/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10771859
Define god

He cannot not exist.

>>10771863
Omnipotent and omniscient being

>>10771859
Sure

>>10771868
no because omnipotency is nullified by mathematics. certain things are impossible hence one can never be omnipotent.

for example a triangle can never have 4 sides.

>>10771899
Let me ask stupid question, but what if this being stands above this rules

>>10771916
The other rules used for categorizing and description probably wouldn’t apply either and so the discussion of the matter would be foolish.

>>10771866
cringe
>>10771868
there is a classic argument that omniscience and omnipotence cannot be consistent with one another: if god knew everything, then she would know the future, and that means she is powerless to change the future. on the other hand, if god had the power to do anything, she couldn't know for sure what she would do next.

scientifically if your definition of god equates to 'old bearded man in sky throwing lightning bolts' (with optional quantum superposition with communist jew on stick who walked on water and magic birdghost) then it's scientifically just false. walking on water doesn't real. but if your definition is 'some nebulous mystical thingy out there' then you're not really talking science. it's not even wrong. so you're allowed to believe in that, just like you're allowed to believe in Peano's axioms, if you so choose. so the correct stance scientifically on this latter view is agnosticism

Does it matter?

Does anyone actually change their behaviour because they actually think there is a personal god in their lives who knows ever aspect of you and loves you?

Do you still masturbate.

>>10771964
>Do you still masturbate.
I masturbate occasionally yes.

>>10771966

Knowing that god is intimately familiar with every aspect of your life and is able to see into your heart to know your true intentions and feelings?

>>10771859
Of course he/she/it/they e.g. some sort of higher power can exist. We can't scientifically prove or disprove that currently.

>>10771962
she?

We are currently creating god. (AI)

>>10771916
omnipotency = unlimited power.
there are some things that cannot be changed no matter how much power you have - things that are a matter of fact.

therefore god has limits therefore not omnipotent. so the christian god certainly doesnt exist because the bible describes his power as limitless.

inb4 a 4 sided triangle exists because he exists outside the universe and its rules

absolute hogwash.

>>10771868
No. Omnipotence and omniscience are logically impossible.

>>10771866
Agreed.
>>10771863
The being, principle or force with maximum ontological status.

>>10771868
That's a very irreligious and narrow minded view of God.

>>10771899
You're really stretching definitions of words in order to get your contradiction, but even this is refuted by both scripture and theology (God is static and eternal, and an unchanging being cannot deny His own nature).
>>10771916
According to theology, He doesn't. His rules are perfect and unbreakable because they are all logical necessities.

>>10771962
Your outdated argument makes use of a temporal being as a God. God is atemporal.

>>10771964
Yes. It greatly increases self awareness, capability of introspection and personal growth, understanding of other living beings and keeps depression at bay. It also increases resistance to peer pressure, psychoactive substances, damaging habits and sloth.

>>10771977
Nor will we, ever, by definition. Science is our best understanding of the observable phenomena in Nature. God is the most fundamental part of the unobserveable. Science can not reach the Infinite One. Mathematics might.

>>10771984
Your concept of God is so limited and weak.

Would there be a way to get all the culture, history, and social benefits of religion without having to actually believe?

Like a Church yes, Jesus no situation.

>>10771916
Then the rules are fucking irrelevant. A mere construct meant for US to follow.

It's more accruate to say you DONT KNOW what rules God is playing by (besides what he states in the bible)

Also, God, categorically, cannot be a 'being'.
>a being
>this being
>He
etc
These denote definite articles. Unless you KNOW God is a definite article (and we have no reason to believe He is) then just understand that we ae constrained by language as there is no way to refer to non-being entities without contradicting ourselves with our English language.

>>10771866
Based and catholicpilled

>>10771859

if this post gets dubs - God exists
repent

>>10772003
Imagine that all of our reality is built on rigid rules. That all matter and radiation are made of a single substance or energy. That all 4 fundamental forces unify. That the Universe really was and will be perfectly homogeneous. That time is indifferent from space, we simply perceive it as what it is.
Imagine that everything that exists is built from or upon something else.
Something, some structure, principle, law, force, being, celestial body or other entity MUST exist as a fundamental substratum to ALL else.
Something binds all that is. Something, unlike everything else that is derived from it, is a necessary being. It is uncaused and eternal. It is static and unchanging. It is the source and ground of all else.
Whatever that entity is and whatever form it may assume, everything that is, was or will be is part of its body, like a branch or offshoot. Including you.
Imagine all of reality is perfectly deterministic and all mathematically possible scenarios equally real. Imagine there is a privileged frame of reference where all observations agree and the entire Universe appears as a homogeneous sea of light (hint: this actually exists, everything travelling at c).
Imagine a being whose body is the entire Multiverse, whose mind is the collective minds of all beings, whose will are the Laws of Nature, and who has infinite computational power. All is aready known. It is omniscient. There can be no force against It as It already has all energy in existence at Its disposal. It is omnipotent. Everything that is is made of Its energy and inhabits the expanse that is contained by It and also made of the subtlest portion of It. So it is omnipresent.
It allows us all to live eternally, projecting our perceived reality, infinite lives across infinite worlds with no chance of ever being unmade or becoming nonexistent. And it asks for nothing in return. It is ever giving. It is omnibenevolent.

This entity, force, principle or being, I call God. And I love God.

>>10772025
>Your concept of God is so limited and weak.
Cope harder christfag. Your imaginary skydaddy will never exist retarded dumbshit.

>>10772043
>Would there be a way to get all the culture, history, and social benefits of religion without having to actually believe?
Not really, because those things come from understanding, which turns faith into belief. Every human who sets out to find the very workings of Nature eventually meets God and becomes religious forever. Most physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, etc. usually become religious from observing the absolute perfect beauty of nature.
>Like a Church yes, Jesus no situation.
There are many religions other than Christianity.

>>10772072
I am not Christian, though the Abrahamics do worship a somewhat distorted view of what I call God.

>>10772003
a sufficiently powerful being could make us think so

>>10771859
Either everything is possible or there is some necessary thing that determines and creates what is possible.
This necessary thing, being the source of all creation, and all that is possible, is therefore omnipotent, and is God.
If there is no necessary thing, then all things are possible, and an omnipotent, omniscient God is possible.

Therefore, God exists.

>>10771974
Indeed. I have had a God in my mind for my entire life, and continuously am viewing myself from an external perspective, or as a character in a greater story. What God thinks of me and the truth, is unknown. I think God considers me a tool or plaything.

>>10771859
Yes He can
>>10771866
The christian god assuredly does NOT exist. Christ was a man who dies and never resurrected.

>>10772227
>The christian god assuredly does NOT exist
Prove it

>>10772233
The christian god exists iff the story of christ is accurate. The story of christ is accurate iff a man named Jesus resurrected from the dead. A man named Jesus never did resurrect from the dead. Ergo the christian god does not exist.

>>10772252
>A man named Jesus never did resurrect from the dead.
Prove it

>>10772254
It contradicts everything we know about biology. The burden isn't on me to prove that, btw. You prove it.

>>10772261
Jesus also made men whole again. As in, he restored their foreskin so they could instead circumcise their hearts to the Lord and his son Jesus Christ.

>>10772261
>The burden isn't on me to prove that, btw. You prove it.
Sorry sweetie but you made a positive claim.
>The christian god assuredly does NOT exist
and
>A man named Jesus never rose from the dead.
How could you make such positive claims unless you had proof? I never made any claims. I only asked for you to prove the bold claims that you made. And until you can prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then your claims are empty.

>>10772269
>Sorry sweetie but you made a positive claim.
What claim? My claim was literally a negative one, learn to read lmao

>>10772261
Being dead doesn't mean your heart doesn't beat. It means your soul is not connected to your body. Your decisions doesn't have an entropy.

It's something like having no entropy, and singularity is being entropically imponent. That means you don't make a decision, there is no random, maybe some stored bit.

You in a mirror is not you. It's just light you reflected.

>>10771899
What about today, being omnipotent, with reduced possibilities of what can happen, because they are not infinite, being omnipotent is to possibly see the shape of consequence of your decisions. Not informed decision, where you know the information, but consequence of a decision.

>>10772281
>i dont actually know what entropy is btw

>>10772272
There is a difference between doubting the claim “The Christian God exists” and actually claiming “The Christian God does not exist.” In a mathematical proof, you cannot simply say that some solution does not exist without providing the proof that it doesn’t. You claim with full confidence that Christianity isn’t true, but how do you know this? Where is your proof? You are the only one making claims here, and you haven’t proven any of them.

>>10772295
Okay, I will rephrase my claim for all the pedants out there: "The chance of the christian god existing is about as remote as an entire living elephant spontaneously popping into existence after just the right number of hydrogen and carbon and oxygen and nitrogen etc. atoms randomly collide with each other."

>>10771984
It's not god at all,...

It depends on who will win the fight, if consciousness or machine decision.

Humans that are god, because every human back then was a god too and god was god too. But now not every human is god, some humans developed properties of transistors because they rationalized too much.

It's like when you don't know pi, only some polygon or pixelated surface, ( on every possible state of neuron ) and also knowing a shape of how this circle is distorted, versus when you just learned if neurons fire or they do not.

Systems where neurons fire or do not, can learn emotions, but they are not rational emotions, because they are learned, but they are whole emotions.

>>10772308
If God exists, and he wants us to know of his existence through miracles, then what is preventing such a God from creating a universe in which miracles are allowed? It’s as if you think God is subservient to the natural laws that he created.

>>10772314
>If God exists, and he wants us to know of his existence through miracles
I don't think that premise is true
>It’s as if you think God is subservient to the natural laws that he created.
I don't think that. I claim God made the natural laws.

>>10772320
>I don't think that premise is true
But Christianity is built on this premise. If it is true, then the resurrection is not absurd. If you want to simply argue that it is this premise that disproves Christianity, then that’s fine, we can discuss that.
>I don't think that. I claim God made the natural laws.
As do Christians. But what is preventing God from changing laws or creating laws beyond our comprehension?

>>10772326
>But Christianity is built on this premise
So you are justifying the premise with the thing you are trying to prove. Okay retard.

>>10772333
NO, let me spell it out for you. You claim that Jesus could not have risen from the dead. But this only makes sense when you assume that God is not concerned with making us believe through miracles. If you accept this premise, then God can do whatever he wants. He could make elephants pop into existence just as easily as he makes it rain. So your whole argument rests on the assumption that this premise isn’t true, correct? Then shouldn’t we be discussing the validity of such a premise, since it is central to the disagreement?

>>10772338
>But this only makes sense when you assume that God is not concerned with making us believe through miracles
Think of it this way: I am not assuming anything about God's intent, but you are. Can you justify this without going in a circle?

>>10771962
>she

>>10772351
Imagine if someone made the following argument:

1) The universe is totally random
2) Therefore it is possible for magic to exist

And someone disagreed by saying that magic can’t exist, since we’ve never observed magic, and we have no explanation of magic using what we know about scientific laws. But this disagreement doesn’t make sense, given that magic would be possible if the first premise were true. IF the universe is random, then magic is certainly possible, as well as many other things. It’s quite funny that you deny the resurrection, trying to disprove the Christian God, when there are tons of other miracles in the Bible. Had you listed all those miracles, you might understand what I’m saying. All those miracles are possible if we assume that God is concerned with our faith in him, since God could easily alter the laws of nature or could have simply created other laws that allow for miracles whenever he wants them to happen. Therefore, we should not be focused on the resurrection, or any single miracle, but on the single premise that allows all those miracles to occur. Now Christians have faith in this premise, but you do not. Therefore, I think it’s best to discuss the validity of this premise, since this is ultimately what you disagree with. Don’t you agree?

>>10772376
>All those miracles are possible if we assume that God is concerned with our faith in him
too bad I don't assume that

>>10772378
OK, that’s fine. Before, you simply claimed that Christianity isn’t true because Jesus can’t rise from the dead. Now you claim that Christianity isn’t true because God cannot be interested in our faith in him. Am I wrong?

>>10772385

>>10772385
Yeah, you fucking suck at representing my argument.

>>10772389
It’s a matter of faith. You either believe that God is concerned with being perceived, and therefore fully actualizing or glorifying his existence, or you do not. If you don’t accept the premise, that’s fine, but it’s nowhere near close to disproving Christianity as you attempted to do here >>10772227 and claimed that the Christian God definitely does not exist. So not only do you not have faith in the premise, but you reject it outright. Well, why do you reject it? What are your reasons? Do you want to have a discussion or not?

>>10772403
>why do you reject premises that contradict intuition and have nothing to support them?
>why don't you blindly have faith for no reason?

>>10772409
It’s fine if you don’t have faith in it, but it’s another thing to claim that it’s definitely not true. To have faith for or against the premise requires at least some sort of reason. I believe that when things are perceived, their existence is made complete. Esse ist percipi, as Berkeley said. If I am God, then I am concerned with fully actualizing my nature, displaying my omnipotence etc. Part of this completion involves the perception of my omnipotence vis a vis sentient beings who are not as powerful as I am, thereby highlighting the differences between myself and the creation. This is how I justify the premise, but of course, there could be other reasons beyond my comprehension. I am not God after all. So do you have any argument against the premise other than “there’s no reason to believe it” ?

mooooooooodddss

>>10772421
>It’s fine if you don’t have faith in it, but it’s another thing to claim that it’s definitely not true
There's practically no difference. You're debating semantics at this point.

>>10772409
Also, I should add that the numerous prophecies and miracles would certainly contribute to faith in the premise.

>>10772429
I'll remind you these miracles did not historically occur.

>>10772433
the only one that is worth discussing is the shroud, which was obviously painted in the middle ages, but at least there is some scientific discussion about it unlike the rest of the “it happened, believe me, that’s what the book says”

>>10772439
Still a hoax.

>>10772427
>hey Jim, what do you think about the Collatz Conjecture, is it true?
>I don’t know Bob
>alright John, what do you think?
>it’s definitely not true, Bob
>why?
>it just isn’t it ok but I KNOW it isn’t true

>>10772065
>Dude god is everything.
This is what 14 year olds think a smart conception of god is.

>>10771859
why was I the only one that got banned for debating God's existence and everyone else who makes stupid god threads doesn't get banned?

>>10772464
because the mods are being total asshats lately, they delete threads when someone makes posts about “quantum mechanics doesn’t make magic real” but let “whomst’ve” threads and “god vs science “ threads go unabated. probably /sci/‘s mod is a poltard who just wants this place to be another retard echo chamber

>>10771859
Reality is a subset of Existence, people often get confused with the term existence.

Santa Claus Exists. Why? Because you hear his name, his depiction is on some advertisment etc.

Is he real?
No because there has been no proof.

Now apply the same reasoning with God.

>>10772463
No, God is 'everything' and beyond, because all things are made of the same substance arranged in different ways, because motion is impossible and because temporal finitism is logically contradictory. 14 year olds can't even conceive of timelessness. I suspect neither can you.

>>10772483
>motion is impossible
>time dun exist
christians confirmed retarded

>>10772213
>Either everything is possible or there is some necessary thing that determines and creates what is possible.
And why is that? Why would there have to be some thing that determines that, rather than that things are either possible or not just by themselves?
>This necessary thing, being the source of all creation, and all that is possible, is therefore omnipotent, and is God.
Nope, don't think I don't see you sneaking a creator in there by using the word "creation". Also you have to justify why the "thing" from premise 1 is what we would normally call god, rather than just a mechanism for example. And if you insist that we would call it god regardless of what it is, then you're just playing word games. I can insist on calling an apple a unicorn, that doesn't mean I contribute to a discussion about the existence of unicorns by pointing to the local farmers market.
>If there is no necessary thing, then all things are possible, and an omnipotent, omniscient God is possible.
>Therefore, God exists.
You went straight from possible to true. It's possible for a man named Igmir Brasloviscunt to exist, that doesn't mean there is such a person.
This argument is just a more elaborate first cause argument, which come a dime a dozen and have been refuted countless times.

>>10772500
Im not a Christian you complete faggot.
And if you're one of the people who believe that time is a magical force that once began for no reason, what are you doing on this board? Go back to /x/

>>10772501
>rather than that things are either possible or not just by themselves?
How can a thing determine if itself is possible?
>It's possible for a man named Igmir Brasloviscunt to exist, that doesn't mean there is such a person.
Wrong. If a thing is possible, it will exist. Or do you believe in free will and indeterminism? I can believe that it’s possible for me to stab out my eyeballs, but if I don’t ever do it, then it was never possible.

>>10772433
That position requires faith. You’re literally arguing against a faith-based system by using faith to claim it isn’t true. You’re embarrassing and deserve to be ridiculed.

>>10772427
>not believing a claim is true means believing the claim is false.
I have a few coins in my wallet. I'm sure you would agree that the amount of coins must either be even or odd. Do you believe it's even? No, because you have no evidence of that. Does that mean you believe it's odd? No, because you have no evidence of that either. It's possible to believe one of two possible claims without thinking the other is true. If you have evidence for neither, the best answer is "I don't know". That however doesn't mean you have to pretend as though both are equally likely or may aswell be true. Look up russells teapot.

>>10772468
that could be true but mine was a god vs science thread and they banned it, but they didn't ban this one and it's also a god vs science thread

>>10772522
>russells teapot
>a human-made dish flying around in space is ontologically equivalent to the transcendent, necessary cause of our universe
Ridiculous

>>10772522
What if you have 0 coins in your wallet?

>>10772427
You still haven’t even responded to my argument here >>10772421
I have reasons why a God might be concerned with our faith, but you still haven’t given any reasons for why you “know” that such a thing is impossible.

>>10772516
>How can a thing determine if itself is possible?
I didn't say things determine themselves to be possible, I suggested that perhaps they just are either possible or impossible. That's just an example though, as you could pull any number of explainations for possibillity out of your ass. Justify why it has to be some preexisting thing that determines it.
>Wrong. If a thing is possible, it will exist. Or do you believe in free will and indeterminism? I can believe that it’s possible for me to stab out my eyeballs, but if I don’t ever do it, then it was never possible.
Sure, I would agree with that, though that means possible existence is the same actual existence. So your argument ends up being "things exist for an unknown reason, therefor it must be god". You're playing god of the gaps.

>>10772531
What does that have to do with his point?

>>10772523
well, i don’t know. have you tried reporting this thread? if nobody reports it, it could slip under the radar. that’s the most logical explanation

but imho probably the mod read the first few posts and saw the priest wojak and went “hehe, yes, maybe godfags like me are making a comeback, i’ll let this one slide” because he is a douchefuck

>>10772530
Yes, it is the ontological equivalent because defining something as necessary is bullshit.
How about Russell's NECESSARY teapot? A teapot that floats in space and is also necessary. Do you now think it's real because I defined it that way?

>>10772535
>I suggested that perhaps they just are either possible or impossible
So you don’t care for the reason why something is possible or impossible? If nothing determines what is possible, then what is preventing everything from being possible?
>things exist for an unknown reason, therefor it must be god
Yes, though that doesn’t mean it’s a theistic God. I just think there logically has to be some thing that is ultimately the WHY of all existence. This sounds more appealing than an infinite regress or no explanation at all

>>10772531
I already said I have a few coins in my wallet. With that premise, only even and odd are possible, which makes it analogous to wether god exists or not.

>>10772542
But there’s no reason for a teapot to be necessary. You can’t use the argument from contingency on a TEAPOT. There are infinite Russel’s teapots and creatures and planets, etc. but there is only one uncaused cause.

>>10771859
Only if you ask nicely.

>>10771899
He can make it possible. He's not slave to the underlying logic that drives the universe, because he made it.

>>10772548
>uncaused cause
yeah, the big bang.

>>10771859
Yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>10772554
What is the cause for the existence of the laws of nature that allowed the Big Bang to occur? How do laws of nature contain the reason for their own existence within themselves? Why are they necessary and not other laws, for example? They seem fairly arbitrary and contingent.

>>10772558
>that video

jesus christ the cringe is unbearable

>>10772544
>So you don’t care for the reason why something is possible or impossible?
I didn't say I don't care, I'm asking you to justify your assertion that there is a preexisting thing that determines existence. You have yet to prove it's the only possible explaination for possibility, until then it's an argument from ignorance.
>Yes, though that doesn’t mean it’s a theistic God. I just think there logically has to be some thing that is ultimately the WHY of all existence. This sounds more appealing than an infinite regress or no explanation at all
Look you're doing one of two things here
1. You insist that the reason for existence is god without justifying why. Why not universe-creating pixies? Or we are simulated?
or
2. You just slap the label "god" onto whatever the reason for existence is and that's it. In which case universe-creating pixies or the architects of our simulation would be god. But that's just a cheap copout. To revise an earlier point, I can call an apple a unicorn but pointing to the farmers market doesn't contribute to the unicorn discussion. You're completely redefining god just so you can say "god is real", but that's worthless considering I can say "unicorns are real" if I just redefine them to mean apples.

>>10772570
It’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God through reason. I’m merely offering reason for why you could believe that God exists. You can use reason and disagree with me, but I just think existence is better explained by some necessary cause of everything. Again, I’m not even claiming this is a theistic God. And why can’t this be a simulation? Because then we still haven’t answered what exactly is being simulated, and what caused the existence of THAT world as well. We can even think of God as the laws of logic themselves, such as the law of non-contradiction. After all, if God created logic, then his own existence is illogical even to himself. Whereas if God’s existence is logical, then that is the same as saying logic allowed God to exist, or that logic caused God’s existence, which would mean God isn’t the uncaused cause, but logic is. I believe in a logic, or meta-logic, that ultimately exists because it can’t not exist and determines everything about creation. Some say that logic and order can come from nothingness and randomness. But isn’t this movement explained through reason? “Since there is nothing preventing existence, it occurred.” This logic is therefore what caused the movement from nothing to something. This meta-logic is essentially God, creating everything from nothing.

>>10772548
1. There are plenty of things in the quantum realm that are probabilistic rather than causal, at least according to our best models so far. The decay of atoms for example. Your premise that everything that happens must happen for a reason gets btfo'd by the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
2. You commit an argmunet from ignorance fallacy by assuming the only possible start of the universe is an uncaused cause. An infinite regress is not unthinkable. Or for example it's possible that physics or even logic worked differently prior to the big bang, rendering cause and effect obsolete. These are just a few examples, my point is you have to prove that there must have been a first cause at all.
3. Here's the most damming counter: Your argument doesn't talk about god at all. It's a first cause argument, not a god argument. Even if it was otherwise flawless, you have yet to prove that this first cause is a being, an agent, intelligent, concious, omnipotent, has any other powers than universe creation at all, still exists, or has any other qualities of god.
Either that, or you just call the first cause god without assigning him the other properties, but that's playing word games. You can call your breakfast cornflakes god too, but that's missing the point.

>>10772591
>We can even think of God as the laws of logic themselves, such as the law of non-contradiction.
This is theism, though.

>>10772591
>It’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God through reason. I’m merely offering reason for why you could believe that God exists.
Something that cannot be verified or falsified through reason at all cannot be investigated. By definition, believing in something neither verifyable nor falsifyable is irrational.
The rest of your post is just throwing around the label god again. You want to call logic god? Fine, by that definition god exists, because clearly logic does. In other news, I think unicorns are quite nutricious.

>>10772601
>It's a first cause argument, not a god argument
Aren't they equal in this case?

>>10772561
>What is the cause for the existence of the laws of nature that allowed the Big Bang to occur?
the laws of nature are human inventions to describe what is. they do not exist a-priori to the universe, and one could easily argue they only exist as a human social construct as our way of algorithmically describing what we measure in nature
>How do laws of nature contain the reason for their own existence within themselves?
they don't. they're very "sterile" and basically amount to our implementation of a computer program of a simulation of the universe. there is almost 0 philosophy involved, aside from the underlying mathematical stuff, which actually sort of goes away once you implement it in an actual computer program like Pythia or MadGraph
>Why are they necessary and not other laws, for example? They seem fairly arbitrary and contingent.
they just are what they are. because we found that they work to explain and predict measurements. if you are looking for deeper meaning, you're SOL

>>10772616
No. One argues for a first cause, the other argues for a god. A first cause may aswell have been universe creating pixies.
They are only the same if you decide to just call the first cause god, which is a copout.

>>10772601
>Your premise that everything that happens must happen for a reason gets btfo'd by the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
But the HUP exists alongside other laws of nature. Does the HUP allow for planets to just disappear without reason? Does the HUP allow a being like God to exist?
>An infinite regress is not unthinkable
I’m not saying it’s impossible. I’m simply saying it makes less sense than an uncaused cause.
>Or for example it's possible that physics or even logic worked differently prior to the big bang, rendering cause and effect obsolete.
See >>10772591
>Even if it was otherwise flawless, you have yet to prove that this first cause is a being, an agent, intelligent, concious, omnipotent, has any other powers than universe creation at all, still exists, or has any other qualities of god.
I can certainly provide some reasons to believe those things. For example, as in >>10772591 I believe God to contain all the laws of logic and truth. God contains all knowledge, even of himself. How can God be aware of himself? We can say that he therefore has some sort of “mind” that allows him to perceive himself as well as all things. And related to this is human worship of God. God knows himself partly through how he is perceived. When humans praise God and see how create he is, God sees himself as being great. Fundamentally, God is Truth. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that God has other ontological qualities that are derived from his being truth itself.

And what about the teapot?

>>10772611
>By definition, believing in something neither verifyable nor falsifyable is irrational.
Do you believe the fallible senses of your imperfect, decaying body operating on an uncertain and undefined World bear any resemblance to the Objective Reality? Isn't any sensorial observation and knowledge based on it ultimately irrational unless you have faith that your observation approximates reality?
Anything other than mathematical theorems and identities is faith-based knowledge. Perhaps mathematics is too, since we haven't discovered the primordial axioms that establish math as true, and Godel presents a powerful argument for it being impossible.

>>10772628
God is 'uncaused first cause' or 'first axiom or principle' or 'entity of maximum ontological status', etc.
You should define which conception of God you're arguing against, as there are countless.

>>10772611
>Something that cannot be verified or falsified through reason at all cannot be investigated. By definition, believing in something neither verifyable nor falsifyable is irrational.
Indeed, it is irrational, but that doesn’t make it wrong or unwise. If we can’t prove or disprove God, and our human mind is so flawed that we can’t truly know anything about the world we live in, then why is believing any less reasonable than not believing? If you truly want to be agnostic, and have faith in nothing, then why work or study? Why do anything? Aren’t you operating under faith that tomorrow will exist? Why believe that any scientific theory is true? Don’t you have faith that your reason and knowledge are adequate? Haven’t you ever experienced what it’s like to be wrong about something? How do you know that you’re not wrong about everything right now? True, reason in itself cannot make us believe, but that is no reason not to believe. If devout Christians were committing suicide and complaining about the meaninglessness of life as atheists are, then perhaps you could make a case that believing God has no practical benefits. But in my experience Christians have happier, more meaningful lives. I know this personally, because when I was an atheist I was really depressed and nihilistic. I’m glad I believe.

>>10772634
I fully agree there is nothing we can know with absolute certainty. However, we can have reasonable confidence based on evidence, absolute verification is not required. If I see a car I can't be absolutely sure I REALLY see a car, but my previous experience with my eyes is sufficient evidence that my eyes are quite relieable, even if they aren't infalliable, so I can have reasonable confidence that there is indeed a car.

>>10772647
>confidence
>con fide
>with faith

>>10771899
>God can't exist because math disagrees
Peak /sci/

>>10772639
As I've pointed out before, just slapping the label god onto the first cause is cheating. The concept is completely different from out colloquial definition of god, you just use an obscure definition to be able to say "god is real". Well guess what, you can just as easily insist on calling the first cause santa, so you could say "santa is real". It's a word game, nothing more.

>>10772553
no

>>10772641
>Indeed, it is irrational, but that doesn’t make it wrong or unwise.
Look up the definition of rational. It may be the case that there is a god, but until there is evidence for one it is unreasonable to believe in one.
>If we can’t prove or disprove God, and our human mind is so flawed that we can’t truly know anything about the world we live in, then why is believing any less reasonable than not believing?
We can't know anything with absolute certainty, but again, there is reasonable confidence. What about elves on pluto? We don't know wether there are any, so is both belief and disbelief equally reasonable?
>If you truly want to be agnostic, and have faith in nothing, then why work or study? Why do anything? Aren’t you operating under faith that tomorrow will exist? Why believe that any scientific theory is true? Don’t you have faith that your reason and knowledge are adequate?
Faith in the religious sense is belief without (sufficient) evidence or evidence to the contrary. So no, I don't have faith in anything. But luckily there is evidence, so I can reasonably believe in things without using faith.
>Haven’t you ever experienced what it’s like to be wrong about something? How do you know that you’re not wrong about everything right now?
I try to be reason with the evidence I have. I have false or insufficient evidence, but that doesn't mean the conclusion I got to isn't still the most reasonable one.
>True, reason in itself cannot make us believe, but that is no reason not to believe. If devout Christians were committing suicide and complaining about the meaninglessness of life as atheists are, then perhaps you could make a case that believing God has no practical benefits. But in my experience Christians have happier, more meaningful lives. I know this personally, because when I was an atheist I was really depressed and nihilistic. I’m glad I believe.
I hope you're trolling.

>>10772564
What about it do you think is wrong?

>>10772025
>The being, principle or force with maximum ontological status.
How do you measure "ontological status" and how do you know there is a maximum? Also, this could easily conflict with most religion's conceptions of god as intelligent or personal.

>>10772650
>confidence is etymologically related to faith
So what? Doesn't meant it's the same thing.

Logic and faith are linked by rationality. One cannot rationally lack faith in that which is known through logic, or have faith in anything that cannot be logically identified.

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4. This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5. This necessary being is God.
>The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1.0. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.0. The universe began to exist.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.
3.0. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
>The Argument from Consciousness
1. Mental events are genuine nonphysical mental entities that exist.
2. Specific mental and physical event types are regularly correlated.
3. There is an explanation for these correlations.
4. Personal explanation is different from natural scientific explanation.
5. The explanation for these correlations is either a personal or natural scientific explanation.
6. The explanation is not a natural scientific one.
7. Therefore, the explanation is a personal one.
8. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.
9. Therefore, the explanation is theistic.

1/4

>>10772698
>The Argument from Reason
1. Either at least some of the fundamental causes of the universes are more like a mind than anything else, or they are not.
2. If they are not, then it is either impossible or extremely improbable that reason should emerge.
3. All things being equal, worldviews that render it impossible or extremely improbable that reason should emerge should be rejected in favor of worldviews according to which it is not impossible and not improbable that reason should emerge.
4. Therefore, we have a good reason to reject all worldviews that reject the claim that the fundamental causes of the universe are more like a mind than anything else.
>The Ontological Argument
1. It is possible that the greatest conceivable being exists.
2. The greatest conceivable being is unlimited.
3. Everything that is unlimited is so if and only if it does not depend on anything else for its existence or nonexistence and it neither just happens to exist nor just happens not to exist.
4. Everything that does not depend on anything else for its existence or nonexistence is such if and only if no other being causes it to begin to exist and no other being causes it to cease to exist.
5. Anything that begins to exist is caused to begin to exist by some other being, or it just happens to begin to exist.
6. Anything that ceases to exist is caused to cease to exist by some other being, or it just happens to cease to exist.
7. Anything that neither begins nor ceases to exist exists necessarily if it exists at all, and fails to exist necessarily if it exists at all.
8. The greatest conceivable being exists.
>The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

2/4

>>10772700
>Gödel's Ontological Argument

3/4

>>10772681
>until there is evidence for one it is unreasonable to believe in one.
So you think there’s absolutely no evidence for God whatsoever?
>We can't know anything with absolute certainty, but again, there is reasonable confidence.
>I don't have faith in anything
Confidence means “with faith.” You’ve refuted yourself.
>I hope you're trolling
You wish. Atheists are miserable and would all be happier if they were Christians. Atheists have to cope with this fact by using all their efforts to put away any thoughts that make them open to God’s existence. They have to believe that they’re making the right choice and that they won’t suffer in the afterlife. Like I said, I’m glad I’m not an atheist.

>>10772703
>The Modal Perfection Argument

4/4

>>10772697
Ok I have confidence that God exists. Problem?

>>10772657
>different from out colloquial definition of god
I'm sorry, what do you think is the "colloquial definition of god"? You sound like a clueless American that's never even looked up conceptions of God or studied arguments in favour or against His existence.

>>10772647
Everything I have ever experienced in my life leads me to believe all of (observable) reality is bound by a single unifying force that differentiates itself and manifests as many seemingly different configurations of the same indestructible substance. Never have I witnessed the laws of Nature being broken. Never have I experienced something that wasn't connected to that one unifying force. I have great confidence that an eternal binding entity exists that keeps all reality in apparent motion for the self aware subsets of that reality. I call this entity God. My belief in His existence is greater than any individual quale attained through the senses. The cogito becomes a stronger argument when you remove the ego from it: (It;Nature) thinks (displays cognitive capacity;is ordered by logic), therefore it is.

>>10772694
>How do you measure "ontological status"
This is the truly relevant question and I don't know the answer.
>and how do you know there is a maximum?
We don't. But it is defined as an attribute of the Supreme Being, God.
>Also, this could easily conflict with most religion's conceptions of god as intelligent or personal.
I only know Christianity as being this way, and most theologians hold God as unchanging and eternal - and so incapable of Human thought. Even Judaism and Islam hold God to be a force or principle that is not anthropomorphic. Neither is the Brahman in the dharmic religions. Nor is Chaos in Ancient Greece or Amun-Ra in Ancient Egypt a person-like being or a personal God. The Hermeticists clearly have a non anthropomorphic God, but rather worship reason and Natural logic.

Who actually thinks about an animal God other than illiterate atheists and American Judeochristians?

>>10772629
>But the HUP exists alongside other laws of nature. Does the HUP allow for planets to just disappear without reason? Does the HUP allow a being like God to exist?
It's an example that causality isn't a given. One of your premises is that everything is causal, which is not the case, so your argument fails.
>I’m not saying it’s impossible. I’m simply saying it makes less sense than an uncaused cause.
Justification?
>God to contain all the laws of logic and truth. God contains all knowledge, even of himself. How can God be aware of himself? We can say that he therefore has some sort of “mind” that allows him to perceive himself as well as all things. And related to this is human worship of God. God knows himself partly through how he is perceived. When humans praise God and see how create he is, God sees himself as being great. Fundamentally, God is Truth.
Justification for any of this? Especially the part where he suddenly also communicates with humans?
>And what about the teapot?
Initially I used it as an example for burden of proof, then as an example that just defining something as necessary isn't valid.
As for >>10772591, by saying god can't be proven or disproven but you still believe in him is irrational. And if you abandon logic then this debate is over, because it's the only reliable method we have for figuring things out.

>>10772713
It's not reasonable confidence.

>>10772714
>I'm sorry, what do you think is the "colloquial definition of god"? You sound like a clueless American that's never even looked up conceptions of God or studied arguments in favour or against His existence.
So if you go out on the street and ask people what god is, how many of them will tell you "first cause"? The colloquial definition is an intelligent agent that is omniptoent and created the universe. Aquinas' definition, which you seem to be using, is decidedly not what people think of when you ask them about god.
>Everything I have ever experienced in my life leads me to believe all of (observable) reality is bound by a single unifying force that differentiates itself and manifests as many seemingly different configurations of the same indestructible substance. Never have I witnessed the laws of Nature being broken. Never have I experienced something that wasn't connected to that one unifying force. I have great confidence that an eternal binding entity exists that keeps all reality in apparent motion for the self aware subsets of that reality.
Proof for any of this?

>>10772742
>One of your premises is that everything is causal
If causality is not a given, then reason is useless and believing in God is no less reasonable than not believing. But you can benefit by believing, whereas life is absurd without God.
>Justification?
Yeah, infinite regress makes zero sense. In mathematics we have axioms that we accept as true. We don’t have infinite axioms. We’ve never seen or understood an infinite regress. Such a thing is simply too absurd to believe in.
>Justification for any of this? Especially the part where he suddenly also communicates with humans?
I’m merely providing possible reason. If you want to argue that it’s impossible, whatever. But I see some reason there, and I have no issue having faith.
>And if you abandon logic then this debate is over, because it's the only reliable method we have for figuring things out.
We can use logic to imagine how God could logically exist, but we can never prove it beyond a doubt. That doesn’t mean we should just not believe. Just as I work today in hopes that tomorrow exists, I have faith in God in hopes that the afterlife exists and that the Bible wasn’t a huge conspiracy created across centuries.

>>10772746
Makes you wonder why people believe, then, huh?

>>10772742
>Especially the part where he suddenly also communicates with humans?
I think he meant that God experiences Himself through the senses of all living beings capable of self awareness and of conceiving of the divine. God being omniscient implies He possesses all knowledge and knows the exact feeling and sensation that every creature that ever was, is or will be has ever felt, currently feels or will eventually feel.

>>10771859
Yes

>>10772764
>If homeopathy doesn't work, then why do so many people believe it does?

>>10772753
>So if you go out on the street and ask people what god is,
Most people reply with 'I don't know' or with 'the entity that created everything' or 'the entity that causes everything to be'.

On the second part of your reply, you're asking for proof of a personal account? Did you even read it? I wrote that specifically because observation based evidence isn't necessarily true, but if it is the most valid we can get, I have overwhelming ammount of pro-God experience (namely, a lifetime). It was in a response to another post, which you should also read for context. Out of curiosity, have you ever witnessed the Laws of Nature clearly being violated? I haven't.

>>10772775
reasonable confidence

>>10772778
Thankfully, few people believe in homeopathy. In fact, if you ask for their theorems, you'll find less than 1000 believers in the entire planet and they are all clinically insane. There is no reasonable confidence in favor of homeopathy.

>>10772786
Now contrast that with Christianity, which has over a billion followers, many of whom being much smarter than you or me. Why do you think they believe?

>>10772760
>If causality is not a given, then reason is useless
No, because while causality is not a given in the universe at large, it is given in classical physics. We don't live on the quantum scale, so assuming will always work is reasonable because it always has. Also causality isn't the same thing as reason.
>believing in God is no less reasonable than not believing.
Russels' teapot.
>But you can benefit by believing
The usefulness of a belief tells us nothing about its truthfulness. If everybody was suddenly convinced that littering was directly very unhealthy for them then the world would be much cleaner, that doesn't mean it's true.
>whereas life is absurd without God.
depends on what you mean by absurd
>In mathematics we have axioms that we accept as true. We don’t have infinite axioms.
Yes, in mathematics. Which is an abstraction. Demonstrate that an infinite regress is impossible in physics.
>I’m merely providing possible reason. If you want to argue that it’s impossible, whatever. But I see some reason there, and I have no issue having faith.
You misunderstand my question. I'm asking why you suddenly claim this god relays any information to us. You started out with a god that is just a first cause and then suddenly claim he communicates with us.
>We can use logic to imagine how God could logically exist, but we can never prove it beyond a doubt. That doesn’t mean we should just not believe
We can't prove anything without a doubt, I'm saying we don't have sufficient evidence to justify having reasonable confidence, which is why we should not believe.
>Just as I work today in hopes that tomorrow exists
The last few billions of years is evidence that the universe doesn't suddenly disappear, so we can have reasonable confidence that it won't tomorrow. It might, but there is no evidence to suggest it will. You don't need faith to reach that conclusion.

>>10772760
>I have faith in God in hopes that the afterlife exists and that the Bible wasn’t a huge conspiracy created across centuries.
>Is this your final argument? That you just have faith?
>that the Bible wasn’t a huge conspiracy created across centuries.
Of course. Unlike every other holy book, right?

>>10772795
Please read up on what the bandwaggon fallacy and the appeal to authority fallacy is. >>10772795 This dude wasn't me, I'm saying the amount of people who believe something is irrelevant to wether it's actually true. Everyone, even the smartest peaople on the planet used to think the earth is flat, does that mean it was?

>>10772806
>Unlike every other holy book, right?
No other holy book compares. Christianity is the most difficult religion to fake.

>>10772808
My point is that people don’t just have faith in objects for absolutely no reason at all. You have to have some reason to apply faith in an object. People don’t just believe in something because there’s a reward, or you could make up an obviously contrived religion with no historicity or wisdom or anything and have people follow it simply because you promise a reward in the afterlife. People have faith in Christianity because there is reason to believe it’s true.

>>10772233
I can't proof the non-existence of a golf ball orbiting Jupiter and rendering our universe. This is a non-falseable argument.

>>10772777
>Most people reply with 'I don't know' or with 'the entity that created everything' or 'the entity that causes everything to be'.
That would be a short answer. Don't you think the popluar conception of god includes for example omnibenevolence? The popular definition definetly is more than just that god is the first cause.
>On the second part of your reply, you're asking for proof of a personal account? Did you even read it? I wrote that specifically because observation based evidence isn't necessarily true, but if it is the most valid we can get, I have overwhelming ammount of pro-God experience (namely, a lifetime).
Elaborate? When people say they have personal experience of god that usually just means they get a funny feeling when they pray or things happened that they then attribute to god. Personal experience is not only not demonstrable (which means it's by definition not evidence, because that must always be demonstrable), but is also extremely susceptible to bias and emotion.
>It was in a response to another post, which you should also read for context.
Yes, that was also my post.
>Out of curiosity, have you ever witnessed the Laws of Nature clearly being violated? I haven't.
No, why?

>>10772795
>which has over a billion followers,
Followers =/= believers. Arguably most people considered religuous aren't. If you have never dabbled in theology of a religion or contemplated the philosophy of it, you're not religious. You can have faith in something you don't understand, but you can't say all those who do believe the same thing.
The most learned Christian scholars reject the anthropomorphic conception of God and instead argue that Jesus was a human that came to personify the morals and values ascribed to God, as a pious sage that served as a perfect example of a worshipper of God. Jesus is not a (direct) avatar of God.

>>10772809
>No other holy book compares. Christianity is the most difficult religion to fake.
You haven't read any, clearly. The Holy Bible is one of the most crude. And Zen Buddhism is the hardest religion to fake.

>>10772812
>People have faith in Christianity because there is reason to believe it’s true.
People believe in religions because it's comforting and not immediately obvious to be bullshit.
Also, how do you account for other religions? The exact same can be said about all of them.

>>10772816
And that’s precisely why you should never claim that there isn’t a golf ball orbiting Jupiter

>>10772809
How do you know that?

>>10772376
>The universe is totally random
You're establishing meta-physical preconceived axioms in your argument in other to render them plausible. Now, if you can't prove an axiomatic way of discerning reality -as an absolute truth-, your whole statement is null. This doesn't even add up as an example.

>>10772824
I’m just saying. If you sent me back in time and gave me the task of faking a religion, Christianity would be my last choice.

>>10772817
>The popular definition definetly is more than just that god is the first cause.
That's the issue, if you actually question people, you'll find there isn't a 'popular conception of God'. Not anymore. They all contradict each other, and often repeat mediatic representations of God (which are usually hyper blasphemous)

>Elaborate? When people say they have personal experience of god that usually just means they get a funny feeling when they pray or things happened that they then attribute to god. Personal experience is not only not demonstrable (which means it's by definition not evidence, because that must always be demonstrable), but is also extremely susceptible to bias and emotion.
No I meant to say then that it is my personal reasoning based on a lifetime of observation. It is not meant as a proof for others, just an example of what can serve as basis for faith.

>No, why?
Neither have I. Ever. Every single day is a continuous and constant reminder that all of reality appears to be bound by an unbreakable law (logic) and that absolutely nothing exists apart from it. If there were a part of reality that was not bound by logic, it could cross over to our subjective experience. Every day I wake up to find the logic is unbroken and all of Nature is working in a perfect manner - a property never encountered in any individual object, but shown by the whole. This reaffirms my belief in a single unifying force. The absence of senseless magic is, to me, the greatest miracle. None can devise a set of laws simpler than those of Nature that generate all (or more than) the structures Nature generates. Until someone does (which I believe is impossible), I will hold our Laws of Nature as perfect and unbreakable. If the Natural Laws are God's will, then He is most certainly omnipotent and omniscient. If the Universe is part of His body, then He is certainly omnipresent.

>>10772837
You've never even peeked at the Vedas, have you?

seething

>>10772822
haha sure !

>>10772739
>We don't. But it is defined as an attribute of the Supreme Being, God.
It's meaningless, so not even an attribute.

>I only know Christianity as being this way, and most theologians hold God as unchanging and eternal - and so incapable of Human thought.
Then god is not omnipotent.

>Even Judaism and Islam hold God to be a force or principle that is not anthropomorphic.
Totally false. Ever read the Old Testament?

>Neither is the Brahman in the dharmic religions.
Brahman is only considered God in a few variants of Hinduism.

>Nor is Chaos in Ancient Greece
No one in ancient Greece called chaos god.

>or Amun-Ra in Ancient Egypt a person-like being or a personal God.
LOL no, he was anthropomorphized up the wazoo.

It's one thing to have your own ideas, it's another to project those idea onto others so that you can have imaginary friends.

>>10772858
>>I only know Christianity as being this way, and most theologians hold God as unchanging and eternal - and so incapable of Human thought.
>Then god is not omnipotent.
No force can oppose Him and He is greater than any and all force. Omnipotence doesn't mean "all capable", it means "all powerful".

>>Even Judaism and Islam hold God to be a force or principle that is not anthropomorphic.
>Totally false. Ever read the Old Testament?
Yes. Did you interpret it literally as a fiction book instead of acknowledging the morals in the fables and deriving the theology through exegesis of the metaphors?

>>Neither is the Brahman in the dharmic religions.
>Brahman is only considered God in a few variants of Hinduism.
Brahman is the ultimate reality in all dharmic traditions. Again, you're tying the concept of God to a person and not the principle.

>>Nor is Chaos in Ancient Greece
>No one in ancient Greece called chaos god.
Chaos is the primordial substance from which all else is derived. All Titans and Gods are borne of it. Chaos is the creator deity.
>>or Amun-Ra in Ancient Egypt a person-like being or a personal God.
>LOL no, he was anthropomorphized up the wazoo.
You're thinking of Ra, the one depicted as a bird. Not the primordial darkness, Amun-Ra.

All of you would greatly benefit from reading this link: https://pastebin.com/5w6TZEbs

All of the religions are right, there is a God. Moreover there is strong evidence to suggest that He is personal and has a Personality. Man was created in God's image so it is natural that the intellect of man is but a shadow of the intellect of God. The Lord speaks and gives commandments in the Bible. In the Bhagavad Gita when Lord Krishna was in a Supreme State of the highest yoga possible, he delivered his discourses. Bhakti-yoga is based on a personal definition of God, so it is incorrect that dharmic religions view Brahman solely as impersonal. It is almost definitely true that God is personal and you can have a relationship with Him. He transcends all so He is not limited to personal or impersonal or neither or both (see Wikipedia article on the Buddhist tetralemma as an example of unhelpful logical conundrums we can get into when discussing God).

>>10772864
Also in addition to https://pastebin.com/5w6TZEbs see the OP https://voat.co/v/milliondollarextreme/3310282

>>10772864
>No force can oppose Him and He is greater than any and all force. Omnipotence doesn't mean "all capable", it means "all powerful".
That's nice dear. If he doesn't have the power to perform human thought, then he's not all powerful. It's not like this is some kind of impossible task, it's something puny mortals do. The only impossibility is caused by the impossibility of this concept of God.

>Did you interpret it literally as a fiction book instead of acknowledging the morals in the fables and deriving the theology through exegesis of the metaphors?
You mean like almost everyone who has ever read it? The whole "this is just a metaphor" thing is a very recent invention, due to people actually figuring out the shit that the authors were just making up.

>Brahman is the ultimate reality in all dharmic traditions. Again, you're tying the concept of God to a person and not the principle.
>Chaos is the primordial substance from which all else is derived. All Titans and Gods are borne of it. Chaos is the creator deity.
That's your interpretation of god, not theirs. If someone talks about something which fits your interpretation of god, but they never call it god (and in fact call totally different things gods), that is not proof that everyone agrees with your interpretation of god. That is just circular reasoning.

>You're thinking of Ra, the one depicted as a bird. Not the primordial darkness, Amun-Ra.
Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun#/media/File:Amun-Ra_mirror.svg

mods mods MODS MOOODDSSS

>>10771859
If we become gods, then yes, but given all the retards around I don't hold my breath.

>>10771859
>scientifically if your definition of god equates to 'old bearded man in sky throwing lightning bolts' (with optional quantum superposition with communist jew on stick who walked on water and magic birdghost) then it's scientifically just false. walking on water doesn't real. but if your definition is 'some nebulous mystical thingy out there' then you're not really talking science. it's not even wrong. so you're allowed to believe in that, just like you're allowed to believe in Peano's axioms, if you so choose. so the correct stance scientifically on this latter view is agnosticism

Bejan's constructional law claims that within thermodynamic systems there is a tendency toward configuration

the 'engine' component of the overarching flow system above the fundamental forces would certainly appear godlike

>>10772976
DAILY REMINDER THAT OCCAM'S RAZOR WAS FIRST USED TO PROVE THE PLAUSIBILITY OF GOD

>>10771859

The important question is not the scientific one "Can god exist/does god exist", but the philosophical one, "should god exist". And the answer to the latter is no.

>>10771859
no can, is more like box god

>>10772822
ridiculous
next your going to claim there isn't a Tesla orbiting the Sun

>>10772822
ridiculous
next you're going to claim there isn't a Tesla orbiting the Sun

>>10771859
>Can God exist

God is

>The voice of conscience.
>The source of judgment, mercy, and guilt.
>The future to which we make sacrifices.
>The highest value in the hierarchy of values.
>That which selects among men in the eternal hierarchy of men.
>What calls and what responds in the eternal call to adventure.
>That which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth.

So yes. God does exist. The God in your picture is an anthropomorphised form of the aforementioned.
No, this does not mean that religious metaphysical interpretations of God are incorrect it's just that they just go about spreading the word/understanding of God in a more understandable comprehensible way for the layman to ingest.

>>10772816
>Lainon can't even remote view
haha wow

>>10773222
Being a representation of the collective unconscious doesn't allow space-time manipulation. But, as Lain, God also exists: in our minds.

>>10773220
>God is
a meme

>>10773252
t. clamped

>>10772213
>proving the existence of God using semantics
inb4 "muh logic"

>>10772269
Dead people remain dead, champ. Is that news to you? If someone claims that some faggot rose from the dead, then they must provide evidence. Without evidence, it's bullshit. Because dead people remain dead.

>>10773256
t. the cord

>>10772958
>That's nice dear. If he doesn't have the power to perform human thought, then he's not all powerful. It's not like this is some kind of impossible task, it's something puny mortals do. The only impossibility is caused by the impossibility of this concept of God.
No, you dumbass, God does not perform human thought because human thought is erroneous and imperfect. Its something imperfect beings do, like err, sin and die. Only puny mortals can think like puny mortals. God is a complete being. There is no more perfection to be attained beyond God.


>You mean like almost everyone who has ever read it?
Most people are gentiles, yes.
>The whole "this is just a metaphor" thing is a very recent invention, due to people actually figuring out the shit that the authors were just making up.
No it isn't, it's as old as the books themselves. Have you ever read any treaty of theology? They are quite aware of what scripture is and how most people are too dumb to understand it. Religion is how you make philosophy palatable to normies. It has been allegory since we have written commentary about it at least. "Over a 1000 years ago" isnt "recent".

>>10771899
Could he create a rock that he cannot lift?
-Yes-
Wait, and at the same time, lift it?
-By splitting himself, yes-

What of a sword that can pierce any shield?
Or a shield that can parry any sword?
Which wins?
-They nullify each other, why?-

Ah! So he cannot make one victor over the other! Check mate!

No, here lies the absolute truth. This spear, this shield, they are as described. They will not break. They will not penetrate. These words mean exactly what they mean. They are a fundamental truth. If he were to make one victor, one of the two artifacts would cease to be what it was. The immovable object, the unstoppable force.

-The art of the divine. True wisdom.
A letter in the alphabet of God-

http://www.ivyjoy.com/fables/wisegirl.html

>>10773367
>No, you dumbass, God does not perform human thought because human thought is erroneous and imperfect.
What does this have to do with whether God can do it? If God cannot do such a simple thing then he's not perfect.

>Most people are gentiles, yes.
Non sequitur.

>No it isn't, it's as old as the books themselves. Have you ever read any treaty of theology?
Have you? Before Spinoza, the Judeochristian God was always anthropomorphized. After Spinoza he was still anthropomorphized by practically everyone. It was a nice attempt at revisionist history but you failed.

>>10771899
Rock so heavy even he can't lift.

>>10771964
Where did those conclusions come from? To many, ‘god’ is none of those things.

>>10773549
satan

>>10771859
Sure. There's just nothing to suggest that if a "First Mover" does exist that any of the world religions are in any way connected to it and not just human conjectures.

>>10773549
rocks BTFO godfags. fucking rocks bro

>>10772252
this logic is fallable. switch the first sentence and its correct "if the story of christ is accurate then the christian god exists" is sound. in the argument IF A, THEN B the case NOT A does not necessarily mean NOT B
not that im christian

>>10771859
Ah. After reading the Bible it has become apparent that God was in fact clamped.

Clamp...

I have a question for you believers: if your GOD exists in an omnipotent way, why does he bless 5 year old kids with bone cancer? Is this part of his plan? If so, your GOD is quite the dickhead.

>>10771964
>Do you still masturbate.
Constantly.

>>10772227

>>10772072
t. cringey atheist dumbshit with zero knowledge of theology and metaphysics and the histories thereof
>>>/reddit/

>>10772227
>Christian God is so MEAN therefore he does not exist
not an arguement

>>10775688
Dip you not know what iff means?

>>10776530
>knowledge of theology and metaphysics
Yikes

>>10771859
I do exist.

>>10776548
>Dip
I don't know, but it sounds good.
https://youtu.be/lwCd-MOILso

>>10776555
I'm quite the messiah myself

>>10776456
Humans put rock in entrance

Human unput rock

>>10771899
>omnipotency is nullified by mathematics.
Incorrect.
>>10771984
God is higher then AI creations, The A.I we make will make a higher, second jump, like opening dimentions and getting involved with aliens. THEN, humans, aliens, alternate dimentional entities and A.I unify together, not to create God but rather a heaven, THEN, once we have all proven ourselves worthy, God reveals himself through our technology, imagine an inter-dimentional radio that's superpowered to talk to god. But he won't talk to us unless we have something important to say. Well, HE DOES talk to us, but through our heads and not a radio. Hearing his voice outside in a formal way would give most mortals the white, blasted back hair instantly.

>>10776629
>God reveals himself through our technology
fix my toaster then

>>10776456
>Assuming he was even put in the tomb or lived at all

>>10773220
>God is particles in my brain

Okay

>>10776647
>godhead
I can think of another word.

Why did you believe some molecular structures (brain cells) could form a united consciousness and not others? Consciousness is inherent to the universe. The universe itself is god. You are god.

>>10772254
Mate nature can contradict our theories all the time because they're that, theories.

This thread is surprisingly civil, as a /tv/fag 90% of threads about religion turn into atheists baiting other atheists by pretending they're christians and acting dumb.

>>10776705
You’re on /sci/ and don’t know what scientific theories are. Holy shit.

>>10773549
the rock argument really doesn't contradict "omnipotence", obviously there are some logically impossible things that even an omnipotent being still can't do. the only people who will argue with that are boomers and other idiots who can't use abstract thought

>>10776692
Bullshit implies bullshit.

>>10771866
Based

>>10776731
There’s no point arguing about bullshit like “omnipotence” when there’s no evidence such an ability is possessed by anyone or anything. It is fully analogous to debating the strength of Superman.

>>10771899
>Make something specific but also not make it
Well, you have a faulty reasoning

>>10776748
There is no obvious evidence of anything past what can be assumed true by raw basic experience. But with such logic we would go nowhere.

>>10776762
We also go nowhere by hypothesizing about the abilities of fictional characters or imagined spooks.

>>10776771
>Abstract thought has no use
>Thinking of hypothetical scenarios has no use
>Imagination and curiosity have no use
Excuse me, what do you think separate us from other animals?

>>10776780
>Abstract thought has no use

It does. I never said it didn’t.

>Thinking of hypothetical scenarios has no use

It does. I never said it didn’t.

>Imagination and curiosity have no use

It does. I never said it didn’t.

“Excuse me, what do you think separate us from other animals?”

https://www.genome.gov/15515096/2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna-level

Apparently about 35 million base pairs separate Homo sapiens from the most closely related non-human extant animal. There’s no reason to believe chimpanzees or dolphins never consider hypothetical things or just “imagine”. Chimps in particular do engage in imaginary play.

>>10771859
Brainlets who think God is "scientifically impossible" don't belong here.

>>10776844
Saying God is “scientifically impossible” is a pointless rebuttal when God is supposedly granted magic powers and abilities that exempt him from physical constraints and sometimes even logical ones. That he’s supposedly granted these traits is one reason no one should bother believing in him, as there’s no evidence such traits can exist.

>>10771899
>force bad definition
>i win ze deb8

Omnipotent: Capable of doing anything doable
Omniscient: Capable of knowing anything knowable

Basically, God has read/write permissions on the universe

>>10776860
The Incredible Hulk can lift more than 100 tons when he is most angry.

>>10776851
>granted
Are you an ex-Mormon?
>That he’s supposedly granted these traits is one reason no one should bother believing in him,
You're literally just saying God is "scientifically impossible."
>as there’s no evidence such traits can exist
There's no evidence that such traits cannot exist.

>>10776871
Are you high?

>>10776887
>Are you an ex-Mormon?

God is granted these abilities by those that imagine him, just as Wolverine is “granted” the ability to heal by his writers. Whether or not such a rapid healing rate is actually possible is trivial to handwave by claiming technology beyond our understanding is involved, just as God’s abilities can be “justified”.

>You're literally just saying God is "scientifically impossible."

Nope. I am saying that there’s no evidence anything is free from physical constraints. When something free from physical constraints is observed, I will say “Things free from physical constraints can exist.” Something like a wizard, ghost, or demon would do the job for making me hold that view.

>There's no evidence that such traits cannot exist.

No verifiable observations exist of such traits so believing they do exist is, by definition, irrational. Please provide evidence of demons or something like that so I can instead say “God may be free from physical constraints because we now know that things free from physical constraints exist.”

>>10776891
I am pointing out the absurdity of making claims about the abilities of fictional characters by mentioning the abilities of the Incredible Hulk, a comic book character. If anything, I’m more willing to believe the Hulk exists since he only possesses physically impossible strength and can’t do shit like make people from dirt or do something incoherent and meaningless like “exist outside of space and time”.

>>10771868

Even just looking at omnipotence, there are many arguments against its possibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNQkSJXUzjo

>>10776748
we're having a purely logical argument you brainlet, outside the scope of the scientific process

>>10771916
The very ideas you're suggesting do not make sense. If I really think about it, I thinks I could make a good argument that what you're saying is not only provably false, but nonsensical.

The rules of logic are not some "rules" which may sometimes apply and sometimes will not, and we can only guess based on our experience via induction.

If you deny logic itself, you're denying philosophy. You're denying the idea of striving for a real understanding of reality via our limited means, be it using rational reasoning, empirical observations, or both.
The reason is that the moment something denies logic, it's simply unintelligible. If you're legitimately trying to think, you'll agree that if I defined a triangle to be a polygon with three sides, there cannot possibly be a triangle with four sides.
You're describing a polygon with three sides with four sides; that is simply unintelligible. It would be very stupid to suggest that there may be a triangle that is "above the rules".

The question is stupid indeed, but there's nothing wrong with asking stupid questions sometimes.

>>10771866
Firstly, since you claimed "god" exists, please define exactly what you mean by that. Elaborate in detail as to what exactly would be considered a god, so your claim of there being a god will be clear.
That way, we all will know we're talking about the same thing.

Secondly, please provide evidence for that claim. If you don't have any, then GTFO.
If I'll still hang around this thread when you'll reply, I'll try to address your evidence.

>>10776963
Isn’t that a /his/ thing then?

>>10776977
what... why /his/?

>>10776987
Well if it’s not really a scientific topic and instead a logical one, shouldn’t it be on /his/, which claims to cover “philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, and ancient languages”?

>>10776993
If you want to do it for free this badly then just become a mod.

>>10776993
no you retard, pure logic is congruous to none of those topics, much less in the context of history. it's closer to math, which is this board

>>10777043
>God is not religion

Okay

>>10771866
What an obtuse way to say “ I cannot emotionally cope with a world where yahweh of the ancient Israelite talmudic lore doesn’t exist “

>>10772483
Hyperactive agent detection moment.
Hyperactive agent detection moment.

Imagine posting about religion and making it readily apparent you are just exhibiting one of the oldest psychological biases humans have come programmed with since the beginning of time, and legitimately not noticing that maybe the lifeless unfeeling bundle of matter and energy that is existance does not have agenticity like the rest of us ( and even if it did there is no tangible way to ever know that as of 2019). Goof. Brain melting.

>>10777223
>Misinterpreting on purpose or being severely mentally impaired
Everything we've ever encountered is indeed made of the same apparent substance: excitations of the underlying quantum fields.
There's no difference between the particles in inanimate matter and the particles that compose your body. That post isn't about detecting agency in inanimate matter, its pointing out that us, who see ourselves as agents, are inanimate matter. So it is the inverse of agency detection: rather than inanimate Nature appearing to have a mind, it is the admission that the things we do consider to have minds are indifferent from inanimate Nature.
If you disagree, please show us your soul in some physical, tangible way, since you clearly believe agency is a property of the atoms in your body instead of the way they are arranged.

>>10777223
I also like how you imply that you (and 'us', by which I assume you mean humans) are somehow separate from existence and from inanimate matter.

>>10771866
based retard

>>10771859
Yes.

>>10776973
To the one with faith, no explanation is necessary. To the one without it, no explanation is possible.
Aquinas proved God exists. So did Kant. Hegel was about to. You are a empiricist fool.

>>10777371
>niv
double digit retard.

>>10777451

>can it exist
yes
>does it exist
no