/sci/ - Science & Math

>The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.

>>2532461

natural laws would still exist even if the universe didn't

they just wouldn't have anything to act on

Apparently nothing can come from something, though.

e.g. this thread.

For some reason this particular fallacy seems to be a favorite of physicists. I don't get it.

>>2532461
Are you new to 4chan?
Is this your first attempt at trollin?

if something can come from the laws of physics then we can just postulate the laws of physics and cut out an assumption by removing god.

>>2532487
LMAO

What is so hard to understand about it?
I can try an educate you.

>implying scientific laws are infallible

The world's smartest man or anonymous.

Yeah, I think I'll stick with Hawking on this one.

>>2532506
anonymous is a hive mind though

I'd rather go with tons of minds instead of one, even if that one is the smartest

>>2532518
Failed logic is fail

>Yeah, but what caused the laws of physics?

>>2532527
my dick

>>2532527
>Thinks everything needs a cause

>>2532538

You reject causality?
On what grounds?

>>2532538
so youre saying magical white unicorns are able to pop out of nowhere into this room and just cuz and we just have to dealwithit.jpg amirite?

Philosophers and theologians are constantly told that they need to “learn the science” before commenting on quantum mechanics, relativity, or Darwinism. And rightly so. Yet too many scientists refuse to “learn the philosophy” before pontificating on the subject. The results are predictably sophomoric.

I miss the days of scientists like Eddington, Einstein, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger, who actually knew something about philosophy.

Last I checked, science does not disprove the existence of God. If anything, in my opinion, it validates it. Science, as far as Man is concerned, is discovering how God created the universe, and the tools plus the mechanics behind it. Ever given a child a cool little toy, only to watch the kid disassemble it to find how it works? That's how I believe God feels when giving this universe to us to explore.

Also.
>>2532506

That's the beauty of science, it can be proven, or disproven with the discovery of truth and trials. Hell, a few years ago, Hawkings himself disproved one of his own theories that held up for a couple decades. Just let that sink in folks.

>The nonsense written by philosophers on scientific matters is exceeded only by the nonsense written by scientists on philosophy

>>2532527
What caused the need for everything to have a cause?

>>2532564
Not really. It's just that quantum physics crosses so far into the "oh god what the fuck" territory you might as well call some questions philosophical. Which they are not.

Arguments for God as cause of the universe rest on the assumption that at some time, there was nothing. But we know that this is naive.

>>2532570

The "problem of self-predication" isn't actually a problem.

I'll just say this: the fact that causation is itself uncaused does not entail that causation--properly understood--is somehow false.

I agree with you OP. The people who try to claim that the quantum vacuum state is "nothing", including "notable" atheists are fucking retards. They are not worth our time.

>>2532559
>learn philosophy

>>2532483
The natural laws are a property of the universe. They are how it works.

>>2532570
The inherent order of reality.

>>2532559

>implying scientists pontificate.

Learn some fucking vocab asshat. I fucking hate pseudo-intellectuals.

>mfw i read idiots like you.

>>2532605
>>2532605
>>2532605
>>2532605
>>2532605
>>2532605

true talk nigrum

>>2532589

>Arguments for God as cause of the universe rest on the assumption that at some time, there was nothing. But we know that this is naive.
That's not true at all. You make a strawman.

>>2532589
>Arguments for God as cause of the universe rest on the assumption that at some time, there was nothing. But we know that this is naive.
No, there cannot be a time with nothing. Time is something. Spacetime is the context of the universe and is its substance. God is still its cause.

>>2532576
>as far as Man is concerned
and there you go

you commonly get faulty results if you start with faulty definitions

>>2532618
You misunderstood my post.

>>2532615

>Arguments for God as cause of the universe rest on the assumption that at some time, there was nothing
What about the Greek philosophers who argued for the existence of God, but also believed that the universe had was eternal?

>>2532618

Why do you idiots cling to God after you know very damn well he doesn't exist.....

>pic related

to a first approximation the universe we live in is nothing

its a bunch of -1s and +1s, and we are fortunate enough to have a little more +1s (matter) then -1s (antimatter)

>>Arguments for God as cause of the universe rest on the assumption that at some time, there was nothing
Is this what atheists actually believe?

>Arguments for God as cause of the universe rest on the assumption that something can’t come from nothing
Where did God come from? Where did the thing that created/birthed/whatever come from? etc

>>2532654
>Is this what atheists actually believe?
The dumb ones.

>>2532653

From stupid people who feel the need to provide answers to questions they dont know.

Something always existed. The Multiverse.

capcha: scientific helpr

>Where did God come from?
Just so you guys know, this question doesn't even make sense. It reflects a pretty serious category mistake.

>>2532539
1) Causality only exists in systems with progressive "time". There are tons of systems where the concept of time is meaningless (no time), or time is fucked up (not progressive).

2) There is a minimal amount of reducibility for any system. Once this "reducibility" is reached, the notion of effetc/cause is meaningless. Ie, once I have only "one independent varible/concept", I cannot use "cause and effect" arguments to further probe the system. A system with only one independent varible/concept can not be used to explain itself, it must be taken as "first principle".

>>2532654
>atheists believe

you just blew my fucking mind

>>2532682

>Causality only exists in systems with progressive "time".
You speak of efficient causation, but what of ontological causation?

if such a god exists

i am inclined to believe that he will forgive humanity for its ever insatiable curiosity of the unknown. i hope that he will realize why we question him. and that it is not because we defy him in doing so, but because we seek to understand him.

so on the basis of this 50/50 technicality, in a universe in which a higher being exists, or does not, i am also inclined to believe that asserting such a bold truth statement like atheists, and theists hold, is highly unreasonable.


please, open the shutters a little and let the light come in guys. we know nothing about the universe except the fact that it's here. it's far too early to be postulating any assumption about the existence of a deity.


agnostics should not be agnostics simply due to the obvious situational ignorance both extremes hold regarding the existence of a deity, but because agnosticism is the key to either a universe with god, or a universe without.

we will cross this ocean, one bridge at a time.

>>2532634
God exists, you retard. You know it. I know it. Max Planck sure as FUCK knew it.

>>2532648
to a first approximation, you are retarded.

>>2532697
>we know nothing about the universe except the fact that it's here
You may not know anything, but it does not follow that nothing can be known.

>>2532704
state your reasons poster

>>2532700


Dude scroll up and read the lil picture I have tagged with >>2532634.

Max Planck himself might have been religious but so we're a lot of people at that time because of uncertainties. Today its naive to think an invisible man is looking over you YET doesn't involve himself in your day to day life. Such thoughts are purely so you can fucking feel good about yourself.

>yfw you think about god having your back.

Hawkings, Dawkinses, and Jerry Coynes of the world have been dancing the Myers Shuffle around their echo chamber for so long that they can only ever hear each other’s mutual congratulations shouted down the conga line.

>>2532682
You're confusing causality with science. Science doesn't draw any sharp distinction between causes and effects. Causality is a philosophical concept and it does not need to be rooted in time. For example in the platonic system, the world of the idea is the world of causes, and pertains more closesly to God, and the natural world is the world of effects, which only approximates the ideal. It follows the math and the geometry to an approximation.

>>2532716
You imply that overall charge neutrality makes something nothing. By this reasoning neutrons don't exist. This is retarded on too many levels to contemplate.

>>2532682
Example: We reduce everything to energy in particle physics.

We describe mass, momentum, time, space, and all other fundmental properties/objects in terms of energy. Energy is a first principle, and we use it to build physics. We use energy to build objects, and mathematics to build conservation laws/relations between them.

However, I couldn't use energy to describe itself fundementally. No matter how much fancy math I used. I cannot use "a" to describe "a". I could use mass to describe energy, but them my logic becomes nonsensical, as I used energy to describe mass as well.

The Hawkings, Dawkinses, and Jerry Coynes of the world have been dancing the Myers Shuffle around their echo chamber for so long that they can only ever hear each other’s mutual congratulations shouted down the conga line.

>>2532720
I've seen the cartoon before. It completely blows my mind to think that someone would be stupid enough to draw that cartoon thinking that these weren't obvious questions that every thinking child resolves by age 5. The fact that you posted it makes you retarded too.

>Max Planck himself might have been religious but so we're a lot of people at that time because of uncertainties
LOLOL, there are more uncertainties now than there were then. People aren't religious from uncertainties, you retard. And atheism was just as fashionable then in academia as now, so don't cop this "times were different" bullshit.

>>2532722
>citing the "platonic system"
>no fucking clue about it
yourdoingitwrong.jpg

>>2532692
>>2532722

Do y'all enjoy spouting bullshit?
All your phil ideas amount to nothing more then a circle jerk where no one gets off.

When all your bullshit ideas start producing technology, results, or can even fucking validate their truthfulness in realtion to reality, then I'll listen. Until then, fuck off!

>>2532818
>only cares about technology.
>doesn't care about ontology
Suit yourself. If you don't care about what's real, don't join conversations about it.

>>2532818

>>2532772

Dude if you wanna know the truth about Max Planck fucking do your own research. But just to shut your dumb ass up he wasn't religious through his entire life, only through his younger years. He was extremely tolerant of religions as I am but to pander around and pretend you know more than anyone on a question which A) has no proof and B) can never be answered is extremely childish and pathetic. Your failure to provide anything other than "lol god is real" makes you a troll sir!

>mfw you keep replying

>>2532833

>>2532833
>implying ontology hasn't been handled 100% by Plato.

>>2532833
Did you even read the whole post?
WTF?
You need to practice your reading skill bro!

HERP DERP: The Thread

>>2532461
>>2532461
>>2532461


> implying Emptiness isn't a prerequisite for "Form".

FUCK YOU

This thread began mostly with anons calling OP a terrible troll

This thread still hasn't ended

Answer me this, who really was getting trolled here?

>>2532840
Max Planck was a great man. You are a small child.
>As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. -Max Planck.

>>2532861
Yes, Eminem, I read and comprehended your whole post. Philosophy is about evaluating truthfulness in relation to reality. Science is about forming models to predict the behavior of nature. Yet you insult philosophy and imply that science is about ultimate truth. Stick to the hippity hop.

>>2533149

Fuck you ass hat - I know more about the man than you do dickless.

"...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism.. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely" - Max Planck

>let that soak in your brain for a little before it farts more bullshit

>yfw when you realize you cant beat me

Now go troll someone, im tired of playing your childish games.

From what I'm aware, nothing as used in the context of the cause of the universe isn't really "nothing". It's like "no stuff (matter, energy)", not "no existence". The laws of physics are there, but they don't count as something.