/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2110926

It is. But then again, christians would argue that this is not possible, since the earth is 6000 years old. Logically debating with religious people is impossible because by definition they throw all logic and reason out of the window (lol faith durrr)

you can't prove me that we aren't gods masterpiece, can you? you can't prove me that in all those galaxies in that image is some species more advanced than us. or that even something intelligent exists there

can you? CAN YOU?

There isnt a single thing in modern cosmology that dissproves or proves of a creator.
Believe what you want.

>>2110953

There isn't anything that proves there is one. All claims made by religious people over the ages have slowly been debunked by reason and science. Why would I even hold their premise true?

>>2110926
>Implying theists automatically have to believe that Earth is the only planet with life and importance and any disproof ruins theology
Nope.

Christians who debate without logic are idiots
there are those however who think it is possible that when the bible was constructed the profits of God had no idea how to explain the extravagant things God was showing them, so they explained it in the only way they could.
Religion does not have to argue with science because both were created with hundreds of years between each other.
There might be a God, there might not be. Who cares
do calculus and physics instead.

>>2110948
No, but study chemistry. Observe plasma. Study physics, astrological physics and particle physics (note the similarities). Observe fossils and see evolution. Understand that water is a very commonly produced compound in chemical reactions and is likely all over the place. Learn about antimatter. Learn. See how insignificant we are on some scale, yet how huge we are on another. Learn about how pressurized plasma creates stars. Learn about the swirling masses of gas and matter out there. Just learn, observe and think.

I may not be able to prove it to you, but with enough thought, it may hit you.

There is definitely more to all of this than "God dun did created the earth."

>>2110961
There is also no proven fact that there was not a creator of the universe.
You're argument is a waste of time, do physics and calculus like the rest of us who are trying to figure it out

>>2110961
you can't prove that there is or there is not a god

here kicks "better safe than sorry" in. if i live my life as a religious person and there IS a god, i'm on the winning side. if there is no god, nothing happens

but if i live as a atheist/agnostic/islam/budha or something other (i'm christian btw) and god exists. well have fun in hell

>>2110926
>existence of a shit ton of planets and stars
>doesn't prove anything but God's power and might
>as if a random sequence of events could create such an awe inspiring number of beautiful galaxies
>enjoy trying to suck the joy out of people's lives, i pray you find God some day

>>2110984
Its funny how random the universe is

>>2110975
or study quantum physics .. no WAIT FFFFFFFFFF

what's that? all our natural laws don't apply here? oh boy, why is that?

if you don't see gods existence in quantum physics, i pity you. but as a good christian i will pray for your soul

>>2110971
I knew this comment would come and it is the most logical response. However, I am not claiming to disprove God. I am saying that the notion of an earth-centric God seems a little narrow-minded.
>>2110980
>Better safe than sorry
I personally believe there is no god, I took a leap of faith on that. However, I still live my life as morally as possible and think that if there is a god, it would approve of me and my life whether I believed in it or not.

>>2110984
>I can only find joy in simple things
so take a hike and live off the land

also, Fuck! It amazes me how few people understand how amazing the pictures taken with HST are!

For a board that is seemingly against soft sciences
this topic emerges alot
lets talk about how the einsteins cosmological constant can explain dark energy

You really should of made this thread on /new/ or something. Thought the splendor of the universe is what you're trying to convey, this is just another hurr atheists vs christians thread.

>>2111003
old images are old

>>2111013
http://galaxy.phy.cmich.edu/~axel/mwpan2/

>>2111011
Splendor of the universe was my main point. I just wanted to attract people to the topic and get them thinking. What better way than bringing religion into it?

>>2110980
Not that simple. You have to pick the CORRECT religion. Its like spinning a roulette table. Religion is fucking bullshit and not for what it preaches but simply because each one touts that "it is the correct path and all others are wrong".

>>2111013
and missed point is missed

>I knew this comment would come and it is the most logical response. However, I am not claiming to disprove God. I am saying that the notion of an earth-centric God seems a little narrow-minded.

Agreed. What are your thoughts on other aspects of god?

>>2111011
>221 KB, 800x780, CarlSaganspaceInurdaesDrawing.jpg

No. You did not fucking draw that.

Argument of this topic is redundant on every imaginable level.

>>2111034
lol u mad?

>>2110984

>I don't understand the anthropic principle

>>2111031
My thoughts are that it is unlikely a god exists. I believe that the universe exists because something MUST exist.

However, I still do not know for sure. I have lived a very moral life, I do not take advantage of others and get taken advantage of a lot without revenge. If there were a god, it would understand that humans will be confused and would never expect them to believe in exactly it exactly as it is. Therefore I believe (it it exists and if it picks sides) that I would be on its good side.

>>2111020
>because each one touts that "it is the correct path and all others are wrong".

Incorrect. Certain religions, especially old ones, did not have "this is the only way" as a central tenet. They may be a bit harder to find now, but you probably aren't looking. Not that you need to.

>>2111011
>>2111039
>no results from tineye

lookslegit.jpg

p.s. fuck you, get a job you pot smoking artsy hippy

>>2111041
Sounds reasonable enough. I think that, if a god/gods exists, he/she/it/they have better things to do than look out for us. The universe is more interesting than this planet.

Anyways, carry on.. Better than most religion threads.

>>2111045
>p.s. fuck you, get a job you pot smoking artsy hippy
I have a job, a relatively large salary, and being a pot-smoking artsy hippie is something I pride myself on.

>>2111052
pics of this salary, or didn't happen

>>2111042
Mostly going on the two main religions of the day: Christianity and Islam. While most folks probably don't go around preaching about how they're the true way, they're the usual suspects in this regard. Add in some of the smaller ones/denominations such as Jehova Witnesses or Mormons... fucking hate those magical under wearing mother fuckers.

>>2111051
The universe includes this planet. Who's to say that a hypothetical god couldn't watch the entire universe at once? It may be unreasonable to expect one to care about one pale blue dot among trillions, but there's no reason to apply human limitations to a deity.

>>2111061
I tend to dislike the idea of all powerful gods. But then again thats taste more than anything.

>>2111058
I don't have proper internet yet 'cuz I moved, and you think I have a camera on me?

>>2111075
>he doesn't have a picture phone

>>2111090
>implying I need a mobile phone
oh jeez my mom is such a fukin bitch she wont let me use facebook omg

If there were a god, and it created us, then why would it expect us to believe in it precisely as it is when it gives us no clues to go by.

It wouldn't. A real deity would not care whether we believed in it.

There is likely all sorts of life all over the universe by the way.

>but if i live as a atheist/agnostic/islam/budha or something other (i'm christian btw) and god exists. well have fun in hell

Have fun in muslim hell if it turns out that Allah actually exists.

Your probably trolling as this is a pathetic strawman.

>>2111164

You poor fool. It's the theists that go to hell. Turn back and avoid the lack of fire!

>>2111164
Don't think there's anything wrong with being Christian, but you picked the wrong board to be Christian in.

By your logic OP, the universe is so vast that there could actually be a God and we just haven't found him yet.

>>2111174
>Don't think there's anything wrong with believing supernatural claims with no evidence

You get out too.

>>2111180
OP here. I am not denying that.

I am trying to show that the notion of an earth-centric god is tomfoolery.

I also am astounded by the vastness and wonders of the universe and the similarities between tiny-scale and large-scale physics.

So..... I'm supposed to believe that the universe being humongous disproves God?

>>2111208
He already mentioned that he wasn't trying to. Read the thread.

>>2111213

>>2111208
No, it just tries to disprove the specific gods that most religions believe which only focus on earth.

Also, when you understand the rules of matter and physics, the randomness and vastness of the universe seem, well, ungodly.

>>2111208
Just most of the established religion's gods.

>>2111214
Oh you.

>>2111221
Not the Jewish God! He has to be real!

>>2111180
Since christians believe god to be the creator of the universe, physics doesn't allow for him exist because there was nothing before the universe. If there was no space or time, there is nothing to exist in, you can't have matter, let alone life, let alone an autopoetic being, let alone an all powerful being of infinite intelligence.

Christian status

[ ] told
[ ] not told
[x] FUCKING TOLD

>>2110940

The vast majority of Christians believe in evolution. Evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church, which constitutes over half of the world-wide population of Christians. Only hardcore Protestants, a relatively small minority, do not accept evolution.

>>2111298
>Vast majority of Christians believe in evolution.
>Adam and Eve
>Evolution
>Vast majority
>Christians

See the problem yet?

> Catholic Church realizes that the Bible must be read as a metaphor, especially Genesis, in order to fit in which modern scientific views.
> Bible is read that way.
> Adam and Eve are viewed as a metaphor for God directing the evolution of the first humans from a common ancestor with the other great apes.
> Evolution can be accepted by Christians and not all Christians read the Bible literally.

>>2111317

It's a Wikipedia article, but it does a decent job of explaining the Catholic views on evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

>>2111334
Yeah I know. But this is because Christianity is on its last legs. Catholics didn't just "realise that it should be read metaphorically", they had to change their stance or they would look ridiculous in the light of evolution.

What sort of religion changes its claims over time? Aren't these things supposed to be actually true? They shouldn't be changing if they're true.

>>2111334
I have heard this a thousand times.

>I will cherry-pick what to interpret literally or metaphorically to the point that I can make the Bible say whatever the fuck *I* want it to say.

The bible IS supposed to be metaphoric. It is full of fictional short-stories, and real ones. The point is to live a moral life and don't fuck with others.

>>2111346

A smart one does, I guess. I'm an atheist, I have no faith in God. I'm just saying that Catholicism admits to the truth of evolution and that Christianity isn't as anti-science as most make it out to be. America has an unfortunately large population of fundamentalists compared to most other Christian nations.

Religion has definitely become more malleable in the modern era. I think that the leaders of the Catholic Church are rethinking the Bible. In the past, it was seen as the word of God brought down literally. Now it's being re-read as the word of God brought down through metaphor. Religious readings and views can change in the face of new evidence just as scientific views can change. Though there may be resistance at first, it has to change or else be seen as obsolete. The Church just says "We didn't know any better" and adapts, as scientists have been for centuries as well.

>>2111372
So basically:
>Oh shit! We were wrong! How can the Church go on? Say it was a metaphor!
Key phrase - They were wrong.

>>2111382

Science has been wrong in the past as well. It changes to keep up. The religious institutions have to survive and change as well. There have been many, many changes in the Churches structure over the past two thousand years. I would much rather have an institution with influence over more than billion people supporting scientific discovery rather than being against it. The Catholic Church has moved past being against scientific discovery, whereas the vast majority of Protestantism and Islam has not. Significant numbers of people are always going to have faith. Better to have them support progress than be ones for dogma.

>>2111403
I do not support religious institution.

Especially when they get to cherry-pick what they want to say is real or metaphoric in the name of progress.

If you want me to believe that salvation is through belief in YOUR EXACT god, then you should probably not stray away from, or cherry-pick parts from, the only thing defining your god.

I have no problem with someone who believes what they themselves want to believe given evidence from religious texts and observations of nature. But I think that an organization of "guidance" could only be evil and promote bloodshed.

tl;dr - There may or may not be a god, be moral don't kill people.

>>2111334
Catholicism adopted this view rather recently. Throughout history the church and it's followers have followed the bible literally. When it said a day, it meant a day, so don't spew this metaphor bullshit when most of the church's members still are on the fence about evolution and refer to it as "just a theory."

>>2111403
>Science has been wrong in the past as well.
Science is a method dude. A method cannot be wrong.

>>2111534
>Good call
"Science has been wrong in the past." == "People have had ideas in the past that were proven incorrect through science."

>>2111540
When science is proved wrong, it is replaced with better science.

When religion is wrong (and all of it is) it is replaced with durr hurrr we didn't mean it that way bcuz it was a metaphor, jeezus didn't walk on water or have a virgin birth, it was a metaphor. Derp!

>>2111554
>When science is proved wrong, it is replaced with better science.
Science is never wrong. People have incorrect hypotheses that are later proven incorrect with science and technology.

The farthest object seen in the sky by the Hubble and Keck Telescopes is 13 billion light-years distant, and is assumed to have been created when the universe was just 750 million years old. It would take at least that long (if not longer) for the material from the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.

But here is the problem. We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years distant not as it is today and where it is today but as it was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years distant from earth.

In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years' time. That requires the galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster than the speed of light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang supporters was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old.

>>2111560
Semantics my friend, if you want to go down that road. Scientists hypotheses aren't wrong, they just aren't accurate enough to match reality. I would argue that if the scientific community accepts a hypothesis and later figures out that said hypothesis is inaccurate, then "science" was wrong.

I never quite expected to believe it, but /sci/ is actually stupider than /new/. Good god.

>>2111588
Fortunately, this is explained by the expansion of the universe.

>>2111588
Yes, and the reason for this is because while things cannot move through space faster than light, space itself can expand faster than light.

>>2111641
Space is not expanding at a speed, there is no velocity.

Moran