/sci/ - Science & Math

Was that supposed to be a question?

any serious physicists and or mathematics students have a firm belief in god (taking into account the marvels inside the physics/math world like quantum tunneling, dirac delta function, golden ration etc.)?

>>2109915 this is no place for English majors

>>2109921
You're still missing a capital,.

>golden ratio

yes, i've often successfully converted christians to atheism by merely reciting the decimal digits of the golden ratio.

phi= - 2sin(666)

OH GOD IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

Have any of you actually read the bible?
There's a whole book in there about quantum mechanics, and frankly, it's all correct.

>>2109960
Not really, niggas couldn't renormalize in QFT for shit.

>>2109960
explain.

I know no one will believe me but here goes nothing:

I am a Christian; I believe in evolution, the scientifically accepted ages of the earth, universe, fossils etc. I believe in every scientific theory that has been verified using proper reasoning. I am a *true* scientist in the sense that I realize science makes NO COMMENT on the metaphysical, something not many people seem to get. No scientific data supports nor denies the existence of a god or gods. I attend Church regularly and have published multiple papers.

Also, sage for non-science

How do any of these things give any support for the nonexistence of a deity?

> If there's no evidence, I get to make up anything I want
lol religion

Bitches don't know vortex based mathematics

>>2110982
You're basically like all of the very intelligent people that I grew up with in a Christian private school. They understand science. They also believe in God. I don't. We're all pretty good friends. If only the rest of the world could operate as my little microcosm does.

>>2109907
Please don't post that picture again as it is a gross mis-characterization. Atheists do believe in things that they cannot see. Rationalists (what you might call atheists) disbelieve things which have a lack of evidence for their existence. Big difference there bro.

I believe the existence of a god is highly probable. The fact that we cannot disprove the existence of a god only reinforces its probability. Any true scientific thinker has to accept the possibility of something until solid counter evidence is presented. After all once electricity, magnetism, and gravity were these mysterious forces people didn't (or still don't) fully understand.

>implying electromagnetic waves outside of the visible spectrum cannot be detected

>>2111102
The people who believe in god and science are like meth addicts. They want to believe in an all knowing being that looks over them and decides every bit of their life. However, they also want to believe in all the fantastic scientific discoveries. Instead of picking one like the rest of us, they aren't satisfied and try to seek out a new "high", which is believing it both.

>>2110982
>I am a *true* scientist in the sense that I realize science makes NO COMMENT on the metaphysical, something not many people seem to get. No scientific data supports nor denies the existence of a god or gods. I attend Church regularly and have published multiple papers.
Dawkins was here. NOMA is bullshit.

As soon as you start denouncing miracles, then you won't be a fucking liar and hypocrite.

>>2111111
are you a wizard?

You know what they say, "there aren't any atheists in theoretical physics."

They say it because when you get to that level of understanding, you cannot deny the overwhelming awareness that you are peering into the most intricate inner workings of God's creation.

>>2110982
believing in a god is rational and can coexist with the scientific concepts you have mentioned, on the principle of the "unknown" and meta-physical. believing in christianity on the other hand, an established religion, is not rational unless you gladly admit to existing without a personal opinion or thought. i can understand going to church or even reading the bible to satisfy a cultural (even familial) mentality, but if you are living your life by the book or jesus christ, you have long since lost your mind. being exposed to science is something you should worship much more than any manufactured god.

>>2111117
No one says that bullshit. There's a preponderance of non-theists in the echelons of science, not the reverse you asshat.

>>2111106
>Rationalists (what you might call atheists) disbelieve things which have a lack of evidence for their existence.
>most of /sci/ believes in aliens
>my face

>>2111117
I hate trolls like this that claim that alittle bit of science makes you Atheist, while deeply studying science makes you believe in God. God will never be scientific because he cannot be proven.
>A little bit of dumb-ass makes a theist, alot of dumb-ass makes a hardcore Christian

>>2111123
We have evidence that it is likely that there exists biological life elsewhere in the universe. We have no such evidence for any supposed "god" thing.

>>2109907
In quantum physics we regard information as a "super weird substance" that is more fundamental than gravity, electo-magnetism or two nuclear forces, this tend to suggest that the universe is a second byproduct of a primal information, for biblespeak "In the beginning there was a word."

Fortunately we can now convert information into energy, but ironically it is called Maxwell's Demon.

>>2111129
>We have evidence that it is likely that there exists biological life elsewhere in the universe.

No, we don't. The only "evidence" is the existence of life right here.

Science might make you some kinda deist, but it certainly wouldn't cause to to believe in an interventionist god.

In other words, they're not on your side, Christians. Cry more.

>>2111133
You're half full of shit, and half right.

However, just because the theories are easy to state in terms of information does not give you license to extrapolate /in English/ that this somehow implies a ... primordial information - you dumbfuck.

>>2111135
The same organic molecules that created life here on Earth are abundant throughout the cosmos.

>>2111123
Since there is a 100% chance that something created life, and atheists don't believe in a god, we believe that some naturally occurring process created life. If it happened on Earth, then it is possible that it can occur on another planet with similar conditions. Due to the overwhelming number of planets in the Universe, we can pretty much assume their will be enough Earth-like planets for atleast one to develop life.

>>2111142
That doesn't mean there is life there

>>2111143
>we can pretty much assume their will be enough Earth-like planets for atleast one to develop life.

Still baseless assumptions. Bring me hard evidence or your belief is as full of shit as religion.

Why is the dirac delta function listed here?

>>2111147
see
>>2111143

>>2111149
It's called a probability you fucking dumb ass. If I could bring you proof of a planet that supports life, I wouldn't be here right now.

>>2111152
Yeah that's fine, we assume there is probably life based on some evidence and some other assumptions. That doesn't mean there is life out there, I only means we think there probably is.

>>2111102

And you're like the majority of atheists (or however you label yourself) in the sense that you just let people differ on their views.

I'm glad my post got one intelligent reply, my friend.

>>2111114
How am I a hypocrite? My Phd in physics? Researching and understanding the "evidence" that people throw back and forth to validate their views on theology and actually forming a scientific consensus on it? Working in a lab full of equipment you probably have never touched in your lifetime?

I always have and always will believe in a "cause and effect universe." Like a lot of smart people-both secular and religious- I feel their is a some type of first cause. Furthermore I feel a need to name such a first cause, I name it God.

>>2111149
You see, science is never absolutely certain. We never said that we were absolutely certain that aliens exist. We just merely believe that it's the likely way the universe is.

"Hard evidence" as you use the term is silly. It's like saying we don't know that the core of the Earth is metal because no one's taken a sample. We have more than enough evidence that the center of the Earth is indeed metal.

So go suck on your own cock.

Physicist: "I am constantly impressed by the beauty and intricacy of God's creation."

Christfag: "HURR DURR LOOK A SMART PERSON BELIEVES IN JESUS"

nope.jpg

>>2111161
Science can never say any more about anything. Got a point in there somewhere?

>>2111163
>How am I a hypocrite?
Miracles are an "aspect" of god in the natural world, and thus god is in the realm of science. We have scientific evidence that the christian god is bullshit. There is an overlap of science and religion as long as religion makes testable and falsifiable claims.

Either you denounce modern day miracles as bullshit, or you are a hypocrite and a liar.

>>2111158
Yeah, sure, it's called probability when we have no fucking idea of how likely life is to develop. I know about the so called Drake equation, and its assumption that every planet able to support life will do so.

Full of shit. The truth is that you are too scared to accept that we are, and will forever be, alone.

>>2111149
It is the overwhelming consensus among my peers that life exists on other planets.

The very fact that life developed here and would not develop elsewhere is abhorrent to common sense.

>>2111166
I lol'd
>also quads+dubs

>>2111170
That's exactly the point, glad it went right over your head.

>>2111178
You don't need to apply the principles governing your life to the rest of the Universe.

>>2111177
>We have scientific evidence that the christian god is bullshit

Source?

>>2111182
You seem to single out alien life as especially deserving of doubt. This strikes me as what a creationist would do concerning evolution. It's a straw man and a red herring.

>>2111187
See Noah's flood.
See the age of the world.
See any of the other factual inaccuracies in the christian bible. If the christian bible is false, then the christian god is false, by definition.

>>2111192
See the fact that an overwhelming minority of Christians believe in scriptural inerrancy.

Most, like myself, take a good deal of the Bible as metaphor.

Your point is invalid

>>2111170

>implying real science doesn't test theories against experiments

>>2111165

>comparing the swathes of evidence we have about the composition of the Earth's core to shitty hopes that aliens exists and random extrapolations based on a single result

>>2111147
Over a hundred billion stars in this galaxy. Over 50 billion galaxies in the observable universe. I don't even think that includes star clusters.
The chance of no life out there is astronomically small (no pun intended.) Now multicellular, let alone conscious or intelligent life, is most probably far rarer.

>>2111196
"implying real science doesn't test theories against experiments"
I never said that.

>>2111192

It's not explicitly said whether or not Genesis occurred in days as we understand them as God didn't create the Sun until the 4th day. And there almost certainly WAS a flood of some sort about the time the Bible says, too many Fertile Crescent cultures make reference to it for that to be coincidental.

Not saying the Bible is right but you'll have to do better than that to actually have a point worth two shits.

>>2111194
If you take most of the bible as a metaphor, then why don't you think God is a metaphor?
Also, the Bible doesn't say that it contains metaphors, so it is lying by omission. Once again, this means the Bible is false and by definitions, so would be the Christian god.
/argument

>>2111194
>Most, like myself, take a good deal of the Bible as metaphor.

Do you know why? It's because you have to drop a bit of your religion every time science proves it wrong.

But here's the kicker: you believe that someone ROSE FROM THE DEAD. With no evidence. The burden of proof is on you for this insane claim, and you don't have any proof.

>>2111196
You missed the original context. The context was that someone compared belief in alien life to a belief in a god. They're entirely different. One is supported by evidence (to some degree) and one is not.

>>2111194
Exactly which parts of the bible are metaphor then? Your call on a case by case basis? Who's to say that the god itself isn't metaphorical and jesus was just a cool preacher dude?

>>2111198
Well, I'm not going to argue with some retard who believes in post-scarcity.

>>2111201
>
It's not explicitly said whether or not Genesis occurred in days as we understand them as God didn't create the Sun until the 4th day. And there almost certainly WAS a flood of some sort about the time the Bible says, too many Fertile Crescent cultures make reference to it for that to be coincidental.
Yes, but just because there was some historical flood does not make Noah's flood real. The described facts in the bible of Noah's flood, such a s 40 days and nights of hard rain which covered all the land is easily falsifiable, as is bringing 2 of each creature on board. 2 of each creature isn't anywhere close enough to repopulate. You need a shitton more. Not enough genetic diversity.

>>2111204
Except neither is supported by scientific evidence, and belief in either is irrational. But for some reason /sci/ is willing to suspend disbelief in some crap, and then they will defend it to the death instead of admitting they are retards like the religious morons they criticize.

>>2111201
>"MORE THAN ONE PERSON SAID IT, SO IT MUST BE TRUE."
Alright, get out your anti-rape condoms, because by that logic their are aliens that anally probe us at night.

>>2111212
That's nice sir. We happen to have a different interpretation of the evidence. Many good thinkers and experts, such as Dawkins, consider it a very good probability that life exists elsewhere.

Aliens vs god is definitely separated by some evidence vs no evidence, and that's the distinction which matters.

If you're a Christian, you don't get away scot free just by contstructing a bizarre web of logic that makes the bible metaphorical or whatever.

The burden of proof is ON YOU. You're the one claiming that MAGIC IS REAL. The default is that you're wrong.

>>2111210

Well, that may the be case, but it does not necessarily disprove the Christian God on the basis that His book is inaccurate. I imagine a theologian would say something to the effect that The Bible was the writings of men who are subject to imperfection and thus would have created an imperfect book no matter what they did because they couldn't conceive of true godly perfection. That is also a dodge of the utmost caliber and I don't feel right giving it out as my rebuttal, so I lack a proper refutation.

>>2111203
You're right, I don't have proof, I accept it on faith. It's a personal thing and unlike you I find it below myself to try to force matters of faith down other's throats with ad hominem arguments.

The fact you called me a hypocrite is beyond laughable. Are you not aware that the majority of people you would likely consider the "smartest people to ever live" were devout theists? To avoid drawing this out into dozens of posts I'll give a random example: Euler. Are you ignorant to the fact that Euler is one of the most influential academics in history, or are you ignorant to the fact that Euler believed in Biblical inerrancy? Considering the fact you likely consider Euler to be a brilliant man, one of these must be the case. For you to maintain any shred of adherence to your attempted argument, you must now denounce Euler as a "hypocrite and a fucking liar."

If you don't wanna use Euler we'll look at Newton, hell he was an Antitrinitarian Christian and he thought he could turn things into gold. How's that for hypocritical and a fucking lie. Wanna denounce him as a serious academic too?

>>2111233
It's very simple. By definition, the christian god is a dude who made the entire planet covered with water for 40 days and nights (at least), and who created the world ~6000 years ago (or at least the sun and shit - don't even try to weasel out of this by saying different days), again by definition, because the definition of a christian god is the god described in the christian bible. The christian bible is factually incorrect, so the christian god does not exist.

Perhaps a god like the christian god exists, one which isn't actually described well in the bible, but that's just the same thing as saying that the christian god does not exist.

>>2111233
>disprove the Christian God

We don't have to disprove the Christian God.
You have to PROVE the Christian God.
Don't you get it?

>>2111233
But the Bible says that it is the word of God, so his word must be perfect if he is perfect. If it is imperfect, then the Bible would be lying, so who knows what else it is lying about?

>>2111242
Dude. You said that science and religion do not interact, and that you cannot prove or disprove god's existence with science. This has a name - NOMA. It's bullshit. That's why I called you a liar and/or a hypocrite.

>>2111247
To continue, as long as there are supposed miracles, aka interactions in the natural world by god, then god is scientifically testable, and the evidence isn't looking too good in god's favor. In fact, it's distinctly against the christian god, and all other specific formulations of "god", be it jewish, hindu, islam, and so on.

>>2111242
Those people were theists because everyone at the time was a theist, you fucking retarded piece of shit. You're kind of discrediting your own point there by mentioning that Newton thought he could turn things into gold. If he believed that because of the time period he lived in, perhaps the same is true of Euler's belief in the "inerrancy" of a book of Bronze Age mythology.

>>2111247
I still say they don't. And solely because Richard Dawkins says something that is convenient to his arguments (and yes I've read his books on the subject) does NOT make it fact.

I do in fact believe in NOMA, as does the National Academy of Sciences. Which is just a little more serious of a source than the infallible Richard Dawkins.

>>2111280
That's irrelevant. Do you believe in present miracles? The catholic church does, as do most denominations of christians. Do you believe that prayers are answered? This is all strictly testable, so NOMA is bullshit. The only way NOMA works is if you abandon all miracles, past, present, and future.

>>2111280
>National Academy of Sciences
>omg famous scientists that believed in my ancient tribal god
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

>>2111265
I don't believe that for a second. Their were many, MANY atheists, humanists blah blah blah during both of their time periods.

>>2111280
Oh. Didn't notice trip. I'm on titan server, and you? I'm on right now doing magian trial bullshits in the tree.

>>2111291
I actually didn't claim that scientists believe in God in my post.

Nice reading comprehension.

>>2111291
Slightly different question. It was about NOMA, not the existence of god. If the academy does believe in NOMA, then they're wrong on that count, which is unfortunate. As long as god interacts with humans, he is testable by science.

Sorry guys, but I learned a long time ago that science must come with equal doses of skepticism and curiosity. Just because something seems stupid doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied. You never know what details you might be missing.

>>2111184

Priceless.

>>2111303
>Just because something seems stupid doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied.

That's what we're saying! Religious claims should be studied! And they have been. For example, here are three things contradicting modern Christianity:

(1.) Prayer does nothing, confirmed in studies.

(2.) "Religious experiences" are just a certain brain state that can be artificially induced.

(3.) Christianity is a natural mishmash of earlier religions and traditions.

>>2111318
Christianity =/= Every religion

>>2111340
Yes, but basically every religion nowadays has falsifiable and false features. Christianity is not special in that regard. It is the norm.

>>2111340
It was just an example bro. (1.) and (2.) apply to Islam and Judaism as well

>>2111340
Do we really need to list every Religion in the world and explain false features of every one of them?

Debunking religions is a fun pastime, but it's not necessary (or it SHOULDN'T be necessary!)

Religion makes supernatural claims. No evidence.

It should be treated just the same as a man who comes up to your door claiming that he has a pet unicorn.

>>2111355
Yes.

>>2111360
Except if too many people started claiming that they had unicorns, I might have to pay a tax for unicorn shots or some shit.

Their delusions affect public policy negatively, so that's why we atheists try to dispel the delusions.

>>2111362
This might actually be fun.
Governments should fund mass debunkings.
Not that it would actually change true believers' "minds", but it would be therapeutic.

>>2109907
Yes am a nuclear physicist and i believe in God

>>2111369

But it creates the illusion that religion REQUIRES disproof. That's why you always meet idiots who are like "oh no militant dogmatic atheists, you're just as bad".

What I do is, every time a religious person talks to me and makes a supernatural claim, I make one back.

"Did you hear that Jesus died for your sins?"
"That's nothing! There are thirteen human hands growing out of the saddle of my bicycle!"
"What are you talking about?"
"...."
"...."

>>2109907

One of my math advisors for a summer program I was in.

Apparently, he's pretty big time in the number theory world. Dude is seriously religious as hell.

>>2111381
By "dispel", I will use any effective (and moral) tactics, so I'm not all that disimilar.

>>2111381
>"That's nothing! There are thirteen human hands growing out of the saddle of my bicycle!"
that's not a supernatural claim, that's you being a prick for no reason

>>2111392
And the existence of jesus as the son of god, miracles, and prayer effectiveness isn't?

>>2111392
I find that very offensive! There being thirteen human hands growing out of the saddle of my bicycle is the central tenet of my religious beliefs!

>>2111392
That example is much more likely than a god existing. We know that human hands and bicycle seats exists, so the only missing link is the proof that the human hands could grow out of the seat.

>>2111397

wow shut the fuck up you stupid little kid, your metaphor does not even compare to the belief n God

>>2111413
Hahaha only because it has fewer followers.

Read the thread half way though.
I am an agnostic.
I did not read a single thing that ether supported or denied the existence of a deity.
There is no way to disprove that something all powerful exists, but that doesn't automatically mean that there is. For example, there could be a magical 60-foot, 2 pound monkey sleeping on the far side of the moon for all you know. but it's not likely.

You really can't prove it ether way, and, if you were really smart,(imho) you'd probably settle with hard agnostic, mild theism , or mild atheism.
believing in a specific religion is just downright stupid.

>>2111416
>Hahaha only because it has fewer followers.

I'll join!

>>2111413
Both have just as much evidence. Both are just as plausible. Come on, I mean, I could see some freaky scientist doing some shit like that, but a god in three parts, the father, the son, and the holy spirit, but is actually 1 god. You want to even begin trying to explain that shit to me?

>>2111419
>>2111416
>>2111418

Samefag?

The stupid bicycle shit is about fucking stupid hands and bicycles, whereas true belief in God is a belief in the Sum of All Things, you stupid mother fuckers, and if you cant see the difference, you are some really stupid mother fuckers

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

-Stephen Roberts

>>2111425
Yes. There is a difference in how important the fact is if true, but both are just as ludicrous, and both are just as false.

>>2111396
>And the existence of jesus as the son of god, miracles, and prayer effectiveness isn't?
Of course it's a supernatural claim. The thirteen hands nonsense is only meant to insult someone. It would apply things we can clearly see in a manner that's physically impossible.

Belief in God and Jesus does defy many scientific claims, that's part of the point. People ask for physical proof of something that isn't physical, which is impossible to give.

I understand that is an annoying response, especially for scientific minds who are used to being able to clearly see what they're studying.

What I don't get is why people believing in something entirely positive angers you guys so much. Most bible thumpers care about their fellow man and want to help them, why hate them?

>>2111417
except that atheism isnt a religion, it is the lack of one.

theists, by definition believe in a deity
deities, by definition are supernatural
supernatural objects, by definition do not exist.

>>2111425
Oh, did I forget to mention? One of the hands is the Sum of All Things.

>>2111430
>both are just as ludicrous, and both are just as false.
>Sum of all things
>false

>>2111435
>And the existence of jesus as the son of god, miracles, and prayer effectiveness isn't?
>Of course it's a supernatural claim.
Dude. No. It's not. Miracles are not supernatural, at least not wholely. Miracles take part in the natural world. They are observable. Thus they are subject to science. Any religion which isn't deism is likely also subject to science to the same degree. NOMA - Non Overlapping Magisteria is bullshit. Religion and science do overlap, and guess which one is bullshit?

>>2111437
And your tiny ass brain has failed you again.

The sum of all things would be the literal sum and could not contain itself. It is the singularity that is everything. You need to pick up a dictionary, my son.

don't let your eternal fate rest on your inability to see beyond definitions of human words

>>2111441
well I meant the occurrence would be caused by the supernatural, but yes it does effect the natural world.
And they do overlap but asking for physical evidence of God isn't possible to give right now

>>2111438
Got a point? If you want to define god as the sum of all things, well, that's not a very interesting god. Where's that prayer answering, heathen smiting, hellfire god?

The christian god is false. He is defined according to the christian bible, which is demonstrably false, so the christian god is false.

>>2111454
Yes it is. If god answers prayers on a daily basis, then there would be evidence.

That's like saying there is no evidence for atoms because they're too small.

>>2111443
No, it's the hand. Honestly, he told me. He can speak you know, he has a little mouth in the middle of the palm.

Also, he just telepathically told me that whatever religion you belong to is going to burn in hell forever. So if I were you I'd worry more about your own eternity.

>>2111455

As a scientist, do you deny that the sum of all things is both the reason for our existence (our creator) as well as the most powerful force conceivable?

Dictionary.com defines region as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" I'd consider both agnostics and atheists religious, it's just a bit of a stretch of the word.
(I'm the same dude, but I just saw the name thing.)

>>2111463
I don't know what you mean. Describe it better so that it's falsifiable please.

>>2111459

Aye, you am a crazy fuck.

>>2111467

I believe I gotcha' sir.

>>2111443
It's an all powerful hand, you just wouldn't understand it because the hand is far beyond your simple understanding. ALL HAIL THE GREAT RIGHT HAND OF PLEASURE!

>>2111466
Dude, atheists and agnostics do not have a belief about the cause nor purpose of the universe. A purpose requires a creator, and the atheist definitely doesn't think there is one. Thank you come again.

>>2111458
Well I'm sure I'll get insulted for this, but I believe I've had prayers answered, because I've prayed for something I thought would never happen, and soon after it did.

I obviously can't prove God intervened, it's just something I believe happened. I only have anecdotal evidence, which nobody wants or would just call bullshit or give any other reason to not believe me, and honestly, I don't blame them. It's a pretty bold claim, but I see no downside (other than getting flamed because it sounds crazy).

If people want to believe that there is no more to life than science, that's fine. I can't personally believe that all that life entails and everything that exists is only here just because science derped and there we were.

>>2111482
The cause is the big bang and the purpose is unknown.

>>2111485
Ok. Thus god is subject to science, which was my original point.

>>2111488
Again, a purpose requires a creator, and I don't believe in a creator - in fact I think it more likely that there was no intelligent creator, and thus I think that the universe lacks a purpose.

>>2111489
do you mean if you can't prove God through science, He doesn't exists?

>>2111499
exist, sorry

captcha: and|or mouslio

>>2111499
No. I just mean that if the christian god exists, we can prove him through science, and that we can also find evidence which falsifies the christian god prediction, such as Noah's ark being full of shit.

It's a bit harder to obtain positive proof that there exists no god. The best I can do is obtain positive proof against all popular gods.

>>2111492
careful

>>2111505
fair enough

4chan really needs a philosophy / religion thread honestly.
This is 90% of what i see on /sci/ nowadays lol

If you did that I'd have to make up a new one.
It would be epic.
"When you die, you get to be the god of your own universe!"
XD

>>2111526
You mean mormonism?

No, Because The "All God" or "The Elite of Elites" would be a two foot rubber duck with a white beard, a burger king hat, and fuzzy slippers with fake boobs at the end.

>>2111485
>Well I'm sure I'll get insulted for this, but I believe I've had prayers answered, because I've prayed for something I thought would never happen, and soon after it did.

I'll try not to insult you, but you know what I'm going to say. Coincidences happen.

If you want to know whether prayer really works, you do a study. In fact studies have been done, and it turns out that prayer does NOT work.

>>2111515
>4chan really needs a philosophy / religion thread honestly.

Sci should have full-time volunteer mods. When someone posts a supernatural claim without including IN THE SAME POST a good reason why we should believe them, their post gets deleted.

> mfw this thread

Why are you narrow-minded little shits so convinced that atheism is a natural result of knowing anything about science? Does it have something to do with the fact that, when someone says "religion," you all think "Christianity," because you're too stupid to realize that there's more than one major religion and that not every religious person belongs to one of those organized religions anyway? Yeah, that's probably it.

Our current understanding of the universe seems at odds with the Bible and with Christian tradition. For example, scientific evidence indicates that the Earth is not the center of the universe, the Earth is more than six thousand years old, the Earth was not created in seven days, the diversity of life on Earth is a result of gradual evolution rather than perfect creation, and (whether or not this is relevant) the matter in the universe seems to have been created during an event which some moron decided to call the Big Bang.

But what does this say about the idea of a God? Absolutely nothing. If you think otherwise, you lack reasoning skills.

...

>>2111585

...

Not every religion claims that we're all descendants of a couple of people who were created six thousand years ago. Not every religious person gets his or her notions of God from a book full of stories that contradict scientific knowledge at every turn. More importantly, the belief in a God does not necessitate a rejection of the Big Bang theory. Why exactly would it? If you think it does, you misunderstand the Big Bang theory.

I'm not going to waste your time with the infinite regression conundrum. (What caused the big bang? And what caused that? And what caused that? Should we assume that God was at the beginning?) That's a stupidly fallacious argument.

However, it's plainly obvious that, even in the light of every bit of scientific evidence we have, a person can still believe that the universe exists because some kind of God made it exist, Big Bang or not, because the Big Bang theory is not, and never was, and never can be, a replacement for religion. It's a separate issue. Perhaps there is a God, but all he ever did was set some universal constants and make some physical laws. Who cares? When a scientist claims to be religious, that doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is in denial of any scientific fact or evidence.

>>2111585
>But what does this say about the idea of a God? Absolutely nothing.

Dude everyone knows that. It's cos some kinda Christfag/Muslim was shitting up the thread.

Also, I don't think you should believe in anything without evidence for it, so that means I'm opposed to even a deist god.

>>2111586

Some internet atheists seem to think atheism = science, in a vain, emotionally driven attempt to cloud their own insecurity with an inflated ego of being some kind of Spocksian ultralogical superhuman.

>>2111602
>Some internet atheists seem to think atheism = science, in a vain, emotionally driven attempt to cloud their own insecurity with an inflated ego of being some kind of Spocksian ultralogical superhuman.

This is a bizarre caricature. I have seen no such thing in this thread. All I see is people demanding evidence for supernatural claims.

>>2111602
Science is just a method.

But science-minded people tend to be skeptical. And skepticism naturally leads to atheism.

>>2111608
>This is a bizarre caricature. I have seen no such thing in this thread.

It's in virtually every science vs religion thread ever on the internet. Every single one. You have to ask WHY they do such things.

>All I see is people demanding evidence for supernatural claims.

Why would anyone be stupid enough to ask for evidence for the supernatural? Science does not deal with the supernatural either way, other than when the claims become natural in some way. In which case they are not truly supernatural.

Asking for evidence of supernatural claims indicates a lack of understanding of what science actually is.

That's not how it works, tardo.

>Comaas carriage

>>2111615
>Asking for evidence of supernatural claims indicates a lack of understanding of what science actually is.

I didn't say that was science. I said it is skepticism.

If someone walks up to you and says "unicorns exist!" and they have no evidence for it, then a skeptic would doubt their claim and continue disbelieving in unicorns.

I understand it's not "science", but science and skepticism go hand-in-hand.

>>2111615
Don't be stupid. If someone says that prayer makes sick people better, that is supernatural, and it can be tested by science.

If someone says that there's a supreme being, then that is supernatural but it can't be tested by science. But the most parsimonious view is that there is no supreme being, so a scientist should go with that.

Atheism is not anothing more than a lack of belief in a diety. It doesn't even deny the supernatural, just says they lack a belief in dieties, and that's it. That's all atheism is. Anyone saying it inherently represents anything else, such as science or intellectualism or 'being rational' is absolutely wrong, and projecting their own personal ideals onto the word .

>>2111629
Untrue. Being rational leads to atheism.

We are born atheist, and the only reason we should stop being atheist is if we are provided with evidence that gods exist. There is no such evidence.

So a theist is either misinformed or irrational.

I'm against religion because it promotes believing in something with no evidence, and you should never believe in anything with no evidence. That's why I'm an atheist.

>>2111638
>>2111639

This. Science and atheism are intrinsically linked because they represent Rationalism in it's most purest form.

>We are born atheist.
>There is no such evidence.

>>2111619

"Unicorns exist!" is not a supernatural claim. That's a very natural claim. They are saying that a unicorn is a physical horned beast that exists in this natural world, if indeed that's what they mean by unicorn, which is likely.

Oh, and you can't add "invisibility" to the claim as well, as that's still a natural trait.

>>2111623
>If someone says that prayer makes sick people better, that is supernatural, and it can be tested by science.

Nope, that's actually a pretty natural claim.

>If someone says that there's a supreme being, then that is supernatural but it can't be tested by science. But the most parsimonious view is that there is no supreme being, so a scientist should go with that.

Then that's nothing more than preference. If it can't be tested by science, which you admit, then science has no say in it, and thus a belief in God has nothing to do with science either way. Which is why I said that people who conflate the two have a severe misunderstanding on what science is actually for.

>>2111668
I think we're using different definitions. I'm using "supernatural" to mean "unexplainable by the current understanding of physics". I'll stop using that word.

And I agree, science itself is just a technique. But the SPIRIT of scientific inquiry is skepticism. It's the idea that you shouldn't take things for granted, you should only believe things with evidence.

So why would a scientist believe in gods? There's no evidence for them, and they're a bizarre idea.

>>2111643
>>2111639
>>2111638
>actually thinks they don't believe in anything without evidence

More internet atheist delusions.
You are all plenty irrational.

>>2111683
Give me an example of something I believe without evidence.

>>2111677
>But the SPIRIT of scientific inquiry is skepticism.

Spirits don't exist.

>>2111691

>>2111686
whatever the axioms of your logical system are, are accepted without evidence

>>2112365
This, we presuppose rules of logic, and while they do seem to coincide with reality we just assume they are accurate.

>marvels
>dirac delta function
idiot much?

>>2112365
this is not inherently irrational, you have to make axioms to function otherwise you don't know you need food or air or water to live. it's part of survival. and yes, without evidence those extra spectrum may as well not exist, why? because if you don't need evidence to prove they are there, wrong hypothesis will be proposed much more likely than correct ones. theres nothing arrogant about the statement, If you wan me to believe in your invisible fairies prove it.

quantum theory+general relativity = zero point field
zero point field poses 10^24 grams of energy in a single cubic centimeter. this is alot of energy if you dont know how much look it up it will blow your mind.
everything in our universe is energy right cause E=mc^2 so if god does exist he would probably have alot of energy like the amount found in the zero point field and the effects of the zero point field can be attributed with reasonable certainty to most of the god like effects that people have claimed to experiance over the years such as infite connectivity, non-locality, and so on but it does not seem like we should be destroying the concept of god because at one time that concept was very usefull to us. the concept has simply become out dated. we as a species has advanced our understanding past the point were god is a necessary concept for us. it is much more conducive to your personal life to believe in yourself not some external source!!!

>>2112790
you are assuming that God has to be confined by rules of the physical world that he created, Wat?
Let me note that anything that is historical and un proven is not scientifically acurate. Anything that you cannot show works through experimentation isn't scientific. lrn2scientifictheory
Old Earth
Creation
Big Bang
Darwinian Theory
Theory of Evolution
It's all faith guys. What you believe may have evidence. Evidence is interprited, meaning it has many ways it can be understood, unless provable through experimentation, you have no grounds to say that you are correct. You can believe that you are correct all you want, but that doesn't mean you can tell anyone else they are wrong.

>>2112846
>It's all faith guys. What you believe may have evidence. Evidence is interprited, meaning it has many ways it can be understood, unless provable through experimentation, you have no grounds to say that you are correct. You can believe that you are correct all you want, but that doesn't mean you can tell anyone else they are wrong.

>>2112846

Got a better explanation for the evolution of the universe instead of the Big Bang theory?

>>2112864
Why would I need to create a better solution just to say that you can't say yours is fact?

Also, better is subjective.

>>2112846

You are very confused. You call it faith, but isn't the same as believing in mythologies like the Bible. Science hardly deals in certainties; I can say "modern synthesis is probably true, and we probably evolved mostly along the lines that modern biologists agree we did" because there is a mountain of evidence that suggests it is true, but I'm not taking the step over the line into faith where I say anything with 100% certainty.

>>2112883

Sure we can. If it correlates with observations, then it's a good theory. The more it explains and the more predictions it makes that become verified, the better the theory is. I'll give an example: The Big Bang theory explains why we see the Cosmic Microwave Background. No other theory does this successfully. It's also worth noting that the Big Bang theory predicted the CMBR's existence before it was discovered.

So, I'll ask you again. You got an alternative theory to explain the evolution of the universe? One that matches our observations? :)

>>2112893
Can you say you exist with 100% certainty?

>>2112894

Are you going to give an adequate answer my original question? :)

>>2112894

You're leaving the realm of science and entering the realm of bullshit.

>>2112905

He was never in the realm of science. He doesn't even understand the basic principles of the scientific methodology.

>>2112890
Like I said before interpritations of evidence. Any mountain of evidence can be tumbled by one small thing. it can make a good theory, but good theory that can not be practiced is simply idealism. Even if it all sounds good, that doesn't mean it actually works.
Main point being, belief in a theory does not mean you're correct.

>>2112920

Sending spacecraft to other planets is based on theory. Modern medicine is based on theory. Wireless communications is based on theory. The transmission of this very post is based on theory.

Looks like it works just fine to me. Once again you've proven you don't understand science.

>>2112920
You're only as correct as the theories you believe.

Which is why we never take christfags seriously around here.

this is bullshit if god exist we are going to hell even those who believe
5min on 4chan is enough

>>2112894
>>2112883
>>2112846

Still waiting for you to give an adequate response to:

>>2112864
>>2112893
>>2112903

>>2112936
>>2112936
I don't know if you exist. I can't know with 100% certainty.

>>2112894
no

>>2112893
See: the Bible. It has all the answers you want.

hey who give a shit about god if we can prove that the devil dont exist we are good

>>2112890

Agnostics and religious apologists have trouble understanding the difference between faith and rational belief. They think that all beliefs in things that are less than 100% certain are equal. They need to learn that the word faith commonly refers to a subset of beliefs, namely beliefs that are held without any basis in evidence. Even though neither belief is absolutely certain, there's a huge difference between believing that I'm sitting at a desk and believing in Santa Claus. Unfortunately, some people have difficulty seeing this difference and would say "they're both just faith".

Actually, they don't. They only have difficulty understanding the difference when it comes to beliefs regarding religion. There are no agnostics about Santa Claus (with the exception of small children), but there seem to be plenty of people agnostic about equally unlikely religious beliefs.

I blame political correctness for this. Society drills the idea that all opinions are equal into people's heads from the day they are born, and this means we don't like the idea of some people being right and others being wrong. As a result, some people decide that everything is faith and nothing is true. This allows them to keep on believing the comfortable lie that every belief is equal.

>>2112943

Lol. Does the Bible talk about nucleosynthesis? Does it talk about symmetry breaking? How about quasars?

>>2112965

sorry, meant to direct that to

>>2112954

>>2111142

yes but bible says only God creates life! it can't spontaneously arise from organic molecules... the Bible doesn't mention aliens!

>>2111161
>life on earth is magical derp hurra durra durp

>>2112971
Question: "Is God real? How can I know for sure that God is real?"

Answer: We know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us in three ways: in creation, in His Word, and in His Son, Jesus Christ.

The most basic proof of God’s existence is simply what He has made. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1).

If I found a wristwatch in the middle of a field, I would not assume that it just “appeared” out of nowhere or that it had always existed. Based on the watch’s design, I would assume it had a designer. But there is far greater design and precision in the world around us. Our measurement of time is not based on wristwatches, but on God’s handiwork—the regular rotation of the earth (and the radioactive properties of the cesium-133 atom). The universe displays great design, and this argues for a Great Designer.

>>2111163
>the purpose of the universe is a bearded man wants us to go to church every sunday and cares were we put our dick

astonishing theory professor!

>>2112980
You convinced me. I'll revert to Islam now.

>>2112980
>>2112980
>We know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us in three ways: in creation, in His Word, and in His Son, Jesus Christ.
peer reviewed

>>2112954

I take it from your silence that the bible doesn't talk about any of those things I mentioned (nucleosynthesis, CMBR, etc). So I can only assume that you do not, in fact, have a better explanation to the Big Bang theory.

Atheists 1, theists 0.

>>2112997

HOORAY FOR ISLAM!

how deluded do you have to be to think that universes have a natural cause?

>>2111151
hahah i know right i just remembered what that was. a freaking lolly pop on a graph

>>2113008
Except that the Big Bang theory reaffirms theism by pointing to a potential creation event, and was in fact created by priest (Georges Lemaître).

Theists: 1
Atheists: 0

>>2113055

That's fantastic. So why do these fundie Christians argue against it when instead they should be embracing it. :)

>>2113055
>reaffirms theism by pointing to a potential creation event

Hey guys I just proved that there's a giraffe who makes teaspoons, cos I found a teaspoon in my kitchen.

>>2113063

Hey guys I just proved that there was an explosion that created matter, cos I found out that he universe is expanding

>>2113072
>an explosion that created matter

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Go away andread this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

It reassures me that religifags can only feel confident by completely misrepresenting the opposing position

Mathematics major, but I believe in God.

I don't exactly follow a certain doctrine of religion, but I do pray daily and have a vivid concept of God. I also meditate daily in an attempt to become closer to Him. It's a personal decision, and does not conflict with my academic duties. Although I concern myself with the complexities of Mathematics and the philosophies attached to it, I do not allow it to intervene with my belief system.

In my opinion, there are too many anomalies in life; too many unexplained phenomenons. I find it marvelous for someone to completely abolish the very notion of an existence of a higher being. At the very least, try to entertain the idea. I continuously entertain the idea of a God not being in existence, but I choose not to abide by such a belief(or non-belief, I should say). I do, however, entertain the idea. If it is true, so be it; I wouldn't live my life any other way, anyhow.

>>2113072

You can read this too.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#bigbang

Feel free to come back when you're educated on the subjects you're trying to refute.

>>2113083
>too many anomalies in life; too many unexplained phenomenons

Examples?

>>2113083
>Mathematics major, but I believe in God.

Why the "but"? Mathematics has no connection to skepticism. A lot of great mathematicians were completely insane.

>>2113117
things he don't know about biological mechanics

How could something have come to the thermodynamic sate like that previous of the BB? Why such curvature?

>>2113142
>previous of the BB

>>2113142

You're asking questions that don't have answers. By definition, we can never know about "before the big bang". In fact, that concept doesn't even make sense - the big bang is the beginning of time!

Just because a question is meaningless, doesn't mean you have to plug it up with some shit you just made up.

wasn't this thread here last night?

>>2113142
If you're really a deist, then why do you pray?

By praying, aren't you implying that your words are somehow intercepted by another dimension, which then fiddles with physics in this dimension to do what you want?

That doesn't sound very rational to me. In fact it sounds like a supernatural claim with no evidence.

>>2113186

I dont pray to any God, it is simply the first cause, it has nothing to do with humans

>>2111608
Multiple people cursed out an apparent doctorate of physics for his personal beliefs.

You're right, no ego driven Spock complex here!

btw evolutionary biologist christfag here

>>2113157
I am an atheist.

However, how come when someone states a question that has no answer they are asking a stupid question, but when inquiries about things humans could not by definition understand (eg the nature of a deity) it allegedly uproots an entire faith?

wat

>>2113239
samefag

>
However, how come when someone states a question that has no answer they are asking a stupid question, but when inquiries about things humans could not by definition understand (eg the nature of a deity) it allegedly uproots an entire faith?

That literally made no sense when i reread it.

What I was asking is, why is it that someone can ask a question science isn't capable of answering ('before' BB etc) they are asking a retarded question but when you ask a question that couldn't be answered (the nature of a deity) you are allegedly pointing out massive flaws in a belief system?

I used to believe in Santa. Now I don't.

I remember calling things like warp drive and time dillation to justify to my siblings his existance (my ma is a physicist).

>>2113239
samefag

>However, how come when someone states a question that has no answer they are asking a stupid question, but when inquiries about things humans could not by definition understand (eg the nature of a deity) it allegedly uproots an entire faith?

That literally made no sense when i reread it.

What I was asking is, why is it that someone can ask a question science isn't capable of answering ('before' BB etc) they are asking a retarded question but when you ask a question that couldn't be answered (the nature of a deity) you are allegedly pointing out massive flaws in a belief system?

Atheism is a religion.

>>2113287
Indeed, the same way NOT smoking is a habit

>>2113304
>implying atheism is not a religion

>>2111586
>However, it's plainly obvious that, even in the light of every bit of scientific evidence we have, a person can still believe that the universe exists because some kind of God made it exist, Big Bang or not, because the Big Bang theory is not, and never was, and never can be, a replacement for religion. It's a separate issue. Perhaps there is a God, but all he ever did was set some universal constants and make some physical laws. Who cares? When a scientist claims to be religious, that doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is in denial of any scientific fact or evidence.

Except it almost certainly does mean that the scientist is in denial. Pick me any popular religion, and I can proceed to tear it a new one.

Also, the lack of a (scientific) explanation does not imply the existence of a wizard who did it. In fact, this is what has led to many refuted ideas of the natural world, such as thunder is when some dude throws his hammer, and the sun is a big ball of fire pulled by a different dude on a chariot. So, anyone who believes in the existence of a god because of this lack of explanation missed the memo on what constitutes faulty reasoning from way back from the ancient Greeks.

>>2113310

>>Implying you don't desperately need it to be so you can frame it as a faith based opinion on the same level of credibility as your religious beliefs

>>2112365
People really mean to say "Atheists and rationalists tend to actively disbelief in some thing's existence in the natural world without evidence." Specifically, the existence of an object or some other "physical" or "metaphysical" thing.

Obviously we accept basic logical propositions. We also accept morality. Those are not scientific questions - questions of existence. They're something else, but on the questions of existence, science reigns supre=me.

>>2112920
>Main point being, belief in a theory does not mean you're correct.
You say that as though it's a bad thing. That's just par for the course, and there is no better method, so I'll stick with it.

Guys! Don't say God isn't real or else he'll smi-

>>2113316
>implying I have any "religious" beliefs
Agnosticism is the only non-religion

>>2113055
Except that the Big Bang theory reaffirms theism by pointing to a potential creation event, and was in fact created by priest (Georges Lemaître).

Also, the lack of a (scientific) explanation does not imply the existence of a wizard who did it. In fact, this is what has led to many refuted ideas of the natural world, such as thunder is when some dude throws his hammer, and the sun is a big ball of fire pulled by a different dude on a chariot. So, anyone who believes in the existence of a god because of this lack of explanation missed the memo on what constitutes faulty reasoning from way back from the ancient Greeks.

Also, watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
it's cool shit. It explains how it's more consistent with quantum theory that there is no cause to the universe. Remember that at the quantum level, there are no "causes" per se. It's all random events. What we see as causes are just the statistical summations of a bazillion random events on the quantum level.

Yes, the universe might have just come from nowhere. The total energy of the universe is about 0, and we know from quantum mechanics that something will definitely come from nothing. See spontaneous particle anti-particle pair creation.

>>2111106
trolled

>>2113287
Incorrect, atheism is a metaphysical belief. The various world religions are also metaphysical beliefs. What separates the two (presence of deities notwithstanding) is a codified set of rules and rituals. One cannot site any of the "Sacraments of Atheism," the lack of a promoted lifestyle (one could argue this to some extent in that atheists promote rationalism and what not, but I am saying there are no Ten Commandments in atheism).

It is my opinion that atheism and religion address the same empirical questions: existence of deities; morality and ethics; purpose etc. I would lump them under the same umbrella term "Metaphysical philosophies" however calling atheism a religion as it deals with metaphysics would be akin to calling earth science a branch of biology as they both deal with science.

mfw did i just get trolled?

>>2113055
>Except that the Big Bang theory reaffirms theism by pointing to a potential creation event, and was in fact created by priest (Georges Lemaître).

Also, the lack of a (scientific) explanation does not imply the existence of a wizard who did it. In fact, this is what has led to many refuted ideas of the natural world, such as thunder is when some dude throws his hammer, and the sun is a big ball of fire pulled by a different dude on a chariot. So, anyone who believes in the existence of a god because of this lack of explanation missed the memo on what constitutes faulty reasoning from way back from the ancient Greeks.

Also, watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
it's cool shit. It explains how it's more consistent with quantum theory that there is no cause to the universe. Remember that at the quantum level, there are no "causes" per se. It's all random events. What we see as causes are just the statistical summations of a bazillion random events on the quantum level.

Yes, the universe might have just come from nowhere. The total energy of the universe is about 0, and we know from quantum mechanics that something will definitely come from nothing. See spontaneous particle anti-particle pair creation.

>>2111117
Absurd troll is absurd.

>S. Hawking

Best religion debunking thread I've seen for weeks.

Bravo, /sci/ducks!

>>2113354
I'm not entirely sure that denying the existence of the metaphysical is exactly a branch of metaphysics.

by your description, any dichotomy of disagreeing philosophies is actually one and the same thing. Is denying a thing the same as acknowledging a thing?

http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

>>2113458
Evolution by natural selection was here. Quran is a faggot.

Also, anyone convinced by that is so stupid... It's worse than Nostradomus.

>>2113481
these muslim cunts will keep trolling as long as anyone responds. just ignore them, unless you're samefagging, in which case please kill your stupid self stat.

>>2113488
Sorry. I reply to non-obvious trolls just to be sure that anyone else reading this understands that it is a troll, and that he's full of shit. There are too many muslims out there who actually buy that shit, so I will correct them when I can.

>>2113493
do you think a lot of muslims hang out on /sci/?

when's the last time you read some cutting-edge modern muslim science?

>>2113501
when was the last time you heard some cutting edge non muslim science?

>>2113504
erry day.

>>2112664
>this is not inherently irrational
That was a non-sequitur.

>you have to make axioms to function otherwise you don't know you need food or air or water to live. it's part of survival.
Looks to me like plenty of organisms survive with axioms and logic.

>If you wan me to believe in your invisible fairies prove it.
Honestly, the way you're going, I doubt that you are capable of understanding any proof presented to you, since you're not thinking clearly or critically. Luckily for my schedule this puts you in the group of people about whose beliefs I do not give a shit.

>>2112894
Yes.

>>2113398
>I'm not entirely sure that denying the existence of the metaphysical is exactly a branch of metaphysics.

It is a metaphysical position, perspective, or claim.