/sci/ - Science & Math

>hasn't heard of a Dolphin, Elephant, or Octopus.

You had me till you started saying other animals can't be as self aware as us.

This is the problem with religiousfags they think they are superior to everything because god made them that way.

>>2417141

>You had me till you started saying other animals can't be as self aware as us.
That's because they can't.

>This is the problem with religiousfags they think they are superior to everything because god made them that way.
Are you saying human are inferior to animals?

>>2417141
That mindset right there explains a lot of thins

For example:

Abortions are legal
Killing an endangered species is punishable by decades in jail

What do you base the likelihood of conscious energy of? That's an assumption with no ground.

By having our abilities we interpreted them as being evolutionary traits. How hard is that to understand?

Going by empirical reasoning agnosticism is the only reasonable faith you should hold. You don't know YET but wish to investigate.

Complete denial of the possibility of a god in it's most basic form (creator) or clinging to a faith in one are both illogical.

>>2417159
Go fight a lion without a weapon and come talk to me.

Also like i said Go study on those 3 animals i listed. Some animals are just as self aware as us. We just have opposable thumbs.

>>2417175
>Saying animals are self aware like us.
>automatically animal lover/caring about whether someone that got knocked up kills or keeps a baby.

Cool logic bro.

>why does "god" exist? How did "god" come into existence?

It's a heck of a lot easier to factor out god from the equation. It's hard enough to figure out where matter came from let alone where some intelligent designer came from.

>>2417193
This guy speaks good logic

Fun fact: humans and dolphins are the only animals that mate for pleasure

>>2417238
I thought Pigs did too?

>>2417238
Sounds like a sunday times or guardian fun fact to me. What about other primates?

>>2417193
So you're saying that physical strength is the deciding factor when comparing the the awareness of animals to the awareness of people?

People have invented an endless number of methods to defeating a lion face to face.

You're logic is pointless. Yes, a lion can kill an unsuspecting person. But a lion can't defend itself from the intelligence of a person.

Thus, simple logic proves humans are more aware and intelligent than any animal.

Indeed. If physical strength was the only thing that mattered. Then of course, we would have died off.

However, since we've the brain to compensate, and then some, we're at the top of the food chain.

Ain't no lion fucking with my massive nuclear missile which can kill an entire continent of lions, tigers, and bears, instantly.

>>2417193
humans mastered lions many thousands of years ago.

learn 2 history

Besides, whether a single person can kill a lion is really, really fucking pointless. There's a reason that we've dominated this planet, and it isn't attacking lions one-on-one.

>as physics consists of an infinite number of rules and >laws; each interacting with each other in perfect unison.

Bull shit
there are four forces in physics they do not interact with each other they only interact with particles of which there are 12 that is all of

>>2417117
>Our consciousness is a phenomenon that we still do not understand.

Nope.
What part don't you understand?

\thread

I appreciate Carl Sagan's suggestions in Borca's Brain,

"My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence were provided by such a god...on the other hand if such a god does not exist then our curiosity and intelligence are the essential tools for survival. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is essential for the welfare of the human species."

>>2417708
none, obviously

JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN WE'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT. WE USED TO NOT UNDERSTAND LIGHTNING, NOW WE DO, THESE THING STAKE TIME. GOD OF THE GAPS FALLACY. I'M YELLING BECAUSE I KNOW I'M BEING TROLLED.

>>2417736
some things are unknown, but yet to be discovered
and some things are outside the reach of reason

science is one tool of our mind

>>2417708
LOL nice troll

its not an infinite number of laws but basically just four.

>>2417117
>Boohoo misinformed people misjudge religion
God doesnt explain anything
because the question "who made god" just replaces
"who made the universe"
Religion, and especially established religions with their dogma's and so called "answers" (made up by people with no authority in the fields they speak about whatsoever) is the worst way to explain ANYTHING we experience at all

>>2418222
>God made the Universe
>Then who made God?
>He always existed
trololol

>the universe created itself
>How?
>quantum
>What made quantum?
>It's always existed
trolololol

>>2418288
except that science makes no such claims, it just says, "we don't know"
>your post
trololol

First, youre making a logical fallacy. Its called an appeal to ignorance. Youre claiming that our lack of knowledge and understanding is proof of something.

Second, you claim that god is an "entity" implying he is a being with intelligence. In order to have intelligence, you need to have some form of physical laws which allow that intelligence to exist. Perhaps god exists, and perhaps he created the universe, but it would require another universe that already existed with physical laws allowing for god's intelligence. The universe god resides in would have to also be finely tuned, then who created that universe? Its an infinite regress. Now that doesnt mean it shows god does or doesnt exist, it simply means that argument gets you know where and provides no evidence for or against god.

>>2417117

>It's very unlikely that physics sprang into existence by pure chance, as physics consists of an infinite number of rules and laws; each interacting with each other in perfect unison.

Ah, I love this one. "If the formula of water had been H2O2 instead of H2O, we wouldn't be able to drink it, and we would not have survived as a species, therefore I suspect the existence of a supreme being".

because it is axiomatic to moral action.

consider: prove to me induction is valid in the natural world. (spoiler, you can't). But you assume its true because otherwise you can't make any sensible action

consider: prove to me you aren't a brain in a vat, and your experiences are artifical. (spoiler, you can't). But entertaining that notion is pointless and if you lived as though that was possible would be impossible.

in the same manner, you need a supernatural, personal, creator-sustainer in order to have sensible action. the existence of God is not like the existence of cheetos or the existence of your animes, it is something you assume to derive other moral results.

>>2417191
>What do you base the likelihood of conscious energy of? That's an assumption with no ground

Um, we are conscious, right? We are made of a form of energy. Granted, this does not wholly have explanatory power to justify "God", but the possibility has been proven, to answer your question.

>>2418360
Why do we need God as an axiom? Can't we just skip that and say "harming others is bad" is an axiom? They're both equally arbitrary.

Even better, we could just do away with axioms and induction and act how we want to when we want to. Over time, we'd evolve a sensible set of morals as a species, as those with less successful morals (i.e. murder is okay) would die off. Oh wait, we've done this already, and that's where morality comes from, not God or logic.

>>2418341

Nice example except for the supreme being. If it had been H202, then as you said, we would not have developed. Therefore, the only way we could reach our present stage is if it it was the way it is now. We would be different creatures or not exist at all if any of the four fundamental laws of physics were not as they are.

>>2418457
because an axiom is irreducible; furthermore, I don't think you consider the entirity of moral action is derivable from "harming others is bad". I think approving of helping others is the simplistic demostration of that, although I can construct more elaborate scenarios.

>>2418457

>>Even better, we could just do away with axioms and induction and act how we want to when we want to. Over time, we'd evolve a sensible set of morals as a species, as those with less successful morals (i.e. murder is okay) would die off. Oh wait, we've done this already, and that's where morality comes from, not God or logic. >>

this is a restatement of an ancient arguement; plato on the road to euthyphro. I do find it amusing when you think your stuff is new or vindicated by science or something.

Evolution is not species centric but allele centric. Species are, after all, an artificial construction. Even better than being Good is seeming-good, if the point of morality is self-advacement.