/sci/ - Science & Math

Okay /sci/. It has, or should be by now, a well established fact that religious people will believe what they want to believe in spite of evidence, not because of it; blind faith. Now, I don't think anyone has a problem with this theory on this premise alone. However, it is vital to note that religion/faith are both very dangerous ideas. If you want to rebut that point, then I invite you to take a history course. This post isn't about the existence of God, or lack thereof, but merely the ideas of religion and faith themselves.

So, 2 things established:
>Religious minds by and large, cannot be changed.
>Religion has, and will continue, to be responsible for a great many atrocities, all committed in the name of God.

If we cannot disprove the existence of a God of some sort (completely logical in terms of trying to disprove a negative, but by and large the only choice in the matter), how would /sci/ make religion safe, assuming it will survive for some time?

This is /sci/-tan.

>>1796818
God

"The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing-747."
Godless Atheist told status
[]not told
[x]FUCKING TOLD

We should not ask if God exists, but rather if we have the technology to defeat him.

What kind of technology would it take to defeat a trans-dimensional being?

K /sci/ let's say that there is an omnipotent being (God, Allah, Buddha, or whatever) and he creates a rock so fucking huge and so fucking heavy that they can't even lift it? Was he really omnipotent to begin with? Or would he have to limit himself to avoid being destroyed by his own power?

Prove he doesn't exist, scifags.

>>1484999

This pictures makes me look a bit fat.

So the big bang started things off. What caused the first cause though? The only possible answer is God.

Checkmate, faggots.

God didn't invent science so that you could use it to disprove his existence.

THE UNIVERSE IS SIMPLE THAT NEED NOT HAVE OPINIONS BUT JUST EXPLAIN WHATEVER OBSERVED HAPPENINGS THUS WITH THE SAME EFFECT EVEN THOUGH VERY FAR WITH EFFECT SIMILARITIES, CONCLUDE THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME CAUSE

So tell me, smartasses, if evelution exists, where are the monkeys we came from?

Not so smart now, eh?

Yah bishes, if God wasnt here, nothing would be

/thread

>>1318851

Says he whose only second to me :)

>>1305650
Dear big bang you are my kid now stop acting like your grown up yet you still have over 40 billion years to go

-God

To believe in a god is in fact a form of science. This is because the nature of atheism is based on the belief that we were created from a scientific hypothesis. And therefore God must exist.

If Venus is the god of love, and Mars is the god of war and Jupiter was the god of gods, then what would the god of science be?

Hello fellow atheists I finally disproved god let me explain.

Rule 34 states that if it exists there must be porn of it

We don't know what god looks like.

therefore there is no porn of god

therefore god does not exist

Hello, /sci/
I came here this evening to tell you one thing: You don't need Science! God is the answer to all your questions! How can you go on with this blasphemous study of "science" when God is right next to you with all the answers?

Fact: God exists.

>Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.

>Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

Does /sci/ find this acceptable? I'm finding myself leaning more and more towards this belief.

God is real .... discuss

1. Logical Absolutes

A. Law of Identity

i. Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.

2. For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.

B. Law of Non-Contradiction

i. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.

ii. For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.

C. Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)

i. A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.

ii. "I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.

a. Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.

b. Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence "this statement is false" does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.

c. Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes.