/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15025355
>I'm not going there because those are religious echo chambers.
Then go to /x/

>>15025355
>The naive atheist would fall to aspersions.
I meant the naive theist

>the readers of /lit/ and /his/ will gang up on the readers of /sci/
Sounds like a real disaster.
Anti-Japanese.
Anti-Buddhist.
Anti-Capitalist (attempting to destroy Capitalist property)
You're just a game of jingo, aren't you? Take your jingoism simulator to /pol/ and have fun, bot.

>>15025357
the whole point of this is you go to /lit/ and /his/ to learn how /x/ works
and you don't bother /sci/ with any of it

>>15025357
>>15025363
/x/ is also a religious echo chamber. Being insane and having your own idiosyncratic interpretation of God based on what the voices said does not mean you don't believe in God

>>15025360
>Anti-Capitalist (attempting to destroy Capitalist property)
1) But capitalists do this all the time. That's pretty much their whole modus operandi.
2) Anaconda sauerkraut book mac game, motherfucker.

The "Big Bang" is almost certainly the peak of birth rates in the 1960s.
It's the '68 peak in the growth rate of world population.

>>15025385
>the big bang happened in the 1960s
Then what's everything before the 1960s?
A hoax?

>>15025381
I will simultaneously accuse you of believing in God and not believing in God, and I will simultaneously hang you and force you into slavery.

>>15025387
the theory, not the fairy godmother

>>15025355
Naturalism is so narrow in its scope it simply cannot compute the idea of a god, nor infinite regress for that matter

>>15025383
Well, this is ridiculous. You're trying to suggest that the very real vandalism you're attempting to get away with right here in this thread is merely a matter of abstract wordplay.
You're a VANDAL and I'm not going to make a prediction about any "mercy" or "tolerance" or other compromises.
You sound like
- Chinese Hermetic Alchemy
- Unrestricted warfare of the CPP
- a Chinese enraged and trying to destroy Japanese property
this thread...so damn sad

>>15025355
Yo, is the fact that everything what is in sacred books, and every miracle was disproven as nonsense still brings you the idea of "GOD" as a source of all of it? Religion just adapts to the new discoveries and keeps on leeching off the dumb people.

>>15025392
>watch what you say, because you're just going to use your voice to dazzle the crowd
indeed

>>15025355
Something preceded the 'Big Bang', but I would deny that the universe had a first temporal moment: there is no eternal act of divine creation that fixes the world in existence and there is no eternal perspective from which the universe can be considered a finished product. Time is the process of creation; the order of beings in time is the process whereby beings are created. In time defined relative to it, each occasion of experience is causally influenced by prior occasions of experiences, and causally influences future occasions of experience.

Let me tell you something, universe has ben here forever and it will stay forever here, it will just it change it's "shape" if you could say so. Read some books about infinity, math shows it all. First of all, if it wasn't present in the math or other stuff, we even wouldn't have the concept of it, since it would be impossible. Finite concept or the start or the end is here because we ourselves are the finite beings, that are born and die after. Hence why the god and "what happens after death". Nothing, period, you disintegrate. And the universe keeps on universing itself forever and after. kek. Don't fall for globohomo religion poisoned philosophies and etc.

Unpopular opinion. Many scientists were obsessed with finding god, when these ideas were born, Einstein noticed something else, and took it for another thing, but it doesn't make it wrong in the first place. My personal opinion, I'm illiterate internet man, so don't take me for granted.

>>15025417
Your life has a limit and knowledge has none.
This is just Chuang Tzu.

>>15025432
What does this supposed to mean?

>>15025355
This "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God has never been refuted. AI will advance to the point of becoming indistinguishable from God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0BFJpKpwVE

>>15025355
>something whose nature it is for things to happen without a cause
ok, so that means there are multiple non-causal things, right?

Monotheists checkmate'd

now fuck off to >>>/x/

>>15025488
Fixed.
Non CS bros want AI to be superintelligent so bad. Sorry but as a CS bro it's just not.
Current AI is about as smart as a lizard. Language AI has low-human-level language skills. Art AI has low-human-level art skills. But that's all they can do. It takes the strongest AI we can develop to be as good as a human at a single skill. Hence lizard-level intelligence. A lizard could be as good as a human at a single skill, too, if instead of a lizard brain it had an isolated and functionally cohesive chunk of human brain that on its own is only as complex as a lizard brain.
>>15025688
>ok, so that means there are multiple non-causal things, right?
Outside the universe, probably. But if that's where they are, why would we know about them?

>>15025704
>Outside the universe, probably. But if that's where they are, why would we know about them?
Weren't you talking about God being non-causal?

>>15025710
Yeah, and?

>>15025712
If the premise is true, then there are multiple Gods, which is against the Abrahamic beliefs.

> Outside the universe, probably. But if that's where they are, why would we know about them?
Are you implying that we can "know" about the non-causal thing that caused the universe, but not other non-causal things that didn't create the universe but do exist? Why wouldn't we know about them? How about if multiple non-causal things caused the universe?
What kind of circlejerk logic is this?

>>15025716
>If the premise is true, then there are multiple Gods, which is against the Abrahamic beliefs.
Well, first of all, I didn't profess to any Abrahamic beliefs.
Secondly, your logic is flawed.
>There are multiple non-causal things.
>God is non-causal.
>Therefore there are multiple Gods.
This logic is formally invalid, as it's of the following form:
>There are multiple elements in set A (non-causal things).
>Set A (non-causal things) shares at least one element (God) with set B (Gods).
>Therefore there are multiple elements in set B (Gods).
Remove the parentheticals and see what we have left:
>There are multiple elements in set A.
>Set A shares at least one element with set B.
>Therefore there are multiple elements in set B.
If it's not obvious at this point that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, I don't know what to tell you.
>Are you implying that we can "know" about the non-causal thing that caused the universe,
No, not really. My argument is that we can guess it's more likely to exist as separate from the universe than otherwise, since nothing else in the universe seems to ever be acausal, so it would be against the universe's observed nature to be acausal itself. But I wouldn't call that "knowing" anything about the original cause per se. We can't even know that it's there, only that it's *probably* there. But that's still a stronger argument for God than any other I've ever seen.
>but not other non-causal things that didn't create the universe but do exist?
Indeed we can't know about them either, since they're outside the universe.
>How about if multiple non-causal things caused the universe?
Sure, maybe. But again, you're remiss to think you've coerced me into conceding my argument *necessarily* entails this, since your deduction is fallacious (see above).

>literally every culture in the world despite being scattered and having no contact comes upon a hypothesis of supernatural beings called Gods

>modern science
there is no god! this is just how hoomans brain works!

>you got so much to learn

>>15025727
I think a theory of prehension is far stronger than a theory of the acausal. We need not suppose that the pre-creation chaos was comprised of processes that are acausal and thereby atemporal. To call the pre-creation situation a “chaos” means that it had no enduring individuals, with none of them organized into temporally ordered societies. Even in this chaotic state, temporal relations occurred. Each event prehended, and thereby was causally affected by, prior events; and each event causally influenced, and thereby was prehended by, later events. (Events are contemporaneous with each other when neither causally affects the other.) My argument is that God necissarily participates in all temporal processes; God is the one exceptional actual entity which is simultaneously temporal and atemporal. But I give no metaphysical privilege to the one over the many, as they presuppose one another: the many become one, and are increased by one.

>>15025727
>Well, first of all, I didn't profess to any Abrahamic beliefs.
oh no.
it's one of THESE christcucks

>>15025704
The distance between village idiots and Einstein is definitely larger than what's on the graph

>>15025970
>Religion is solitariness; and if you are never solitary, you are never religious. Collective enthusiasms, revivals, institutions, churches, rituals, bibles, codes of behaviour, are the trappings of religion, its passing forms. They may be useful, or harmful; they may be authoritatively ordained, or merely temporary expedients. But the end of religion is beyond all this. (Alfred North Whitehead)

>>15025736
>appeal to tradition!
Also buddhism doesn't have a god

>>15025355
Big Bang singularity itself is God which is basically pure energy that everything came from and will return to it.

>>15025727
>your logic is flawed
I accept that, but then again, it doesn't make sense to believe that only one of the multiple non-causal things is God. There is one extra piece of belief that we have to stack compared to if we followed my logic of multiple Gods, since it's fair to believe that IF there are non-causal things, it can be none other than God.

> My argument is that we can guess it's more likely to exist as separate from the universe than otherwise, since nothing else in the universe seems to ever be acausal, so it would be against the universe's observed nature to be acausal itself
> But that's still a stronger argument for God than any other I've ever seen
But God is non-causal, so it can't exist in the scope of the universe too.

>>15025355
By the theory in question, at some point, you have a point before space and time. There is no law of causality without time, making the whole causal chain argument moot.

You also can't describe nor say much of anything of such a singularity, beyond "Yup, that's a singularity". Logic is null and void in such a state, which is why the theory is restricted to making suggestions after that point and not before.

>We've never seen something in the universe happen without a cause.
Quantum fluctuations.
>Something must have preceded it, something whose nature it is for things to happen without a cause.
It could have also been an event instead of an entity.

>>15025355
>We've never seen something in the universe happen without a cause. Therefore, the universe itself happening without a cause would be against its nature.
This is a categorical error. The properties of the members of a set don't necessarily apply to the set as a whole. "There is no infinite natural number so the natural numbers cannot be infinite in number."

You could have just started with this instead of making me read all that drivel.

>>15026707
It's also a meme since we can just debunk god with the same argument, we have never seen a god that exists so existing is against gods nature.