[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 37 KB, 600x443, 1682134642260123.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15497177 No.15497177 [Reply] [Original]

Why is so hard to accept that the logical conclusion after all these scientific endeavours, the simplest explanation is that the universe happened because of a reason something desired it to exist and didn't just randomly spawned from nothing.

It's pretty clear now that something was the source of the material realm.
Doing otherwise with some religious BS to avoid the question of the need for some original point where everything else is derived is just basic philosophy.

Some closure must exist beyond this reality for as it to contain the big bang.
Like there must be a container upon we simply expand into it.

>> No.15497185

>>15497177
>the simplest explanation is assuming something caused the big bang instead of not settling on an answer yet
k what can we predict using that?

>> No.15497280

>>15497185
You can extrapolate certain attributes of this cause: it would have to be timeless in order to create time, immaterial in order to create matter, eternal ie it always existed so nothing else created it, have immense power in order to create everything, etc. when you start laying out the attributes of this cause, what does it start to sound like? It sounds a lot like God, does it not?

>> No.15498203

>>15497185
that science is possible at all; that the universe is an intelligible cosmos rather than a lawless, chaotic mess.

>> No.15498223
File: 1.37 MB, 2120x1580, 1672248104298280.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15498223

>>15497177
Correct.
There are three main problems with science:
-How most of it will be outdated in the near future. If in ten years most of your book is worthless, why should I take it seriously now? Note how the Bible's teachings lies mostly unchanged after 2000 years, unlike science.
-How laws in science are axiomatic and discarded or used whenever scientists deem it conveniant. In other words the rules are sometimes true and sometimes false. Great.
-Finally, the fundamentals of science are problematic:Why believe a bunch of men who carry diplomas know about reality more than everyone else and that their scribblings constitutes "the real truth about the Universe"? The Bible is the book of God who is still read about after 2000 years, science books are books of arrogant men who are discarded after a while. Socrates, the ultimate plebbitor, said one true and important thing:"The only thing I am sure of is that I do not know anything". Faith > "Intelligence", "knowledge" and "reason".

>> No.15498370

What if The Sims (™) were sentient and you had your typical Laurence Kike types saying that everything just came to be all at once from no specific point and that's all there is without a need for a creator.

>> No.15499899

>>15497177
"desire" shows that you're assuming a mind, when it could have just been a mindless mechanism that caused everything.

>It's pretty clear now that something was the source of the material realm.
no it's not. it could be that matter is just fundamental, and matter produced more matter, and eventually mind.

>> No.15499999
File: 280 KB, 1568x882, is_warehouse__a_nod_to_indiana_jones.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15499999

>>15497177
Consciousness opened its eye and this universe materialized. Or maybe it closed its eye and this is all just a dream, a tiny facet of existence. So vast that you could get lost and never find your way back. You've been here forever, you just forgot, immersing yourself in this silly story. One volume in a massive library.