/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10730270
>rationalwiki

>call your web site rational wiki
>every single article has new-atheist empiricist bias

>>10730308
and?

>>10730321
it doesnt even try to get a rationalist view point of metaphysical matters, despite being called rational wiki, i just think thats ironic.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God

>>10730328
>a rationalist view point of metaphysical matters
Such as?

>>10730321
And it just shows how the fedora tipping, non-STEM "skeptic" community has remained a joke for the past decade+ that its festered on the internet. The only difference now is that there's a political split between these people. Some went far right, others went far left.
Watching the skeptic community change over time is enjoyably grotesque, like watching one of the monsters from Resident Evil slowly devolve into an increasingly hideous flesh abomination.
You start out with a couple high school kids acting edgy online and trying to stick it to the man by bashing religion. Then you see them either enter college in liberal arts programs, or fail out of STEM classes because of their lack of intelligence and/or dedication. Then as their lives spiral down an increasing rabbit hole of failure and insanity, they become increasingly unstable and hideous looking.
Just look at Contrapoints. Initially an edgy, upper middle class teenager who was ranting against religion in his initial videos. Then his father literally pulled strings to get him into Berkeley, because he was already mentally unhinged and going in and out of mental therapy. Then he eventually went to a much lower ranked school, and failed out. Now he's masquerading as a marxist AGP freak, even though he likely stole a spot at Berkeley from a much lower class student who had worked harder for the spot, but wasn't lucky to have a daddy with connections. The New Atheist movement was inevitable. You have people here who have no intelligence or desire to improve. Like Christian Chandler, a high functioning autistic who never learned to draw despite scribbling shit in marker for his entire life, you have an entire group of people that only want to scream surface level philosophy and politics at each other, without the ability to ever improve.

>>10730270
I think this is overstating the background one needs to start learning quantum mechanics (which in my opinion is a good understanding of classical mechanics, basic calculus, and linear algebra), and what's more harmful is that this section doesn't suggest that quantum mechanics is something that has a problematic physical ontology, which is why it's a topic riddled with controversy. IMO, the best thing for a learning physics student to understand is that quantum mechanics is best understood at their level as a theory that provides accurate predictions for quantities associated with properties of small pieces of matter. The "why" is something to deliberate after lots of studying various theories and reading lots of papers. As far as I can tell, the physics community treats it like "well, it works, so we'll work on other parts of science that have leads and see if it connects back and gives us some revelation in the 'why' later on." That is, it's important to understand why something like Copenhagen, Bohm, Everett, etc. all predict the same things, understanding the limitations of each viewpoint, but first and foremost just understanding that the predictions are useful in the first place in chemistry, etc.

>>10730336
Why grandmother, what lean, veiny arms you have!

>>10730335
read the article, its just making fun of Christians. It says nothing about the rationale for a god or even defines it rigorously. It tries to get cheap laughs by picking on dumb religious people instead of arguing against god

>>10730344
the quantum woo article? i thought that was what OP was talking about. yeah, in that article they make fun of people who say that jesus being man and god is a manifestation of superposition like schrodinger's cat, and yeah, that's pretty retarded

>>10730344
>It says nothing about the rationale for a god
Wrong.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God#Existence

>or even defines it rigorously
Why would atheists have to define god rigorously?

>>10730270
>rationalwiki
LMAO. It sums up a liberal mindset.

>>10730354
More like Marxist. They're not actually too big on the whole Liberalism/Enlightenment/Scientific revolution over there. They'd probably have something to say about it being Islamaphobic and sexist or something.

>>10730368
They're wearing the mask of liberalism. I think we maybe seeing the beginning of the political shift once more, like we saw in the 60s.

>>10730270
But quantum is magic. The observer effect is basically proof of either God or simulation or something supernatural.

>>10730368
>>10730374
While I don't defend fedorafags, their article on communism isn't all that positive of it
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Communism#Karl_Marx

>>10730377
no, it’s not, you fell for the meme, how new are you.

>>10730270
Neumann was a normie?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

>>10730377
See >>10730339

>>10730388
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

>>10730351
>not one of these arguments has yet been successful.
If you seriously dont believe the cosmological argument points to some rational necessary god a la Thomas Aquinas, I have doubts about your intelligence. You can play semantics all you want, but the fact is there is a necessary eternal force. Its not the christian god, Islamic god, or any popular god of course, but god in its original meaning.
>Why would atheists have to define god rigorously?
because thats what all the serious arguments are doing, you cant talk about metaphysical concepts without defining them. Covering your ears and saying god is some "magic sky daddy" is straw manning.

>>10730349
that is retarded, i agree. Im talking about their article on god, and in metaphysics in general, they are lacking. I was originally pointing out alot of the things they say are not rational at all, and are obviously targeted towards dumb religious people.

>>10730388
That's from 1932.
>Moreover, Wigner actually shifted to those interpretations (and away from "consciousness causes collapse") in his later years.

>>10730377
>reality is supernatural
oxymoron
means the supernatural is reality, so not super, just natural

>>10730580

>cosmological argument

Trash.

>>10730270
Lagrangian mechanics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

>>10730957
explain what caused the big bang

>>10730580
>If you seriously dont believe the cosmological argument points to some rational necessary god a la Thomas Aquinas, I have doubts about your intelligence. You can play semantics all you want, but the fact is there is a necessary eternal force. Its not the christian god, Islamic god, or any popular god of course, but god in its original meaning.
If you do believe it you're a retard. Its most basic flaw is a fallacy of composition in assuming that the universe must be like things in the universe. The claim that everything in the universe has a cause is also unjustified.

>because thats what all the serious arguments are doing, you cant talk about metaphysical concepts without defining them. Covering your ears and saying god is some "magic sky daddy" is straw manning.
You're describing the burden of the theist, not the one countering it. What can be claimed without definition or evidence can be dismissed as easily.

>>10731016
>The claim that everything in the universe has a cause is also unjustified.
youre to wrapped up in physics, we are talking about metaphysics. Saying something has "no cause" or is "random" is a cause in itself because It characterizes the essence of the event itself. If the big bang didnt have cause, youd have to explain why it didnt have a cause, leading to an infinite regress.

>>10730986
No

>>10731030

>>10731016
>Its most basic flaw is a fallacy of composition in assuming that the universe must be like things in the universe
the conceptualizations of the mind must be constrained to the words we speak and any metaphysical model must conform to laws of logic. Any model about the nature of reality, therefore, is a model that describes the relationship of mind to universe, ie reality.

>What can be claimed without definition or evidence can be dismissed as easily.
Theres no escaping it though, At the end of ontological existence you simply have to posit god, unless you indulge in semantics.

>>10731043
>At the end of ontological existence you simply have to posit god
It's not true no matter how many times you say it.

>>10731028
>youre to wrapped up in physics, we are talking about metaphysics.
Ah so please tell me the rules of metaphysics and how they were determined.

>Saying something has "no cause" or is "random" is a cause in itself because It characterizes the essence of the event itself.
Ah I see, so then god has a cause.

>If the big bang didnt have cause, youd have to explain why it didnt have a cause, leading to an infinite regress.
That assumes that there is a reason in the first place. It appears to me that only actions undertaken by an intelligence have reasons. Also, why is infinite regress a problem?

>>10731043
>the conceptualizations of the mind must be constrained to the words we speak and any metaphysical model must conform to laws of logic. Any model about the nature of reality, therefore, is a model that describes the relationship of mind to universe, ie reality.
Is there a response anywhere or are you just quoting me randomly and then spouting your gibberish?

>Theres no escaping it though, At the end of ontological existence you simply have to posit god, unless you indulge in semantics.
I don't though, no matter how desperately you wish for it to be. I can already see you've reached the end of your ability to argue and are just going to repeat your unjustified claims ad nauseam. No one is going to take you seriously if you just rant.

>>10731045
Why not argue instead of straw man like you have been for the past few posts? Is it because you cant?
>metaphysics
god is metaphysics, dont know why you think you can measure god
>Ah I see, so then god has a cause.
nope, god is defined as the self causing substrate from which everything came from
>That assumes that there is a reason in the first place
there is necessarily a reason for everything in the realm of metaphysics because "no-reason" IS a reason in itself when we are talking about absolute ontology.
>why is infinite regress a problem?
its not, we designate this infinite regress as "god". Im glad you agree.

>>10731054
>Is there a response anywhere or are you just quoting me randomly and then spouting your gibberish?
In other words, metaphysical inquiry is an engagement of the mind in reality with categorizing itself. We are not after "true essence" of reality. We are after how the mind conceptualizes reality.

>I don't though, no matter how desperately you wish for it to be.
Because you are literally not letting yourself, its simply a logical necessity for god to exist. Youre not making rational connections because you either cant think that far enough, or are mad your parents made you go to sunday school or something

>>10731059
You're responding to the wrong person and them quoting me so I'll just ignore the first part.

>god is metaphysics, dont know why you think you can measure god
Where did I say anything about measuring? I asked you to tell me the rules of metaphysics and how you know them since you claim this is about metaphysics and not physics. If you are going to dictate the rules of the game you need to tell me what they are.

>nope, god is defined as the self causing substrate from which everything came from
So then your claim that no cause means cause is false. Good, we're making progress. Now please try again to justify the claim that everything in the universe has a cause.

>there is necessarily a reason for everything in the realm of metaphysics because "no-reason" IS a reason in itself when we are talking about absolute ontology.
Ignoring the fact that you ate just making up these rules as you go, what is the reason for god's existence?

>its not, we designate this infinite regress as "god". Im glad you agree.
So apparently by "metaphysics" you just mean meaningless semantics.

>>10731064
>In other words, metaphysical inquiry is an engagement of the mind in reality with categorizing itself. We are not after "true essence" of reality. We are after how the mind conceptualizes reality.
This still fails to respond to what you quoted. Why does the universe need to follow the same rules as everything inside it? Also if my mind visualizes reality differently from your metaphysics, which one is correct?

>Because you are literally not letting yourself, its simply a logical necessity for god to exist.
If it was a logical necessity I would not need to let myself, you would present a logical proof. All you've done is play with semantics instead of proving something exists. I define god to be a non-existent archaic superstition born of the psychological necessity to make reality confom to a limited human understanding. There I win since I defined god to not exist.

>>10731068
>you claim this is about metaphysics and not physics
I keep telling you over and over again, but you wont digest it. Metaphysics is the rational inquiry of the mind in reality. The first principles of things like being and existence. God is metaphysics.
>So then your claim that no cause means cause is false
God is self caused
>what is the reason for god's existence
God
>meaningless semantics
oh the irony

Look, you have to come up with a metaphysical theory before you criticize mine. What, is every civilization that ever conceptualized "god" wrong? Explain why you are right and literally everyone else is wrong?

>>10731077
>Why does the universe need to follow the same rules as everything inside it?
logical inquiry needs to follow rules of conceptualization. There always exists being at the edge of what one can consciously ascertain. We call the rationalization beyond space/time god.
Also if my mind visualizes reality differently from your metaphysics, which one is correct?
Well neither are correct, but thats a whole other argument. But mine is more generalized in the sense that You can use meaningful language and deeper meaning to survey what the mind is conscious of. Versus yours, which simply leaves answer blank.
>you would present a logical proof
theres plenty of analogous proofs.
>I define god to be a non-existent archaic superstition born of the psychological necessity to make reality confom to a limited human understanding. There I win since I defined god to not exist.
You could define god by that yes, but everybody would laugh at you (except nu atheists).

>>10730383
yeah but my gut tells me different
https://youtu.be/2X93u3anTco?t=1m45s

>>10730270
More or less true, but doesn't change the fact that rationalwiki sucka

>>10730349
It's really just extremely low hanging fruit that is literally heresy. No Christian theologian would claim that God is subject to the laws of physics. God can't be in a superposition because He isn't made of anything, let alone particles. Someone just heard of quantum superpositions and thought it sounded analogous to the hypostatic union.

>>10730351
So they don't sound like fucking retards, like they do in this thread.

>>10730276
Hehe I love that website!

>>10731083
>I keep telling you over and over again, but you wont digest it. Metaphysics is the rational inquiry of the mind in reality. The first principles of things like being and existence. God is metaphysics.
I keep asking the same question and you keep avoiding it. What are the rules and how were they determined?

>God is self caused
If something can be self-caused then this destroys the cosmological argument.

>God
So you are fine with the reason for the universe being the universe, no other explanation needed, right?

>Look, you have to come up with a metaphysical theory before you criticize mine.
LOL, why would I have to make arbitrary claims to point out that your claims are arbitrary and unjustified? What utter trash.

>What, is every civilization that ever conceptualized "god" wrong?
Every group of theists believes that practically every other group is wrong in their conceptualization of god. Yet you balk because I disagree with one or two more.

>Explain why you are right and literally everyone else is wrong?
Because the burden of proof is on you, and you have failed to meet it. Nice try.

>>10731097
>logical inquiry needs to follow rules of conceptualization.
I am still waiting for these rules and how they were determined.

>There always exists being at the edge of what one can consciously ascertain. We call the rationalization beyond space/time god.
I don't, so that's false. That's called the god of the gaps fallacy.

>But mine is more generalized in the sense that You can use meaningful language and deeper meaning to survey what the mind is conscious of. Versus yours, which simply leaves answer blank.
Please explain how your answer allows you to survey what the mind is conscious of.

>theres plenty of analogous proofs.
If they're analogous then they're not sound.

>You could define god by that yes, but everybody would laugh at you (except nu atheists).
Everyone is laughing at your metaphysics but that doesn't seem to have stopped you.

So basically your argument boils down to: god exists by definition because if you disagree then everyone will laugh at you.

>>10731097

>There always exists being at the edge of what one can consciously ascertain. We call the rationalization beyond space/time god.

*You call it that, others call that the 'God of the gaps' - these gaps shrink by the day.

>Versus yours, which simply leaves answer blank

He doesn't claim to have an answer, and merely rejects yours.

> everybody w-would laugh at you, baka

Projection

ITT buttblasted priest anon goes full Langan on his “logical p-proof” of omnipotent manbearpig

>>10730986
Causality exists only if there's matter and smooth enough time. Both don't hold at the point of big bang, so there's no causality there.

>>10730270
Is that from IrrationalWiki?

>>10732062
>Causality exists only if there's matter and smooth enough time.
Literal retard.

>>10731644
Science is not concerned with matters beyond space and time and cannot answer them because rationality about the nature of reality starts breaking down. It is not God of the gaps of science can't even engage with it.

>>10731642
God is necessary. The fact that you can't wrap your head around this just shows you are as stupid As religious fundamentalists and bible literalists.

>>10731629
No, reason for the universe is god, which is defined as the metaphysical being from which everything including the universe and consciousness came. Why make things overly complicated when a word exists already for the concept you are conveying?

>>10732070
You need IQ at least 100 to post here, brainlet.

>>10732176
>Science is not concerned with matters beyond space and time and cannot answer them
LOL but you can?

>>10732178
Theology is a tough sell without Inquisition, kek.

>>10730270
and? this is accurate. the only wrong thing is the last line

>Therefore quantum could mean magic exists.
should be
>Therefore, quantum means magic exists.

>>10732197
Yes. You're not paying attention to what language is. All it is is a mapping of some abstraction to some phenomenal instance. Science is describing how things are happening in the phenomenal world. When we talk about the origin of space and time ie what conditions are neceary we retract from science, the mapping, and stay in the realm of rational abstraction alone. Think of it like a mathematical proof. Empiricists like you don't do this, and this is why rational wiki is ironically biased, which was my original point.

>>10732200
Agreed, but that's the case for most ideology in general. Christianity and other monolithic religions are for the most part terrible, but it's sad that a lot of people would rather hide the truth in religion because they don't think the population can handle the cultural effects of it

>>10732178
>God is necessary.
Apparently not since you completely failed to justify any of your claims. How stupid.

>>10732183
>No, reason for the universe is god, which is defined as the metaphysical being from which everything including the universe and consciousness came.
That's nice dear, if only you could prove that such a being is necessary. But you can't since you are forced into special pleading and circular logic when you demand that the universe can't be uncaused but god can.

>Why make things overly complicated when a word exists already for the concept you are conveying?
You're projecting. God is unnecessary so your addition of it is a complication. There is no intelligence behind the universe and the simplest explanation is that the universe is just the way it is. Only empirical study of it can uncover further complications, and your mental masturbation and delusions of grandeur are worthless.

>attempting to justify religious belief through the cosmological argument and quantum woo
brainlet


>justifying belief in God through personal mystic experiences
Based.

Why haven't you taken the mystic pill yet?

>>10732225
>When we talk about the origin of space and time ie what conditions are neceary we retract from science, the mapping, and stay in the realm of rational abstraction alone.
This is textbook god of the gaps. You're simply defining god as the limit of present knowledge.

>Think of it like a mathematical proof.
A mathematical proof uses definitions and axioms that are useful since they formalize the intuitive system being used for thousands of years. Your definition on thre other hand changes constantly and fails to reconstitute the numerous features of god that have been posited throughout history. Mathematics creates meaning, whereas your metaphysics is just pointless semantics.

how come this thread baited godtards but not newagers?