People Twitter

10303 readers

1328 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
No international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. If you replace the "x" at their site with xcancel (so it beomes xcancel.com), and you're not on mobile, it will save video. https://web.archive.org/save is another great option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

1230

Another L for bigotry (lemmy.nz)

submitted 10 months ago by Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

315 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

theologians argue that logic is enough to prove the existence of God

they have to. science keeps painting 'god' into a smaller and smaller corner every day.

Remember that math doesn’t seem to follow the scientific method either you know

LOLOLOL

it's repeatedly provable, stood the test of time, like the scientific method, it's consistency and reproducibility weigh much more than philosophy stack exchange k thnks.

this really isn't a discussion I'm interested in continuing.

[–] zaknenou@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago

they have to. science keeps painting ‘god’ into a smaller and smaller corner every day.

I feel like I know who you're quoting, and I remember encountering: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
to quote the part that appeals to me:

In their 2017 paper (opens a new tab), published in Physical Review Letters, Turok and his co-authors approached Hartle and Hawking’s no-boundary proposal with new mathematical techniques that, in their view, make its predictions much more concrete than before. “We discovered that it just failed miserably,” Turok said. “It was just not possible quantum mechanically for a universe to start in the way they imagined.” The trio checked their math and queried their underlying assumptions before going public, but “unfortunately,” Turok said, “it just seemed to be inescapable that the Hartle-Hawking proposal was a disaster.”