[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 210 KB, 750x674, 203510DE-DB58-43B3-AD70-3040322ED8D8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16534454 No.16534454 [Reply] [Original]

>nature is perfect and that proves God exists
Uhm nature ain’t perfect tho? Lmao why would you think that?

>> No.16534460

>>16534454
Everything is perfectly as it is

>> No.16534471

Define perfect. Nature can only be considered perfect in that it is self-consistent. It is able to exist. There are no "bugs" in its code, it never crashes, it works.

>> No.16534486
File: 3.65 MB, 368x368, 1601896647414.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16534486

>>16534454
>Nature is perfect

>> No.16534490

>>16534486
Uh... is this real?

>> No.16534499

>>16534486
Hey where'd this cat come from

>> No.16534522

>>16534471
>There are no "bugs" in its code
How can you tell?

>> No.16534583

>>16534522
If there were "breaking" bugs, that is, violations of the laws of physics, the physical universe itself would not be possible. All the key constants of nature have to be precisely tuned and dependent on one another.
In the movie the Matrix, the experience of deja vu was said to be a glitch in the system. It's hard to say that happens in nature. Everything has to happen consistently for anything to happen.

>> No.16534596
File: 1.27 MB, 3600x2400, 1571196545976.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16534596

>>16534454
>t. never seen a bird and/or lived in the present moment while walking through a forest

>> No.16534609

>>16534486
Can anybody explain this gif? What kind of animal is that?

>> No.16534622
File: 52 KB, 443x426, doritos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16534622

>>16534454
nature IS perfect.

>> No.16534627

>>16534486
I know you can teach some cats to do tricks, but THIS???

>> No.16534633

>>16534609
they're a weird mixed breed called "americans"

>> No.16534638

>look at how shit this shit argument that nobody makes is!

>> No.16534647
File: 61 KB, 500x515, 95809052-73F6-4F81-AF1E-D01325230AEB.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16534647

>> No.16534651

>>16534583
Can God break the laws of physics without breaking the universe?

>> No.16534655

>>16534454
lol who says that ?

>> No.16534663

Counterpoint: "perfect" doesn't mean "good". The universe is the shittiest it could possibly be.

>> No.16534686

Does random chance exist? If so, does the existence of chance defeat the existence of God, and can a universe with God have true chance?

>> No.16534688

>ignore the reality of the food chain
>nature is perfect

Of course, every time, why am I not surprised? Nature is a snake eating itself.

>> No.16534744

>>16534651
That's like saying can got create an object so heavy he can't lift it. God is a free signifier, because it is so vaguely defined, you can attribute anything to it. If God were to change the laws of physics, that would have consequences for everything in that universe. We'd all fall to pieces or hurtle into the sun or everything would get squished into a ball or something.

>> No.16534753

>>16534651
Why are you asking me? why would I know that. ask God

>> No.16534766

>>16534663
>>16534688
this

>> No.16534781

>>16534686
No chance doesn't exist. Everything is perfectly as it is.

>> No.16534791

>>16534471
Exactly this >>16534663

The universe is "just" in that it is auto-stabilizing but not that it is good.

>> No.16534804

>>16534486
get nae nae'd atheists

>> No.16534847

>>16534744
God can change things for himself, and do things because he is able to, but the question is how does his infinite power affect us as mankind? If God reverses entropy, what will that mean for us?

>> No.16535000

what are the flaws of nature?

>> No.16535013

>>16535000
The food chain. Christ, do you really need to ask?

>> No.16535025

>>16534454
>ain’t
>tho
N

>> No.16535032

>>16534847
I just explained it. If god were to meddle with the laws of physics, it would turn everything into mush or otherwise fuck everything up. That is why deism is the only rational theological position if you believe in the immutable integrity of physics.
Deism states that God set up the initial conditions of the universe but does not intervene after the fact.

>> No.16535044

>>16535013
The food chain might be unfair and depressing, but it isn’t an imperfection. Saying nature is perfect doesn’t mean that nature is a utopia, but that nature works on its own consistent logic, which it does.

>> No.16535085

>>16535044
Nature is imperfect because it is constantly losing energy as heat. If nature were perfect it would be able to sustain itself indefinitely. QED.

>> No.16535099

>>16535085
entropy is a part of nature

>> No.16535106

>>16535013
how is the food chain a flaw? its a virtually perfect self regulating system

>> No.16535107

>>16535099
A self-defeating system cannot be perfect.

>> No.16535112

>>16535106
>it efficient so it gud

mongoloid

>> No.16535113

>>16535107
by what rules is that true?

>> No.16535118

>>16535112
why cant you actually address my point?

>> No.16535124

>>16534486
wtf!? is this real??

>> No.16535143

>>16535118
why can't you address mine? who cares how efficient it is. factory farms are efficient.

>> No.16535150

>>16535032
Let me amend this. God could in theory apply a linear transformation mapping of all the physical constants, so that the consistency of the system is preserved. Let's say he adds a consistency preserving proportionate value to all the constants at once. Things would get weird but the universe would still exist. He he were to change just one thing though, like turn gravity to zero. Everything would fall apart.

>A linear transformation is a mapping V W between two modules (for example, two vector spaces) that preserves (in the sense defined below) the operations of addition and scalar multiplication. If a linear map is a bijection then it is called a linear isomorphism.

>> No.16535201

>>16535143
i cant address yours because it literally makes no sense in this context, you haven't made any sort of point against what i said. if anything, the fact that the food chain is a virtually perfect self regulating cycle is a testament to the clockwork of nature, not a flaw, and nothing you have said implies otherwise

>> No.16535234

>>16535201
i'm saying the food chain is an abomination, i don't care how "efficient" it is you fucking nerd

>> No.16535265

>>16535234
lmao and? your personal opinion on it is beyond irrelevant, what POSSIBLE point do you think you are making exactly?

>> No.16535270

>>16534486
perfect moves

>> No.16535291

>>16535265
that nature is evil.

>> No.16535333
File: 80 KB, 500x445, c0f10d3ef9b75f4e771ca3f6a9e695452df23c68.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16535333

“The necessity for all these Hosts of Creators will be apprehended perhaps when it is understood that the One Lord of All is Infinite and Unconditioned. This One Lord, State of Consciousness, or Principle—call it what you will—cannot create, for It can have no direct relation to the finite and conditioned.

“If all the wonders we behold in Nature, from the great Suns and Planets to the tender blade of grass or a speck of dust, had been created by the Absolute Perfection and were the direct work of even the First Energy that proceeded from It, then all these things would have been perfect, eternal and unconditioned like their Author. The many imperfect works found in Nature testify that they are the products of finite and conditioned Beings, no matter how high they rank amongst the Dhyân Chohans, Gods, or Archangels. These imperfect works are the unfinished creations and the products of evolution, under the guidance of the finite Lords.
http://www.thegoldenstar.org/vision11-page3.html

>> No.16535435

>>16534744
>If God were to change the laws of physics, that would have consequences for everything in that universe.
Unless God decided that it didn't

>> No.16535477

>strawman with frog pic
I am convinced you people do not read at all. This "argument" for God you might hear in high school. Im assuming thats where most of you posers stopped growing intellectually

>> No.16535480

>>16535435
No, because that would violate the laws of physics. That would mean there is no objective truth. If there is no objective truth, there's no basis for believing in the existence of God either. God has to play by his own rules, if he changes the rules, then the game breaks. He could create a parallel universe which plays by different rules. But he can't decide that 2+2=5 or that 0 > 1. God has to use the same math as everybody else.

>> No.16535489

>>16534486
Where can I find a cat like that? All my cat does is sleep around and bump into stuff.

>> No.16535497

>>16534486
Think they used treats to get him to dance or do you think it likes dancing?

>> No.16535503

>>16534486
Atheists absolutely btfo

>> No.16535510

>>16534486
wtf how?

>> No.16535689

>>16534583
>If there were "breaking" bugs, that is, violations of the laws of physics, the physical universe itself would not be possible
A video game having bugs doesn't mean it is unplayable.

>> No.16535746

>>16534471
The universe seems to contradict its rules depending on the scale you're using

>> No.16535753

>>16535746
No, it only contradicts the rules we theorise it works with.

>> No.16535770

>>16534471
Wouldn't a perfect thing have bugs in the code though? how can it be perfect if it's missing an element?

>> No.16535773

>>16534454
Because it really aint do what it dont not do when its really not doing what it don't do
Equilibrium on pure instinct, pure ego is gay, suck my balls faggot

>> No.16535805

>>16535753
Yes, but it's not some sort of subtle contraditcion; GR and QM differ on fundamental principles, which is still uhm... weird, you know?

Also this is another problem: we can't tell if there is any bug out there if we don't have access to the full 'code'

>> No.16535812

>>16534688
>nature reduced to tiny group of beings on one planet
90IQ at the most

>> No.16535865

>>16535805
>GR and QM differ on fundamental principles, which is still uhm... weird, you know?
I don't think that's weird. The way our understanding of the human body and medicine changed from humorism to current medical knowledge isn't weird either. First we didn't have the complete picture, but now we know a bit more. Current astronomy and classic models of the universe are also contradictory.

>> No.16535885

>>16535480
Im not following your logic. If we're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, and possibly omnipresent being, they don't need to follow any rules, including their own. To say otherwise would be in direct conflict with the definition of what an omnipotent God actually is.

God is not limited by the laws that he creates, our conceptions of objective truth, nor our perception in general.

>> No.16535907

>>16535865
I'm saying these are both contemporary theories, extremely well tested (where they 'work'), yet incompatible

>> No.16535918

>>16535118
he's jewish