/sci/ - Science & Math

There is plenty off proof that god exists. Some people just choose to ignore it.

>>1516660

They can't. Therefore agnosticism is an unsustainable viewpoint.

>>1516662

No.

Our perception of the universe is limited (dimensions and senses etc) and thus we cannot truly ever comprehend wtf is hiz-happenin

>>1516674

I repeat the OP's point: how do/can you know this?

This whole conversation is stupid. Science as a whole already admits that "ultimate truths" are beyond us at the moment - that's why everything's a theory. Laws are statements of observed function, and even they are subject to revision.

agnostics only claim they don't know. They don't say that knowing is impossible.

>>1516674
So we should stop pursuing knowledge as it is then?

Agnosticism is essential nihilism, which is essentially upright denial of reality.

>>1516682
no the contrary

>>1516679

Hard agnostics/Soft agnostics etc.

>>1516685
WTF are u on drugs son ?

>>1516688

Yeap but the common word is agnostic. All the rest are quantifiers.

>>1516679

True agnostics say that mankind can *never* know. How can they know this?

Similarly, theists say that 'God is unknowable / unfathomable', yet this implies that they know that he is unknowable.

Whichever way one looks at agnosticism, it's irrational and false. Atheism is the only rational position.

In my opinion.

>>1516690
Speak English, you inbred troll. Nothing he said was incomprehensible.

You may notice that this is in sharp contrast to your post.

>>1516693

You don't get to define "true" agnosticism.

Your definition is false. Your premise is false. GTFO

>>1516693
True agnostics say that mankind can *never* know. How can they know this?
>false, it says with the current info cannot be known, like that issac asimov story, the "last question", not enought data ... waiting more data.

>>1516696
oh hi grammar nazi

>>1516696
>uses "u" instead of "you"
>expecting him to comprehend English skillfully

>>1516696
It's possible his current English is still limited, and he's unaware and unknowing of the definitions to the words: "nihilism" and "essential."

Say I understand that I have no empirical evidence to support the claim, but I enjoy the notion that there is a watchmaker - an engineer, if you will, of the universe.

I understand that I have no concrete reason to believe this, but the idea is more appealing to me than the alternatives. Not for emotional reasons, the concept of nothingness and rational explanation of universal phenomena holds no fear or unrest, I simply think that the universe would be infinitely more impressive as a work of precision engineering than an accident.

I don't put any faith in it, I merely entertain the notion.

What does this make me?

>>1516696
not a native eh ?

>>1516710
A moron.

>>1516709
It's possible his current English is still limited, and he's unaware and unknowing of the definitions to the words: "u" lol´d

>>1516700
the answer.

>>1516710

I don't understand what you are syaing.

Do you believe in the watchmaker or not?

If you believe in the wathcmake but realise you have no reason to then you are a moron.

If you don't beleiev in a watchmake but want to then you are no different than anyone who wishes spiderman was real.

>>1516719
> he's unaware and unknowing of the definitions to the words: "u"
Well duh, it's a letter not a word.

>>1516719
"u" is more than one word now?

Damn, I really am out of the "loop" - you kids and your crazy pidgin English, bastardizing a noble language through blatant disrespect and sheer laziness.

>>1516724
He doesn't believe in one but thinks it would be cool.

Also relevant >>>/r9k/10404205

>>1516729
Oh, so he's crazy?

>agnostics

bumpan

>>1516736
Basically. It's the stance that cubic zirconium is more impressive than diamond since it's man-made.

He likes the idea that things created with purpose are more interesting than things naturally occurring.

You can have separate stances. For example, I am an atheist when it comes to the Christian god because they posit a very specific definition of this creature that is entirely irrational, illogical, and outside any bounds of reason or possible understanding. However, I am agnostic to the religions of most other cultures, because I have not taken time to accumulate knowledge and assess them.

Essentially, everyone takes this stance. A person who follows Christianity considers themselves a theist, yet they are an atheist in terms of all other religions. Further, we are all ignostic to faiths that we may not even be aware exist.

I conclude that the entire concept of atheism-agnosticism-theism is useless until we have a valid definition for god that can be agreed on. People often say they have proof of or against "god", but it's always much harder for them to describe what that god exactly is.

>>1516727
nope, it´s a abbreviation

>>1516728
>he thinks English has ever been a static language
It's been perverted beyond recognition constantly since it first developed. People only developed standardised spelling in the last few hundred years, a small fraction of the time the language has existed. Get some perspective.

I do agree that the purpose of language is to communicate clearly, and many aspects of text-language seem to inhibit that. It also makes the author of the text seem retarded to me. I talk to intelligent people in real life, then when I talk to them on MSN I can't help but picture them as retards when they post their overcompressed bullshit.

I am ambiguous about the development of language.

>>1516749
Castration of words is not the same as abbreviation, we have a word for it: "contraction".

>>1516756
You missed the fact that I was just giving him shit about referring to "u" as "words", since he simply copied another's post and didn't bother editing for grammar and syntax.

The idea of language as static is laughable.

There is no such thing as "ultimate truth" to non-believers, so the distinction the agnostics are trying to make implicitly sides with religious people who insist there really is "ultimate truth."

tl;dr: agnostics are religiousfags

>>1516749
>it´s a abbreviation
>a abbreviation

bump to say GTFO

>>1516764
Everyone who has an opinion on the issue is a religiousfag, we're past this.

>>1516765

>>1516772
That's not a Nazi or German uniform.

>>1516772
lol as usual missing the point again

>>1516783
That's agnostics for you.

>>1516783
that´s what a grammar nazi do, miss the point

You can tell the idiots on /sci/ from the people actually trying to have a discussion by their typing styles. They ignore punctuation, use casual language, riddle their speech with contractions and acronyms, make broad statements not pertaining to anything relevant and generally post things which aren't worth the fraction of a second it takes to read them.

>>1516791
>that´s what a grammar nazi do, miss the point
The point that your speech is the text equivalent of speaking to a developmentally-challenged child with a lisp?

That's the only point I see here, and I know you're capable of trying harder than that. Don't type, actually communicate.

>>1516794
Same on any board. If someone ever says "lolno" then you should just ignore them.

they dont
also, anyone who thinks agnosticism is a belief option between theism and atheism is retarded
protip: it isnt

>>1516794
well , you can detect grammar nazis and just it, that thinks they are better than others ´cos they have english as native language

>>1516813
>´cos

>>1516813
We don't give a shit what your current country and language is, if you can't use proper English then you are an idiot that can't make a proper argument.

>>1516817
yet better than a boring nerd grammar nazi

>>1516820
another nazi

>>1516813
I know for a fact they don't teach slang to people learning English as a secondary or tertiary language.

If you're teaching yourself using the internet, you should look at educational websites and get a sense of good form when speaking. Using "cos" instead of "because" is just silly, it makes you look silly both on the internet and in real life.

If anything, you should try harder than a native English speaker because you have more to grasp.

Guys, guys. Let's not argue about grammar. This thread is about what a strawman-torching douche-nozzle OP is.

>>1516839
Shit, you're right! That rat bastard nearly got out of this unscathed because we were too busy squabbling amongst ourselves!

OP GET YOUR ASS OUT HERE WE HAVE A BEATING TO ADMINISTER

>>1516844
>>1516847
spell activated ... OP wins

>>1516861
That's not how Magic cards work at all.

>>1516844
holy fucking shit, thats a really low mana cost for a 12/10 creature

>>1516866
guys look ... here we go again

>>1516844
how in the world is a 12/10 only uncommon? That should would be rare

I know im being trolled but:

Agnostics are taking a more scientific look at it.

There is a God
There is not a God

are both two completely belief driven statements. Neither can be "proven" by our definition empirically.

Agnosticism is basically the acceptance that it hasn't been proven and the leniency to go either way if sufficient evidence is presented. It's not a claim that ultimate truths cannot be known.

>>1516881
this

>>1516881
I'm a Christfag btw

enjoy being pwnd by someone who didn't really know what he was talking about

>>1516844
>>1516872
>>1516878

but it costs 3 red and 3 black manas ?

I would say that (this is how I feel on my position of athiesm) an athiest, if shown comprehending evidence that a god exists, then they would change there position, although it has to be proper evidence, not just 'how do you know there is no god,'

to disprove athiesm you would need to destroy it from the inside, prove that atheism is a logicle fallacy same with any descent theory, prove its wrong with what we do know, not prove it wrong with what we dont know. (I am not implying that this is the only effective way to destroy a theory/belief/etc)

>>1516913
It costs three red, and only three red. Using its abilities costs more, but still only red and colorless.

3 red/3 black would STILL be insanely undercosted for a creature with 12 attack and 10 HP.

>>1516913
It costs 3 red mana to summon.
it costs 1 mountain and one colorless to use spell check.
it costs 3 red and one blue mana to noob slayer.

I'm personally surprised you don't need to tap it for anything

>>1516881
>>DURRRR
no, atheism means not believing in a god you fucking stupid bag of dicks, it has nothing to say on the existence of anything.

click here to learn more you stupid 'agnostic' moron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-theism

>>1516913
plus the activation costs

>>1516881

You're free, of course, to live your life sitting on the biggest fence possible.

If everyone sat on their fences in regards to, say, whether the sun revolves around the earth or not, then humanity wouldn't progress as fast as it does. In other words, if we took all consensual 'facts' as one mere side of a fence, then nothing can be a 'fact' per se.

People tell me the earth goes around the sun, and although I haven't seen that for myself, the amount of evidence is sufficient for me, as a rational human being, to make me decide definitively that this is de facto.

I like the definitiveness of atheism. There are no gods. It appeals to my sense of reason.

>>1516924
it needs blue for noob slayer

>>1516933
Oh, whoops. Missed that.

Well i'm personally impressed how well /sci/ can into magic the gather.

>>1516943
gathering*

>>1516945

You also kinda missed a whole verb out too.

>>1516948
wat verb?

>>1516948

He accidently an entire verb?

>>1516955

> can into magic the gather.

can what?

>>1516958
you haven't been here long, have you?

this whole thread is a grammar nazi´s trap.

>>1516962

I've been here for years, and I've never seen that shit.

...accidently, yeah, but not that.

Also, there is no god.

>>1516928
the word "existence" doesn't appear once in my post. im saying theists believe in a god or gods, atheists do not and agnostics are open to either side being true based their inability to present empirical evidence

>>1516963

>What do you mean this is the WRONG GAME

what the fuck man, i said I was an atheist for a long time because I wasn't buying what the churches were saying etc.

but turns out atheists have to prove that god does NOT exist, so I started having to say I'm an agnostic lest I be accused of being as logically flawed as a theist.

but now you are asking for fukkin agnosics to prove that neither atheists or theists could be right?

what the fuck do I have to call myself to properly convey that I do not give a fuck about any of this and just want to live my life without trying to prove/disprove any ultimate truths?

>>1516988
a nihilist

>>1516988

Why can't you just accept that it is perfectly rational to hold certain unprovable beliefs?

>>1516988

An atheist. Being an atheist does not mean you have to prove that there is no god. Ignore the retarded trolls who say otherwise. It only means that you don't believe in him/her/it/them.

>>1516999
This

We all hold unprovable beliefs everyday. People get far too wrapped up when it comes to religion

>>1516999
that´s why they are called "beliefs"
see in wikipedia for more interesting info

>>1516994

god dammit that's not any good either, that just makes me think of the germans from big lebowski

absolute truths are such a pain in the ass man

>>1516988
You can be "nonreligious" or "indifferent" though people who would have accepted "agnostic" in those cases will yell at you for being on the fence.

Or you can just accept that people like having firm convictions and go with whatever you feel like telling people.

(In my case this means loudly and bluntly stating that I'm a theistic communist with anarchistic tendencies and the belief that there is no god - just the human idea of god, and I worship ideas. Shuts people up real fast.)

I'll find out when I die, so I don't give a fuck now.

>>1517039
ditto

>>1516678

The term "Ultimate Truth" is nonsensical. We should instead be more concerned with what is demonstrably true.

>>1516980
Atheists and theists are open to the possibilities too.
Nowhere in their definitions does it include "with no possibility of changing their minds if evidence comes along"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

/thread

>>1517039
You can't learn shit when you're dead because you're dead though. God damn these people are stupid.

>>1517096
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Postmodern_Condition

/thread

>>1517096
Hm, a theorem proving that axiomatic systems have limitations - using said axioms.

>>1517096
Utterly irrelevant to this thread.

How come this is a math and science forum yet people don't even understand the epistemological foundation of math and science?

>>1516988
>but turns out atheists have to prove that god does NOT exist
atheists don't have to prove anything. it's the default position.
every human is born atheist, and remains as such until he/she learns about the concept of faith.

inb4 butthurt self-proclaimed "agnostics". you're atheists too, whether you like it or not.

Theist: GOT EXISTS!

Atheist: THERE IS NO GOD!

Agnostic: Fuck bitches. Get paid.

>>1517499
Proving that an omni3 God doesn't exist is a trivial task though, if we go with common sense interpretations of the omni3 properties.

But theist don't want that. Ever debated one on the problem of evil? You will have noticed that "benevolent" means something where the current stand of the world is actually the best possible state of the world, given some constraints (free will etc). Yeah, that sure is what we mean by "good" or "benevolent".

>>1517523
is this real life?

cant we just go out own path n stop trying to shove our BELIEVES down other people throats without proof to back it up?

Christianity is basically the belief that God was wrong and Jesus fixed it.

>>1517546
is it just fantasy?

>>1517567
caught in a landslide

>>1517579
escape from reality

>>1517582
open your eyes

>>1517584
and seeeeee

>>1517587
missed a line bro

>>1517590

YOUR EYES ARE OPEN

>>1517560

Not grammarfag, but if you are going to emphasize something with caps at least try to not look like a 'tard

Also OP, 0/10 for obvious blank face troll, 10/10 for getting over 9000 replies regardless

>>1517596

COME IN TO THE OPEN

Theism is right. Atheism is wrong.

>>1517596
lol i know man. words that end in f sometimes mess me up when making plural...cause of the f to v shit.

>over 100 posts.....

There is no sceintific prove of god.

But there is no sceintific evidence in the BELIEVE that laws of nature ARE being consant at any time under any circumstances, on any scale either.
since we don`t see/understand laws of nature on the smallest scale for example.
Declaring it constant is just as obscure as declaring a flying spaghetti monster does exists. Maybe there aren`t even laws on the smalest scale.

Besides that, one can`t even prove if he or the universe is real, in which case laws of nature are just an illusion.

See sceince alone can not be enough to form a grounded and stable worldview, one has to believe at least something.

Believing appears to be the destiny of a human, so why swim against the tie, and fallow a verry unlikely logic.

>>1518689
that´s not true
what differs is the method that religion and science uses

Earlier Captcha today was "origins neuron". Immediately thought of /sci/.

Where do I find pictures like OP's I see the same type of pictures of peoples faces posted on SCI all the time.

I proved God exists,

>C

>-/[i-i/-\MI>I[]/\/-

>you can call me

>ohhhhh ohhhhh ohhhhhhhhhh ohhh ohhhh

----------------------
>I< >I< >I< >I<
----------------------


Won't stop me never...

>>1516660
You have haphazardly stumbled apon the reason why opinions do not exist. Reductionism ftw!!! Untill its wrong!