Has science found God?

[1213]

As Bible suggests, this world is like a computer simulation. And now some have found evidence this could be true, world may be like a computer simulation. What say you, have science found God, the programmer of the universe?

"Simulation theory is a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being".
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

"Do you ever experience something and think to yourself, “This can’t be real.” To some people who have bought into the notion that our reality is currently being simulated, there are examples all around us, that demonstrate glitches in the Matrix. Deja Vu? Ghosts? The Mandela Effect? These could all be direct examples of flaws in the simulation."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

"MIT Theoretical physicist James Gates has made a discovery that allegedly caused Neil deGrasse Tyson to sit down in shock. Now for the uninitiated, superstring theory is a concept that could unify all aspects of physics if proven right. While working on his superstring theory, he made an odd discovery. Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe. In short, he found “error-correcting codes,” the same error-correcting codes that you might find on the web browser you are using right now."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

[benchwarmer]

The biases and limited knowledge and understandings of peer reviewers make peer reviewers unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid.

You realize the Bible is evidence only that people wrote down words right?

If I write some words down, put a fancy cover on it, claim it's from a deity, and then give it to you are you going to all of a sudden assume it's true? How do you verify anything in your Bible is fact? I'm hoping you have a method other than "my pastor/parents/friends said so" or "it makes me feel good".

I think you might need to examine why you hold the words in a book more important than the senses and logic your God (if you believe in such) has given you. If humanity followed your logic, we would still think Zeus throws lightning bolts.

[marke]

The biases and limited knowledge and understandings of peer reviewers make peer reviewers unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid.

So peer reviewers are now biased and have limited knowledge and understanding? What a bizarre thing to believe! Some people will believe anything in order to protect a currently held preferred religious belief. What's worse is that peer review is rejected in order to maintain beliefs like liquified corpses returning to life, a man living in a fish for days, dead saints walking Jerusalem and sorcer'ing up fish and bread.

If irony could kill, this would be genocide!

Peer reviewers who think they have the truth and Christians do not are deceived.

[Difflugia]

[Clownboat]

The biases and limited knowledge and understandings of peer reviewers make peer reviewers unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid.

So peer reviewers are now biased and have limited knowledge and understanding? What a bizarre thing to believe! Some people will believe anything in order to protect a currently held preferred religious belief. What's worse is that peer review is rejected in order to maintain beliefs like liquified corpses returning to life, a man living in a fish for days, dead saints walking Jerusalem and sorcer'ing up fish and bread.

If irony could kill, this would be genocide!

Peer reviewers who think they have the truth and Christians do not are deceived.

A "peer reviewer" is typically an expert in the same field as the author of the work being reviewed, meaning anyone with in-depth knowledge and experience in the subject matter can potentially peer review, usually including established researchers, academics, or professionals within that specific discipline; the key factor is their ability to critically evaluate the work's quality and validity based on their expertise.

Please note that 'thinking you have the truth' is not involved in the peer review process. You should correct your thinking on the matter because it is wrong.

You also failed to address the listed reasons for why you are rejecting peer review. The reason was so you can pretend that peer reviewers (typically an expert in the same field as the author) are unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid. Your denial about what the peer review process actually is, is noted.

[marke]

The biases and limited knowledge and understandings of peer reviewers make peer reviewers unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid.

So peer reviewers are now biased and have limited knowledge and understanding? What a bizarre thing to believe! Some people will believe anything in order to protect a currently held preferred religious belief. What's worse is that peer review is rejected in order to maintain beliefs like liquified corpses returning to life, a man living in a fish for days, dead saints walking Jerusalem and sorcer'ing up fish and bread.

If irony could kill, this would be genocide!

Peer reviewers who think they have the truth and Christians do not are deceived.

A "peer reviewer" is typically an expert in the same field as the author of the work being reviewed, meaning anyone with in-depth knowledge and experience in the subject matter can potentially peer review, usually including established researchers, academics, or professionals within that specific discipline; the key factor is their ability to critically evaluate the work's quality and validity based on their expertise.

Please note that 'thinking you have the truth' is not involved in the peer review process. You should correct your thinking on the matter because it is wrong.

You also failed to address the listed reasons for why you are rejecting peer review. The reason was so you can pretend that peer reviewers (typically an expert in the same field as the author) are unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid. Your denial about what the peer review process actually is, is noted.

The peer review process has proven itself too willing to capitulate to pressure from monied mobs and organizations promoting flawed science. Truth and evidence is too often sacrificed on the altar of popular narratives and views that have only shaky scientific support.

[Clownboat]

The biases and limited knowledge and understandings of peer reviewers make peer reviewers unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid.

So peer reviewers are now biased and have limited knowledge and understanding? What a bizarre thing to believe! Some people will believe anything in order to protect a currently held preferred religious belief. What's worse is that peer review is rejected in order to maintain beliefs like liquified corpses returning to life, a man living in a fish for days, dead saints walking Jerusalem and sorcer'ing up fish and bread.

If irony could kill, this would be genocide!

Peer reviewers who think they have the truth and Christians do not are deceived.

A "peer reviewer" is typically an expert in the same field as the author of the work being reviewed, meaning anyone with in-depth knowledge and experience in the subject matter can potentially peer review, usually including established researchers, academics, or professionals within that specific discipline; the key factor is their ability to critically evaluate the work's quality and validity based on their expertise.

Please note that 'thinking you have the truth' is not involved in the peer review process. You should correct your thinking on the matter because it is wrong.

You also failed to address the listed reasons for why you are rejecting peer review. The reason was so you can pretend that peer reviewers (typically an expert in the same field as the author) are unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid. Your denial about what the peer review process actually is, is noted.

The peer review process has proven itself too willing to capitulate to pressure from monied mobs and organizations promoting flawed science. Truth and evidence is too often sacrificed on the altar of popular narratives and views that have only shaky scientific support.

I hear your complaint. Seems a bit of a conspiracy theory, but that doesn't need to stop the debate.

So with that said, please point to a better mechanism that we have to suggest that a claim being made is true it not the peer review process (other professionals in the field testing the said claim). If you cannot, you are simply complaining about the best we have and that is a bit silly don't you think?

Curious is you can address this from earlier:
"Some people will believe anything in order to protect a currently held preferred religious belief. What's worse is that peer review is rejected in order to maintain beliefs like liquified corpses returning to life, a man living in a fish for days, dead saints walking Jerusalem and sorcer'ing up fish and bread."

[marke]

The biases and limited knowledge and understandings of peer reviewers make peer reviewers unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid.

So peer reviewers are now biased and have limited knowledge and understanding? What a bizarre thing to believe! Some people will believe anything in order to protect a currently held preferred religious belief. What's worse is that peer review is rejected in order to maintain beliefs like liquified corpses returning to life, a man living in a fish for days, dead saints walking Jerusalem and sorcer'ing up fish and bread.

If irony could kill, this would be genocide!

Peer reviewers who think they have the truth and Christians do not are deceived.

A "peer reviewer" is typically an expert in the same field as the author of the work being reviewed, meaning anyone with in-depth knowledge and experience in the subject matter can potentially peer review, usually including established researchers, academics, or professionals within that specific discipline; the key factor is their ability to critically evaluate the work's quality and validity based on their expertise.

Please note that 'thinking you have the truth' is not involved in the peer review process. You should correct your thinking on the matter because it is wrong.

You also failed to address the listed reasons for why you are rejecting peer review. The reason was so you can pretend that peer reviewers (typically an expert in the same field as the author) are unqualified to rule Biblical evidence invalid. Your denial about what the peer review process actually is, is noted.

The peer review process has proven itself too willing to capitulate to pressure from monied mobs and organizations promoting flawed science. Truth and evidence is too often sacrificed on the altar of popular narratives and views that have only shaky scientific support.

I hear your complaint. Seems a bit of a conspiracy theory, but that doesn't need to stop the debate.

So with that said, please point to a better mechanism that we have to suggest that a claim being made is true it not the peer review process (other professionals in the field testing the said claim). If you cannot, you are simply complaining about the best we have and that is a bit silly don't you think?

Curious is you can address this from earlier:
"Some people will believe anything in order to protect a currently held preferred religious belief. What's worse is that peer review is rejected in order to maintain beliefs like liquified corpses returning to life, a man living in a fish for days, dead saints walking Jerusalem and sorcer'ing up fish and bread."

The flaws in scientific reporting are similar to the flaws in political reporting. Bias often shades or twists the truth in order to preserve false assumptions or narratives. I submit this example of respectible US intelligence officials who promoted a lie for political purposes.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-th ... med-hunter

‘Spies Who Lie’ leader, cosigners were on CIA payroll when they falsely claimed Hunter Biden laptop was Russian fake

[Clownboat]

I hear your complaint. Seems a bit of a conspiracy theory, but that doesn't need to stop the debate.

So with that said, please point to a better mechanism that we have to suggest that a claim being made is true it not the peer review process (other professionals in the field testing the said claim). If you cannot, you are simply complaining about the best we have and that is a bit silly don't you think?

Curious is you can address this from earlier:
"Some people will believe anything in order to protect a currently held preferred religious belief. What's worse is that peer review is rejected in order to maintain beliefs like liquified corpses returning to life, a man living in a fish for days, dead saints walking Jerusalem and sorcer'ing up fish and bread."

The flaws in scientific reporting are similar to the flaws in political reporting. Bias often shades or twists the truth in order to preserve false assumptions or narratives. I submit this example of respectible US intelligence officials who promoted a lie for political purposes.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-th ... med-hunter

‘Spies Who Lie’ leader, cosigners were on CIA payroll when they falsely claimed Hunter Biden laptop was Russian fake

You're funny! You are basically complaining about being married to the prettiest girl alive and how she is not pretty enough for you. Or how your car is the fastest car on earth, but just not quite fast enough for you.

"please point to a better mechanism (readers, this question continues to be ignored. Any guesses as to why?) that we have to suggest that a claim being made is true it not the peer review process (other professionals in the field testing the said claim)."

If peer review is the best/prettiest we have, it is silly to complain about it while not offering a better mechanism and that is all you are doing here.