Physicists may prove we exist in a computer simulation

The dude who simulated the whole thing is as incompetent as God... what an epic troll.

Damn it, Slartibartfast, you made a mistake and now they've figured it out!

I'm reluctant to post this, as you will think I am a complete imbecile but here goes:- I don't know what "Matrix stuff" means either?! Help!

Guess what, the free will that I thought I had as a child is becoming more and more understandingly non-existent. For instance, God. Without any knowledge of the world as a child, I had to "believe" it to be true, I had free will. Now that I know better that decision to believe CAN NOT EXIST. I have only one choice now, the truth that Iv'e learned.

Of course people have came back in time! Humans in the future still have follies, like accidentally being seen during a few commercial "Vacation to the Past" trips...

where did I ever say that god existed and science was wrong etc? you obviously were just waiting to throw this out there and attempt to make me go on some religious rant etc etc. But im not saying that God has to exist based on first cause-im saying that God is just as possible as two atoms existing, as science was defined by humans, which are not a flawless creature.
That article I DID find interesting though-he said that the intelligent design argument was the easiest to flatten, because if everything had a creator, who created God? sounds like a solid argument. But assuming everything had a creator, something had to have a permanent existence, whether it was God or two atoms or whatever you believe. That actually just proves my point further, science being the correct answer (And we will never know for sure regardless of what scientists say) is not any more likely than God. You are quite welcome to say, "Well based on this, this element (irrelevantly, conservation of energy for example) makes perfect sense and is therefore is `100% correct. However, there is absoultely no way to be sure that human conclusions of science (or anything at all, really) is correct. Which is why, as I said, religion is synonymous to faith, which is synonymous to believing things we cant see or prove. You place faith in science creating the universe, which is also believing in things you cannot see or prove, regardless if science has told you its proven. You CAN quote quantum physics laws and concepts (such as the uncertainty principle) which I find quite interesting, but in the end there is no way that they can be proved.

I don't think any good scientist would ever claim that science is "the correct answer", it is just a system of doubt which homes in on the truth (but never quite gets there!) Unless I've misunderstood (as a good scientist I doubt/test myself).

@Doctor John

"I'm reluctant to post this, as you will think I am a complete imbecile but here goes:- I don't know what 'Matrix stuff' means either?! Help!"

And I'm reluctant to post this also, since you will think I am more completely perfect imbecile than you think, Matrix stuff is some serious kicking science-action-stuff, the story is about the fight between Agent Smith and Mr. Anderson (Neo) within simulation-stuff with superhuman-stuff power that can dodge bullet and stuff. *LoL

youd be surprised. just a while ago there was an article on yahoo (yes I know, yahoo journalism) that asked if science was able to disprove God, which is, to any intelligent person, incredibly ridiculous, because even if you place more faith in science, it cannot disprove anything. But so many people were saying yes and things like it. Ive heard many a scientist try and use science to say God does not exist.

I have 2 pills each in 1 hand. my left hand I have a green pill that puts u to sleep and in my right hand I have a blue pill that will make u high.

Wow

Not only there is no evidence, but from logical conclusions you can safely assume that there is no way a possible "creator" would not have certain human traits, aka such of an intelligent life form. Otherwise you wouldn't call it a creator anymore.

Science and intelligent design are not things that would contradict each other. Science is not a belief or religion, it's simply the means of trying to create objective knowledge through logical analysis of verifiable observations. Certainly, nothing can ever be 100% true and accurate, however science goes as close as we could possibly come to that. Religion on the other hand is something completely different, it has different purposes and different applications and has actually absolutely nothing to do with physics or any other natural science, it has nothing to do with explaining the actual origin of our world. Psychology and Philosophy are the (much) closer scientific fields here.
People keep bringing Religion up in these discussions because it spawned the idea of an intelligent creator, if however we take this idea to serious consideration it soon becomes clear how much it gets alienated from original religious beliefs.

The bottom line is: Religion serves no purpose in this matter and was never even meant to do so.

So what you are saying is that you are basing your belief on incomplete knowledge of the universe, since you think you understand the world now that you are no longer a child. :rollseyes:

thats pretty much what I was initially saying in the first page of comments, but then people (particularly guests) continued to argue that so it got out of hand...

God is just a character from a book, doh! :<

The universe is just a pretty picture orbiting the earth, doh!. Simple minds (meaning everyone) can't comprehend what might be beyond that pretty picture.

OMG!!! what we will do if they pour coffee on their keyboards? its the end of the world

If this article seems nuts go ...buy/rent or borrow a DVD called SOLARIS.

2002 staring Geoorge Clooney and a group of brilliant and creepy people on a space ship. The main female is a woman called Natacha McEchome..... Every man needs to experience one truly crazy, scary, evil women like her once in his life. I mean, once is enough..been there,...never going back.
This article maybe not so nuts.

" But im not saying that God has to exist based on first cause-im saying that God is just as possible as two atoms existing, as science was defined by humans, which are not a flawless creature."

It is possible I will grant you that, however the probability of something incredibly complex like god coming into existence from nothing, as opposed to something far more simple such as 2 atoms, is so ridiculously small and contradicts everything we see in nature (ie things getting more complex over time) it seems unnecessary to bother with until there is legitimate evidence.

In regards to the rest of your response on something having to have a permanent existence you might be interested in this short clip from Cosmologist Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series on that very topic:

This is wonderful stuff because it means that if this is so, whoever created the simulation would be the creator of our universe, and therefore would be God, at least far as we are concerned. And so science and religion are at once reconciled.