/sci/ - Science & Math

Timecube proves Religion right. You're wrong.

>>1979743
>implying religios people are wrong

Define wrong...

OHOHO! CAN'T DO THAT CAN YOU ATHEIST FAG!

OP science isn't in the business of proving things. Religion has all claims to proving according to their personal beliefs. Not us, we don't have that privilege.

I typically use the Bible when I get into religious debates, it works WAY better than logic.

>>1979789
I wish I was the man who compiled that book. To be revered as the ultimate word... Too awesome for me.

>>1979789
What do you debate about?

>>1979743
Every religious person uses the same logic to prove they and only they are correct. If the same argument is used to prove many exclusive logical outcomes then there is a good chance said argument is invalid.

That argument against religion had been in the back of my mind since I was a little tike, and though it didn't cause any sort of sudden loss in faith, I think it was the major contributor in my gradual loss of religious belief. After leaving a religious school, and with my family no longer going to church, the beliefs I were taught slowly dissolved away until college. There, while trying trying to think up what to put for my "Religious views:", I realized I didn't believe in God in any way shape of form.

>>1979811
>Every religious person uses the same logic to prove they and only they are correct.
This is biased thinking

Consciousness is sensing + cognition + memory producing an "experience" of "awareness."

As such, consciousness is only and always a tool biological organisms use to deal with phyisical environments. There is no other reason for consciousness known or imagined, there is no other mechanism known or imagined.

Consciousness is thus only possible in a physical matrix, and only necessary in an organism affected by physical causality.

Gods and spirits are said to be incorporeal, that is, not physical, and not affected by physical causality. Thus god and spirits cannot be conscious, they haven't the organs necessary, or the environmental pressures that require consciousness to deal with them.

Spirits are neither possible, or necessary. Any religion that posits an incorporeal consciousness is false.

>>1979822
Define non-biased thinking.

>>1979763
Never heard of it.

*reads about site*

That seems like a great example of someone coming up with a complex, logically consistent model of the world and then taking so much pride in it that they actually believe it is true without any sort of empirical verification.
Moral of the story - Just because something is POSSIBLE doesn't mean it is true.

Thanks for that.

>>1979834
No

>>1979832
Except we have never found where the memory is stored in the brain.

>>1979832
Funny actually. You can't prove anyone has this intangible "consciousness" except for yourself.

>>1979822
So what exactly is your problem with my argument?

Keep in mind, this isn't a proof for why religious claims are false, just one argument that bears special significance in my own theological development. I have other reasons for not buying what many religions are selling.

>>1979843
but we agree that the memory IS stored in the brain.

That is sufficient, we don't need to know exactly how the brain works to know that changes to the brain change consciousness, and removing the brain removes consciousness.

>>1979858
you are working backwards

>>1979850
Actually that's a problem with solipsism rather than consciousness.

With the a priori assumption of "others" and a rigorous definition of "consciousness" it's easy to prove others have it. I believe I already have, as your own understanding and reply imply intersubjectivity and thus consciousness...

>>1979872
ha ha ha...

You know nothing

>>1979881
Witty, but ultimately ignores any philosophical basis for knowledge.

I know more than you.

That seems a bit more accurate....

>>1979871
I feel like you have a legitamate reason why my argument is "backwards" but you are being very obtuse.

If you don't care enough to waste your time elaborating then by all means say it and be on your way. If you do want to get your point across then do it already. You'll find I'm pretty receptive.

>>1979832
That is actually pretty damn close to my own "clock with no parts" argument against God as an intelligence without parts and beyond physical dictations.

Clock with no parts argument:
1) God is typically defined as an intelligence beyond physical dictation and without parts (so if our universe was created by a scientist in another universe then that scientist wouldn't be God because the scientist's mind is just a product of the particles that make it up and the laws within the universe the scientist occupies).
2) All evidence suggests that the mind is not fundamental in the same way physical laws are fundamental, intelligence is merely an outcome of those physical laws.
3) The functionality of intelligence being a product of its constituent parts and how those parts interact make it similar to a clock, the functionality of which is also defined by its parts and how the interact.
4) Without its parts and the physical laws that dictate those parts, there is no clock (a clock being defined by its functionality, i.e. telling time).
5) Similarly, without the nervous system, without the different areas of the brain, without neurons, without the molecules that make up those neurons, without the atoms that make up those molecules, without the quarks that make up those molecules, without the needed orientation of all these things and the physical laws that dictate them all there is no human consciousness.
6) There are no examples of intelligence existing without parts or physical dictation.
7) Therefor there is no reason to believe "intelligence" exists without parts or physical dictation.
8) Therefor there is no reason to believe God is a valid proposition.

tl;dr - Intelligence doesn't exist without parts or beyond physical laws and there is no reason to believe it does -> God doesn't exist.

>>1979970
Very similar, you have the mechanism argument there, and a part of my cause argument.

I just take it another step by attempting to demonstrate that the known cause of consciousness is the only possible cause of consciousness, as you have shown with the mechanism.

I like your argument, but wonder if saying "there is no reason to think A," couldn't be changed to,"A is impossible in our causal universe."

The meanings may be the same, but religious people may not correlate reason with possibility, and they tend to understand the word "impossible."

Oh Science.

When will you figure out that you can't solve apples with oranges.

Any scientist who believes it is possible to force a person to give up their spiritual meaning using a scientific definition of meaning is an idiot and not worthy of calling himself a scientist.

>>1980322

>When will you figure out that you can't solve apples with oranges.

Is that a diplomatic way of saying "when will you figure out that religious people don't respond to facts or logic"?

>>1980322
Science can ask what illusions we hold and why. Answering these questions provides a basis for a society that forces people to give up spiritual beliefs. It isn't science alone that forces understanding, but it won't happen without science.

>>1979743
You ask for the impossible. One cannot argue rationally with irrational people.

>>1980355

They do.

But you don't seem to understand religion beyond an arbitrary definition of "herp derp god!" -- there is a lot more to it than that.

"Use science to prove why religious people are wrong!" -- while God is a big part of it, God isn't the only part of it. There are many scientists who identify with a religion while not necessarily believing in God. Many people define God differently. The simple minded believe God "exists" in a physical form, while other people simply use "God" as an idea to keep people equal with each other. Even more people feel "God" is simply a variable to prevent their mind from wandering off on a tangent.

Using Scientific facts to prove "religious people are wrong" is about as silly as the ID + Creationist faggots using silly religious nonsense as scientific validation. It's nowhere near acceptable for them to do so, so try to be better than that instead of making the same mistake they do.

you can prove as much as you want, but the average religious person will just enforce his own beliefs when confronted with it. religion is a brilliant example of exploitable human interaction "glitches", and one of those "glitches" is the concept of "us vs them". Interestingly (and ironically) enough, most people on /sci/ also think of this as a matter of "us vs them".

it's funny because this mindset means that you see your opinion as truth, and the other opinion as false, and AT ALL COSTS. totally scientific

>>1980408

/thread

>>1980408
Well, except when a religion states a belief that is demonstrably false within our commonly accepted reality.

Which the vast majority do.

Those that don't state false belief we call physics, or some other agreed-upon name that isn't religion.

Saging and reporting for reli threads in /sci/

only faggots make these threads

>>1980408
What you say is true. However, if there is passion on both sides of a debate, that does not make the truth somewhere in the middle. One side can simply be wrong.

You are right that if scientists do not listen to the "other side", then they're not real scientists. Also, you are right there there are dangers when using group abstractions too heavily in decision making, aka the "us vs them".

>>1980271
>I like your argument, but wonder if saying "there is no reason to think A," couldn't be changed to,"A is impossible in our causal universe."
I'm not so audacious to claim that it is impossible for an intelligence to exist without parts and physical dictation, if only because I don't have the knowledge base to argue with any angsty philosophy major that comes around wanting to poke holes in my argument. I'm sticking with simply pointing out there is no example of intelligence without parts because to argue against it one must give evidence, something I would both want and be more able to argue against. Saying something is IMPOSSIBLE leaves one open to all sorts of philosophical pot shots.

I suppose that I could intensify my claim by saying the idea of God is nonsensical much the same way a clock without parts or physical dictation is nonsensical. That would in effect claim God is impossible without actually using the word impossible.

>>1980497
The simplest way to explain the reasoning is as follows:

The tooth fairy does not exist. I cannot prove it, but I will claim it. I am an atheist in the same sense that I am an a-fairy-ist.

>>1980519
I don't want to get into a discussion of the definition of atheism as the neutral theological position. I'm just hammering out my own "clock with no parts" argument against the concept of God.

>>1980575
ok

>>1980497
I agree, though any deductive argument requires us to agree on certain a priori assumptions, and I can often get those erstwhile philosophers to agree on some that allow for objective reality, and thus allow for impossibility.

I like "nonsensical," that carries the kind of weight and connotation most people will understand.

haven't you seen the videos of people who have been shown video evidence that their 'faith healer' priest is a fraud?

they ignore all evidence and say no that speaker device in his ear is just how he communicates with god through his wife in the back room, its all part of gods plan etc

people will suspend rationality for their beliefs, no matter how stupid it is...

I do not have a problem with this, until it comes to people pushing it onto other people, that pisses me off, its like un-educating people, till they are stupid enough to have religeon appeal to them.

Don't get me wrong, religion can make you happy, give you false hope, which is better than no hope at all, I'm ok with this, however there are only three kinds of religious people, the brainwashed, the desperate, and the mentally ill.

what I am getting at is if you could reason with the religious, there would be no religion at all,

>>1980657
>what I am getting at is if you could reason with the religious, there would be no religion at all,

In my country most, (~85%) people claim to be religious, probably for cultural reasons. Since it seems unlikely that that many people are just fucked in the head, I'd like to change the culture that encourages such things.

Then, when those who can be reasoned with have been, and have accepted reason, your statement above will be true.

However by then we'll be left with the truly irrational and truly religious, a demograph that often fails at life. Those who fail at life will be disenfranchised by any of our numerous merit systems, and we can stop pretending their silly dreams are real, and get back to ignoring and exploiting them as is right and proper.

>>1980657
I thought even the average religion person knew those people were frauds.

>>1980729
many do, I'm not saying all religious people are as dumb as this, (or dumb per Se) but it is an example of how far people will go to protect something they have invested so much time, effort and emotional energy into. and you cannot reason with emotion.