Why are """"intellectuals""""

>>2221311
The multiverse is backed up by math, charting the uneven expansion of this universe, the processes that lead to the creation of this universe being potentially non-unique, etc. And even then it is by no means uncontroversial, people continue to look for evidence. Life on other planets is supported by the seeming universality of the principles of physics and organic/chemistry, where self-replicating molecules are the product of certain processes in certain conditions. And, again, these are not assumed a priori, but rather scientists search for evidence of extra-terrestrial life based on those principles.
Both are very different to simply assuming a higher power exists and refusing to listen to evidence that may weaken the proposition.

>>2221311
>ayylmaos existing
>a higher more intelligent power in the universe
Aren't these generally considered the same?

>why do smart people entertain reasonable hypotheses but ignore ancient superstitions

>>2221311

They don't though, they just chafe under the yolk of god as defined by man. Assuming there is a primary mover of some kind, it is an indefinable being. One that is metaphysical and exists outside of nature by definition. Dawkins and the other Jew to his right only attack man-made constructs. They don't attack the notion of there being something that caused the big bang. This is simply because it doesn't matter. I hate to mention Hawking (because he's a meme) but his point about what happened before time is irrelevant is a good deduction. Nothing that occurred before time is worth getting worried over.

If there was some kind of indelible mark left by God that effected our cosmological models then it would be worth investigating. Since no such evidence exists, why bother?

Same goes for the multiverse and ayy's.

They might exist, but it doesn't effect us.

>>2221321
>>2221324
FPBP and /tread

Well folks, we can go home.

>>2221331
>Nothing that occurred before time is worth getting worried over.

It's not even that. As he puts it, "what happened before the universe?" is a question like "whats south of the south pole?" It has neither useful definition as a question nor an answer, because time is a feature of space; so there is literally no "before" to the universe.

>>2221311
The rich and educated are more likely to experiment with edgy new religions like Catharism centuries ago or Scientology today.

Science fiction, movies, books

People are allowed to do humorous speculations.

It's not like they claim multiverse theory is scientific(because it isn't).

>>2221321
>self-replicating molecules are the product of certain processes in certain conditions
Implying it's ever been observed, reproduce or proven

>we know because we know
This is the kind of """"""science"""""" you get when there is an agenda driving the community

>>2221321
It's more like they come up with convoluted theories to explain the holes in their data, and come up with more theories to explain the holes in their theories, and so on

>>2221361
Exactly. It isn't supported by math, it's a narrative created to support the math

>>2221361
Of course they do. They wouldn't be scientists if they didn't come up with theories for what is going on.

The question is whether or not these theories are falsifiable.

>>2221368
Edit: THEIR math

>>2221353
>Implying it's ever been observed, reproduce or proven
Yes, it has. The Miller/Urey experiment showed the synthesis of amino acids in conditions approximating the primitive earth, RNA bases can be synthesized in conditions appoximating some locations in space, and RNA can self-catalyze the production of more RNA.

>>2221361
Yes, that is part of it. The other half is looking for evidence that supports or rejects the theories.

Is this board just the history channel now?

>>2221375
>If i don't understand it, it isn't real

>>2221391
Oh the irony...

>>2221395
We all understand the basic idea of the Abrahamic God. He's a very angry wizard that lives in the sky and punishes you for touching your dick.

>>2221399
Holy shit Christcucks btfo. Praise Dawkins