/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3127605
>There are only two possibilities of what could have created the universe: a conscious cause or an unconscious cause

That's not true. We're just humans and our idea of consciousness and unconsciousness could be completely flawed or fundamentally misguided or just plain dumb.

To that you might say, "Well if you don't accept some postulates about human intelligence, there's no point in discussing at all because you can just say 'But we don't know for sure.' "

That's true. But the thing is, you're talking about that exact kind of thing. Something about which there is no evidence, and there won't be evidence for a long time, if ever.

OP is unfortunately a fag.

>>3127649
I have immense respect for you and your response.

>>3127662
You're a dick.

>>3127649
In science we go from what we know. From what we know there are only unconscious and conscious things, because that's all we have got to know in the universe. Why are you so happy to apply past experiences to present experiences (trusting a stool will not crumble, for instance, because you have already sat on a chair before that didn't crumble) but go taboo when applying it to the universe?

Bump

>>3127679
>In science we go from what we know. From what we know there are only unconscious and conscious things
Science is empirical. Empirically, there's no such thing as conscious things. Consciousness can't be observed directly, only experienced. Only behaviors can be observed directly.

I agree with your reasoning about a conscious or an unconscious origin of the universe, but it is philosophy, not science.

On the subject, the argument can (and has) been made from the point of view of chaos and the observed self-similarity on multiple scales of the universe. Extrapolating from that, it is reasonable to suppose that since the universe has within it the qualities of consciousness, that its origin ought to have the qualities of consciousness as well.

>It can either be conscious or unconscious
>50/50 ODDS

No.

>>3127786
Full_Retard.jpg

>>3127605
Im glad someone else understands that the burden of proof lies on neither side.

Doesn't that fact that we conceived (from the viewpoint of an atheist, a theist would say that this being actually made contact with us, not trying to debunk any side though) of the idea of a god in fact make it a possibility?

Faith does not require proof. Attempting to debunk faith however, does.

One mistake is assuming beyond any doubt that there are only 2 options when the universe was created. Think outside the box. I'm not saying I can present another option, but don't limit yourself to absolutes when it comes to the origin of existence.

Believing in a supreme, conscious entity or force is like believing in unicorns on mars when you pair it with biblical stories of creation. Pantheism has a much more solid case for a possible "higher being" then any Judeo-Christian ideology or several others for that matter.

Also need to be careful when jumping back and forth between the philosophical and scientific lines as they can sometimes get blurred. As far as your question about what one could say about either choice, I would say a naturalistic explanation (non conscious) makes far more sense than trying to explain a conscious being already existing in nothing to create everything in the first place.

>>3127772
Yes pardon me, perhaps critical thinking was the correct word to use there. Or even philosophy as you suggested.

>>3127679
You really think I'm trying to be controversial or something? Badass?
Not-jokingly: this is beyond that. Not like "COME ON MAN THIS IS ABOUT OUR FAMILIES HERE," it's literally beyond that. Try for a minute to put yourself outside your human mind. Think of how the immenseness of infinity. We can't just keep building on theories and more theories which become guesses...it all just collapses into meaninglessness. I think we should progress in a linear, scientific fashion: build on what we know. You can't just skip two hundred million steps in conceptual and technological evolution and start making arguments. It's fun for a little while. But we aren't gods. We can't even fully understand "infinity," just to put it in perspective.

I come to Science & Math for science and math. That's all I'm trying to promote.

No the burden of proof lies on those who make the claim. It lies with those who say god speaks(spoke) to them and told him his wishes, laws, whatever you want to call it. Don't delude yourself the burden of proof lies on the claims of those proposing supernatural origins.

>>3127838
I'm not assuming that there are only 2 options, but based on what we know and have experienced, there are only two types of existence: conscious and unconscious.

>>3127849 = winner

Yay! OP figured out yet another way to re-phrase a false dichotomy.

>>3127855
agreed, just making sure we don't limit ourselves to other possibilities. Burden of proof is still on those making the supernatural claim ;)

Only those who have drunk from Russell's teapot can see the unicorn on Mars.

>>3127838
there are only two things

fuck "think of how the immenseness of infinity"

that could be a meme
i don't wanna sound like a faggot but that is one funny typo

>>3127851
Make what claim exactly? I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about a supreme conscious entity, a creator of the universe. Did you read my thread carefully enough?

>>3127869
The burden of proof is not on the supernatural claim, because, from what we know and have experienced, there are only two possibilities of existence: consciousness and unconsciousness. There is no evdience for either of those. why is there a burden of proof on the consciousness one?

>>3127605
>There are only two possibilities of what could have created the universe: a conscious cause or an unconscious cause.

Fallacy: false dilemma.

Also, there are some serious assumptions underlying your entire discussion:

1. The idea that things coming into existence need a cause. We haven't observed the genesis of a universe or of matter.

2. Cause and effect may not make sense. They are dependent upon time, and if space-time was generated in the Big-Bang, then our temporal models may not apply to "before" the Big Bang. The idea of a "cause" may, in fact, be nonsensical.

Just some thoughts.

>>3127849
Dude, you answered you yourself. You said:

>I think we should progress in a linear, scientific fashion: build on what we know.
That is precisely what I'm saying. Based on what we know there are only two types of existence: consciousness and unconsciousness. Assuming there is anything else (of course there might be) is foolish because there has been no evidence, ever, of aynthing else. Now this is a fine unicorn on Mars example.

Now that there are only 2 options, and no evidence for either of them, on whom lies the burden of proof?

>>3127855
No.

The universe is either the result of natural forces, supernatural forces or something else that we haven't conceived.

Consciousness/unconsciousness is begging the question and you're framing it improperly. And yes, it's implying a creator. Way to re-frame a false dichotomy.

>>3127908
Cause and effect are not necessarily dependent on time. We just tend to associate them with time. Cause and effect are again philosophical concepts, but we've had a great deal of success in applying them. If the temporal dimension of our spacetime originated in the big bang, that does not imply that the big bang did not have a cause, either a temporal cause (from some other temporal dimension or other kind of dimension) or an atemporal cause.

As to whether the cause of existence was conscious or unconscious, I'm assuming that it is understood that those qualities would only be applicable to such a cause in a very loose way. No sane religion presumes to be able comprehend the nature of the consciousness of God.

>>3127880
Umm I did read it and I never said anything about religion. God and religion can be to very different things You’re the one talking about a supernatural creator of the universe.... Your describing god, or a god, or the characteristics of a god. Pick which ever you want there all the same freakin thing. No evidence suggests a supreme conscious creator of everything did everything. I’m not saying that its not possible, because it cannot be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. However I’m saying one to make such a claim must deal with the burden of proof.

>>3127888

Existence is a condition on things. Consciousness is an emergent property of things that exist: the particles that make up the molecules that constitute the nerves of my brain exist.

You can't qualify existence.

>>3127908
1. I thought of that possibility too, but it wasn't necessary as it would change nothing. There would just be 3 world views, 3 unfalsifiable world views, instead of 2.

2. Might or might not. you're just guessing, and that's all I'm saying. The burden of proof doesn't lie on either side.

>>3127932
Yes, I know that. I don't know how many times I have to stress this, but based on what WE know, which is as far as we will ever get, is that there is either a conscious or an unconscious force that created the universe.

>>3127932
Thank you for pointing that out.

>>3127937
>Consciousness is an emergent property of things that exist
Wait, what? You know that how?

>>3127973
Do you know of anythings that don't exist with consciousness?

>>3127605
>>There are only two possibilities of what could have created the universe: a conscious cause or an unconscious cause.

there are only two possibilites of what could have created the universe: a Martian unicorn or not-a-Martian-unicorn

Now, this could actually be either way. The burden of proof isn't actually on anyone in particular.

>>3127954

You are assuming it needed a cause. We haven't observed anything coming into or out of existence (inb4 virtual particles).

>>3127962
see

>>3127954

>>3127993
Yeah. You answered yourself unknowingly :p

There really isn't a burden of proof regarding ANYTHING regarding the creation of the universe. That's why your example works out.

>>3128000
It doesn't matter whether I assume it didn't need a cause or not.

Option 1) Conscious cause
Option 2) Unconscious cause
Option 3) No cause

What's the difference? My very point in this very thread is that the __ burden of proof__ isn't on either side (theist or atheist).

>>3128012

>No burden of proof on a claim

>>3128034
Are you trying to seem stupid?

Based on what we know of existence, there are two types of causes for the universe: unconscious cause or conscious cause. This could be either way as there is no evidence for either of those options. Of course there is the no-cause option, but that doesn't change my argument, that the burden of proof is nowhere.

>>3128033

Theism: "I believe there is a god"

Weak Atheism: "I don't believe there is a god", analogous to, "I don't collect stamps".

Strong Atheism: "There is no god that exists."

The first and last are claims with a burden of proof. The second is a response to claims of existence or non-existence with: "there is either insufficient or no evidence for the claims of existence/non-existence".

>>3128045
thats agnosticism, fucking atheist tards trying to keep rationality to the Atheism tag.

>hint, atheism is a science of one

>Based on what we know of existence, there are two types of causes for the universe: unconscious cause or conscious cause.

When have you observed something coming into existence? Only if you have can you then narrow it down to "it had to have a cause". See: matter/energy not destroyed/created.

>This could be either way as there is no evidence for either of those options.

This is not a coin flip.

>Of course there is the no-cause option, but that doesn't change my argument, that the burden of proof is nowhere.

Trololo.

>>3128058
Don't you fucking start lumping Agnosticism with A/Theism.

>>3128045
Yeah that's agnosticism bro. Atheism means a-theism - a means no.

>>3128058

Agnosticism: "It can't be known".

This can also be construed as weak atheism, but at this point you're arguing semantics and not paying attention to what the poster is intending to communicate.

>>3128068

"a-" also means without. Hohoho, learn your Greek.

No there is actually only one possibility, an unconscious, unprovoked, unmotivated happening that somehow birthed a universe. If it was motivated or any bullshit like that we would be able to fucking see evidence for that. Since no such evidence exist it is only reasonable to assume there's not supposed to be any. Your god is a man-made construct, face reality already.

>>3128085
Here you assume god would show himself to us if he existed. Face reality already. ;)

>>3127679
Can consciousness exist without a brain then? If not, your god must have a brain.

>>3128065
>When have you observed something coming into existence? Only if you have can you then narrow it down to "it had to have a cause". See: matter/energy not destroyed/created.
What I meant was that based on what we have experienced and our perception of the world, we know only of two existence states for objects: consciousness and unconsciousness. We believe ourselves to be conscious, a rock is unconscious, an atom is unconscious (__ as far we we know, mind you__). As these two modes of existence are the only ones known to us, the only choice here is to assume that

1) A conscious cause for the universe
2) An unconscious cause for the universe
3) No cause

We can't assume something we don't know anything about. These are the only two options available to our understanding. Why would you assume there is such a thing as ultra dimensions? You wouldn't because we don't know yet. In the same way, why would you assume anything of the beginning of the universe? Nothing, we don't know yet.

>>3128077
a-hole.

>>3128100
I see nothing wrong with that. I don't know god. Do you?

>>3128097
No I assume that everything that exists can be observed within reality, if it is not to be observed, it does NOT exist and if your god is conscious he must have a brain, since consciousness cannot exist without one, which also means that he exists within this reality, since he would not be able to gather information within this universe otherwise, meaning that he could not have created the universe, since his existence is contingent upon it, finally: existence is your god, the term "god" is useless, there is only existence. If your god does not exist he is not conscious.

>>3128101

Consciousness is an emergent property of things that exist. As far as we can tell, consciousness arises from the brain. The particles that constitute the brain exist.

If you posit a consciousness that could have created the universe, and you add that into a list of causes, you need to show that consciousness can exist without matter which does exist (which is "the universe").

>>3127605
> There are only two possibilities of what could have created the universe: a conscious cause or an unconscious cause.
3) No cause.
4) Wasn't created.
5) Cause to which conscious or unconscious are equally inappropriate.
6) Self-caused.
7) None of the Above.

> There are only two possibilities
is ABSOLUTELY a claim to which
> Claims require evidence
applies.

> If you are presented with 2 choices but you don't know anything about either of them, what can you say about them?
By telling me what the choices are you impart some level of information upon which a judgment can be based, and by learning more about the options and the implications I can make better and more informed judgments. For example by studying the origin of the universe we can see that it reduces to singularities both in space and time. This means there may not be a cause at all once temporality breaks down. Furthermore the four known fundamental forces have a known time of emergence from that singularity, which precludes the existence of intelligence before that.
We're not WITHOUT evidence. This is not a case of opening infinite boxes to show there's not a cat living in any of them. It's a case of all infinite boxes being in a room entirely filled with deadly neurotoxin, so we know there's no cat living in any of them.

>>3128118
So if something can't be observed, it doesn't exist?
So if an entity has a brain, it has to exist within this reality?
So unless an entity exists within this universe, it's not able to gather information from this universe?

There are A LOT of assumptions there buddy. You have to support your incredible claims. Remember what Sagan said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

>>3127937
>Consciousness is an emergent property of things that exist
Properties are empirically observable qualities.
Emergent properties are observable patterns in collections of things.
Consciousness is neither of these things. It's called an emergent property by people who would rather dismiss it and not have people think about it.

>>3128118
I'm not saying matter exists only within this universe. That's our own unsupported assumption.

>>3128127
>3) No cause.
>4) Wasn't created.
>5) Cause to which conscious or unconscious >are equally inappropriate.
>6) Self-caused.
>7) None of the Above.

Jesus christ you're missing my fucking point. I'm not saying god exists. I'm saying the burden of proof does not lie solely on the theist. It's on the atheist too. The agnostic is the only one who escapes the burden of proof because the agnostic doesn't take a stance in either of the two.
There is no reason to, as there isn't any evidence for either of the claims.

>>3128085
There is obvious evidence for the cause being conscious. I.e., the fact that the effect is conscious.

>>3128118
>you have no thoughts, QED

>>3128141
> So if something can't be observed, it doesn't exist?
The definition of existence requires you to be, at least in principle, observable, however well you might have hidden or difficult it might be to detect you. By stating off the bat that it cannot ever be observable, you are actually saying it doesn't exist.
> So if an entity has a brain, it has to exist within this reality?
That's what reality and exist mean. Nothing unreal exists.
> So unless an entity exists within this universe, it's not able to gather information from this universe?
Correct. If there is a portal in a wardrobe to Narnia, then it turns out that Narnia, the portal, the mechanism which allows transit, and our own realm are all part of the universe. There are no "other" universes. That's what the uni in universe means. All of it. The whole thing.

>>3128165

No. If you tell me, "a pink unicorn that shits rainbows" exists, and I say, "I reject that claim because of inadequate evidence", does the burden of proof suddenly lie on me?

The burden of proof is on someone making a claim.

So, why is consciousness measured in binary?

>>3128165
Then you made your point very very badly.
Yes, gnostic atheists have a burden of proof.
Agnostic atheists do not.
However the first law of thermodynamics is pretty solid proof against anything causing the "creation" of the universe.

>>3128118
> I assume that everything that exists can be observed
bad assumption
>if your god is conscious he must have a brain,
another bad assumption

>>3128182
>The burden of proof is on someone making a claim.

This. This. A million times fuckin' this.

>>3128175
"the fact that the effect is conscious."
No it's not. The wind can make your hat blow off is that conscious?

>>3128182
Yet again you seem to willingly miss my point.

From what we know of consciousness, there are only two stages. Conscious or unconscious. There seem to be however, layers of consciousness, between us and for example cats, but that's a debate for another time. let's keep it simple.

Are you telling me I am to believe something (god didn't create the universe) based on no evidence at all?
Face it, there is no evidence for either, theism nor atheism. They are equally unsupported. There are 2 options (3 if you take no cause) for the creation of the universe.

>>3128190
Demonstrate to me consciousness without a brain. Give me an example of something within reality that has an unobservable cause.

>>3128127
>This means there may not be a cause at all once temporality breaks down.
You assume without support that there is only one dimension that can support causality.
>Furthermore the four known fundamental forces have a known time of emergence from that singularity, which precludes the existence of intelligence before that.
It think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of a God.

>>3128196
>...waits for proof that the burden of proof is on someone making a claim

>>3128206

>Face it, there is no evidence for either, theism nor atheism.

See: >>3128165

This is the over9000th time someone is telling you that the burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not those rejecting the claim based upon a lack of evidence.

>>3128199
If the wind is a synaptic pulse in a larger consciousness

>>3128180
>The definition of existence requires you to be, at least in principle, observable, however well you might have hidden or difficult it might be to detect you. By stating off the bat that it cannot ever be observable, you are actually saying it doesn't exist.
False. Undeniably false. According to OUR defintion of existence, yes. But just because it's not observable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>That's what reality and exist mean. Nothing unreal exists.
You are assuming that there is no space outside this universe that doesn't contain the possibility of possessing a brain.
>Correct. If there is a portal in a wardrobe to Narnia, then it turns out that Narnia, the portal, the mechanism which allows transit, and our own realm are all part of the universe. There are no "other" universes. That's what the uni in universe means. All of it. The whole thing.
Lol, another assumption. You have no idea whether there are other universes or not. Are you trolling me?

You're full of assumptions. You're a bitter atheist. Try answering me next time with less assumptions, it's getting annoying.

>>3128211

>concept of a God

No, I'm pretty sure most of the people here do.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of Instrumentality. Here, have a seat with me.

>>3128189
"Yes, gnostic atheists have a burden of proof."
No they don't. They don't worship any deities and they believe it to be knowable that there is none. What is it they need to prove differently than the agnostic atheists?

>>3128225
Why don't you understand this relatively simple concept?

This is what I'm trying to convey. "lack of evidence" goes both ways. If there are only so many options the universe could have been created (if it did at all), then why do the atheists get the liberty of calling " no evidence "?

>>3128211
> You assume without support that there is only one dimension that can support causality.
That's less an assumption and more an empirical fact.
> It think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of a God.
Why don't you define your concept of god well enough that it might fulfill the definition of existence, and then I'll explain how it doesn't.

>>3128233
>You're a bitter atheist.

And you're a wilfully ignorant theist.

>>3128225
Uhh... I'm actually both of these guys.

All things with logic have a conscious creator. By statistical evidence, God is logical. You would have to prove he is not absolutely everything. You cannot study him because as to his definition there is nothing to compare him to. It is like trying to compare two objects which are the exact same color on a plane whose color is also the same.

>>3128180
>By stating off the bat that it cannot ever be observable, you are actually saying it doesn't exist.
What is this, some kind of fundamentalist empiricism?
>There are no "other" universes. That's what the uni in universe means. All of it. The whole thing.
That's not what the term means in physics.

>>3128244

>"lack of evidence" goes both ways.

Oh you did not just...

I, in my mind, completely fabricate the statement, "yesterday I ate a potato". It didn't happen, but I make the claim to you.

You have no evidence I ate the potato or did not eat the potato.

Your rational response is, "I reject your claim because you haven't provided sufficient evidence to justify it."

Is it 50/50? Is the burden of proof on you who rejects the claim on a lack of evidence?

captcha: now scrame

>>3128233
> Undeniably false. According to OUR defintion of existence, yes.
The Game.
> You are assuming that there is no space outside this universe
That's not an assumption, it's the definition of the word universe. If there was another set of space and that set existed, it would also be in the universe, the set of all things which exist. It may not be connected to our realm in a way we are CURRENTLY capable of investigating.
> You have no idea whether there are other universes or not.
Yes I do. Definition of universe.
> Are you trolling me?
I'm not the one from >>>/x/.

>>3128189
> the first law of thermodynamics is pretty solid proof against anything causing the "creation" of the universe.
The universe probably contains zero net energy, so that doesn't work.

>>3128264

>All things with logic have a conscious creator.

Demonstrate it.

>By statistical evidence, God is logical.

Demonstrate it. Assuming god exists. Etc.

>You would have to prove he is not absolutely everything.

No, YOU have to prove he exists and whatever else you attribute to him or characterize him as.

>You cannot study him because as to his definition there is nothing to compare him to. It is like trying to compare two objects which are the exact same color on a plane whose color is also the same.

Fullretard.jpg

>>3128244
Because if atheism is the stand that requires lack of evidence to be true, then that is the effect of no observable evidence. Weirdly worded, but honestly, if there is no evidence it is more than reasonable to claim the theist supposed "subjective" evidence to be a simple lie. What does it for me is that there are tons of different religions and they all have the same religious observations, only with their specific deities being the cause. Religion, deities, supernaturalism are human constructs, flaws in the human mind.

>>3128273
Because we observe people eating potatoes we know it is common. Your claim that you also ate one fits with the available evidence, and barring any knowledge of a reason for you to lie we tend to assume you did. If it ever matters though, you can expect us to want more than your word, with how much more proportional to how much it matters.

>>3128208
I have no way of determining what is conscious besides myself. I can only speculate.

>>3128273
Theist: There is a god.
Atheist: There is no god.

Now, if there is no evidence for either of these statements, which one has more validity?
I'll tell you. This one:

I don't know.

Your potato example needs to be rephrased. Let me help.
You claim you ate a potato yesterday. I believe you, but my friend doesn't. Another friend of mine is watching this dispute. He has no idea who's right because there is no evidence for either of these.

Please listen to me. This is what I'm trying to convey.

>>3128240
That there is none, which is their claim of knowledge.

>>3128278
>The Game.
Not worth answering
>That's not an assumption, it's the definition of the word universe. If there was another set of space and that set existed, it would also be in the universe, the set of all things which exist. It may not be connected to our realm in a way we are CURRENTLY capable of investigating.
Yeah, and our definition of the universe is based on the assumption that there is no other.
>Yes I do. Definition of universe.
Oh shut up. See above.

>>3128280
It works whatever the energy content of the universe is, positive, negative, or zero.

>>3128199
It is. I am conscious, and I am part of the universe. That chaotic nature of nature suggest to me that the properties present in nature should exist in some form in the source of nature.

>>3128296

And hence your conclusion, about EVERY claim that exists, is that there is no burden of proof, or there is no way to decide, what?

>>3128295
You have no reason to speculate. There is no observation that requires an unobservable, conscious entity, with no brain, to exist. If there is, please point it out.

>>3128296

Agnostic/gnostic atheism and agnostic/gnostic theism. Get it right you dumbfuck.

>>3128302
The definition of the universe is not an assumption. We do in fact get to express ourselves in language with meaning. If there are what you are calling other universes, more aptly alternate dimension or parallel worlds, then all of that is a part of the universe. Existence is sufficient for inclusion in the universe. If you want to redefine your word to mean something else when you use it then I can agree to that for purposes of discussion and say there might be alternate dimensions including perhaps one where a quantum physics experiment gone wrong opened a singularity that resembles our big bang and has the incidental consequence of us being here and observing ourselves. Your misuse of language only hinders your point, it doesn't invalidate mine.

>>3128296
You're a fucking idiot...
If the theist cannot provide evidence he must forfeit his case that is how it works dammit.

What makes you think that the universe was created at all?

>>3128253
>That's less an assumption and more an empirical fact.
You think the non-existence of dimensions other than the observable 4 is an observable fact? You're wrong. You think the non-existence of other universes (spacetime manifolds) is an observable fact? m-theorists would like a word with you.

>Why don't you define your concept of god well enough that it might fulfill the definition of existence, and then I'll explain how it doesn't.
One of the primary features of the concept of God is that God transcends space and time (and therefore physical forces within spacetime).

>>3128315
You misunderstood me.

I'm saying that when two men claim different things but neither provide evidence, neither have a burden of proof.

Atheists claim they show disbelief for lack of evidence, but there isn't evidence there is no god either. This is null.
The only justifiable position is "Based on lack of evidence, I can't decide whether to decide whether god exists or not".
"Because lack of evidence, god doesn't exist." simply isn't valid. The mere lack of evidence of something doesn't vaporize the whole entirety of the concept in question.

>>3128288
Are you daft? Disprove me through exclusion. Do video games self assemble themselves randomly? There is always will behind creation excluding what you take to be unknowns.

In this case, I have more evidence for my claim and you have none.

>>3128278
> Definition of universe.
In science, the definition of the word universe is a spacetime manifold. There can be multiple spacetime manifolds.

>>3128296

Burden of proof lies on the claimant.

You: "God exists. He just does."
Me: "I reject your claim of existence because of a lack of evidence (actually, no evidence provided)."

You believe in god. I don't. Your belief is making a claim that needs to be supported. My lack of belief is a response to your claim, and a rejection of that claim based upon a lack of evidence or, barring that, any good reason to believe.

You can argue about why atheism is or is not an appropriate response to the claim "god exists", but you cannot construe it as a positive claim that requires evidence.

I am using the weak atheism/agnostic atheism/whatever the fuck you want to call it.

People, it's a fucking label. Address it the way the poster uses it.

>>3128336
> God transcends space and time
> exist, v.
> to be present under specified conditions or in a specified place.
The Game.

>>3128347

>will behind creation

ohboyherewego.jpg

>>3128328
Allright, we'll have it your way for the sake of argument. If the universe is all there is, the what or who created the universe? Did the universe create itself?

>>3128349
If you want to use that definition then I would agree with that statement.

>>3128336
>One of the primary features of the concept of God is that God transcends space and time (and therefore physical forces within spacetime).
So what is the function of this "being"? Giving it that attribute only makes sense if a) consciousness can exist without a brain.
or b) you want to make your argument irrefutable, shifting the quality of your god from observable to unobservable. Giving your god some nonsensical feature does not exactly help your cause.

>>3128358
Perhaps nothing created the universe and it has existed in for eternity.

>>3128304
If the energy content of the universe is zero, the creation of the universe does not violate the the first law of thermodynamics.

Even if it did, it wouldn't matter. A law of physics only exists within the physical framework in which it is observed. It doesn't imply that the framework had to always exist, just so that law could always apply.

>>3128347

Everyone, I'd like to introduce to you Mr. Ray Comfort.

Today Ray will read his passages on the self-assembling airplane and the banana.

>>3128206
Consider this: The burden of proof lies on the person that is making a claim that is unlikely. If the creation of the universe could only have occurred by conscious or non-conscious means, and one of those options is shown to be less likely than the other, then the burden of proof lies on anyone making the claim that the less likely option is the truth.

You can't really know anything. All you do is believe things. Your choice of things to believe in should be based heavily on probability. The more likely choices should be accepted as more likely if the reasoning and evidence (if you trust it) supports them, and then you should treat them as true if they are likely enough. If one of your creation options could be shown to be incredibly more likely than the other, then that one should be believed.

The unicorn on Mars thing really does make sense. One must ask: "How did the unicorn get there? Was it placed there by an unknown action? Did it evolve naturally on the planet?" etc. If none of the possibilities seems likely to have occurred based on what you know, you should treat the existence of the unicorn as unlikely.

>>3128358
WE DON'T KNOW. Neither do you.

>>3128358
> Who or what created the universe?
It appears to not need a cause and also to lack one, but we haven't proven it is without one. It appears to have already been here in the first instant of time, rendering meaningless any question of it ever not existing since ever requires the time as a reference and it appears there was no previous time when it did not exist.

>>3128345

Not sure if troll.

Fucking Poes all up in this bitch.

>>3128319
There is no empirical observation that requires a belief in the existence of consciousness at all, brain or no brain. It is a different kind of observation that leads to speculation about consciousness and what it is and what it means, and whether or not it is peculiar to brains. It is problematic to presume that it is peculiar to brains, because there's no particular reason why neurons arranged in neural networks should bring it about. It is just as valid, and more disciplined thinking to only presume that the peculiar thing about brains is the ability to allow consciousness to manifest itself in the kind of behaviors that we -- as brain-having consciousnesses -- can observe and recognize.

>>3128387

>>3128371
If the energy content of the universe is zero then creation is certainly the wrong word to use because nothing was created. Perhaps made is the proper word, as we make things by rearranging parts rather than creating them.

>>3128350
You don't understand.

There is of course a lack of evidence for the theist, but for you to act on that lack of evidence, you must jump to a conclusion. Which is; atheism.

>>3128347

>Are you daft? Disprove me through exclusion. Do video games self assemble themselves randomly? There is always will behind creation excluding what you take to be unknowns.

>In this case, I have more evidence for my claim and you have none.

Do you create the video games out of nothing? Do you create the matter to assemble the video games out of nothing? No?

Then shut up.

>>3128378
Yeah, and which option is more likely or less likely? You can't know, that's why the burden of proof is null.

>>3128402
Because the theist lacks the evidence it is factually correct for the atheist to be unconvinced. There is no leap. The theist actually is unconvincing.

>>3128402
>There is of course a lack of evidence for the theist, but for you to act on that lack of evidence, you must jump to a conclusion. Which is; atheism.

There is no conclusion. Atheism in the sense I'm using it is not making a claim.

I don't believe in a god because there isn't evidence or reason to warrant that belief.

If I say, "a pink unicorn exists and shits rainbows", and you say, "I don't believe a pink unicorn exists and shits rainbows", the burden of proof is not upon you to either prove it doesn't exist or do whatever the hell else you think a response to a claim of existence needs to do.

You do not understand how this works.

>>3128410
The most likely option is that there is no such unicorn.

>>3128352
You can be particular about the definition of exist if you like. Kierkegarad didn't like applying the term "exist" to God either, which wasn't to say that God wasn't real, but that since God is eternal, he didn't come about "from" anything else, which the term "exist" implies.

>God does not think He creates; God does not exist, He is eternal. Man thinks and exists, and existence separates thought and being.

>>3128402
Lol no. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. If there is no evidence to be observed it means that there is no basis for the belief, other than faith (or dishonesty, as I want to call it), if you discover that there is no basis to believe, you are an atheist!

Hi I'm OP, I've been proven wrong. I want to thank all of you who took the time to explain this to me. To my defense, I'm 17 and thus still in high school. I'm struggling to figure out how critical thinking works, I think that's the most reasonable place to start at.

>>3128426
If you want to say god doesn't exist, welcome to atheism.
If you want to say god is eternal you'll have a problem, because that's measure in time and time itself doesn't appear to be eternal. And also requires existence.

>>3128363
>So what is the function of this "being"?
The function of God is to be the infinite source of the existence of the universe and everything in it.

>>3128431
You're quite welcome. Thank you for participating in the Aperture Science computer-aided activity.

>>3128288
You are the retard, hiding behind some fallacious iron curtain. Everything around you that has come to be, whether you call it technology or magic, is driven by a will and logic.

Logic can be fractional relationships between abstractions and thus the probability of a randomly generated universe is impossible unless your life is chosen.

>>3128440
So what is the source of your god?

>>3128440
Except the source isn't infinite if it does have one.
And also the universe doesn't seem to have or need one.
So you're making shit up and talking out of your ass, and your claims are rejected on that basis.

>>3128402
but that since God is eternal, he didn't come about "from" anything else, which the term "exist" implies.

So we introduce a unnecessary agent that pushes the question back one more step.

What or who created god, and if he didn't need creating, why did the universe. This whole argument is stupid because it invalidates its premise.

1. Everything that exists must have a cause to bring it into existence.
2. The universe exists, therefore it was created by something. We call it god.

(2) invalidates (1), and it only sets up the next question: who or what created god?

People try to refine it into other things (see: Kalam cosmological argument as an example) but they all fail miserably.

Iron Chariots, friends. Google it.

>>3128378
> The burden of proof lies on the person that is making a claim that is unlikely.
The theist is a theist because he thinks God is more likely than no God. The atheist is an atheist because he thinks no God is more likely than God. So with that unhelpful statement, you've just enabled both to claim the other has the burden of proof.

ITT: some people misunderstand "burden of proof" and how a claim for existence works.

>>3128447
Welcome to not making any sense. Enjoy your stay

>>3128447
> You are the retard, hiding behind some fallacious iron curtain.
That iron curtain is truth. Watch your neck, it comes down hard.
> Everything around you that has come to be, whether you call it technology or magic, is driven by a will and logic.
Nope. Quite a lot of it came by accident, and more still was just a purposeless obedience to the laws of physics. Also there's no such thing as magic.
> Logic can be fractional relationships between abstractions and thus the probability of a randomly generated universe is impossible unless your life is chosen.
Sharpshooter Fallacy.

If God exists he is everything. If he is everything then there is no other object to make a comparison to. He is unobservable.

At this point your decision is up to bias.

There can be an Aleph-One amount of logical configurations for mathematical coherence of an abstraction. The idea that there is an endless amount of universes and this one happens to work is lazy.

>>3128382
>It appears to not need a cause and also to lack one
It appears otherwise to me.

>It appears to have already been here in the first instant of time
That doesn't preclude it from needing a cause.

>>3128447

See >>3128407

>>3128471
If God exists he is a flying spaghetti monster. Prove me wrong. Oh wait, the burden's on me.
Prove yourself to not be talking shit.

>>3128472
Then you are in dissent from the objective reality from which evidence is gathered. We have a word for such people. We call them wrong.

>>3128396
>If the energy content of the universe is zero then creation is certainly the wrong word to use because nothing was created
That makes no sense. Energy and gravity are both configuration states of the spacetime manifold. The spacetime manifold is what the embodies all the physical laws of the universe, and what everything is "made of". Energy and matter are that manifold doing a certain thing and being offset by gravity. That manifold is the "thing" that would have been created.

>>3128471
If god is everything, then he is existence, if he is existence then there is no need for the term god.

>>3128475
>>3128475
>>3128475
>>3128475
>>3128475

This. A million. And a half. Fucking. Times.

>>3128472
>That doesn't preclude it from needing a cause.
Just like god. Whatdoyouknow, it all seemed to work out in the end.

>>3128418
But if you say "there is no such thing as a pink unicorn that shits rainbows" then the burden of proof is on you.

"I don't believe" is an ambiguous statement. It literally means the absence of belief, but in English it can also be taken as disbelief or a belief that a thing doesn't exist.

>>3128481
So now we've gone from universe needed creating to manifold needing created. Search and replace and my argument still stands.

HEY ATHEISTS

I AM GOD

PROVE ME WRONG

ATHEISTS: 0
CATHOLICS*: 1

*WE ARE THE ORIGINAL CREW

>>3128499
Disbelief is not the same thing as a belief against. Beliefs against are claims which have a burden.
In particular knowing what a rainbow is means a unicorn can't shit them.

>>3128407
>>3128410

Poor fools. If things which go around tend to come around, we should assume that things which are going round come around.

We could construct this very same universe in different configurations so that there are many more particle interactions to produce the same result. There are infinitely many possibilities for any ONE reality's configuration much less many other different types.

There is reason behind it fools.

>>3128434
When Kierkegaard said "God doesn't exist" he did NOT mean that God isn't real. Kierkegaard was obviously not an atheist. Reality and existence are two different things the way he used the terms.

God can be eternal because God is outside of time and space. Being eternal does not require "existence" if "existence" is being used to mean within time and space.

>>3128513
Sharpshooter Fallacy.

>>3128516
You have not managed to refute earlier points describing why you and simultaneously also the man you are citing are wrong.
Stop talking shit and back up your claims.

>>3128499

>"I don't believe" is an ambiguous statement.

No, it's not. It is exactly as described several times in this thread.

>It literally means the absence of belief

Yes.
>but in English it can also be taken as disbelief or a belief that a thing doesn't exist.

In which case you need to ask for clarification if the person isn't making it clear what their position is, or you suspect it may be one of the above.


So what?

>>3128448
God is infinite/eternal/immutable, so cannot have a source. The ancient philosophical point of the concept of God is that finite and temporal things need an infinite and eternal source.

>>3128516
So? What do we need your god for exactly?

There can either be an unicorn on Mars or not. It's 50/50.

>>3128458
If the probability can be objectively determined, only one side of the debate would have the right to say the other has the burden of proof. If it cannot be, neither side can. If both sides think they are correct in their calculations of probability, they should compare and see where their calculations differ. Improper assumptions should be removed. Perhaps the difference in belief comes down to something that cannot be shown to be either way somewhere along one of the side's calculations; if so, neither side can make the claim. Never can both sides claim the other has the burden of proof and still be logically consistent.

>>3128451
>Except the source isn't infinite if it does have one.
Yes, I think it must be. Why would you think it isn't?

>And also the universe doesn't seem to have or need one.
It seems to have and need one to me? Why does it seem otherwise to you?

>>3128499

But the burden of proof isn't on the party denying the existance, because it's inherently impossible for that party to prove a negative. You can't present a random picture and say "here's the unicorn not existing". Unless all space can be monitored simultaneously it cannot be proven not to exist, and that is, obviously, not possible. The burden of proof must lie on the one making a positive claim.

>>3128528
And that ancient point is the special pleading fallacy. It is also wrong.
Stop saying things in different ways and instead demonstrate what you are saying to be true.

>>3128528
Why?

>>3128528

>God is infinite/eternal/immutable, so cannot have a source.

And here is the crux of the argument: demonstrate he is infinite/immutable/isn't a sadistic child rapist. How do you know? How can I tell you're not just pulling those terms and concepts out of your ass?

Prove to me you aren't shitting right now.

>>3128518
Doesn't apply -- our arguments are on equal platforms in terms of proof and you have less to offer. I have increased the likely hood of possibilities by illustrating them which gives more weight to my side of the argument.

I've already proved that you cannot prove it either way -- you can only make it more or less likely according to abstract logical constructs which are possibly demonstrative.

>>3128453
>What or who created god, and if he didn't need creating, why did the universe.
The universe needed creating because it is temporal and so transient.

>who or what created god?
.... this is what happen when you take religion and philosophy out of public schools. You should have had this question answered in 1st grade.

>>3128537
> Why would you think it isn't?
Because infinities are physical nonsense. Non-existent ones especially.
> It seems to have and need one to me?
Then you are wrong.
> Why does it seem otherwise to you?
Because the big bang theory and quantum mechanics explain it sufficiently without any need of it, and the predictions of those theories are empirically accurate in reality.

>>3128503
Your argument doesn't stand, because creating a manifold does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

>169 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

/sci/. /sci/ never changes.

>>3128550
>.... this is what happen when you take religion and philosophy out of public schools. You should have had this question answered in 1st grade.

>Implying that you are not referring to the indoctrination of children with bullshit arguments that are either not sound, not valid, or both, and without evidence.

>Implying this isn't a troll.notsureifis.yoda.jpg

>>3128550
Now you tell me without flinching that you believe that this temporal universe has an eternal source. If god is the source of the universe then why is the universe not eternal? This is an obvious flaw in your argument and I pointed another one out earlier, see:
>>3128493

>>3128557
My argument stands because the energy is still zero. You haven't done anything.

.>>3128448
God does not need a source because these are logical constructs based on space and time parameters. He created these parameters outside of their existence. He is supernumerary as well.

Contradictorily, he created them with his essence and is bounded by himself simultaneously. He is both outside and inside of it at once. It is analogous to your existence inside your dreams.

>>3128568
Please just gtfo, this argument does not need more bullshit.

>>3128568

Demonstrate it with evidence. Make a logically valid and sound argument, at the least.

If you do, you will win the Nobel Prize.

>>3128529
To make an apple pie.

>>3128577
Your beliefs are ludicrous.

>>3128536
I agree with all that. But neither side will be logically rigorous (whether from sloppiness or from rhetorical expediency) so both will make the claim.

I am god.

Prove me wrong.

Checkmate, atheists and theists who don't worship me.

>>3128538
>it's inherently impossible for that party to prove a negative.
No it's not. It's easier to prove a negative than a positive.

One of these again...

>>3128540
That's not even remotely related to the special pleading fallacy. I don't know where you're getting that from.

How many times in our universe has consciousness came out of nowhere?
Not a single time, it had to evolve.

Even if it did, guess what that consciousness is a product of?
Out of nowhere means an unconscious origin.

You always need some sort of unconscious origin to bring about consciousness.

Now an argument could be made for the conscious design of the universe as a result of an unconscious assembly of this consciousness, but it'd take much more time for the matter or energy to randomly assemble itself into consciousness than for it to "evolve" by forming stars and what not.

Just saying

>>3128543
Because temporal things are transient, and therefore don't fundamentally exist. They need something eternal as their basis. See the philosophies of Plato and Pythagoras.

>>3128560
>4chan
>standards
haha

>>3128586
You are god. So am I.

I hope you get it more.

>>3128548
>demonstrate he is infinite/immutable/isn't a sadistic child rapist. How do you know?
You're coming at it from a cultural perspective. Come at it as if you had no preconception of what a God was. Because there are things finite and temporal, there must be something infinite and eternal. That thing we'll call God.

>>3128603
No they don't. Give me an example.

>>3128603

>Because temporal things are transient, and therefore don't fundamentally exist. They need something eternal as their basis.

Assumptions, assumptions everywhere.

>>3128598

>Whole post

>Just saying

Just shut the fuck up, instead.

>>3128615
My boner is temporal (sadly), its source is my body, my body is not eternal. :O did I just wreck your world? Just like in the several other posts you refused to answer.

>>3128551
>Because infinities are physical nonsense.
Infinities are not physical. I specifically said it wasn't physical.
>Because the big bang theory and quantum mechanics explain it sufficiently without any need of it, and the predictions of those theories are empirically accurate in reality.
The big bang theory is merely a physical history. QM is merely a physical model. You're basically saying that knowledge in one area makes you incurious as to the causes behind that area; and more than incurious, makes you believe those things shouldn't need causes. It's not rational.

>>3128584
So.. if they are going to make their claim as more likely regardless of their calculations, the fact that the more unlikely choice should be discarded doesn't matter, and I have enabled neither side because apparently they are set in their ways and would have acted the same either way.

You'd think people would be willing to be rigorous and consistent when it comes to debating the origin of the universe.

>>3128576
I already provided logical evidence. You aren't smart enough to comprehend it.

All objects you see are God. They are divided from his transfinite source. Objects pieces, since they also share the properties of God, are infinite. Each object then contains several infinities determined by its dimensional properties. What is constructed is a result of what is not there. Size is a result of more infinities on top of each other.

Mathematical evidence: If all you had was the mathematical function of pi, you could divide it into infinite many continuous functions which would require a hyperbolic appearance. While each piece could be labeled as decimate (1,2,3), it is also simultaneously unbounded.

Time is a function of direction and direction allows placement of different infinities.

Your turn.

>>3128565
Huh? If the energy is zero, your argument that the first law of thermodynamics prevents the creation of the manifold is false.

>>3128615

>Because there are things finite and temporal, there must be something infinite and eternal.

Demonstrate this whole thing.

Demonstrate that existence of something is finite and temporal.

Demonstrate that this necessitates an eternal and infinite.

This is the whole, "everything that exists had to be created" shit packaged into saran wrap.

>>3128615
> Because there are things finite and temporal, there must be something infinite and eternal.
Nope.

>>3128561
It's fucking pathetic that college-age people would ask "then what created God" as if this was an insightful question that shouldn't have been answered for them in elementary school. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. To not have these issues addressed is an insane lack of education.

>>3128634

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER

SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY

TIME CUBE

IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION.

4 CORNER DAYS, CUBES 4 QUAD EARTH- No 1 Day God.
You see that? It's about as intelligible as your post, and all of the garbage you've dumped on this thread.

Not only that, it makes claims without evidence or a sound and valid argument.

>>3128634

Even if we were to agree upon the necessity of some monadic thing from which all other things derive, calling it god is misleading and unnecessary and only serves as a wimpy apologetic for theism. May as well call this thing the Primary Substance or what have you. Assuming such a thing exists. Which, at the moment, is naught more than an assumption.

>>3128638
I didn't say it was prevented. I said it wasn't creation. Why would anything need to prevent the nothing you've done to the nothing?

>>3128617
Everything in the universe is an example of finite and transient things. God is the example of eternal and infinite things.

>>3128651

Lack of education, on your part. It's a pretty big hole in the whole God argument, so large even a child can point it out, but people like you will contort logic into some pretty unbelievable knots to ignore it.

>>3128618
>Can't tell an assumption from a conclusion

>>3128651

>It's fucking pathetic that college-age people would ask "then what created God"

Hope this is a Poe.

>>3128664

Your conclusions are based on assumptions and therefore of little value.

>>3128598
It is by no means apparent that consciousness can come from unconscious things. We can't fundamentally tell what is conscious. Conscious is likely to be innate in everything.

>>3128660
You haven't proved god's existence.

>>3128668

>Conscious is likely to be innate in everything.

More likely that it's not, because we have no reason to assume that it is.

>>3128629
um, no. Your body is not the eternal source of your boner.

>>3128668
>Conscious is likely to be innate in everything.
no

>>3128668

>Conscious is likely to be innate in everything.

Ohshitniggerwhatareyoudoing

>>3128678
Exactly, it is a temporal source, just like my boner. Just give up.

>>3128643
Try a few hours of reflection on the subject. Thinking isn't for the lazy.

>>3128655
Space has a hyperbolic configuration you fuckwit.
Why don't you go read a book about cardinality and the different sizes of infinity and come back later when you are actually ready to hold a conversation?

>>3128657
You can call it whatever you want. God is just the traditional term in English.

>>3128684
So you have no basis for this claim. How "surprising".

>>3128663
How is it a whole. God by definition is eternal, infinite, and uncreate. He is those things by logical necessity. That's the whole reason to presume his existence in the first place. That is why asking that question -- or not knowing the answer to it -- shows a lack of education.

>>3128685
hemad.jpg

>>3128675
God's existence is implied because the existence of the finite implies the infinite.

If god is everything, and I rape a 12 year old, does god rape 12 year olds?

Philosoraptor.tif

>>3128699
Nope.

>>3128676
We have very good reason to assume it is. Theistic and atheistic philosophers alike are tending in that direction, because there seems to be no other way to resolve consciousness.

>>3128692
Just because you can come up with some nonsensical creature with features you make up does not mean it exists. Now prove that your god exists or go away.

>>3128707
Nope.

>>3128682
>>3128681
read and learn
http://www.mtnmath.com/implyh/implyh.html

>>3128699
No it doesn't. We have no reason to think that something eternal exists.

>>3128692

Definitions are made up by people and do not necessarily reflect reality. That logical necessity is an untestable assumption. There is nothing substantial in this line of thinking. That's why many educated people don't buy it.

Who is this tripfag? Is it OP?
Fuck, he's either taken a first-year course in philosophy and thinks he knows everything now, or he's trollin. Possibly both.

>>3128699

>Demonstrate that the finite implies the infinite.

>Demonstrate that if the finite exists it needs an infinite.

>Demonstrate that if god is infinite, then it doesn't imply god is everything and thus you and I are a part of god.

>God rapes 12 year olds.

>Implying I'm not going to rape you right now.

Prove you aren't shitting.

>>3128698
Made you think!

>>3128720
It's not necessarily external. It's just infinite. The finite existing without the infinite is like light existing without dark.

>>3128707

There are many explanations for consciousness. That it is an innate property of the universe is by far not one of the more sound ones.

>>3128726
Why would I? Investigation of the universe does not happen within your head.

>>3128720
It limits your capacity to think. It limits creativity. Deciding everything is possible and working backwards is far more fruitful.

>>3128726

>Condescension detected.

>He thinks the people he's talking to aren't thinking.

>He is a he, not a she.

>Implying he isn't shitting.

Also, god is black and rapes 12 year olds. Checkmate, Pope Benedict.

>>3128721
Why would you ask a nonsensical question about God if you knew the definition or thinking behind it? Asking the question implies you don't know anything about the thought behind the concept of God.

>>3128731

So you assume, but you cannot demonstrate, and therefore have no evidence, and so there's no reason for anyone to take the claim seriously.

>>3128668
Let's assume that you're right.
Consciousness is now innate In everything.

What does that give us?
A new definition for consciousness that basically means nothing at all.

If you have to reduce consciousness to that, it no longer serves your theory any purpose.

>>3128731

Infinity is a human concept based off the extension of the real number line. Infinity doesn't exist in reality, and is NaN.
I'm surprised no one has said this yet.

>>3128739

>Why would you ask a nonsensical question about God if you knew the definition or thinking behind it?

Because the definition and "thinking" is not supported through argument or evidence.

>>3128741
There's only reason to take the claim seriously if you take reason seriously. If you only take empiricism seriously, but not reason, then there is no need to take it seriously.

>>3128747
>What does that give us?
Probably the only logically consistent model for observable reality.

>>3128756

I take reason seriously when it's not sloppy and undemonstrable.

>>3128685

Space is actually flat. But you're right about cardinality.

>>3128761

Probably not.

>>3128720
Sorry, misread eternal for external for some reason.

The reason to think that something eternal exists, is that there's no good reason for anything at all to exist if something eternal didn't exist.

>>3128765
All logic is equally impossible to prove. All have self affirmative givens.

>>3128781

Prove it.
Oh.

>>3128748
I never suggested infinity was a number. But since you bring it up infinity is a number, just not a real number. But talking about infinity in a metaphysical sense has nothing to do with infinite numbers. That's why Cantor coined the term Transfinite Numbers, to draw the distinction between the two. The metaphysical infinite was a concept long before infinite numbers were a concept.

>>3128781

But if you didn't have logically consistent and observably true axioms, you would be a hardcore philosophical skeptic. What's the point in that?

Your answer is meaningless. Even subjectively.

>>3128750
That's nonsense and you know it. You just want to dismiss it out of hand.

>>3128731
Dark doesn't exist.

>>3128792

My mistake. What do you mean by finite exists, therefore infinite exists? Is it because of the definition between the two? As in, one cannot exist without the other because how do we define finite if there were no infinite?

>>3128769
Flat does not exclude hyperbolic.

>>3128803
sorry, I'll have to pick this up another time.

later fags

>>3128748
Infinity describes all objects in a set.

Look up my name

>>3128815

Where's your friend, aleph-null?

>>3128815

Look up my name, bitch.

I suppose it would be a good time to note that the existence of an infinite set is taken as an axiom in ZFC. Let's not even get started on strongly inaccessible cardinals or incompleteness.

So, feel free to believe that the universe is infinite, that there has to be a god and all that jazz, just don't suggest it's anything more than a posit. A matter of convenience or personal preference.

I am Robert Paulsen.

Who is John Galt?

>>3127605
>If you are presented with 2 choices but you don't know anything about either of them, what can you say about them?
I can say "The answer to this question doesn't change a damned thing for me, and frankly I have more important things to spend my time and energy on, so I'm going to have to say 'I don't give a fuck one way or the other' and move on to something that MATTERS."

/thread

>>3128849

I don't, not really. Neither do you, apparently, because you bothered to reply to this thread.

The idea that the cause of creation of the universe is simply the one that is easiest for the human mind to imagine sounds to me as an extraordinary coincidence, too good to be true. Considering the human mind and consciousness as the product of evolution which simply selected the features that resulted in a larger offspring, it seems stupid that the true "creator" of the universe would be something easily imaginable by that exact mind. It would make much more sense that the "event", the "cause" that created it all could only be reached through science, as science is the only thing that can make us aware of things that exist which are not intuitive. (e.g. quantum mechanics, light speed, microscopic stuff, etc.)

You don't have to prove something's lack of existance, provide SOLID proof of a conscious creator. By solid I don't mean that "well because we think there is there's got to be" crap. If it's not solid it's not scientific and no better than me saying my imaginary friend is real.

I think some people are confusing Atheism=making a claim that there is absolutely no god. All Atheism is doing is responding to the claim that religious people make when they make a claim that a god exists.

>>3129016
oh lol. do you even know where the word comes from?
have i just been trolled?

>>3129043

>>3128350

>>3128323
in a discussion versus atheists and theists, being agnostic is all thats needed

ITT: God's synaptic relays misfire while he engages in a pseudo-philosophical debate