/sci/ - Science & Math

>can't help but debate
>so stupid I'm only post

>>3169073
You're using the quote feature incorrectly, I'm pretty sure of that.
Besides that, I can't make any sense of what you said, considering you don't obey any rules of grammar or syntax.

I thought /sci/ was supposed to be smart.

Why do we so vigorously deny something we do not see?
If you haven't seen you new baby sister, would you debate with those who bring her up?

Fine. Is there a POSSIBILITY that some "godlike" entity exists out there? Sure. Do I believe one exists right now? I haven't seen any evidence, so no.

Hai /b/, first time posting here, why are you guys all so retarded? My name is john and i hate very single one of you...

>>3169066
I agree. militant athiests are as moronic as militant christfags. Same mindset, other side of the coin

>>3169081
>wut

>>3169086
Such is the case with any other matter of truth.
Have you been told anything that you haven't proven yourself?

Have you proven that the stream of images and sounds that you perceive are actually objective reality?
Since that is not the case, would you then deny it based on a lack of evidence that this is actual reality, and live as a schizophrenic?

>>3169081
>deny something we do not see
You answered your own question.
And the new baby sister example can be tangible, or is observed at some point in time.

Fun fact: /sci/ believes in real scientific theories, you know, ones that have to have evidence. God has no evidence, and if you even start spouting things from the Bible, any attention you did have will then be lost to the trolls. Saying things like "How is so and so possible with no deeper meaning" is not proof for any greater being. Please stop trying to level with intellectuals.

>no proof that he does not exist.
i lold

>>3169098
Where is the evidence that the universe that you are perceiving is the actual universe?

Is making the assumption that this is objective reality without any proof as delusional as assuming that God exists?
You decide for yourself.

There is no reason to believe that your perception at any given time reflect what is actually real.

Scientific theories mean nothing because they are based on a series of dogmatic axioms they never bother to prove.

>>3169096
Why can't a god be tangible?

I was sure to include the idea that I am not talking about an certain god, and that the god may reveal their self at one point.

>>3169106
>Where is the evidence that the universe that you are perceiving is the actual universe?
Scientific observations are sufficient evidence

>Is making the assumption that this is objective reality without any proof as delusional as assuming that God exists?You decide for yourself.
See above.
>There is no reason to believe that your perception at any given time reflect what is actually real.
See first thing
>Scientific theories mean nothing because they are based on a series of dogmatic axioms they never bother to prove.
You not understanding them does not mean they are not proven.

Go read Hume.

>Take everything we know about cells, atoms, and even the quantum level of matter and life, and know that at one point it was impossible to know anything about them

And it would still have been irrational and not scientific to assert that these things/behaviors did exist before there was evidence for them.

>>3169124
That's just an assertion.

"God's word is sufficient" has been sufficient for thousands of years, but clearly none of us here just accept that. I want actual proof that we so often complain about.

"Science" assumes that this is actual and goes from there. Religious nuts assume that God is actual and rant from there. It's that same, delusional principal.

>>3169092
>Have you proven that the stream of images and sounds that you perceive are actually objective reality?
No, I don't believe in an "objective reality" per se. For example, we can only consciously witness a 3D universe, but it would be foolish to assume from that that there exist only three dimensions.

However, it would be equally foolish to come up with any arbitrary number of extraneous dimensions, and believe that these exist, for no other reason than we can't prove that they don't exist.

The only thing we can say for certain is that we perceive three dimensions, and while we are fairly certain there are more (due to other observations, e.g., bending of spacetime), we don't go claiming we believe in 10 dimensions for no reason.

You with me? It's the same exact situation for godlike creatures. If there is something physical that we can comprehend (e.g., is there extraterrestrial life in general?), it's safe to make educated guesses.

When you bring something completely "supernatural" and out of our understanding in the picture, it's ridiculous to say for a fact one way or another. But based on our current perception and understanding of the universe (which admittedly may be right or wrong, but again, we don't have any evidence that it's wrong), there is no reason to believe in such an entity, so I don't.

>>3169126
I have, and if you also have then why did yo sage?

>>3169115

Because the definition of God is from religion.

>>3169143
That's not true.
Have you ever read any philosophy?

>>3169066
>Take everything we know about cells, atoms, and even the quantum level of matter and life

The existence of all of those things lead to actual observations, and we are aware of them because we devised falsifiable theories to explain those observations and everything so far has been in accordance with them.

There is nothing that indicates the existence of a god in the conventional sense of the word.

Philosophically, some concepts of a superior intelligence etc. are possible, but those concepts are all equally baseless in the absence of observables.

Both gnostic standpoints are ridiculous, but not equally so. The gnostic theist claims that something exists without having any indication of it, often due to his own ignorance of how the universe around him works, often due to a lack of interest or intelligence in scientific matters.

The gnostic atheist has no reason to believe in a god and in that way the position is more rational, but the gnostic atheist also lacks insight into philosophical ontology, and often adopts the position of naive realism even though ontological idealism is impossible to refute.

In summary, if you have absolutely no evidence to believe that something exists, then you would be foolish to believe that it does. You may say that it's possible, but to assume it is silly. At the same time, to discount the possibility (taking into account different interpretations of the thing) without having a solid logical premise to do so is also silly.

But hey, this is trollbait, so why am I even replying.

inb4 shitstorm

>>3169066
>Now, this is not trolling
Oh you.

>>3169149
Yes, it does look like derricious troll bait, but I am also posing a serious question.
I don't see why there are ever gnostic theist/atheist threads for essentially the same reason as you do.
There should be no gnosticism going on, and I'm hoping people can understand that through the skepticism I'm presenting.

>>3169131
"God's word is sufficient" has been good enough, sure, but "God's word" were morals placed on others. Morals are not actually scientific, the reasoning behind these morals, however, can be seen to be of common sense, accepted by the majority, also giving an excuse to punish those not following these morals.

I like how you tried to separate yourself by calling them "Religious nuts", subtle.

>>3169066
>Now, this is not trolling
You do realize that if you actually need to say something like this that probably means you are trolling.

I'm proud of you /sci/ so much sage in this thread
Not science

>>3169165
Where in the scientific method does it validate the authenticity of the experimenters perceptions before the experiment begins?

>>3169168
Probability does not indicate certainty.
Do you see that the point is real and valid?

>>3169066
I think you'll mind that when an atheist is questioned about this, they will not respond that they "know" a God doesnt exist. The only people who ever claim to "know" anything about which they have no knowledge of is theists.

For example, I have fuck all knowledge of 22nd century economics. But if I invented my own theories from no more than a whim about the interest rate in the year 2156 then people will quite rightly ignore me and tell me to leave the room. This is no different than any deity based philosophy that exists, but you say "well we dont know so maybe we should give them a chance?"

No! We fucking shouldnt. We cant conceive what a properties this God would have, so whenever somebody refers to a "god", what is in thir heads almost definitely doesnt exist, so we may as well deny them.

Fuck off, no one cares.

>>3169169
Now I'm really starting to question whether or not you are trolling. But just in case you are not...

We have to trust our senses, they are the best, and only, things we have to use.
True, we may just all be living in the Matrix, so to speak, but we don't know that, and rather than sitting on our hands, we make do with what we have.

Saying that no one can know whether or not they can really trust their senses is not a sufficient argument for a God. One can easily use the argument for Scientology (and we wouldn't want that, now would we?).

>>3169181
Life your life as a cold, mechanical idiot; I don't mind.
>>3169181
We absolutely cannot say definitively, in any way, what certain properties or attribute a god might have, but my point is less broad and overbearing than it is made out to be. If we define certain properties which are not logically contradictory, and apply it to the "god" class, then we have a fully-possible logical system. It is those who deny the possibility of a god through perceived natural laws who err, and they who I argue against.

>>3169182

The concept behind the word god is so convoluted and ill-defined that I can confidently say I don't believe in one. Give me a complete and sensible definition and then maybe my stance will be more agnostic.

OP, do you get stupider by the minute? Please go away.

>>3169066
Although it is true that we do not have proof for or against god, there is definitely not a 50 - 50 chance of god existing. I'll give you an analogy - is there a 50-50 chance of fairies existing? of unicorns? of the flying spaghetti monster? These things are obviously not 50-50 chance in existence, and god goes under the same category of no evidence, so god does not have a 50-50 chance of existing. Although we have no proof, we can say he probably does not exist.

>>3169181
Life your life as a cold, mechanical idiot; I don't mind.
>>3169182
We absolutely cannot say definitively, in any way, what certain properties or attribute a god might have, but my point is less broad and overbearing than it is made out to be. If we define certain properties which are not logically contradictory, and apply it to the "god" class, then we have a fully-possible logical system. It is those who deny the possibility of a god through perceived natural laws who err, and they who I argue against.

>>3169199
You can't just assign things that don't make logical sense to a "god" category to make other things easier to explain. That would be counterproductive. Later on, with further technological/scientific advancements, these things that don't make logical sense now, could be easily solved then.

>>3169194
If the whole point in a God is that he obeys no physical laws, and is inconceivable, then by definition any idea of a God which anybody is thinking of, is not God. That is why its not neccesarily wrong to affirmitavely say God doesnt exist. Because the one in your head does not

>>3169199
What do you mean exactly by attributes that are "not logically contradictory", but at the same time, can possibly break our current perceived "natural laws"?

Like, if your defined being can break the laws of thermodynamics or travel faster than the speed of light, (like the god of many current religions) I'd say fuck no, that shit won't fly.

>>3169206
I wouldn't base it on a probability ratio, but there is absolutely a possibility that fairies and unicorns existing.

>>3169207
>Life your life as a cold, mechanical idiot; I don't mind.
Cool non sequitur, bro.

Fuck off, no one cares.

If I turn around, does the stuff behind me disappear?

>>3169214
Logically, it is not contradictory to fly at one mile per hour faster than light. It's only a law imposed by the universe that currently exists.
A god could make it so that the speed of light is slightly faster, so on and so fourth.
>>3169221
Perhaps. You say this in such a way as if you have actually proved that these things remain when you turn around.

>>3169213

Um, what?

>>3169221
wel u cant kno 4 shur!!!!

Retards will be retards.

Being an atheist doesn't make you any smarter than a christian.

Look at all the ppl in the past and even present who were part of great scientific discoveries, a lot were religious.

Religion can be used as an inspiration for science. Only an idiot would use religion to the world we live in.

>>3169210
Oh, no, logical impossibilities are dark territory for any being. I would never say that they can go there.
If it is conceivable, it is practicable in another reality, which could be subject to change at any moment.

If you don't give a shit about empiricism, don't post your threads on a science board.

>>3169239
I want to speak to empiricists.
That's why I came to the science board.
There is no ideological entrance tag that you need to get in here.

>>3169106
>Scientific theories mean nothing because they are based on a series of dogmatic axioms they never bother to prove.

Um, no. Scientific theories are constantly verified by phenomena. Whether those phenomena constitute an objective reality or not is inconsequential as far as the scientific method is concerned. If you honestly doubt that, step off of a roof. After all, the theory of gravity is just a dogmatic axiom, right?
>>3169161
I'm hoping people can understand that through the skepticism I'm presenting.

Too bad then that you seem to be saying nothing more than "you can't prove that God doesn't exist". Whether or not it's the case, you come across as a theist with an agenda and total lack of understanding of the scientific method, as per your post above. It indicates a lack of intelligence.

Ultimately the problem is that there is too much religious belief on both sides of the argument. Theists and pseudo-intellectual philosophers think they can undermind the validity of science by claiming subjectivism (which is flawed logic), and most proponents of science lack an understanding of ontology and take everything at face value without further consideration.


I would laugh at the self-righteous arrogance and confidence on both sides when both are so clearly failing to understand the full issue, but it's actually just really sad.

>>3169205
If you have a point to make, please state it and I will try to correct myself.
If I really am talking nonsense, then it's your fault that a stupid person like me lives in the world, so please educate me.

>>3169228
Whenever somebody refers to a "God" they are refering to the God that they are imagining in their heads. This God does not exist, pretty much by the definition.

It just pisses me off when people say A God exists who is inconceivable. Theyre trying to define an inconceivable object which is retarded

>>3169242
Yeah, well, we have no common ground, though. You don't accept the very foundation of science, so science has absolutely nothing of value to contribute to your philosophy. Take it to /x/, or /b/.

>>3169249
Yes, the theory of gravity <em>is</em> just a dogmatic axiom. You think that would put me off? It relies on unproven assumptions that all of science relies on: that what we perceive is objective reality.

I don't understand the scientific method?
I ask again, where does science verify that it is actually the world we are talking about and not some fictitious garbage? Additionally, how does it "prove" that gravity will continue tomorrow?

>>3169253
What is the foundation of science?
It is philosophy.

>>3169225

Anyone can believe whatever the fuck they want if they start with the premise "we may be wrong right now." You just can't prove anything with that premise. I counter the idea that it is intelligent or even logical to base an idea on something unknown, to the extent that religion, politics, and pseudoscience take it ("I must be right because you can't prove me wrong!").

Can we stop humoring this retard and just sage? He's obviously unable to understand the scientific method. OP go die.

>>3169270
Explain where I go wrong.
Briefly, since you dislike talking about the validity of your methods.

I thought your type was all about meticulous documentation.

>>3169252

Thanks for clarifying. The way you hadn't written before confused me. I agree.

OP go die in a fire with horse's cock in your ass.

>>3169276

*had

>>3169262
>I ask again, where does science verify that it is actually the world we are talking about and not some fictitious garbage?
It tests its theories and methods all the damn time, you moron. Everything about science is falsifiable; that's exactly what sets it apart from dogmatic philosophies and religions. If a scientific method is unreliable, then this flaw will become apparent eventually, and the method will be changed or abandoned.

>>3169281
I'm saying that when we say gravity accelerates matter at 9.8m/s/s, what do we mean by matter?
Is the matter we talk about real substance, and if we try this test again tomorrow, how can it be proven that it will pass?

These things cannot be proven, and in that way your idiotic gnosticism fails.

>It's simply silly to deny that something exists because we cannot see it.

Good luck dealing with all the invisible dragons, retard.

>>3169270

You retards do know that the ones who formulated scientific theory were religious themselves?

Scientific theory was not made to explain religion or gods.

Infact 'scientific foundation' is thanks to religious ppl.

Newton
Aristotle
Mendel
Eugene something (discovered purpose for dna in all organisms)

My GOD the list never ends

>>3169277
I thought scientists were rational, and not as emotional as you.
I suppose this means you're not an on-topic poster?
Oh wait, you're talking about horse cock. No need to suppose anything.

>>3169297
Why could there not be invisible dragons?
I'm not laughing at that idea. I swear, it's almost like you've formulated a proof against the idea.

In any case, if you've never seen a picture of a particular crater on the moon, you might also agree that since it cannot be seen by you it must not exist?

>>3169293
>These things cannot be proven
They can be demonstrated empirically. The only problem here is that you personally don't accept empiricism, which is a tragedy, but not a valid objection to scientific methodology.

>>3169262
Science doesn't 'prove' that anything will happen. Science makes predictions about what will happen based on previous observations. The predictions are not 'proven' to be true, but they are as accurate as we can possibly make them with our current knowledge.

>>3169262
Again, no.

You're confused. Scientific theory leads to models that enable us to predict future phenomena. It doesn't actually say anything at all about "objective reality", only what we will perceive.

The naive realists are the ones who make claim about objective reality.

So again, you know, for all practical purposes, that if you step off the roof then you will fall to the ground and get injured or die depending on the height. From what we know through scientific theory, you could determine in advance what you will perceive (rate of fall, time of impact, etc).

So again, scientific theory is based on phenomena and is used to predict future phenomena. Whether or not you take those to be objective reality is up to you, but (presumably) we all experience essentially the same thing.

Also, it's inductive reasoning, not deductive. Yeah, in theory, tomorrow I might wake up and gravity will no longer apply, but given that every single waking moment of my life in my memory shows me that gravity has always been there, I have no reason to doubt that it won't still be there tomorrow.

Again, you clearly don't understand the scientific method. Go do some more reading instead of wasting your time patting yourself on the back for walking into the proverbial lion's den to "educate" the scientists.

inb4 questioning of inductive reasoning, memory, logic, etc

Okay, everyone just stop replying to him. Don't do it.

>>3169323
>no reason to doubt that it won't still be there tomorrow.

Obviously I meant that I have no reason to doubt that it will still be there tomorrow.

>>3169323
No, I agree with this.
You had to step down and admit that in theory, which I know you all love so much, you may wake up and gravity may no longer apply.
That's all I'm saying, it's not as dense of a thought as you might think.
In this way, in theory, there could also be a god that does not obey natural laws, and therefore the gnostic arguments should be discarded.
I think there is some dissonance between what I believe and what you might think I believe, but I promise it's not as complex or unbelievable as it might seem to be.

I used to think these threads were trolls. Now I just think you're high schoolers who think debating the existence of God is deep.

i don't understand are you saying that we should consider the existence of the supernatural because the universe is amazing and shit? because an amazing universe does not necessitate the existence of anything supernatural (debatable, but that's what i think). the universe can be all amazing on its own. i think people sometimes confuse the amazingness of things with the idea of God and somehow define God AS the amazingness of things. which i think is just what some people wanna do, but it doesn't necessitate anything supernatural, non sequitur, a priori.... all that...

anyway i'm just assuming that was what op may have been talking about because he didn't seem to make much of a point...

>>3169340
It is a timeless question asked by the greatest thinkers who have ever lived, including scientists.

Have fun masturbating over space-ships, low-tier scientists.

grate thred guise

>>3169345
No, I didn't use the term 'amazing' nor did I argue that God does exist.
Read the thread if you'd like, but the summary is that:

Gnosticism on both sides is weak, from both positions discussing god and positions discussing the scientific method and empiricism.

ITT: Op acts like he is original in debating the proof of veracity of the scientific method.

No one can prove any philosophical position or method is veracious. No one can prove veracity exists in the first place. Enter justifiable, falsiable pragmatism: the scientific method.

>>3169345

also, just because shit is amazing doesn't mean it can't be explained, and the definition of supernatural is that it is unexplainable and god would have to be supernatural since the way he created the universe was "don't worry about it - FAITH."

>>3169356
great pic, bro
sauce on this?

>>3169367
Have I said that I have written an essay or a book?
No, I am only using other sources.
Where did I indicate that I was original?

>>3169367
I'd love to hear you justify the scientific method though, especially to find out what that means in the first place.

>>3169362
your point is that no one is certain whether or not god exists?
k, thanks for letting us know.

i know you mean people shouldn't be assholes and should be open to both sides, but I think it is okay to chose a side and be sure of it. just don't be an asshole. some people just don't know how to think though and can't help but to be an asshole.

>scientific method

see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/bridgman.htm

>>3169369
I responded to you here; I think it is still sufficient:>>3169362

>>3169380
It works better than anything else.

>>3169299
So I guess ppl are just going ignore this post.

Its ok OP I know that feel you're feeling but ignorant ppl are the hardest to explain ideas to.

You are confused OP.

Only retards think that there certainly is no god, or that there certainly is a god.

You misunderstand our arguments. It's that if you were never told about religion, if you never read the bible, etc.. would you still come to the conclusions that are in the bible? Or would they be slightly different at least?

We are simply saying that believing in this book that was written in a time period when superstition and stories just ran peoples lives, is not a good idea.

I bet you OP, that if you ask ANY atheist, there is a 95% chance that they will tell you "I'm not saying there is no god, only that we don't know for sure, and there is no point in believing a book that some human is telling me to believe".
Only wanabe atheists that are angry at the world will actually claim to know there is no god.

Most atheists only simply think that it is more likely that there is not god, not that there certainly is no god.

Anyone who told you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about

>>3169402

Whenever I mention that, the poster stops posting.>>3169347
>>3169266

>>3169337
>You had to step down and admit that in theory, which I know you all love so much, you may wake up and gravity may no longer apply.

Nice generalization there. Maybe if you refrained from making such, you would get further with your argument. Assuming that everyone is a naive realist and then arguing the way that you do will only force people into defensive positions.

Note that there appear to be at least 2 people here who never claimed that science necessary presents an objective reality.

Also, using a loaded term such as "god" weakens your argument.
>>3169347
>implying that philosophy is high-tier

Really, sitting around musing about possibilities is not in any way better than someone who works on actually falsifiable theories.

Maybe if you trolled less and approached this differently, you could get more people involved in an interesting discussion. Just ignore the other trolls... most of them are not able to fully understand the arguments in play here anyway.

>>3169299
THANKS FOR TELLING US

HISTORY IS INTERESTING

>>3169380

The predictive power of its description of physical phenomena is its justification. Anyone can do the experiments and _typically_ see the same thing. On the whole, it works the same way for just about everyone, at least, more often than any other method.

What else is better? Your stupid "well TECHNICALLY anything can be true." Yeah, that's fuckin useful.

And the originality bit was me being a dick, seeing as this is a science board and not a philosophy board.

>>3169415
I'm >>3169266
I stopped posting, because your utterly retarded response had fuck all to do with my point. I didn't say science was not grounded in philosophy; I said science has nothing to contribute to *your* philosophy.

>>3169402

If you weren't an idiot you'd know that an appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

Just like my pretty ad hominem.

>>3169438
So, what is the foundation of science?

>>3169451
what do you mean by foundation?

OP here, please assign me a rating based on how intelligent I sound, and remember to comment on my ability to quickly and effectively comprehend this superhardcore concept.

>>3169454
Whatever you were talking about in your quoted post.

>>3169457
1/1

>>3169458
lol im a different person

i guess i'd have to ask the person who mentioned foundation first.

anyway, i'll say the foundation of science is that it is changeable without losing credibility. its ability to admit when it's wrong.

>>3169457
out of 10, of course.

>>3169451
see
>>3169239

>>3169458
That wasn't me. I always sage when I respond to trolls and attention whores.

>>3169427
You imply there is a fundamental disconnect between philosophy and science.

This is not about 'use value', this is about the truth.

I suppose research profiteers wouldn't understand that.

>>3169475
I'm sure glad 1/1 = ...You guessed it.

>>3169454
Well?
Will I never have your arrogance again?

There is no need to over-complicate replies.

>>3169480
>research profiteers
And that's my cue.

>>3169490
Whoops, my economic interests are exposed, better escape the guilt of wasting my life to the search of material things.

>>3169490
wat, im agreeing with op?

THIS GUY'S DUMB

>>3169490
indeed

obvious troll or full retard.... either way, I'm out too

Enjoy feeling superior as you contribute absolutely nothing. Come back when you've grown out of your pseudo-intellectualism.

>>3169490
OFF TO MAKE TRANSISTORS SMALLER AND CONTRIBUTE NOTHING OF VALUE

I wish sages were worth as much as bitcoins.
Rather, I wish that when /sci/ posted in this thread, they would actually contribute rather than complain and whine while they leave, unable to respond.

>>3169480

If you understood my post you would have gathered that I think there exists a fundamental flaw in all philosophy regarding how to discern what is truth from what isn't. It just isn't possible for ANY method to justify itself. Hence the many thousands of years of various philosophers bickering about what is and isn't true. Science has discovered crazy new things that no one suspected or knew of. Not only that, it has come to describe many of them to the point that there is little reason suspect them wrong. Just because you feel the need to point out that anything COULD be wrong, doesn't mean we should go around thinking anything could be true.

>>3169514
So, similarly, as a branch of philosophy, science cannot justify its own truth value?

On that I agree.

To simplify things, consider this point:

"Gnosticism on both sides is weak, from both positions discussing god and positions discussing the scientific method and empiricism."

That is my position.
Do you believe that science absolutely proves, beyond unreasonable doubt, that the universe is exactly the way it is perceived?
I would disagree.
Do you believe that atheists or theists can do that same thing about god?
If you do, I would disagree.
My position is not as radical as you might believe.
If you do disagree, I would really like to know why, as it seems many people hold to those tenets.

>>3169427
>this is a science board and not a philosophy board

Dude, science is a branch of philosophy.

>>3169548
>Do you believe that science absolutely proves, beyond unreasonable doubt, that the universe is exactly the way it is perceived?

I would improve your statement a bit:

Do you believe that science absolutely proves, beyond unreasonable doubt, that the OBSERVABLE universe is exactly the way it is perceived?

Sure, we debate the existence of God here on /sci/ or with friends or after a few drinks, but this discussion is useless. Whether something that could be considered a God exists doesn't matter, because it does not influence our lives. So I really wish people would stop talking about it.

>>3169548

>Do you believe that science absolutely proves, beyond unreasonable doubt, that the universe is exactly the way it is perceived?

No. Science seeks to marry mathematics with observation. I think it reasonable to assume that our observations can convey what is happening in reality, but not absolutely. It is important to note that there is an inherent significance to to the notion that mathematics is built on central axioms derived from observation, namely one thing isn't another, one thing and another make two, etc. Connecting this back to reality via observation and science is a powerful idea that has proven itself significant and useful.


>Do you believe that atheists or theists can do that same thing about god?

No. I could obviously expand significantly here, but to clarify I am not someone who thinks that atheism means "God does not exist" but rather "I don't think a god exists." The difference is subtle yet distinct. I do not equate knowledge to belief, nor belief to philosophy.

>My position is not as radical as you might believe.

That may be so, but equating belief in god to belief in science is both dishonest and highly misleading, and that is what I have gathered that you are implying. You keep wishing to reduce both to their philosophical roots without acknowledging how vastly different they are.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


— Epicurus, philosopher (c. 341-270 BCE)

>>3169596
Oh, no, that isn't what I mean to do. I'm agnostic myself. Although I think they are both speculative in that sense.
Realistically, of course, I don't live my life thinking about gravity deactivating in the next moment, but denying the possibility is just bad science.

Nobody said we dont believe in god because we cant see him. that'd be idiotic. We dont believe in him because we used our heads.

>>3169572

>implying this isn't a subtle atheist vs. theist thread

>>3169599
Evil is too anthropocentric to be applied to god.

I mean saying that god is malevolent because he is omnipotent yet doesn't prevent what I consider to be evil is like sayinf that tiger is malevolent becaus it eats people.

>>3169602

>they are both speculative in that sense

This is what I disagree with. Science is not speculative, nor is it honest to think that if it were, it'd be to the same extent that religion/spiritualism is. There is an entire method, a rigor, a time-tested concept backing how the scientific method works. Very little has changed in the method in the past 300 to 400 years. Sure, discoveries and technology have, but the core methodology has not. The same cannot be said about politics/religion/spiritualism/pseudoscience. I cannot personally go and attempt to reconcile differing views in any of these, as they are not falsifiable.

Again, it appears that you are attempting to relate the two more closely than they ought to be.

Atheists are "militant" because religious people always come in search of them to preach, and because they're angry about indoctrination of children.

Pic fairly related