/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2855312
Define your god well enough that it might exist. Then I'll prove it doesn't.

>>2855316
This. It's one thing to do "durr durr, God," but it's another to believe in a specific deity.

>>2855321

I dunno; atheists seem to expend a lot more energy trying to disprove the Christian god than Thor or Shiva or Zeus.

agnostics are just fuckin retards who cant see that the atheists are right. Grow up, there is no good creator that loves you all, lawl.

>>2855312
technically the only "safe" religious position would be to pick the most popular religion and go with it, since even being agnostic would mean you were going to hell

>>2855312
Agnosticism: for those who both don't understand differences between Ontology and Epistemology, and want to avoid the baggage of being an Atheist.

>>2855330

Although I suppose if you were a good agnostic who didn't murder, rape, and pillage, your odds of going to hell are somewhat lower.

sage

>>2855342
Nope. Only belief in Hitler's god Yahweh and his son Jesus will save you. How good you were as a person is completely irrelevant, for all have sinned and fall short of the kingdom of Yahweh.

>>2855342

Agnostic atheism is the most sensible religious position.

I'm still waiting on a definition of god that is at once logical and fits our observations. Until such time as we can even approach a definition of such a creature, atheism is the rational choice.

>The existence of Big Foot cannot be disproven.
>The existence of unicorns cannot be disproven.
>The existence of leprechauns cannot be disproven.
>The existence of alines cannot be disproven
>The existence of deities cannot be disproven
>The existence of genies cannot be disproven
>The existence of faires cannot be disproven
>The existence of pixies cannot be disproven
>The existence of ghosts cannot be disproven

Burden of proof Theistfag, burden of proof.

>>2855326
True, typically such threads do entail the "Christian God" (more fittingly known as Yahweh) but the problem with such discussions is that God is rarely clearly defined. Although it could stand for a religious deity, it could also possibly stand for some "we are everything and everything is God" sort of euphemism, hence the need for a clear definition in order to have fruitful discourse.

>>2855353

Depends. If you define God as peace and love, then belief in him is belief in peace and love.

>>2855360
Read Leibniz's theory of god as substance i.e. the universe.

It's almost pantheism in the extent that everything is said to be a part of god, but that god is the one and only substance in the world and everything else is just an emotion of god.

This comes from the true discoverer of Calculus

>>2855375
Now I'm not saying it's completely logical, but it does fit our scientific observations, at least those of that time period

>>2855369

That's the problem with making vague definitions of God like that. They're impossible to disprove.

Drunk, out of character and replying to a troll thread. Simply because it'll get my own thoughts in order.

>Agnosticism is spun by organised religion to imply people believe in a higher power.
>Additional funding is secured by these organisations based on this fallacy.
>Atheism lacks this unwanted effect and I can say with utmost drunken confidence that if there is a higher power it won't give a shit what we think.

>>2855385
>>2855375

FWIW, Christians have a reputation of being anti-science because of the idea that their religion might be disproven. Muslims OTOH (at least ones I've talked to) are quite convinced that science will eventually prove God's existence.

Atheism != Gnostic Atheism

Atheism = Agnostic Atheism or Gnostic Atheism

>>2855408

Big difference. Muslims believe the universe to be a physical manifestation of God's presence, while Christians don't.

>>2855375
>true discoverer of calculus
>implying Newton didn't discover it first and then not publish it.

>>2855408

Probably has something to do with both ideas being born in the same place.

im a buddhist, to me a existence of a god is irrelevent

>>2855361
>The existence of Consciousness cannot be proven or disproven
>The existence of Love cannot be proven or disproven
>The existence of Personality cannot be proven or disproven
>The existence of most higher mental functions cannot be proven or disproven

Ok, yeah. Proving shit is for science morons.

Apatheist here.

Why you guys so mad?

>>2855433

Buddhism is an agnostic religion. It states that the existence of God is unknowable by man.

>>2855446

Why do you care?

You must be new at it.

>>2855438

The existence of an afterlife cannot be proven or disproven etc, etc.

>>2855481
If something cannot be proven, there is no need to even consider the possibility of "disproving" it.

/thread

>>2855438
You can prove each and every one of those mentioned with an fMRI

>False Analogy is a False Analogy

>>2855510

Incorrect. All they can do is detect electrical impulses in the brain, but there's no way to read or decode them.

>>2855438's point still stands.

>>2855527
Fine, an fMRI can show empirical evidence for the existence of such things as emotion. Since I know that I can think, I know that I am conscious. Since I can use all my senses to simultaneously confirm at least sensory evidence of the external world, I can be sure that it exists. Because I can be sure the external world exists, and because I know other people can also use the word 'I', and that 'I' comes as a result of consciousness, I can be sure that consciousness exists in other people.
Again, both can be proven so the prior statement is still a false analogy

god=wasting your 1 and only life.


fuckin lol.

>>2855312
So you're saying religion is a strange game. The only way to win is not to play.

>>2855312
I can agree with this

>>2855527
an fMRI can be decoded, for instance activity in the Limbic system is always imagination or creativity. so these electrical impulses, as you call them, can be decoded.

The existence of God could be proven, if it existed. Agnosticism remains the safest philosophical position, but atheism has features that recommend it.

how about no fuckin label. how about there is no fuckin god because there is no fuckin god. thats where i stand. no label, no nothing. i live and exist.

fuckin lol at everyone trying to label thier lives, FUCKIN SAD LITTLE CUNTS WASTIN THIER ONE AND ONLY LIIFE. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLL

I'll deal with religion when I'm dead.

Otherwise, fuk u religin.

>>2855589

From what I've seen of the Dawkins brigade, atheism doesn't really have a lot to recommend it over agnosticism.

>>2855326
No one is trying to force me to the alter to offer dead sheep to Zeus.

The list of extraordinary things that cannot be proven or disproven can be eternal, based on your imagination. Therefore, agnosticism is fucking useless.

the existence of Shlumparf, the invisible homosexual, enormously hung anal sex master cannot be proven or disproven.

>>2855641
I forgot to mention he's a dwarf

>>2855312

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h63HhdR2KM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

mfw when thiests never get anything from god, but go along with a 'feeling' because of hivemind. hohoho

thread is TL;DR, but i'd like to point out that agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

>>2855632

OP here. I can't say any Christians have ever forced me to attend church every Sunday either.

>>2855652

>thiests never get anything from god

Which again is something that cannot be proven or disproven.

But if you're an agnostic you go to hell for doubting.

Call me when we can travel to the fifth dimension.

>>2855658
your mom is a subset of retarded

I would suppose one of the reasons I am an agnostic is because I don't derive pleasure from attacking others' beliefs, nor do I believe (as atheists tend to do) that religion is inherently harmful to society.

>>2855461
wrong

>>2855689

There are many religions, all of which are as likely to be correct as every other, and some of them do not include belief in a hell.

you can't disprove the existence of anything.
/thread/

>>2855733

You can't prove the existence of anything either.

This is what happens when people study philosophy.

>>2855741
O RLY?

Only if you're stupid enough to think that you can formulate beliefs from proofs.

>>2855689
Thomas doubted. He didn't go to hell.

>>2855741
I can prove the existence of my consciousness

>>2855774

Just because you think or doubt doesn't mean you exist you twerp.

Philosophy is the most useless fucking thing ever. Might as well study religion or psychology.

>>2855649
>>2855649
>>2855649
>>2855649
>>2855649
>>2855649
>>2855649
>>2855649
>>2855649
>>2855649

Why do agnostics have so much faith that a god can't be proven or disproven?

>>2855850
>Just because you think or doubt doesn't mean you exist

>>2855850

Science and philosophy go hand-in-hand. I think we spend more time discussing the latter on this board than actual hard science.

>>2855861

Simple. If God is not part of the physical world, his existence cannot be objectively proven. Nor can you disprove him because proving a negative isn't possible.

Occam's Razor.

There is no God.

>>2855850
see:
>>2855843

>>2855873
>If god isn't part of the physical world

Please explain how something could exist and not be part of the "physical world".

>>2855895
It could exist in a spiritual world.

>>2855830

Doubting =/= "HURR DURR CHRISTFAGS SUCK AND THE POPE KILLS MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY AND INVISIBLE PINK LEPRECHAUNS AND STUFF!!!"

/thread

>>2855902
What reason does anyone have to believe that a "spiritual world", whatever the fuck that means, is real?

>>2855878

Prove to me that your and/or my conscious is real.

Philosophy is shit.

>>2855895

See >>2855421 and >>2855408

>>2855895
It exists, and it's not part of the physical world. What the fuck is there to explain?

>>2855907
I'm not saying one exists. It probably doesn't. I was just answering your original question about how something could exist outside of a physical world.

>>2855895
Explain to me why a physical world should be all that exists?

If you start with the assumption that God is real, then of course he could make a place for us to exist in in which he could be separate from.

Of course that's a mighty big assumption. Impossible to disprove, yes, but why anyone would actually believe it is a different matter.

>>2855907
Because we are spirits and we exist.

>>2855915

Rule #1 of atheism: If James Randi didn't see it, it didn't happen.

>>2855918
So making shit up is a valid defense. Cool.

>>2855920
Define spirit.

>>2855923

It could be viewed as an entity that exists in another dimension beyond the one we live in.

>>2855923
A spirtual world could exist. Have proof it doesn't? Until you do, you have to acknowledge the possibility it could be there. Hypothetically, that's one possibility that something could exist outside of a physical world. Don't get mad at me for getting an answer you don't like.

>>2855920
>"we are spirits and we exist"

And your basis for thinking that we're somehow independent of the physical universe is...? Is the idea that we being essentially collections of particles which are aware of their own existence so outlandish that you have to substitute empirical evidence with "spirits" and a "spiritual world?"

>79 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
and no one said anything to the effect of

>the existence of two possibilities does not imply the likelihood of both are equal.

>>2855923
Kierkegaard defined it as a relation that relates itself to itself. I hope that helps your analysis.

>>2855931
There are 15 strippers in line to suck my dick right now. Have proof that there aren't? Until you do, you have to acknowledge the possibility. But there's also a word, "probability", that you may want to get yourself acquainted with.

>>2855939
>>2855947 just did.

>>2855933

It seems outlandish to me to think that chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain are capable of conscious thought (when by all logic they should produce nothing more than automatic reflexes in response to stimuli).

But that's just my opinion, and opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.

>>2855930
And what sort of dimension might that be? Spatial? Temporal? How would it be possible for an entity from a different set of dimensions be capable of shifting through varied dimensions to reside in your head?

I can't deny that it may be possible for such a world to exist, but until you can prove that it might exist, this is ultimately fruitless conjecture.

>>2855947

I can easily disprove it. No one would want your herpes-infected dick. QED.

>>2855960
So your argument for dualism is that you can't think of a way for chemicals to provide consciousness. I thought we were above this bullshit, /sci/. I really did.

Well the atheist argument is there is no evidence in god and so no logical way to believe in god, and the only way to do so is "faith". This magically enables a 100% confidence in the existence of something you cannot prove.

How you can feel 100% certain of anything I will never know as I'd go as far to say my memory of me having a cup of tea just now, is not enough for me to say I am 100% confident I had a cup of tea just now.

Any so called argument for God existing is always an argument for benefits in believing a god (happiness etc), which in no way makes it truer or a statement equivalent to "I believe in god, because I believe in god".... I have yet to hear a good reason for believing in god.

Side question, if you have to believe in the Christian god to not go to hell, did everyone who ever lived before the bible go to hell, eternal damnation sounds a bit more for not knowing something you had no access to.

My other annoyance is some people must have their head a little too far up their own arse and say The only way people could exist is a being with infinite power created us... really... really... have they seen themselves? .. .A god with the power of that described by religion would be so high "he" make anything, he could make something so beautiful if you glanced at it for one second you would suddenly cum yourself to death.

>>2855947
Dear god, you're stupid. Listen. You asked "how can something exist if it's not part of a physical world?" I gave you a situation in which it could. It COULD. The answer has nothing to do with how likely the situation is. I TOLD you already it's unlikely, but the situation still exists. The answer is valid. Do you understand?

>>2855972
Ah, but these strippers really need the money I'll pay them, so my herpes is irrelevant. See, ad hoc reasoning can work both ways!

>>2855968

Well, lots of people claim to have audiovisual evidence of ghosts, but interestingly enough no such evidence of God.

This would lead us to conclude the following possibilities:

1. Ghosts exist, but God doesn't
2. God is on a higher dimension/level of existence than ghosts and cannot be detected by man
3. God is capable of hiding himself from detection better than ghosts

>>2855981

We can assume they have herpes already and it doesn't matter if they service someone with it.

But this is devolving into /b territory, so...

>>2855980
>I gave you a situation in which it could.
no you didn't. you just said something about "A spirtual world" without even defining what it is.
just meaningless statement.

A cromulent wourld could exist. you can't prove me wrong, thus i win the argument.

>>2855968
"Spiritual dimensions" are not spatial or temporal, but they appear similar to the spirit. States of affections are like spatial dimensions and states of knowledge are like temporal dimensions, and we naturally conflate them with such in everyday language.

>>2856000
You don't know what a spiritual world is? Try really hard. Pretend for 10 seconds that you have a brain and try really hard to figure out what a spiritual world could possibly be. Let me know if you can come up with something.

>>2855989
>lots of people claim to have audiovisual evidence of ghosts
lots of people claim various stupid shit.

where are some peer reviewed studies published in journals?

>>2856000
>you can't prove me wrong, thus i win the argument.

No, you just listed another possibility, proving my point.

>>2855968
>Side question, if you have to believe in the Christian god to not go to hell, did everyone who ever lived before the bible go to hell, eternal damnation sounds a bit more for not knowing something you had no access to.

Before Christ, atonement for sins was done through offerings to God, usually through sacrifice of animals.
As for this:
>My other annoyance is some people must have their head a little too far up their own arse and say The only way people could exist is a being with infinite power created us... really... really... have they seen themselves? .. .A god with the power of that described by religion would be so high "he" make anything, he could make something so beautiful if you glanced at it for one second you would suddenly cum yourself to death.

Kinda silly for anyone to think they know what an infinitely powerful being should / would do, considering how not even remotely close we are to "infinite power"

pic unrelated

>>2855978

>he could make something so beautiful if you glanced at it for one second you would suddenly cum yourself to death

Partial credit. In the OT, the Israelites were forbidden to handle the Ark of the Covenant except with its carrying poles because the power of God was so great that no mortal man could touch it and live.

This being the inspiration for the Nazis in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" expiring in spectacularly gruesome fashion.

>>2856009
>You don't know what a spiritual world is?
let's say that i don't. can you provide a meaningful definition?

>>2855312

But that's exactly why I'm an atheist. I don't believe that God exists. I understand his existence could not be proven or disproven. At the same time, I don't believe he exists because there doesn't seem to be any reason to.

Am I not supposed to disbelieve anything that cannot be proven or disproven? I don't believe that unicorns exist. I don't believe that ghosts exist. I just think your position is highly illogical, no offense.

>>2855913
"Prove to me that your and /or my conscious is real.”
If you know you can think, you exist in some form, I do not know you think, therefore I cannot say you are.
I know I think, therefore I know I am, I cannot say I know I am typing this message, but I know that I am something even if everything I perceive is wrong. The knowledge of my own existence is the only thing I can be 100% certain of as the idea "I exists" proves the statement "I exist", and the idea "I do not exist" disproves the statement "I do not exist".

Define "God" and then we can tell you whether it's existence can be proven or disproven.

Sage for "I R FILOSOPHER".

>>2856024
>proving my point
unfalsifiable statements cannot prove anything. lrn2logic.

>>2856014
lol, asshole.

I try to be open minded but I really do feel like most people who define themselves are agnostics just don't want the baggage that comes with being called atheist.

Most atheists do believe that God cannot be proven or disproven. That makes them agnostic too, does it not? Hell I'd say that most THEISTS also hold that position as well. I'd so most people in general are agnostic. I just don't understand anyone who defines themselves as exclusively agnostic; makes no sense.

>>2856031
It's just a fancy name that religious idiots give to a world that exists outside the physical.

Why does it seem like, most people like OP seem to think that atheists are 100% sure that God does not exist? That's not the case. Most atheists merely don't believe in his existence. They don't say "Factually God does not exist, that's a fact".

>>2856056

See >>2855700

>>2856055
what's the matter, you ran out of arguments?

>>2856057
>world that exists outside the physical.
by definiton of existence, that statement is equivalent to
>world that doesn't exist.

>>2855700
>I don't derive pleasure from attacking others' beliefs

I see Agnostics say stuff like "it's only the correct choice" all the time. You constantly attack atheists for being rude and close-minded. How can you not say this is a quality of agnostics as well?

>nor do I believe (as atheists tend to do) that religion is inherently harmful to society.

Neither does atheism. Many atheists do believe that but it is not what atheist is.

>>2856069

But again, you can't prove or disprove that a spiritual world exists.

>>2856069
You can't know that. Stop pretending you do.

>>2856069
No it's not, you idiot.

XKCD always relevant.

>>2856075
You can't prove that anything exists or doesn't exist. So what?

>>2856065
There's no argument here. Just someone being an asshole by being completely ignorant of philosophy but trying to talk about it anyway.

>>2856080
That's actually my whole point. Thank you for agreeing with me.

>>2856087

>>2856092
>mad

Agnosticism is a stand on epistemology, not religion. Why must I always reply to these threads?

Don't stand there gawping! Like you've never seen the hand o' God before!

>>2856056

>I try to be open minded but I really do feel like most people who define themselves are agnostics just don't want the baggage that comes with being called atheist.

Traditionally, atheism didn't exist in a vacuum, but rather as part of some other ideology such as Marxism. That changed when Dawkins made it into an ideology unto itself because he didn't want the baggage of being associated with Stalin and friends.

>>2856110
3/10, almost got me.

>>2856101
Because you're a moron. Agnosticism is declining to take a position on religion for epistemological reasons.

>jesus was way cooler than you.

>>2856075
>you can't prove or disprove that a spiritual world exists
look, if it's not falsifiable, that means it cannot affect you in any way. so from your point of view, it doesn't exist.

>>2856078
another ad hominem?
>>2856085
>ignorant of philosophy
since when has philosophy any relevance to the real world?

>>2856170

Life is philosophy. You must be one of those Randi kool-aid drinkers who believe we're just molecules with no soul and life has no meaning or purpose.

>>2856178
Your euphemism seems to lack substance. Mind clarifying what you mean? Because to me it just looks like hippie-babble.