/sci/ - Science & Math

lol. Seriously?

>>3538481
Yes seriously, nice awnsering the question there

sage

>>3538483

why would anybody waste time answering questions that were all answered right after Darwin first published the Origin?

>>3538481
>>3538484
>Uses logic
>Doesn't awnser logical statements

>>3538477
Atheism has nothing to say about how the universe began, so I don't see why you mentioned "atheists".

Also

>herp derp everything needs a cause but I do special pleading for god, he doesn't need one

SAGE EVERYTHING

Derp.

So you're saying that you don't trust your own morality? That you need a god to tell you what's right and what's wrong?

Also, you're hedging your bets. You believe in god out of fear of being wrong and punished, not out of faith and love. Well done.

DAMMIT I JUST NEED A BAN BECAUSE I WASTE TOO MUCH TIME ON 4CHAN

sage


because of Magnets.

>Okay, /sci/ I'm tired of atheist

Reported. Sage. Hidden.

I'm so proud of /sci/ for saging

>>3538496

start saying harsh things about moot.

>>3538504
Moot is a faggot who loves giant existant god penis in his asshole, this also goes for mods

I think I dislike OP.

>1. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause
Prove it!
>2. The universe has a beginning
Prove it!
>3. The universe had a cause
Prove it!

>>3538477

>1. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause
>2. The universe has a beginning
>3. The universe had a cause

This is an argument in favor of causality, not intelligent design

>Also, if I'm right I get eternal hapiness and lose nothing, If you're right, you get nothing and if your wrong you lose everything

This argument is called Pascal's Wager, and is completely invalid. Check this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

>We can't have morality without definate right and wrong

So basically what you're saying is that there aren't different cultures?

>There is no reason to value human life or suffering objectivaley without god

This is not an argument.

>Abiogenesis is incredibly improbable

Neighter is this. It is probable, possible and in principle demonstrated in the lab: The Miller–Urey experiment can get you started

1. Cite source for claim.

2. Cite source for claim. All we know is that everything we can detect came from a singular point.

3. Cite source for claim.

What if you are right, but "god" is pissed off at how you viewed it? Alot of these "gods" people talk about seem to have very speciffic pinholes that you must view reality through. What if you believe in Yaweh and Allah is god, and is annoyed?

Why cant we have morality without right and wonrg? I can clearly determine what is and is not counterproductive to being a member of a social unit.

Why cant I value other humans? I know what and how they feel, I am one, that provides me with a framework for my behavior.

Why is Abiogenesis more improbable then any other idea? Cite source for claim.

Come back to me when you've answered these.

>>3538477
>Also, if I'm right I get eternal hapiness and lose nothing, If you're right, you get nothing and if your wrong you lose everything
Unless some other religion whose rules you don't follow is right and you go to hell as well or everyone goes to heaven or everyone goes to hell or there is a God but no afterlife or there is an afterlife but God saw through your cheap trick of believing in him "just in case".

>>Also, if I'm right I get eternal hapiness and lose nothing, If you're right, you get nothing and if your wrong you lose everything
If you're wrong though, you missed out on the truth. You lived a deluded, meaningless life.

If I'm wrong though, any reasonable God will forgive me for not believing, since I simply used my mental faculties he gave me, and I'll still get eternal happiness.

Sage because OP is a fag

>>3538517
WIN!

>>3538477
>1. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause
This is a bad induction. Here, let me demonstrate. Everything we see in the normal world that began to exist had something exist before it. Ergo, (if the universe began to exist, then) the universe had something exist before it.

>2. The universe has a beginning
This remains to be proven. I'm somewhat fond of the hypothesis that universes can spawn more universes, or the quantum foam multiverse hypothesis.

>3. The universe had a cause
The conclusion does not follow from 2 unestablished premises.

omigod! we saged this early and it still gets bumped to the front page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Son, I am disappoint.

>Also, if I'm right I get eternal hapiness and lose nothing, If you're right, you get nothing and if your wrong you lose everything

Pascal's wager is a lot like wasting your whole life looking for kryptonite in the off chance that superman exists and wants to kill you.

>We can't have morality without definate right and wrong
With or without god, morality is not something which is discoverable through mundane observation, so we're in the same boat either way. Hume's is-ought problem.

>There is no reason to value human life or suffering objectivaley without god
There is no reason with god either. Suppose god exists, and he talks to you daily. Why do what he says to do? Self interest? Surely you don't want to call that morality. In all variants, you still choose to not do evil.

>Abiogenesis is incredibly improbable
True, but it's the most probable hypothesis by far.

1. What is the cause of beginning?
2. What was the beginning of God?
3. What was the cause of God?

What is morality? Does it even exist apart from a social construction to provide some framework to get work done? What is the beginning of morality? What is the cause of morality?

What you loose is credibility, critical thought, reasoning and freedom.

What should i answer? You do not ask questions, you just state something.

MFW the universe arose from an undefined state simply because there was nothing stopping it.

I am not an atheist, but I just can't let this stupid argument go unanswered.

>1. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause
assumption
>2. The universe has a beginning
assumption
>3. The universe had a cause
even if this conclusions was valid, it does not follow that god was the cause

Also
>There is no reason to value human life or suffering objectivaley without god
That is just ridiculous.

>Abiogenesis is incredibly improbable

ITT

>answer these questions

But there wasn't a single question in there.

Holy fuck, people, it's a troll. Don't respond to it.

>>3538786

1. Science states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. The universe in some state has always existed, and will exist forever.

2. What if the norsemen were right, or the greeks, or egyptians? There have been a huge number of religions to have ever existed, so the odds are nearly infinite/1 that you are right.

3. That is why absolute morality does not exist, because there is no definite right or wrong.

4. I value other humans because I care about them, not because some god told me to.

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdNaP5BYaeU&feature=related

>>3538788
>MACK brand monitor

>1. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause
According to what laws? Those outside the universe, which we can't percieve? Is there time outside the universe? If there is no time, how do you measure cause and effect? If there is time, how do you measure it?
>2. The universe has a beginning
How can you be sure? Is the concept of a beginning a human construction or is it something of nature?
>3. The universe had a cause
From 1 & 2: Not certain.

>Everything that has a beginning must have a cause

Invalid premise.

It's so funny to watch the atheists raging.
But don't mind me, I was like you 2 years ago.

Improbability of abiogenesis: The universe is a big place and once even one replicator happens, selection takes off. stfu.

Cosmological argument: Granting your premise, fine, so the *real* cause must be timeless and fundamental in some sense. But your belief that that cause would be personal is founded on your belief in libertarian free will, that is, "choice" being just such an ontologically fundamental uncaused cause, and nobody who thinks about it for more than 5 seconds and isn't retarded believes that anymore.

You are made of quarks and electrons interacting locally according to universal laws, whose emergent properties can be understood by chunking them as atoms making up molecules whose chemical reactions build cells out of nucleic acids and proteins, some of which are neurons together in a big grey fleshy blob that electromagnetically interact with each other and with stimulus from the environment to receive thermodynamic information as input, process it (in a way that, in sophisticated enough brains, gives us consciousness), and produce output as behaviour by sending electromagnetic signals along strings of neurons to muscle cells, causing them to contract and move your body and environment.

Despite all their logic and reasoning, atheists are still grasping straws.

>>3538808
O RLY?? and then what happened....

1) You found Jeesuz
2) You decided Agnosticism was much hipper

>Everything that has a beginning must have a cause

how can we know this is a true premise?

>>3538821

there are no straws here. You must speak literally.

>>3538900
Or had a shitty life and wanted to trick himself into thinking it was real to feel better. (Delusional)

SUPPOSE THAT THERE ARE TWO RELIGIONS: RELIGION A AND RELIGION B
THE TWO RELIGIONS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE
RELIGION A HAS A RULE STATING THAT ITS FOLLOWERS MAY NOT EAT LIVING BEINGS
RELIGION B HAS A RULE STATING THAT ITS FOLLOWERS MAY NOT EAT ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A LIVING BEING

ACCORDING TO THAT REASONING, I HAVE TO FOLLOW BOTH RELIGIONS AND QUICKLY STARVE TO DEATH, BECAUSE IF THE RELIGIONS ARE TRUE, I AM REWARDED FOR MY BEHAVIOR

BUT I DON'T WANT TO STARVE TO DEATH
THERE, I HAVE PROVEN YOU WRONG

>>3538477
>implying everything must have a cause
>implying right/wrong aren't defined by society
if anecdotal evidence was valid, parents telling their kids santa existed for generations would be true. it's not.
/thread

>>3538477
>There is no reason to value human life or suffering objectivaley without god
This is what a person without morals actually thinks. The false idea of religion has some benefits, it tricks you into thinking like a civilized person. Too bad fear of eternal punishment is the only thing that keeps you from being a murdering rapist.

>>3538979
Hume's is-ought problem. There is no justification for morals. Morals are axiomatic.

I lol'd at u thinking that we atheists think that we will be in some sort of black void after we die, well we dont, once u cease to exsist u wont kno that ur dead, like before u are born, that simple. My point of view is that the Bible is good for one thing and that is a guide line on how u shud live ur life, and im sure thats what they intended, Adding a deity got them some attention. Live ur life in a good way by following simple rules, but dnt waste ur time looking for answers from someone who isnt listning and if "it" did exsist , clearly doesnt care now and is long gone.

>>3539101
>bible is a guideline
>blessed be the ones that taketh thy little ones and daseth them against the rocks
noooope.

not word for word, i didnt kno i had to mention that seeing as it is /sci/ use ur brain xD

How can you make the assumption that the cause of the universe is ''god''... DUr de dur logic fail asshole.. Flagged and reported eat shit and die.

>>3539136
so how do you decide which parts are good and which are not?
>by using your brain
exactly, and I bet you could have figured which was good and which not without using the bible. that's why it's a shitty guideline: it doesn't guide you.