciences.

@MathezarT @McClureShawn By definition: no. If it's possible at all it's only a matter of time. If the shuffle can happen faster, or even in parallel, it will even significantly increase the probability of you seeing it happen in your lifetime. Each shuffle has the same chance of returning the original.

@two_d @McClureShawn And if my grandma had wheels she would be a bicycle. You are talking about theoretical possibilities as if they are plausible or even probable. Hypothetically what you said is true, but it is beyond the scope of what is likely to happen.

Dear Theists: When you "hear God speaking" to you, it's merely your Id whispering to your Ego, not a supernatural Deity. The brain is an extraordinarily complex machine that completely contains your God and your perceived relationship with It—"God" is your brain on its own drugs.

@MathezarT @McClureShawn No, I said nothing even close to that. But you could randomize it enough times and it is inevitable you will at some point end up with the original script again, without anyone explicitly deciding that specific outcome would happen. It's just possibility and probability vs time.

@two_d @McClureShawn Are you saying that if I took a novel and randomly mixed up the letters, that it would identical to the original? They are both equally complex and their physical makeup would be the same.

@MathezarT @McClureShawn *doesn't have a designer. With everything science has discovered so far, nothing has required any type of designer. You could only say that if you've excluded all other natural ways it could have come to exist. You have not.

@MathezarT @McClureShawn Wordplay. No complexity is an indicator of design, as how complex something is is relative and subjective depending on what it's compared to. You'd have to define a machine as something man-made to say no machines have a designer. There's no requirement for that.

@piyush784066 Arch I can actually use.

Ubuntu vs Arch vs Fedora – which is actually the best all-rounder for daily use?

@MathezarT @McClureShawn Complexity is not an indicator of design.

@McClureShawn Atheist unwittingly makes the case that human brains are incredibly complex and therefore designed. 😂😉😋

@ChristiansSTDT Then nobody would have to believe because it would be verifiably true.

.....yes......will I worship and serve he/she/it is another question.

@KR3Wmatic Why would you need to if one existed?

How do I convince an atheist that there is a God?

@BasedEmbraced @McClureShawn Which god?

@McClureShawn TAG is but one argument. There are many others, none which require a holy book that point to God. I listed some in the OP. Because YOU don't see it doesn't mean thousands and millions of other people DO see it.

One absolutely can get to God without any holy book. Many arguments for God are based on this: TAG, the argument from causation, the argument from design/purpose etc.

@companyman @Natehiggerson03 @TrollAccou94432 @LighttheFireIAu @MadSEToday Exactly. It can't interact with us. We can't interact with it. We could not even know if it exists, so claiming it does is nonsensical.

@two_d @Natehiggerson03 @TrollAccou94432 @LighttheFireIAu @MadSEToday Something “outside time” (and therefore the Universe) sounds a lot like something that doesn’t exist.

Atheists believe in six miracles: 1. Something from absolutely nothing. 2. Order from chaos. 3. Life from non-life. 4. Personal from non-personal. 5. Reason from non-reason. 6. Morality from matter. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

@JohnOyesunle @MCaruzii @KR3Wmatic What "sacrifice"? He didn't sacrifice anything for anyone. He didn't even stay dead. Nothing changed after he died or supposedly was resurrected and ascended. It's the most pointless and constructed excuse for anything I've ever heard as it has exactly zero impact.

@MCaruzii @KR3Wmatic So you’re just forgetting about Christ’s sacrifice of redemption now?

Parents do not "design" their children. God, by definition, is a Creator. If God is omnipotent, he designed the human brain and its susceptibility to "sin." A parent cannot be blamed for a child’s inherent nature because they didn't invent the concept of human nature. God, however, is the "architect" who built a bridge knowing it had a structural flaw that would cause it to collapse. Parents have "limited foresight." We hope our kids do good. We deal with probabilities, not certainties. God has "divine foreknowledge." Creating someone you suspect might struggle is an act of hope. Creating someone you know for a fact will fail and then punishing them for that failure is an act of intent. If a parent knew their child would commit a crime and, instead of preventing it, waited for the crime to happen so they could throw the child in a basement forever, we would call that parent a monster, not a loving creator. Also, the moral false equivalency. Parents do not create the "rules" of the universe. Parents are also subject to the same human condition as their children. God (in this theology) created the definition of sin, the temptation (the serpent/tree), and the penalty for the sin. It’s logically inconsistent to compare a parent (who is a player in the game) to God (who is the person who wrote the rules of the game, built the board, and decided the losing penalty). Dr Turek, do better next time. ✌🏽

@spectreNBA I'd say there is at least some tech that will make a better impact than what we now call "AI", like solid state batteries not made of explodium.

no technology will supass artificial intelligence again, we have reach the climax of tech.

@LighttheFireIAu @Tetrahydropyran @BRijswijk Cells are made of many many molecules, themselves made of elemental particles, quarks... So, you're wrong there. We also have many many variations of singular cells with very different structures, and viruses, or even single molecules which reproduce without being "alive".

@Tetrahydropyran @BRijswijk If we go by evolution, we evolved from single-cell organisms. A cell can't be broken down, so it has to spawn in from nowhere.