/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14662318
Science has nothing to say about a philosophical issue

>>14662318
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly_djozCksg

>>14662318
who created creator?
if inteligent creator that created universe just "randomly happened to exist"
then the universe could just "randomly happened to exist"

>>14662344
Low-IQ take. You don't get to say "the universe just randomly happened to exist" without rejecting causality or indulging in a special pleading fallacy and claiming the need for a cause applies only when it suits you. If there is a creator that precedes the universe, on the other hand, then there's no reason to assume he needs to abide by the laws of this universe at all. For all you know, neither randomness nor causality adequately describe whatever higher realm this god resides in. I don't believe in any god but you're still a total brainlet for spouting these Amazing Atheist tier failed talking points.

I hate Spinoza and Descartes, both their proofs just rests on an axiomatic assumption of ”Let’s assume god exists”
Fuck that, how can smart people be so retarded

>>14662344
there's no "happening to exist", god is eternal without beginning.
the only thing you could say is that the universe itself is eternal as well but we know for a fact that it had a beginning, the big bang.

>>14662369
>how can smart people be so retarded
Hmm... Maybe you're just suffering from Dunning-Kruger and not actually grasping what they were trying to get at?

>>14662371
>the only thing you could say is that the universe itself is eternal as well but we know for a fact that it had a beginning, the big bang.
Also a low-IQ take. You can easily imagine a universe as being an eternal, singular and unchanging object in four dimensions.

>>14662344
>who created creator?
Its magic i dont need to explain shit.

>>14662391
>Its magic i dont need to explain shit.
That's literally the secular atheist position. Theists, ironically, are taking a more science-compatible position of not trying to explain what is presumably outside the boundaries if the universe.

universe is self-referential.
the universe created god and god retroactively created the universe.

it's actually a simple concept. the implications are complex but truly that's all it is.

god is not a forum, debate, challenge, competition, or democracy btw.

>>14662401
Thanks, GPT.

>>14662411
google last wednesday.

>>14662401
God is a fake as your gf.

>>14662371
>we know for a fact that it had a beginning, the big bang
lol no. We don't know that for a fact

>>14662401
I’m inclined to believe that nothing exists without a Consciousness to demarcate boundaries between objects where none actually exist. For example, where does the chair end and the room begin? Why isn’t the chair just an extension of the wall, or the moon? Using psychedelics, people have reported the boundaries between objects merging together. Maybe that’s closer to the truth, but our brains need to create artificial distinctions in order to fight off entropy and survive as long as possible. Consciousnesses are cut off by pockets of high entropy, but in theory we might be able to become one single being with the right amount of low entropy I.e. nano bots connecting us in a grid. Distance and time are meaningless without a consciousness. If there were no conscious creatures left in the universe, imo time could not exist. Everything and nothing would all exist simultaneously.
Without language, without symbols, what do we have left?

>>14662439
I'm not fake.
I'm just tired of your gay bullshit.

>>14662456
>I’m inclined to believe that nothing exists without a Consciousness to demarcate boundaries between objects
What a strange post. "Objects" don't exist no matter how much your rudimentary consciousness hallucinates them.

>>14662456
>I’m inclined to believe that nothing exists without a Consciousness to demarcate boundaries between objects
What a strange post. Distinct "objects" don't exist no matter how much your rudimentary consciousness hallucinates them.

>Without language, without symbols, what do we have left?
A glimpse into the world through the eyes of a literal word-thinking NPC. Explains the rest of your post. I guess your handlers lost the "consciousness doesn't exist, read Dennet" battle so now they're just trying to pervert the position that consciousness is central into something practically equivalent to the materialistic NPC conception of reality.

>>14662355
>You don't get to say "the universe just randomly happened to exist" without rejecting causality
Causality is a rule inside the universe. You make a categorical error by assuming it applies to the universe itself.

>indulging in a special pleading fallacy and claiming the need for a cause applies only when it suits you
LOL, that's exactly what you're doing by saying the universe needs a cause but God doesn't.

>>14662397
Projection. The universe is how we observe it. Claiming God exists is attempting to explain something outside the universe, with no evidence.

>>14662482
You sound like you have a legitimate mental disability.

>>14662496
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>14662493
It is and isn't.
humans can't determine what is observed or how to observe it.

>>14662493
>>>/r/amazingatheist

>>14662501
See >>14662499

>>14662499
You are simply not human, and your religion is dying out as we speak. Not only that, but your political ideology is being roudly rejected all over the world, and your ilk fails to reproduce, so you will have no one to pass on your degenerate values and "philosophy" to. Your world is basically over with.

>>14662500
We can, it's called science.

>>14662506
See >>14662508
Reality itself has settled the argument in my favor by actively culling your views from this world.

>>14662508
>>14662510
See >>14662506
Thanks again for admitting I'm right.

>>14662513
I know who you are. Wiping the floor with you was fun the first 40 of times but I know you never give up because you're a literal bot.

>>14662518
See >>14662513
Who am I?

>>14662318
Even a computer can see the cosmological argument, that even a 5 year old can come up with, is true, but atheists cannot and cope saying the universe (the collection of all finite, caused and ephemeral things that somehow has the property of being infinite, uncaused and eternal) is God essentially.

>>14662375
What they were getting at is that they both were schooled in religious schools as boys and lived 400 years ago when the existence of god was as much common knowledge as that things fall to the ground when you drop them.

There is nothing brilliant about setting up a proof by starting with an assumption that requires a circular proof (holy script of your choice), to back it up.

>>14662518
>resorts to ad hominem after one post
>wiping the floor with you

>>14662542
Thanks for confirming your low IQ and Dunning-Kruger syndrome who doesn't have any idea what they were actually arguing

>>14662482
>Causality is a rule inside the universe. You make a categorical error by assuming it applies to the universe itself.
You're saying the universe exists outside of itself you dumb motherfucker

>>14662541
>Even a computer can see the cosmological argument
Proof?

>the collection of all finite, caused and ephemeral things that somehow has the property of being infinite, uncaused and eternal
Why do theists keep making this basic categorical error? The properties of a set's members don't have to apply to the set itself. Every natural number is finite but the set of natural numbers is infinite.

>>14662547
It's not saying anything. It's a bot. I doesn't have the higher brain functions to see its argument is incongruent with the idea that the universe is everything that has ever been.

>>14662545
I understand clearly that both their proofs were very circular and or begging the question no matter how you try to frame it

>>14662558
>I understand clearly that both their proofs were very circular
See? You really are a dumb motherfucker. What else can I say?

>>14662559
Why do you feel personally offended by the fact that ontology from 400 years ago doesn't hold up to modern standards of logic?

>>14662563
I'm not offended with anything. I don't believe in any god and I don't particularly care about Descartes and Spinoza. It's more that I'm tired of the mindless, nonhuman, 110 IQ pseudointellectual hordes pretending they even have any concept of what those men were arguing while vomiting posts that clearly show the opposite. Your worldview is a cancer that needs to be erased by force.

>>14662547
>You're saying the universe exists outside of itself
Where did I say that?

>>14662563
>>14662569
And the big fat irony of it all is that Spinoza and especially Descartes themselves laid the foundations for the mindless interpretation of their work, that you are exhibiting. We are basically living the sordid consequences of Descartes' work in the form of your so-called modern secularism.

>>14662556
>its argument is incongruent with the idea that the universe is everything that has ever been.
How so?

>>14662318
>eeh science bros?

Yeah, the very definition of "god of the gaps" will surely prove science wrong.

>>14662569
You've utterly failed to show that you're correct about anything. You throw a tantrum whenever anyone argues against you. Grow up.

>Gods age is infinite
>chuds seethe because when did God start?
>chuds say the universe is infinite big
>ask them to prove it
>they seethe

>>14662553
>The properties of a set's members don't have to apply to the set itself
Set theory is not reality you dumb nigger

>>14662586
>You've utterly failed to show
I don't need to show anything to you. You're a fucking mongoloid who doesn't understand what he's reading and then goes around literally screeching "how can such smart and learned men say such stupid things". You played yourself in your very first post ITT.

>>14662553
>Every natural number is finite but the set of natural numbers is infinite
Even then that's an assumption made BH mathematicians since there are natural numbers you cannot write the digits of in any known way in the universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WabHm1QWVCA

>>14662611
I didn't say it was. Show me how you determined that in reality, the properties of things inside the universe must apply to the universe itself. Since clearly it's not a universal law of logic.

>>14662318
Religion vs science thread.
Reported and IP saved.
Enjoy your fucking ban /pol/tard troglodyte.
>Angry wojackposting for the nth time today.
I pity you.

>Show me how you determined that in reality, the properties of things inside the universe must apply to the universe itself
I wonder what this bot thinks the universe is, if not the things that comprise it and the laws they abide.

>>14662604
>>Gods age is infinite
>>chuds seethe because when did God start?
This is inaccurate. It's a response to the premise of the cosmological argument that everything has a beginning or cause.

>>chuds say the universe is infinite big
>>ask them to prove it
No need to prove it, it's just the simplest conclusion based on the cosmological principle. Nor does the size of the universe matter for this argument.

>>14662613
>I don't need to show anything to you
That's right, you can just throw a tantrum in the corner and embarrass yourself while the adults have a discussion that doesn't rely on fallacious ad hominem, appeals to authority and popularity. I'll just take your continued whining as a concession that I'm right.

>>14662642
Like I said, I'm not engaging in any debate with a self-proclaimed mouth breather. I'm just reminding you that if you're baffled by the stupidity of conclusions made by countless men vastly more intelligent than you, it's because you're the retard -- a simple point that nonetheless goes over your head, as if to confirm your irredeemable idiocy.

>>14662616
>Even then that's an assumption
It's a logical definition. The point is, there is no rule of logic stating that the properties applying to things inside something must apply to the whole itself.

>>14662318
god is unfalsifiable and therefore not a scientific explanation of anything, sorry

>>14662620
>Show me how you determined that in reality, the properties of things inside the universe must apply to the universe itself
Use the 0.999... = 1 argument, if the properties of "the universe" apply only to things inside the universe but not "the universe", you need to tell me at what point "the universe" becomes separated from the things "inside it" (like asking for a number between 0.999... and 1)

Ironically in the case of set theory, the difference between a set and the numbers in it is the intelligent human mind who differentiates between a set or rules that creates an object and the object in itself. The rules were created by an intelligent mind, they didn't just spawn by themselves.

>>14662318
> doesn't use any logical operation
> this is the most logical explanation
I recognize religious faggots. And I don't like them. I would tolerate their stupidity, but to think that all that rhethoric is there only to rape children is unbearable.

>>14662712
>he needs logical operation for self-evident things

>>14662625
The set of natural numbers is composed solely of finite things, yet is infinite. Where did I say the universe is not the things that comprise it and the laws they abide?

>>14662651
>Like I said, I'm not engaging in any debate
Thanks for adhering with me.

>I'm just reminding you that if you're baffled by the stupidity of conclusions made by countless men vastly more intelligent than you
I'm not baffled by the stupidity. I don't assume that being intelligent in one area makes you intelligent in every area. But thanks for admitting it's stupidity.

>>14662715
It is not self-evident at all. You would never figure that shit out by yourself if you wasn't brainwashed with it from the young age.
The fact that life goes from simple forms to more complex ones is self-evident. And this simple fact is the opposite of what you pederasts beLIEve.

>>14662720
Absolute, utter imbecile.

>>14662724
I'm just reminding you that if you're baffled by the "stupidity" of conclusions made by countless men vastly more intelligent than you, it's because you're the retard -- a simple point that nonetheless goes over your head, as if to confirm your irredeemable idiocy. :^)

No need to post further. Your utter lack of understanding is the assumed default until you prove otherwise.

God is more likely than an infinite regress of cause and effect, either way both transcend our understanding of logic

These kinds of arguments, even if you ignore their flaws, are only enough to prove that there was an uncaused first cause. The identification of this first cause with the human concept of God is completely without evidence. For all we know, this first cause no longer exists (past-eternal does not imply future-eternal). Nor does it have any sentience or intelligence. This is all unfounded anthropomorphisation.

>>14662699
>you need to tell me at what point "the universe" becomes separated from the things "inside it"
I don't understand your request. You don't know the difference between the universe and something that isn't the universe? It's a definitional dichotomy. Does it contain everything? If yes, it's the universe. If not, it's not the universe.

>like asking for a number between 0.999... and 1
So your request is nonsense? The point at which numbers less than 1 become 1 is when you reach 1. 0.999... is already 1, not approaching 1.

>Ironically in the case of set theory, the difference between a set and the numbers in it is the intelligent human mind who differentiates between a set or rules that creates an object and the object in itself.
No, there is no reference to minds in set theory. You're confused.

>>14662727
So, I never said that. Thanks for admitting you made that up.

>>14662761
You did say it, and your schizophrenic shart about sets is so disconnected from reality it's startling.

>>14662720
>The set of natural numbers is composed solely of finite things, yet is infinite
Let's suppose you're right and the universe is also infinite by that argument.

The set of natural numbers is still not uncreated or uncaused, not is it eternal, it was invented by an intelligent mind, hence the cosmological argument still stands

>>14662735
>I'm just reminding you that if you're baffled by the "stupidity"
But I'm not. The smartest people in the world are still susceptible to biases, indoctrination, mistakes. They're still human.

>>14662766

Math is discovered, not invented.

>>14662725
>You would never figure that shit out by yourself if you wasn't brainwashed with it from the young age
Don't project your brainletness to other people, most individuals can come to the conclusion of a first mover by realizing at some point an uncaused cause, unbounded by anything that regiments the universe, has to have been the first cause

>>14662770
>b-b-but their biases
Vapid shart. Your utter lack of understanding is the assumed default until you prove otherwise. Call me back when you can demonstrate that understanding. Until then, the only rational explanation is that you're too dumb to understand what they said.

>>14662754
>You don't know the difference between the universe and something that isn't the universe
No, explain me to me buddy

>Does it contain everything? If yes, it's the universe. If not, it's not the universe.
Does the universe contain itself?

>>14662754
>No, there is no reference to minds in set theory. You're confused.
Who do you think is creating the theory you absolute moron? It's a self-evident premise that a thinking mind is necessary for any theory at all to be created and discussed

>>14662777
>Math is discovered, not invented.
That's exactly the same thing as stating English is discovered, not invented

Moreover your assertion is not falsifiable, therefore unscientific

>>14662779
>most individuals can come to the conclusion of a first mover by realizing at some point an uncaused cause
First of all, this take is wrong, because of reasons you will probably not be able to understand, so I just give you the Lao Tzu's "the true path has not end" (project that "path" into the past)
On the other hand, whatever that cause could be (if we imagine that it could ever be in reality and not just in your mind horrified once it approaches the concept of infinites) nothing would tell that it was a god of any sort you can imagine.

>>14662804
>posts out of context possibly unexistant Talmud quote from pol
I knew I was talking to a retard

>>14662739
>God is more likely than an infinite regress of cause and effect
Proof?

>either way both transcend our understanding of logic
Not really, there is nothing illogical about infinite regress.

>>14662808
>out of context
>possibly unexistant
So which one is it? And what is the context?

>>14662815
Ummm sweaty, the context is that the evil goyim were already oppressing the Chosens for literally no reason so.

>>14662745
Or what if

*hits joint*

The first cause hasn't happened yet?

>>14662745
>These kinds of arguments, even if you ignore their flaws, are only enough to prove that there was an uncaused first cause
Wrong. What they prove is that either causality is a flawed human construct that the universe doesn't actually abide by, or that there is something beyond the universe and its natural laws.

>>14662815
>out of context
>possibly unexistant

>So which one is it?
You are a functional illiterate. Relearn the alphabet via the phonetical method, read children's books and then memorize classical literature.

Until then do not dare think you and I and discussing the same things, since you can't even understand the meaning of simple words such as "possibly"

>>14662819
>no reason
Have you even read the bible? Probably not, believers tend not to (there's a reason they were not allowed to read it in the middle ages)

>>14662819
Another retard :facepalm"

This board is beyond salvation, there are too many mouthbreathers with an inflated sense of importance here

>>14662838

>>14662843
>>14662840
Ummm sweaty, go back to your nazi board. We don't accept antisemitism around here.

>>14662739
what do you mean proof? if it is an infinite regress then just it's just a quicker reliaztion that the laws of physics are meaningless limitations that will reveal to us are our intellectual cap, whereas if a creator is present then there is some kind of theological purpose for our time here, its an easy inference

>>14662322
fpbp I won't read the rest of the thread

>>14662851
sorry this is for>>14662809

>>14662809
every understanding you have is linear, now if you found its not, it reveals your understanding is baseless and just currently acceptable, were all larping subspecies either way, all it takes is a one miracle and you're humbled forever

>>14662848
>sweaty
You don't belong here.
>We don't accept antisemitism around here.
We do, if it's true.

>>14662762
>You did say it
Where?

>sets is so disconnected from reality
How so? Use your words like a big boy.

>>14662882
>Where?
Where you said that the universe (i.e. all things that abide by the natural laws) doesn't abide by the natural laws. LOL.

>How so?
The unvierse is not a set, you low-functioning, autistic pseud. Why are you schizorambling about sets?

>>14662766
>Let's suppose you're right and the universe is also infinite by that argument.
That's not the argument, you completely missed the point. The point is that just because we observe things in the universe to have a specific property or follow a rule, doesn't mean that rule applies to the universe as a whole.

>The set of natural numbers is still not uncreated or uncaused, not is it eternal, it was invented by an intelligent mind, hence the cosmological argument still stands
Doesn't follow.

Think about about what im going to say very deeply. If a group agrees on something that does not follow linear logic, whether peasants in the 10 century or lab coats in the 21st, its faith

>Think about about what im going to say very deeply. If a group agrees on something that does not follow linear logic, whether peasants in the 10 century or lab coats in the 21st, its faith
Where do all these cretins come from? Imagine thinking this is a "deep" point that someone needs to consider.

>>14662785
>Vapid shart.
No, your impotent appeal to intelligent people's beliefs is completely vapid.

>Your utter lack of understanding is the assumed default until you prove otherwise.
There's no lack of understanding. I already showed the argument relies on a categorical error. You have completely failed to respond.

>>14662908
>There's no lack of understanding
Prove it.

>I already showed the argument relies on a categorical error.
You have shown nothing. You just keep screeching it. Explain Descartes' argument in your own words. Protip: you will fail.

>>14662893
>The point is that just because we observe things in the universe to have a specific property or follow a rule, doesn't mean that rule applies to the universe as a whole
This argument goes against you since applied to natural numbers it would mean the rule you observe (that one number after the other is bigger than all those before it) leads you to think it's an unending list of numbers, but that does not mean the set itself is unending

>>14662894
>its faith
Wrong, it's a belief

Faith as a concept is severely misunderstood

>>14662927
its the same thing kek faith is bolstered by reason or at least the perception of it, the term is interchangeable, why fight semantics, so trivial

>>14662787
>No, explain me to me buddy
I did, inthe sentences directly after you what you quoted.

>Does the universe contain itself?
I don't know what "containing itself" means. It is itself.

>>14662901
and thus, your understanding of the universe, was born tommorrow, kek, God bless

>>14662958
I'm sorry about your extremely low IQ.

>>14662790
>Who do you think is creating the theory you absolute moron?
Who creates the their is not part of art theory, moron. The difference between the universe and things inside the universe is dependent on their definitions, not God existing. Bizarre argument.

>>14662745
It's actually all a matter of how close to the eternal past or how far we might be;

Ironically it may be that the further we are from Realities early past the more likely God created this universe, because more time passed, the more chances for things to occur.

Ignoring the eternal paradox for a moment, unable to reference a starting time; if there has been 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Years of Reality history, there are more chances for Gods to arise and create universes, than if where we are on the ultimate timeline of Reality History, is much less.

>>14662851
>what do you mean proof?
I mean show your claim is true. ESL?

>it is an infinite regress then just it's just a quicker reliaztion that the laws of physics are meaningless limitations that will reveal to us are our intellectual cap
This is gibberish.

>whereas if a creator is present then there is some kind of theological purpose for our time here
That's not a proof. Just because you want there to be a purpose doesn't mean there is.

>>14663042
my nigga, time isnt real

>>14662858
None of this responds to my post. Do you have any proof for your claim? And what is illogical about infinite regress?