/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11864445
It's already been proven but good luck trying to convince the blind atheists and pagans

>>11864452
>It's already been proven

[citation needed]

Interesting

>>11864445
Bump for anon's ontological proof

inb4 rainbows are proof god is real

There exists an eternal structure which is the cause of all phenomena and permeates all being. You can, at least in part, become one with that structure and in that way achieve immortality. There exists an optimal way to systemize knowledge. It is bound to be rediscovered over and over again by intelligent agents. Even if they are in universes with laws of nature different than ours, they will converge on discovering the same structure.

>>11864445
There is one universe but there are at least 2 realities. These realities can be described as "distribution paths'. This pathing would be imagined as the concept of time. We are in one these paths, and cannot stray from this.

Imagine a box with 2 paths, you can imagine more but 2 is fine. It's the simple uncertainty and superposition issue. God is the box, and is the force/entity in which all distribution paths are connected. In one distribution path(a reality) you've got a tree growing strong. In another distribution path you've got that same tree being destroyed by a forest fire. These are in a superposition and both are indeed happening. We only have access to our own distribution path though.

My only guess on how to break this is to have a singularity with our species on a quantum-telepathic scale, where we would be able to notice faults in these distribution paths.

>>11864445
the fuck you wanna prove bout me, nigger

>>11864452
I've started trying to find God recently, can you provide proof? It would help my unease.

>>11864636
Start with the Bible.

>>11864639
I've been reading it, but so far nothing has been actual conclusive proof, it is all just stories so far.

>>11864639
>Start with the Bible.
lol, of all the gods that could exist, you picked one of the few that definitely can't even. Let me debunk that imaginary pal of yours real quick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWZifSXlzlI&list=PLv--V1yc2QDJi6hFNhur3iAsyFpXRtB8w&index=5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

>>11864452
>>11864636
>>11864639
>>11864648

bump for an answer.

>>11864445
>>/x/

Can God cook a taco sauce so hot, that even he can't eat it?

Well?

>>11864445
>Blocks your path

>>11864648
No conclusive proof unless OP shatters everything we thought we knew avout our universe. There is a reason you *believe* in god and have *faith* because its exactly that, a belief that cannot be proved or disproved. Understand that (if you believe he exists) God operates outside of the confines of any laws of the universe/s, physical or otherwise because he created these laws and therefore isn't something that any being that operates within the laws of the universe can ever hope to understand or explain. Existence of God is something we will likely never have an answer to, and you need to be ok with that. I understand how difficult it is to blindly accept something like that because i was in your position as well, but belief in god is a reasonable stance nonetheless. Look up Aquinas-five ways for some very good arguments for the existence of god:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

>>11864445
>burned toast incoming
can't believe it's without butter

>>11865938
>is he able but not willing?
>then he is malevolent
Imagine being so small minded to think that the morality of humans can be applied to or even matters when speaking about god.

>>11865963
cop out, just as every snake oil salesman ever

>>11866015
The "willingness" of god to do anything doesnt matter, the concept of what god is remains the same. Who says that god cant be malevolent? Who says that our entire understanding of what is malevolent is entirely wrong and god is doing an objectively good thing by allowing what we think is "evil" to exist

>>11865954
>God can't be understood or explained
>but let me tell you all about him
Hello, is this the Special Pleading Department?

>>11866077
We should at least have some outline of a concept of what constitutes god. You are saying that i'm not even supposed to conceptualise god because that would be trying to understand it (which may be true but then we would have no discussion)

>>11866059
>source: my ass

I bet Jesus Christ and Budha browse 4chan.

>>11866115
A source for WHAT you dumb piece of shit? I'm not the one making any claims, you are. This has to be a bot

>>11864445
good i wanna blame someone for this shitty existence.

>>11865201
Full of contradictions, no empirical evidence (which is weird for how their god is claimed to be), retarded word salads for philosophical arguments, etc.
However, Christianity seems to be the better one to deal with death and social fulfillment. If they reform their shitty Jewish basis they could be THE ultimate religion.
The next option is Buddhism, much less accessible.

>>11865937
can you divide by 0 ?

>>11864445
>God exists and soon I will be able to prove it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

No you wont.

Life deprives of the illusions of RELIGIOUS IDEALISM.

Religion is a manifestation of a certain mentality and customs, but it does not have a special power to change people. The prophet shows the moon, but most people still look at the prophet's finger. Therefore, religion more often becomes a manifestation of hypocrisy than spirituality.

People are looking for spirituality, but I think it will have less and less to do with a religion as we know it, which is hierarchical and graduate.

Is there really a "religious community" in today's trend of any religion? I can not imagine a situation in which attending a temple, listening to a priest (who does not even speak some really interesting sermons), common anonymity (because I do not know the guy standing next to me) would create in me a mental comfort and a sense of security from the fact of being together with people in this place.

>>11866459
OP didn't say that religions are right.
He said that he will prove that God exists.

>>11866114
There us no discussion, just you asserting a superstition. You will give "arguments" for it but reject any counter-argument because God doesn't follow rules. It's just pure special pleading.

>>11864445
Everyone has to find their own proof. I found mine.

>>11866585
which is...?

>>11866686
muh penis, it's beautiful and talks to me in the night

>>11866693
Are you taking your meds, anon?

>>11865954
>The first 3 reasons
All essentially the same, and not proof God exists. Assuming theere was a first thing doesn't mean it was God, or even the Christian God is true. How do you know this mover (if it actually exists) is God and not Zeus or Brahma?
>Fourth Reason
We call things good by our own standards, what is good to you may not be good to me. This isn't proof that that there is a God, or even a "best good" by which everything is being compared to.
>Fifth Reason
Things follow the laws we have deduced through Science. Whether or not there is a God that created them is not proven here.
Non of Aquinas's proofs are even proofs at all, they are weak arguments that add up to: "We can't explain these things, therefore it's God."

>>11866059
>>an objectively good thing
>t. literal baby

>>11866695
i won't take your sinister pills Satan, i see your numbers

>>11864493
Is logic enough to prove that or do you need a mathematical proof or some shit?

I think that if god were actually proven to exist undeniably then the god would destroy the universe and start over.

>>11867427
>Is logic enough to prove that
No.

>or do you need a mathematical proof or some shit?
Yes.

>>11866580
What the fuck are you saying? God doesn't follow the rules? If you're going by "God is trascendental and supernatural" then he literally cannot exist in our universe, maybe outside but not interact with it.

God. A being that can be everywhere and no where at once.

Contradiction.

Is a contradiction 50% true. 75% true. 150% or so true its 300% true. Since star burst exist and albino black bears. Or any other contradiction.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Row row your boat gently down the stream.. merrily merry merrily. Life is but a drea.

A shadow is black. Black is the absorption of colour. So a shadow contains all information of colour.

White is the reflection of colour. So white is reflection. Of all information.

God comes from the darkest place. A few years ago something escaped a black whole.

Humans see 2d. We are 3d we experience 4d. We can recreate thoughts of past present and future. So we are 5d. So what is one d. Information of the senses.

Even plants transfer water to each other through roots. Like the movie avatar. Space military.

If one d is information and all information communicates things to senses. Then is god information?
If I die and can travel through 1d. Can I traverse light like threads. The show magicians when alice turns into a nymph.

Cherokee gos is half of everything. All men and woman share x chromosome.. x Mark's the spot.

What if god is the mob mentality. The hollow castle in the sky.

>>11867839
I get really really bored. And no god said they were religious.

And god is a jealous god. So to be god like you must allow your self to get jealous.

If god created all man. Can he perform all religions at once.. with out disgracing any culture?
These are the thing I worry about.
And pfft. God can cause flames to appear anywhere. If that is not pagan magick I dont know what is.

Jesus healed people ears. And reincarnated.

>>11867427
I'd like to hear your logic

>>11864445
too late the proof was never lost

>>11864636
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>11864445
Based and ontologypilled

>>11864445
Do you want to prove god out of axiom's?

That sounds stupid. I don't have to accept those axioms.

Your empirical evidence can prove Iron Man, but I may choose just to believe in Tony Stark, if you know what I mean. Your god will still be just part of piece while you're trying to prove something that means whole to me, therefore you've failed before you started.

>>11867956
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfXAs66GW70
Defining things also don't bring them to existence https://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2016/07/there-is-no-such-thing-as-necessary.html

>>11867935
Is this what you call "proof"?

God IS the rules of the universe.

>>11868615
It's proof of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

You will see the signs, as it is written.

>>11867888
Not that anon, but what do you think of the first mover argument?
>Everything is caused by something
>Therefore there has to be a First Causer that itself was not caused
>This is what is commonly referred to as God

>>11867427
I require hard empirical data myself

>>11868672
Bullshit, it strikes as far more likely that the "first event" simply caused itself.

>>11868672
>>Everything is caused by something
>>Therefore there has to be a First Causer that itself was not caused
These contradict each other.

>>11868672
First you need to show how everything is caused by something. Else the opposite is possible and the whole argument goes down.

>>11868672
As other's have pointed out this is self-contradictory, but I would like to point out a greater fallacy that this argument makes, which is that it really attempts to make up a problem in order to shoe-horn God into the mix. Unfortunately, God doesn't solve the paradox proposed by this problem, it merely pushes it one step back. Who created God? You say no one, God was not caused. Well then you've already defeated your first paradox with yet a new paradox, you have presented an entity which was not caused yet still somehow hypothetically exist. The only logical conclusion one can arrive at by the premises of your first problem is that there was no first cause, which is not true either as it would contradict a lot of the properties we've discovered about time and thermodynamics throughout the history of physics. In short, the first mover argument is a false conclusion on a false premise of a false assertion. It completely falls apart when put under the slightest scrutiny.

>This is what is commonly referred to as God
The quintessential property that puts the capital G in "God" is volition. If you cannot prove that there exists a supernatural entity with volition, then you haven't proven God, you have merely described a hypothetical metaphyscial entity and labelled it "God" in hopes that no one notices the subtle yet crucial detail you managed to sneakily leave out. This is one of the most common fallacies when trying to "prove" God's existence.

>>11868900
based

>>11864445
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>11866115
>A source for WHAT
stupid shit oc

>>11864445
>>11864452
There you are you fucking faggots, now come with me we'll go to /x/.
Sorry for the inconvenience guys seems like one of our test subjects suddenly escaped and run amok in whole 4chan.

Uh God is the universe itself or something?
Different questions same answer, law of creation and destruction, one cannot exist without the other, light and dark not light vs dark.
So therefore God exists inside you and me (God created us in his image).