/sci/ - Science & Math

What's there to be suspicious of? It's fiction.

There's something fishy about that religion....

>>1823734
something fishy indeed.... maybe because i worship a giant fish

>>1823726
I think most christian theology consider redemption to be possible after death as well.

Whether or not religion is simply a lie to comfort us at our darkest time (death) or a lie to guilt us into helping one another, or a lie to take our energy being put toward helping others and profit from it, or the truth, I have not found any reason in my daily life to think that treating one another with kindness and holding ourselves accountable for our actions. I don't care if when I die there's nothing, I feel better being a nice person.

Religion can coexist with science, I just won't change science to coexist with religion. Let them both be side by side.

>>1823763

Sorry. "...holding ourselves accountable for our actions is anything but good."

Its late.

>>1823770
I was beginning to wonder there.

>>1823763

But you can't be truly moral with religion. If you don't really understand why it is good to do or at least have the voluntaristic desire to be kind then you are not really moral at all.

Metaphysics isn't an explanation. It is just claiming that something magically is or should be the case.

So metaphyisics has no place in morality and so religion and morality are incompatible.

>>1823775

Metaphysics simply uses logic to get to a point. The point that there is SOMETHING out there, and that morality (what is "good" and "bad" being another argument for another time) exists. It is a common theme through all humans that a right and a wrong exists.

>>1823763

That post should be stickied...just saying.

>>1823785

Nope. Metaphysics simply asserts that something is the case and that's it. No logic there.

And that doesn't help us. We need to build our morals and empirical grounds. If you disconnect the being for which something supposedly is good from what is good itself then you are getting nowhere.

>>1823811

I'm sorry, but what's your evidence for stating that there is "no" logic?

There are several arguments for the proof of a supernatural being which must have set all of the universe in motion.

For instance, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on this. The universe, as we can all agree, is made up of matter (hold off on your dark matter, anti-matter theories, they don't affect this argument). Since matter cannot be spontaneously created, something beyond the universe and beyond the laws of physics must have created all matter.

This thing we call "God"

The main purpose of religion is to explain what happens to you after you die.

>>1823763
So you are an advocate for humans living and basing "good intentions" on what may be entirely wrong?

I'm one for all you said, but I don't see why people shouldn't reject a complex belief system and instead adopt one based on their personal concepts of being good. Its called secular humanism.

>>1823847

>> So you are an advocate for humans living and basing "good intentions" on what may be entirely wrong?

Why the fuck does right or wrong come into this?! It's irrelevant.

Fact's are all subjective.

>>1823842

Only partly. That is the branch of entymology, or the study of "last things." This is a large part of religion,and probably the most pressing matter to humans since we're mortal, but the one we can know the least about.

Religion is less about describing the afterlife and more about describing how to get to the right afterlife (heaven vs. hell). In fact, most religions acknowledge each other's ways to the afterlife as legitimate, just that there's is better (For example, Christians ((the non-fundamentalist branches like Catholicism and some Protestants, at least)) acknowledge that Jews, Muslims, and Atheists can all go to heaven, just that believing and following Jesus is more correct) and that isn't unreasonable. If you believe something, you would OBVIOUSLY believe that it is true, and that something counter to your beliefs is untrue. Defending one's religion is common sense.

>>1823850

You misunderstand. I simply am saying that the religion I choose to follow is the one that most corresponds with my own morality, and I see nothing wrong with that. I can make my studies of science and my beliefs in religion coexist without problems. I am simply saying that even if religion was only started for the reasons I mentioned, it makes sense.

>>1823828
>matter cannot be created
>matter cannot be spontaneously created
>something must have created all matter.

>>1823828

You're not talking about the same "god" though that most modern religions believe in. You are using it to describe the cause of an event that is currently unknown. It does not have to be a supernatural being, It's just something which we don't fully understand yet, and may never be able to understand beyond theories (highly developed theories with much evidence, but probably unprovable). I'm sorry but saying that god did it is not an acceptable substitute for hard evidence or even saying that nobody really knows.

That being said, get this science vs religion shit out of my /sci/.

>>1823868
I don't understand how this eludes you, and I'm not the guy you're responding to.

It is impossible, within the confines of the laws that govern our universe, to spontaneously create matter. Therefore, a force external to our universe created it and the matter inside it, something not bound by our universe's laws.

>>1823850
>Fact's are all subjective.

What the fuck is this shit?

>>1823868

before you think you're being clever, please include all of the quoted text if you're going to quote my post

>something beyond the laws of physics

(that's the definition of "supernatural" by the way)

>>1823876

That's only one proof, and no, I won't quote them all because people can google this shit for themselves. And religion vs science doesn't exist. You need to determine your beliefs in a supreme being before you can begin to address the rest of your life. Whatever choice you make, it affects every other choice in your life.

My choice works for me, and yours (I hope) works for you. I don't know more about God than you, but I certainly will continue to use science (which I've been studying for awhile) to disprove ignorance of those who think they know more than they really do.

I'm not referring to you, I'm just not going to address everyone individually.

>>1823890

Oh you thought facts existed?

Yeah sorry to burst your bubble, but there are no facts.

>>1823907

Then why are you on /sci/ where we discuss facts that have been gathered about nature?

Oh wait, because you're a /b/tard who thinks he's funny.

That's a fact.

>>1823910

Give me a fact.

That is, an undenyable statement that could never be argued with under any situations.

>>1823919

You are able to think.

>>1823930

Denyable. How do you know I am not infact a sophisticated computer programmed to respond to your responses?

>>1823902
All right, since you genuinely seem to believe that your laughable "proof" has any merit, I'll refute it for you.
>Since matter cannot be spontaneously created, something beyond the universe and beyond the laws of physics must have created all matter.

Do you know what a logical argument is? A set of premises that deductively necessitate a conclusion?
Your argument seems to be:
Premise: matter cannot be spontaneously created
Conclusion: something beyond the universe and beyond the laws of physics must have created all matter.
This is simply not a deductively valid argument. There are many other alternatives. For example, the universe itself and its contents could have always existed in some form. After all, don't you think that God always existed? By your reasoning, God must have also have been created by something beyond God. Also, since you are probably ignorant of contemporary cosmological models of the universe's formation, I'll direct you to this link:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
and this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Finally, there is one more huge problem with your argument.
>This thing we call "God"
This is bullshit. The cause or force behind the origin of the universe could just as well be some kind of natural force that we don't yet understand. There is no more reason to think that it was a god than there is to think that lightning is Zeus's wrath.

>>1823934

This statement wasn't referring to you personally, just the universal you (as in whoever is thinking about the statement)

Also, you are not being intelligent when you deny or doubt senses exist and then go on to say "nothing is fact". What you in fact are doing is trolling an image board by saying stupid things under the guise of intelligence.

Facts are everywhere, but if you would rather be completely ignorant and oblivious, I am completely fine with that.

>MFW people think morality has anything to do with religion

>>1823938

Logic doesn't have to be deductive. Inductive logic is logic all the same.

When dealing with the supernatural, by definition we can never fully understand it. So we use our natural logic to get as close as possible to the supernatural.

Honestly what is so hard to understand about this?

(Continued)

>>1823902
Finally, if you really think that YOU of all people have finally proven god, why don't you write up your proof and send it to a philosophy of religion journal and see if they accept it? There are many for you to choose from: Philo, Religious Studies, Faith and Philosophy, Philosophia Christi, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Here, I'll even give you some links:

http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/religious+studies/journal/11153

http://www.philoonline.org/

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=RES

>>1823947

There is one fact that I can think of, I think therefore I am.

I must be something, somewhere. That is ALL there is.

There is no way to undenyably state that anything exists, that the universe is simply not some massive simulation on some epicly planetary computer.

The point is, you don't know as much as you think you do, and anything truely is possible until you do know everything.

>>1823965

Oh I'm not taking credit for these. They've been proving God for quite awhile now. Go do some research. Instead of assuming they were all religious nuts, make sure you look into their credentials too.

The search for knowledge is always good, so you should definitely explore the most interesting topic of all time, undoubtedly.

>>1823967

>>1823785
Might want to read some philosophy from the last 200 years.

>>1823828
Sure is 2000 year old dead cosmological argument backed up with outdated physics.

Let me bring you up to speed since you are way way way behind. Uncaused cause argument has been death forever and is rotting in it's grave. It was dead many years before modern physics, but modern physics has shat on it's grave. Moral philosophy has retreated to subjectivism and many philosophers have abandoned moral philosophy completely.


The universe doesn't need a creator. There are no moral truths.

>>1823989
No, they have not been "proving god." Tell me just which argument you think constitutes this proof. If that muddled mess of an argument is proof, you are the one who needs to do some research. And I don't know why you think that I consider religious people nuts; if I thought that I probably wouldn't be aware of the philosophical journals, would I?

>>1823989
Right...

>>1823850
>Fact's are all subjective.

Man sorry to pull this shit - but your argument is flawed by recursion.

ie if you are right then wrong etc. etc. paradox. paradox. Maybe try limiting it like knowledge of the external world is not a fact or something.

but that shit up there. Man that is stupid.

>>1824067

You perfectly knew what he meant.

Bad wording on an image board means fuck all for the subjectivity of the universe.

>>1824075
So .. . we're arguing with him about whether or not his sense experiences are valid? Because that is even worse.
What the hell can we do to prove that point to him? What with them being his senses we are using to communicate with him by.

>>1824095

You can't prove anything is the point he is making. Due to the subjectivity of all our senses and how we experience the world around us, there are always unknowns and there will always be arguments against theories.

To call anything a fact you would have to know everything about the universe. That will never happen.

>>1824106
But but wait - you just did the same thing.

If we you say that you can't know anything about the universe because it is mediated by your sense experience then you do know something about the universe. It may not be mush but it allows for a consistency of logic which - if one allows for logic to hold in all possible universes - can then be used to establish systems of sense experience stimulus and response.

Once you allow for logic to be hooked up to the external world by sense experiences you just bootstrap yourself into the "world you experience" by "experiencing the world".

Facts then become system wide rules which are true to one's self given certain different values, like "happiness" is true by the self experience of happiness, and gravity is true by narrative extension of how I experience things falling.

It may not be "facts" as classically thought - but it is functionally the same and pragmatically useful as it allows one to get about doing some real work to improve the world.

>>1824169

It's applications don't matter.

This is pure philosophical analysis. The point remains that a fact cannot be thought of as 100% true 100% of the time.

A classical fact does not exist.

And yes I realise that statement should disprove itself, which basically means that arguing about this at all is pointless and neither of us will get anywhere.

That's pretty much just philosophy though isn't it.