Oh, I heard of this and had it explained once but forgot.

>why am I here
to shut the heel ap

we didnt evolve brains to understand tthe scale of the universe so we invent god to justify our existence

but its not necessary

there's a good recent qm book good for beginners

Well, that is a huge claim.

@glamp do tell.

eh, not to be rude, but I think I know this a little bit better than you

its not a controversial claim.... we have experiments showing quantum inteference effects, particles interacting with multiverse superpositions of themselves

@glamp just tell me the title.

@Hector <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FKQBD68>

similarly all the best models of the big bang require inflation

so the inflationary multiverse is actually the most likely scenario

based on observable evidence

ahh it starts with good ol stern-gerlach

that never gets old

I think this is enough for now. Before, I used to shit on the Telelogical Argument. I am reconsidering it now. Bye, Banjod, Fuguer, glamp, panik, and others. This was fun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

it's a nice book, it's got a bunch of interactive html files

The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown. The **basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists**, as **a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation**; however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position.The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.

@glamp found a copy, thanks

If god help you stay sane enjoy

shes ok

I do not think God helps me stay sane. If anything, my recent conversion has been stressful.

if you want good proofs for gods existence that cant be invalidated with physics, read ed feser's book "five proofs of the existence of god"

it's written for laymen

bye, guys. Need to finish this book so I can read that book on Nietzsche.

glamp say it aint so

you're not god cucking are you

@Billy Ray gym e-thot being put in check

@glamp I do not like most of the arguments. Though, 1. is entertaining.

sorry duck but physics has to bend the knee to metaphysics

the five arguments feel like they were written by a bright kindergartener

science doesn't disprove god though

theyre not very compelling

you havent interacted with the real ones, only caricatures

yes, but i have quantum metaphysics

I find 1. compelling so far. I read Richard Carrier's criticism and was not swayed.

plus there is the passing down of knowledge through religion that could help adherents retain culture, and moral ideas throughout all of time, despite of the situation.

1. is first mover