/sci/ - Science & Math

You can prove something doesn't exist, but for a given thing, there isn't necessarily a method of proving it doesn't exist.

>>10752797
>You can prove something doesn't exist
Like what?

why the pseudo science/math is more than the science/math on this shitty board?

>>10752835
Because you don't actually know what "pseudoscience" is and isn't.

>>10752803

Its very simply to prove that an even prime number
bigger than 10 cant exist

>>10752782
>it's another "schizo OP skirts around his retarded beliefs while vaguely attacking science" episode

>>10752843
A simple number in a made up algorithmic language is fairly easy to disprove, but what about larger concepts? Parallel universes? Higher Dimensional Spaces? Concepts defined in most of the world's spiritualities as "unknowable" such as "God"? They seem to be favorites when scientismists bring out the "YOU have to prove your stance, not me". I'm not even arguing for these things to verifiable exist, I just think it's bullshit that when these topics and others like them come up the responsibility seems to fall off the shoulders of "Scientists" to put their money where their mouth is and attempt to disprove God, or other dimensions, or things of that nature exist. Like the OP said, it just seems like a giant cope and a copout honestly.

>>10752869

>>10752968
>"MOM I POSTED A PICTURE I WON!"

Ok, how about some actual talking points regarding what I brought up >>10752869

>>10752782
It depends on what the claim is.
“X exists” and “X does not exist” are both positive claims that require some sort of justification for the claim.

>>10753019
>not accepting absence of evidence as evidence of absence

>>10752803
I can prove that God doesn't exist by tipping my fedora :^)

>>10752797
>>10753019
Thanks, gonna use this next time some dullard says "God does not exist" or spouts "burden of proof" this gon be gud

>>10752803
I can prove that the purple giant squid in my kitchen that smells strongly of vanilla and is loudly warbling highlights from "The Barber of Seville" while tossing cherry bombs around in random diralections and has just eaten the refrigerator does not exist.

>>10753376
maybe he’s just really sneaky

>>10753146
Follow this style of argumentation
>>>6826147
Never say “God exists” to an atheist as if you’re speaking a fact. But if they say “God isn’t real” then you can show how biased they are. They can’t prove that God doesn’t exist yet they claim that he isn’t. They obviously have faith that he doesn’t exist.

>>10753504
>>>/his/6826147

>>10752782
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot#Description

>>10753504
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

>>10753539
you mean like the claim “God isn’t real”? Yeah, agreed.

>>10753536
>the transcendent, necessary, perfect, cause of all existence is ontologically equal to a flying teapot around space
Absolute brainlet argument only possible from a cuck like brainlet rusself. There are actual reasonable arguments for God’s existence and the belief thereof>>10753516
There’s no reason to believe in a teapot

>>10752782
>s this the biggest materialist cope ever to be conceived? I'm certain this rhetoric has helped turn our world into the shithole it is today.

It’s a Strawman of someone that doesn’t exist. If you make a claim, you have a burden of proof. Meet that burden of proof or fuck off. Doesn’t mean anyone else is right or wrong.

>>10753549
>There are actual reasonable arguments for God’s existence and the belief thereof

Not one of those is reasonable. They’re shitty post hoc excuses created to justify religious faith.

>>10753561
refute the argument from contingency

>>10753561
1)A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.
2)This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
3)The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4)What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5)Contingent beings alone cannot provide a completely adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6)Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7)Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.
8)The universe is contingent.
9)Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

There are multiple versions of the ontological argument, but this is simple and one of my favorites:

1) Either everything is possible or there exists some necessary thing that determines what is possible
2) This necessary thing that determines creation is God
3) If there is no necessity, then God is possible
4) If God is possible, he exists

None of these arguments are 100% proof, but they don’t need to be. But they’re obviously more reasonable than any flying teapot argument.

>>10752782
Claiming that God exists or doesn't exist both requires justification. On the other hand, there's no reason a priori to assume God exists, so, I'm going to assume God doesn't exist until it is proven to be as such.

>>10753567
It’s just a fallacy of composition.

>>10753587
not a refutation

>>10753567
No "there must be an uncaused cause, therefore it's my specific deity" type argument implies anything specific, and they almost all could simply refer to the universe itself. It's unable to "prove" anything meaningful.

>>10753582
>None of these arguments are 100% proof, but they don’t need to be. But they’re obviously more reasonable than any flying teapot argument.

They’re not reasonable whatsoever. The Ontological argument is literally imagination and the cosmological argument assumes causality applies for everything for no reason. It’s retarded, shitty, post hoc pseudo philosophy made up to justify religious faith.

>>10753582
>8)The universe is contingent.
And the proof of this is what exactly?

>>10753599
Yes it is. The cosmological argument is nothing but a fallacy of composition, as it assumes that since things in the universe have causes, so too must the universe, but even causality applying IN the universe is itself uncertain as per the problem of induction.

>>10753600
you need to actually refute the argument.

>>10752782
this image reminds me of a geometry math game disguised as a 007 type game that was on all the computers at the computer lab in my elementary school does anyone know wtf im talking about

>>10753601
Without axioms, there is no proof. If you actually deny causality, then why are you even having this conversation? How can you justify non-belief over belief? If everything is random and beyond human understanding then you have no grounds to judge any belief based on human reason. It all comes down to faith.
>ontological argument is literally imagination
What a refutation

>>10753605
The universe does not contain within itself the reason for its existence. How did natural laws arise? Stephen Hawking believes gravity created the universe, but why is gravity necessary? Science can never prove that the universe could create itself, or that natural laws or necessary.

>>10753608
That's refuting it. If it can't be used to prove the universe isn't its own cause, it doesn't prove anything.

>>10753613
>If you actually deny causality
These "proofs" all require denying causality at some point. That's the whole point.

>>10753616
>The universe does not contain within itself the reason for its existence.
God does not contain within himself the reason for his existence. Prove this wrong without saying "I define him as containing it".

>>10753582
>(1) either everything is possible or there exists a necessary thing that determines what is.

The laws of physics.

>(2) this necessary thing that determines creation is God.

Okay, I take this to be a definition (never thought I would see at least a vague definition of God).

I don't understand (3).

>(4) if God is possible it exists.

Okay so, (4) is just asserting God exists... Like, it's literally saying "if it makes sense for God to exist, then God exists"... It also makes sense that a teapot could be orbiting the sun...

Moving on, with this argument we have some abstract definition of God. We're basically calling some subset of the laws of the universe that allows for the existence of life (or something in analogy to that) God. What's the point of this definition? There's no reason for this to coincide with the traditional sense of God that is vaguely known (actually come to think of it, I don't understand what God is supposed to be. It's not a well defined concept so I'm not sure I can believe on it based o on that principle alone.. Whatever).

>>10753613
>Without axioms, there is no proof. If you actually deny causality, then why are you even having this conversation?

I don’t deny causality, I am uncertain of it, as per the problem of induction, and I find the claim that causality could exist independent of spacetime VERY dubious as it sits in disagreement with physics.

>How can you justify non-belief over belief?

Belief generally requires experimental data. Faith will do for trivial things like “I saw a squirrel this morning.”

>If everything is random and beyond human understanding

That’d be pretty wild but luckily I never said it was.

>>10753616
>The universe does not contain within itself the reason for its existence.

Lemme know when you prove it even has one.

>>10753626
>(actually come to think of it, I don't understand what God is supposed to be. It's not a well defined concept so I'm not sure I can believe on it based o on that principle alone.. Whatever).
That's the huge problem with these arguments. They only really say "there was a cause" and try to convince you to go along with other beliefs by giving that cause a specific name.

>>10753543
>>10753549
seething boomers

>>10753584
>requires justification
haven't seen her ever

Atheists don’t believe in God because they don’t want to. He grants understanding to anyone who seeks Him. There is no knowledge without faith.

>>10753638
>You believe in God if you want to believe in God

Very profound.

>>10753638
Well, no one can argue with that.

>>10753658
There’s nothing better to believe in. Accepting the necessity of faith and the limits of human reason is the first step to peace.

>>10753667
What about God[math]^2[/math], who explains where God came from? I think that's better.

>>10753638
>i prefer masturbation

>>10753681
And who do you think is the reason we can masturbate?

>>10753667
I disagree. I felt peace when I let go of my Christian upbringing and accepted I could not believe in God. The idea of such faith is absurd to me now. We will all form our own beliefs about reality that clicks with us, whether or not it matches with the "objective" reality. That's just how things are.

>>10753667
>There’s nothing better to believe in

Yes there is. I’d rather believe in Ishtar and Pan because those gods supposedly have giant transsexual orgies involving drugs, which sounds immensely more fun than some Canaanite misogynist in the air.

>Accepting the necessity of faith

It’s not necessary at all.

>>10753674
no it's turtles all the way

>>10753674
infinite regress? No thanks

>>10753688

>>10753692
>It’s not necessary at all
Lay off the drugs old sport

>>10753699
>Lay off the drugs old sport

Prove your claim faith is “necessary”, whatever that means.

>>10753701
Proof (knowledge) is impossible without axioms (faith). To have no faith in God is to have nothing to yourself but total ignorance, or pride that you can achieve knowledge on your own.

But seriously, no atheist ever hears an argument and suddenly goes,”yeah you’re right, sorry I used all those bad words and insulted God.” Pride has to be cured over time. Reason’s last step is that there are infinite things beyond it. This is the first step to faith.

>>10753706
Proof (knowledge) is impossible without proof

>>10753713
and who gave you the hotline to god
you farted and took a crap this morning just like the rest of us
yet somehow you're still full of shit

>>10753721
thanks for proving my point

>>10753706
>Proof (knowledge) is impossible without axioms (faith).

You don’t have to believe axioms to use them, so your conclusions aren’t actually valid.

>To have no faith in God is to have nothing to yourself but total ignorance, or pride that you can achieve knowledge on your own.

It’s philosophy 101 that nothing outside of your own mental states can be known for certain. You are ignorant, god or not, axioms or not.

>>10753713
Or maybe the arguments presented aren't convincing unless you already want to accept the conclusion from the beginning? No one comes up with things like the ontological argument surrounded by people who would question it.

>>10753726
your proofs smell

>>10753762
good

>>10753769
no, bad

>>10753778
meanie

>>10753824
farty

>>10752782
> implying negative is the absence of substance

>>10753713
>>10753726
>>10753769
>>10753824
GMI

>>10753721
>>10753762
>>10753778
>>10753827
NGMI

>>10753054
Absence of evidence doesn't prove that something is 100% not true, it just means that it is probably not true.

>>10753376
How can you prove it's not in someone else's kitchen?

>>10755273
This, especially if on another planet or an alternate universe.

nothing is impossible.

>>10752843
1010 in binary
or an imaginary number?
or some algorithmic equation?
define bigger.

>>10756421
>or an imaginary number?
>or some algorithmic equation?
Neither of those could be an even prime number. Primes are natural numbers.

>>10753061
Hey pal listen here... that emoticon... is mine.
:^)

>>10756421
>1010 in binary
1010 in binary is just 10, which is not only not a prime but also not greater than 10.
>or an imaginary number?
This isn't even an integer.
>or some algorithmic equation?
And this isn't even a fucking number!
>define bigger.
I have no reason to believe you're from /pol/ but if you're this retarded, you just have to be. So go back.

>>10753634
He is literally correct though.
>seething scientism fedora neckbeards

>>10752996
You didn't bring up anything worth talking about. Your first sentence
>A simple number in a made up algorithmic language
Immediately shows a lack of understanding of things to such a degree that we can't reasonably have this conversation

>>10752782
Pretty sure I can. See method of infinite regress, for instance.

>>10753630
Physics is a subset of mathematics and computation so it doesn't matter whatsoever if something "doesn't make sense physically" so long as it is proven mathematically.

>>10757809
believe in Thor all you want, nutjob

>>10757898

>>10758608
>i have no argument