/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4384775
good to hear, fellow anon. Interested in physics ma man. Not zealous about anything, really.

Welcome to slow boarding.

>1. meteorology, oceanology, fluid dynamics, control systems engineering, logistics engineering

>2. Creationism, Evolution, Magic and Biology in reference to the human psyche.

>>4384780
yes, I realized how slow it is.

Oh well, /v/ keeps me occupied in the meantime

And some great interests. Will look into some of those

>>4384784
You should enjoy /tg/ better, I think.
Though /v/ is great fun.

>>4384785
never been on /tg/
Will check it out. Thanks!

>>4384775
>1. Im into neurology,
It seems clear to me that physics is sufficient to explain the workings of the human mind from the perspective of observable phenomena to an outside observer, and any other postulates are extraneous and wrong.

>2. Debates on creationist theory
There is no "creationist theory". There is creationist lies, misdirection, ignorance, and stupidity. I know I'm picking on one of the weaker targets with this link, but really - watch it:

Using Common Sense to Debunk Evolution - CBN.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWBC0AnAAT0

While those two are retarded, there's really no one better. Behe and/or Demsky have said under oath, in sworn testimony, and confirmed on cross, that they want to expand the definition of science in school to include Astrology. Yes, astrology.

There is no one respectable at all on the creationist side.

>>4384794
mind my confusion but are you in favor of this argument provided by your link or are you mocking it?

>>4384796
Have you seen it?
Obviously mocking the entire video.

>Creationist theory
Nobody actually cares about creationism though. It has nothing to do with science.

5:34
>An atheist is someone who believes that nothing created everyone. He'll deny that through gritted teeth because it's intellectually embarrassing.

Damn, I wish I had the Dan Dennett video available. He responds to this from another source. Dan more or less says "No, that's it. You got it exactly right. That's Darwin's dangerous idea. Complete ignorance is actually enough to get intelligence and design."

>1. I love astronomy and astronautics, I'm going to school for astronautical engineering.

>2. Space travel / creativity in engineering.

>Christians need to stop up and realize that we don't need to be intimidated by atheists. The Bible says that they are fools.
Fricking awesome. No matter how many times I watch that video, that line always cracks me up. Seriously Ray, seriously? Atheists are wrong because the Bible says that we're fools? Oh wow.

Op again

May I ask on some enlightening theories on the origins of life and the universe

I've convinced myself that only and intelligent force can create intelligent beings. It doesn't make sense that such intricate, complex and, yet, crafted beings have been the product of coincidence. There has to be more. The symmetry of the body, alone, is enough to demonstrate the artistic craft in our creation. The intelligence behind it. Where we have two parts, the remain on opposing sides. When we have a singular feature, it remains in the middle. This may not be true for our internal parts, but for the aesthetics of the outward human, and the laws of attraction, it must mean something greater than coincidence.

The laws and order in the world and universe. The nature of cause and effect. A free mind working within a world of natural laws, yet, not impeded by them.

This all has to mean something greater, doesn't it? I am a firm believer in life after death. I can, truthfully, admit that it initially would lie in a fear of my mortality... But my thoughts have seen it grow to something greater. I would love to share a lot more but I'm more interested in what you guys have to say.

I'm very open-minded. Please share

>>4384775
1. Physics, astronomy
2. Human psychology

>>4384810
excuse me grammatical and fragmenting errors. Typing in a rush

>>4384810
>I've convinced myself that only and intelligent force can create intelligent beings. It doesn't make sense that such intricate, complex
Learn some evolution. It is a strange inversion of reasoning. That's why Darwin's idea may be the best idea mankind ever had. Usually the reasoning goes that it takes a more complex thing to make a thing. Darwin showed that actually you can make a complex thing with a blind algorithmic process.

>and, yet, crafted beings have been the product of coincidence.
Natural selection is the opposite of chance. If you think evolution is chance, then you do not understand evolution by natural selection.

>There has to be more.
Nope. The evidence is pretty conclusive that you're wrong. I suggest reading "The Greatest Show On Earth" for a great layman introduction to evolution and that evidence we have for it.

>The symmetry of the body, alone, is enough to demonstrate the artistic craft in our creation.
Meh? Not really, no. See arguments else-thread.

>The intelligence behind it. Where we have two parts, the remain on opposing sides. When we have a singular feature, it remains in the middle. This may not be true for our internal parts, but for the aesthetics of the outward human, and the laws of attraction, it must mean something greater than coincidence.
I don't even see what you're going for. You admit symmetry, then acknowledge lacks of symmetry, but then try to say it's just for attraction, and wow. So many fallacies, so little time. No True Scotsman, Begging The Question, and so on.

>>4384813
*my

>>4384810
>The laws and order in the world and universe. The nature of cause and effect. A free mind working within a world of natural laws, yet, not impeded by them.
Yes. There is "order" in this world. The hypothesis of a deist god, because that's what's your proposing, is not a god that commonly interferes in the daily activity of humans. I cannot prove a deist god does not exist. I am strictly agnostic on the issue. I am a militant agnostic, I don't know, and you don't know either.

>This all has to mean something greater, doesn't it?
Nope.

>I am a firm believer in life after death.
Directly contradicted by all available evidence.

>>4384820
I believe in a deist god. I don't agree with people believing that prayer would result in divine intervention.

Would you mind sharing some of the evidence. I am obviously new to all of this and would love to know more.

>>4384775

1. Most broadly, applied mathematics.

I am interested in way too much shit and I appreciate that studying applied mathematics allows me to study disparate fields of knowledge from a mathematical perspective, which is how I think anyway.

2. You know, I'm an atheist but I'm way over the religion debate.

Now I'm mostly interested in debates in fundamental physics, logic, and philosophy.

>>4384825
For example, there is a part of the brain that is custom built to recognize faces. People who have that area of the brain damaged are unable to recognize faces. When you die, that part of the brain shuts down, yet some people think that they're going to see grandma in heaven and recognize their face. It's absurd.

Every part of your cognition is dependent on a particular piece of the brain. We can take your mind apart piece by piece by taking apart your brain. Ergo, the logical and most straightforward conclusion is that "Well, if I lose each individual aspect of my mind when that part of the brain goes, then my mind as a whole goes when my brain as a whole goes".

Also, why believe in a deist god? How do you know that?

>>4384831
I'm obviously ignorant in regards to the atheist debate (besides the surface theories)
Would you mine explaining what gave you conviction In accepting atheism and being "over the religion debate"?
I Dont intend to mock you. I'm curious, more than anything

>>4384833
well, wouldn't it then the fair to say "why do we believe in anything?"
It's just a belief. "How do I know that?" I don't.

>>4384837
Different anon.

There is no good argument for a commonly interfering god. I think you agree on that. Hence, atheist. Atheists don't deny deist gods. They will deny that anyone can know there's a deist god.

>>4384775
What do you find interesting in Neurology

>>4384838
>well, wouldn't it then the fair to say "why do we believe in anything?"
>It's just a belief. "How do I know that?" I don't.
Why do we believe in anything? I have about three axioms that I use, 1- science works, 2- I'm not special, 3- try to not be a dick.

If you disagree with 1, then I call you insane. "Insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

If you disagree with 3, then I call you evil.

The implications of 2 are a little more subtle, and I'm still searching for a better formulation.

>>4384843
Err, to continue, I have no argument as to why it's silly to believe "a deist god exists" axiomatically. So, I'm just going to ridicule you instead, as that's my only recourse.

1. Neuroscience, Astronomy and Anthropology interest me the most.

2. I dont really have anything I'm really zealous about anything.

>>4384843
No,i didn't mean to take it literally. I just didn't understand the point of the question

>>4384848
If you have a factual, "physical", falsifiable belief, and you have no evidence basis for it, then I am going to call it a retarded belief. This includes beliefs for deist gods.

>>4384840
The complexity of the brain really. Could anyone explain how our brain functions our body, yet, we have hardly any innate knowledge on bodily functionality.

That always blows my mind
I would assume that repetitious acts, such as aheartbeat, are functions carried out by a certain part of the brain (the name escapes me, at the moment) but why does it work autonomously from our consciousness?
Why don't we have any conscious say on how the body operates?

>>4384854
it's called 'emergent logic'
basically, your brain interacts in such a way as to create the virtual fabrication that we refer to as the 'mind', which is capable of such complexity because it IS a virtual construct.

>>4384854
Umm, not trolling you but you just sounded quite stupid to me because you just described is Neuroscience, not Neurology. Neurology has to do with the treatment and diagnosis of disorders of the nervous system.

>>4384851
I think it's fair tos ay that nobody could have such an entrenched belief. Every belief retains shades of doubt.
This is why I ask for enlightenment. I love hearing diverse perspectives. Unlike many Christians (or any religions for that matter) and Atheists, I like to have a real perspective on life, rather than a deluded worldview to suit my consolation with mortality.

I have been told to look up more on evolutionary theory, have been told that creationism is wrong and etc

What I really need are some good sources to read up on or some actual imparted wisdom rather than derisive retorts (not that I'm receiving many, thanks for the maturity /sci/)

I'm new to all this. I'm a young mind willing to learn. Willing to consider differing perspectives. I refuse to be a stubborn evangelist

Lets do this

>>4384862
A lot of what I post will sound stupid. I've always held an interest in science but have never really pursued much knowledge on it. I'm not afraid to make mistakes, though.
Learn something knew every day.

>>4384863
"The Greatest Show On Earth", the book. Read it.

>>4384865
Why dont you do self study?

>>4384860
Im intrigued. do tell me more
Anything I can read up on?

>inb4 google

what do i google?

>>4384869
Like all such theories about "how" matter creates minds, it's probably untestable, and thus meh.

>>4384868
I learn more through conversation. You can't question a book. Although, I'm willing to read. Just refer some sources
>>4384867
thank you!

>>4384871
Would it be feasible to consider the mind as metaphysical? And the brain as the connecting point between physicality and the metaphysical?

>>4384873
>Would it be feasible to consider the mind as metaphysical? And the brain as the connecting point between physicality and the metaphysical?
Sounds like extraneous assumptions that offer no predictive power to me.

>>4384872
I am not going to be able to explain what evolution is and why it's true with 4chan posts. There's a reason why an intro book is many 100s of pages long.

>>4384794
Also, that video makes Christians look highly unintelligent.
It just attests to the stereotype that science and religion are incompatible.
Ima Christian who believes in the evolutionary theory. Although, I dont consider myself an archaic catholic (or any of those denoms)

>>4384876
Sadly, amongst the creationists, it really doesn't get better than that. At least I have to give Ray props for being honest and up front, as opposed to some of the sleezebags from the Discovery Institute and such.

>>4384875
Oh, it most definitely is. But are there any signs of evidence that would completely counteract this assumption?

That's fair enough. That Richard Dawkins' book seems quite intriguing.

Is there anyone here who deems science and religion incompatible?

>>4384869
The very term of 'emergent logic' is best seen in games both tabletop and vidya, where only a few simple rules create surprising results and a complex metagame.
Think of classic "The Game Of Life" program, it only has six rules and a little bit of code, but produces strangely complex results and cycles that you would never have guessed from the simplicity of the instructions.

The main thing is that all virtual systems only exist as long as the physical system remains in such a state as to permit such reactions to occur. A fried motherboard has short-circuited, so the electron flow is disrupted and the overall pattern no longer functions.
>>4384873
Nyet. Nada. Nope.
The mind is virtual, which means it is a product of physical reactions. It is 'meta-physical' only in the same way a lot of modern stuff are 'meta-materials' in that they physically could not exist naturally according to pure physical laws: there needed to be an ordered physical system in place arranged just so in order to induce such 'unnatural' reactions.

>>4384881
>Oh, it most definitely is. But are there any signs of evidence that would completely counteract this assumption?
Depends on your exact hypothesis, and how you interpret it, and specifically what falsifiable predictions one might be able to derive.

>>4384881
>Is there anyone here who deems science and religion incompatible?
I

>>4384882
Would it then be feasible to assume that there is a cycle of reincarnation, in which the mind inhabits another physical being after death? Or it can not be transferred as such. If so, why not? Gosh, this is exciting. Tell me more, anon. Tell me more.

>>4384892
See elsethread where I explained that the mind is the result of physical processes in the brain. Specifically, here:
>>4384833

>>4384889
In other words, 'no' ?

>>4384897
As I said, depends on your exact hypothesis, and whether it makes any falsifiable predictions.

>>4384892
The 'mind' cannot be transferred.
Each mind is independent of all other minds and exists only in the system of the brain that generated it.
When the brain ceases to function, the mind ceases to exist. Should the brain restart functioning, the mind would pop back into existence, assuming no change occurred to the brain during that time period.
Think of your mind like an avatar in a game. When you shut off the computer, the avatar no longer actively exists, but the data that generated it might still be on your hard drive or RAM, ready to function once again upon rebooting the program.
However mind =! spirit, which may be the source of your confusion.

How do you guys deal with the fact that there is nothing after death?
To some extent, isn't it better being a deluded Christian and living with the falsified ideals of "life after death?" It is comforting, that's for sure. As for now, I do not know what to think.

>>4384902

Deal with the fact that there is nothing after death?

I suspect I won't be too worried about it when I'm dead.

>>4384902
>How do you guys deal with the fact that there is nothing after death?

Mark Twain: "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit."

>To some extent, isn't it better being a deluded Christian and living with the falsified ideals of "life after death?" It is comforting, that's for sure. As for now, I do not know what to think.
It violates my rule of "don't be a dick". Telling people comforting falsehoods tends to do more harm than good.

>>4384901
Yes, that is the source of my confusion, unfortunately.
What if the mind has become the product of the brain but is able to function, now or after death, independently?
would anyone know any sources that would affirm or, for better words, support this theory that the mind is the product of the brain? I'm struggling to find

>>4384902
>To some extent, isn't it better being a deluded Christian and living with the falsified ideals of "life after death?" It is comforting, that's for sure. As for now, I do not know what to think.
Christian (nondenominational) here.
I say even if there is nothing after death, it is better to believe in God and all that He implies if Nihilism gives you crippling depression like it does me.

Depression always makes you less efficient, less focused, and less productive in everything you do, so I consider it to be an unacceptable state of being to be avoided at all costs.
Even a humanist or atheist would agree on me in this: any loss in productive or similar ability is a BAD THING.

>>4384905
But that's just thing, we have no mind to even lament or consider our non-existence. As crazy as that sounds, aren't you afraid of being nothing after experiencing something. even though you wont be anything to consider the loss of being something and..
i dont know, it's just worrying when your something and each day brings you closer to your impending nothingness

>>4384908
I wouldn't say that in public. I gathered that the general consensus on this board was in favour of atheism. Am I wrong?
On my first thread, someone responded saying ">expecting not to be ridiculed for ridiculous beliefs on /sci/" (those beliefs relating to creationism)

>>4384911
I would have to agree. And, yes, it makes me terribly depressed.
Besides, there is nothing wrong in teaching adherents to "love your enemy" I don't understand why atheists have to impose their views on Christians unwilling to accept ulterior perspectives (sorry for generalising)
If anything, christianity encourages a healthier society. I wouldn't want to mention other religions but I'm sure most would agree

Dont mind me, im willing to hear other perspectives

>>4384916
>I wouldn't say that in public.
Wouldn't say what in public?

>>4384919
>isn't it better being a deluded Christian and living with the falsified ideals of "life after death?"

>>4384911
Also, I, too, am non-denominational. It's great to see some Christians who think outside of what is drummed into them

I would like to read back over this thread. How do I save the entire thing?

>>4384923
>Also, I, too, am non-denominational. It's great to see some Christians who think outside of what is drummed into them
This is so ironic that it hurts.

You realize that you're Christian because that is how you were raised? If you were born elsewhere, you might be saying you're a nondemoninational Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or some such?

Just saying.

>>4384909
>What if the mind has become the product of the brain but is able to function, now or after death, independently?
In that case it would imply that the Virtual realm must either somehow exist independently of the Physical realm, or that your mind has somehow been hijacked into some natural or unnatural phenomena.

Alternatively, my theory is that as the Virtual exists upon the Physical realm, so too does the Physical exist upon the Spiritual, and our Spirit is always receiving signals and imprints and effects from our body and through it, our mind, able to experience existence on two other definitions of existence aside from it's own, and when the Body dies the Spirit might move on into another body and bring with it some of the information from it's previous 'lives' that might, at time, be translated down the line into the body and mind directly, albeit that would be uncommon as it would imply not only reversing the flow of information and commands, but also the conversion from spiritual datum into physical and/or virtual protocols.

>>4384925
ctrl+s in firefox works for me.

>>4384926
To continue, see pic.

>>4384926
That is not true in the slightest. I think and re-evaluate my beliefs every day of my life, re-considering ulterior beliefs and other religions. Please do not stereotype me as a mindless following drone. This thread alone attests to my need to consider diverse perspectives.

I also took up studies to learn on other religions in school, purely due to choice

I am actually offended

>>4384929
Are you this anon?
>>4384882

Just trying to understand your perspective better

>>4384933
Same anon

Do I really need to put on a name?

>>4384931
Then why are you Christian and not Muslim? Or Hindu?

>I'm offended.
Oh fuck off. I don't care if I offended you for questioning your stupid beliefs. Suck it up that I'm going to question your sacred and stupid beliefs and treat them like any other belief.

>>4384926
Also, if you were to pin it to how i was raised, I would be a full-blown Catholic. Would I not?

>>4384936
There was no need to be so derisive.

I chose to be Christian. Just as one may choose to be atheist. You are acting as if someone can only be Christian by nurture.

And if I were is Islamic, what would you say? Why are you islamic and not Christian?

Ridiculous
>implying I have never thought about my beliefs a day in my life
>implying only people who turn to atheism for a monotheistic or polytheistic belief has thought about anything
>implying you were asking an intelligent question rather than being derisive and employing offensive uses of rhetoric

>>4384941
>There was no need to be so derisive.
There was no need to play the "I'm offended" card.

You know what? I'm offended that you tried to stifle the debate by playing the "I'm offended" card.

>>4384935
it would be helpful to follow everything
a few conversations going on at once all directed at myself

and i can actually see the logic in your theory. im intrigued

>>4384941
You claimed that you're not just following what you were taught in children. I'm betting you're Christian, and your parents are Christian. This is not a coincidence. I asked why aren't you a Muslim. You have not answered.

If your parents were Muslim and you were a Christian, then that would be interesting.

As such, you have completely failed to justify your beliefs in the entirety, and instead have tried to deflect the question several times now. First by playing the "I'm offended" card, and now by accusing me of being unfair, and by conflating atheist with religion - saying they're just as good as the other.

No, atheism is the right choice. If you disagree with this, you at least better be able to justify your reasoning. Then we can have a discussion about your reasoning. And mine.

>>4384944
The fact alone that you see this all as a "debate" is what is laughable about all this.
Maybe that's why you approached with such venom.
We are merely having a conversation. Learn the difference. And, if you were willing to drop your pride for a second, you would realise how ridiculous you sound.
I will allow you to play the "im offended" card, as I really do not care, nor see where this "conversation" is going.
That is all

>>4384941
>>4384936
>>4384937
It's as simple as this:
Your formative years define much of your subconscious habits and idea of positive and negative things.
You were raised to view Christianity in a positive light, and now view it positively in comparison with everything else.
The only difference is that you now have found acceptable and supportable reasons to justify it.
In the end, it IS just faith, choosing one way over the rest without any way to verify which way is legitimately best.

>no atheism is the right choice

I'm atheist and even I laughed at this

>>4384945
Alrighty. Name it is.
Beware, I may become highly egotistical.

>>4384948
>The fact alone that you see this all as a "debate" is what is laughable about all this.
>Maybe that's why you approached with such venom.
More deflection. You played the "I'm hurt" card. If you do not recognize the severe error of your way, ponder that. Ponder how it stifles free discussion.

Instead you have a preconceived notion in your mind, you've prejudged the debate, by fixating unnaturally on a single word, "debate".

Grow up. And pull your head out of your ass. Apologizing for playing the "I'm offended" card would be a good start.

>>4384949
>In the end, it IS just faith, choosing one way over the rest without any way to verify which way is legitimately best.
What is faith besides a belief without any reason whatsoever? Aka bullshit?

I reject faith completely.

>>4384951
Would you have any sources on the mind being a product of the physical brain?

>>4384958
See earlier:
>>4384833

ITT: nothing new.
Atheists claiming to be alpha despite having no conclusive evidence

>>4384950
Why? You believe something, but you don't believe it's right? What? This is making my head hurt. You have a belief, but you don't believe the belief is the best/right belief? Why?

I (usually) believe only things that I think are correct. You do differently?

>>4384959
Sorry, by sources I meant articles, analysis or theories on it. To read on

How do you define your beliefs? Just outta curiosity

>>4384955
As a child, your brain can only comprehend things in terms of bullshit.
Provided you aren't held back through trauma/sheltering or are not naturally slow developing or retarded, your brain eventually will develop enough to see things in a more sensible light, at which point you have your 'crisis of faith' and decide if the evidence as you understand so far points towards your original path or away from it.

Remember, there is no way to verifiably test anything spiritual with physical measuring instruments, and or own individual ability to peer into the realm is murky and biased at best, so there is no way to know for certain.
Thus, anything related to the spiritual realm is to be taken on faith as an individual personal choice.

>>4384961
We have conclusive evidence that the world is not 6000 years old. We have conclusive evidence that miracles do not happen, prayer is ineffective, and so on.

We do not have evidence for deist gods. We are strictly militant agnostic about deist gods - I don't know, and you don't know either.

And stop strawmanning the atheist side.

>/sci/
>intellectual

>>4384952
Sorry, missed your post. Im not going to lie, but if I were talking to you in person I'd care more about this conversation. Unfortunately, the impersonal nature that is 4chan makes me struggle to write out why I believe in Christianity over the other religions.

I am sorry. I would like you to contribute to the rest of the thread.

If you dont mind me asking, what was conclusive enough for you to believe in atheism? I will accept the same reasoning that I have projected if you don't feel like explaining it

>>4384964
You want me to link to articles that show damage to the brain causes damage to the mind? There's a plethora of stuff out there.

The next step is one that you probably won't find in too many articles do to the whole "religious" aspect, that obviously because we can take apart the mind piece by piece by taking apart the brain, obviously the mind cannot exist without the brain.

Again, do you expect to be able to recognize grandma's face when that part of the brain is gone? Or be able to do the basic math when the part of the brain responsible for that is gone too?

>>4384973
>If you dont mind me asking, what was conclusive enough for you to believe in atheism? I will accept the same reasoning that I have projected if you don't feel like explaining it
The evidence is completely against miracles, aka temporary abridgements of physics, usually in response to prayer, usually for humans. (How conceited to think that only humans get miracles.)

The world is entirely explainable in terms of physics. In the words of LaPlace when he was asked why he didn't mention god: "I had no need of that hypothesis".

>>4384969
no idea what you mean by "strawmanning," i wouldn't say anything that offensive.

>conclusive evidence that miracles did not happen
>conclusive
really, anon? really?

>>4384981
>no idea what you mean by "strawmanning," i wouldn't say anything that offensive.

I assumed that you were implying atheists deny deist gods flat out. That would be strawmanning. Instead, we get the sillier position that you think the scientific inquiry into miracles leaves the reasonable possibility that miracles exist. I suggest you consult the scientific literature, and see how at every turn, no miracle has ever been found.

>>4384974
I would like that.

Glad, to see this thread moving quite fast in regards to the pace that /sci/ usually moves at.

>>4384979
>the world is explainable in physics
you have caught my attention. anymore you can share on this or any sources at all? I would like to know more

>>4384969
>We have conclusive evidence that the world is not 6000 years old. We have conclusive evidence that miracles do not happen, prayer is ineffective, and so on.
See, this is the part where I can just play the "God" card.
Consider, God could have made the whole universe in a 'pre-baked' state, like running a 'big bang universe' simulation, pausing, then inserting humanity and our dinky little solar system right where he wanted it.
Miracles are the same. They Say "god moves in mysterious ways" yes? Consider they may be mysterious not because they are straight up miracles, those aren't mysterious at all, just magical. Instead, consider that God being omniscient and effectively omnipresent could know that moving a particle here and injecting a little energy there would lead to a chain reaction producing the desired results, and even the obvious miracles are often physical in nature instead of magical lights and fire.

>>4384983
This is news to me.
Do atheists leave the possiblity for a deist god?
Need confirmation

>>4384985
Wow, I would actually agree with this.
Thank you for that, anon. I enjoyed reading it. (No sarcasm intended)

If atheists believe that there may still be a possibility of a deist god, why have you ruled out the possibility of life after death?

I would also like your opinion on this >>4384985

>>4384985
And by opinion, I mean your views on life after death

>>4384985
Ok. Let's play this game. You suggest the "moral" equivalent that we're in The Matrix.

As long as the the particular model of The Matrix is equivalent to the modern standard scientific "real world" model, I don't care. Definitionally, it makes no difference. It's only when the models are different do I start caring, like if I could choose between a red pill and a blue pill.

Similarly, if you want to suggest the "moral" equivalent of god starting up the universe to make it look "as if" it was billions of years old, well then, I cannot deny the possibility. I will say that it runs afoul of Occam's Razor, that it's flatly denied by the straightforward inductive reasoning of science.

Moreover, most people when postulating such a model usually want to postulate a model that is substantially different than the standard modern scientific model. They don't want to say "Oh, it's just exactly as if it was billions of years old". They want to claim stuff like miracles, efficacy of prayer, an afterlife, and so on. And I have to ask "How do you know this?". Again, it's my basic position that if you have a belief with falsifiable, factual, "physical" implications without a basis in evidence, then you're full of shit.

>>4384992
>Moreover, most people when postulating such a model usually want to postulate a model that is substantially different than the standard modern scientific model.
Let me add "In effect, it's a bait and switch". It's intellectually dishonest.

> I cannot deny the possibility
> then your full of shit

does he hear himself?

>>4384995
I can both be unable to deny X, and be able to say you're full of shit for claiming X. It's perfectly consistent.

>>4384996
To continue, let's suppose I told you that the number of Royal Flushes at a certain popular Las Vegas casino at a certain date in the past was 107.

You would be unable to deny my claim. You would also properly call me full of shit when making the claim.

>>4384996
To say "you're full of shit" is to completely deny

no, it is not consistent

>>4384998
The key is again the question "How do you know that?". "How do I know that the number of hands of that type on that day was that number? You have no way of knowing that, and thus while you might still be right by pure coincidence, chance, you are forming a completely wrong argument and you lack justification for that claim."

>>4384999
Nope. Learn to logic. See:
>>4384998
>>4385000

(Sorry for posting so many posts.)

>>4384998
you would say "it is improbable but not impossible"

>>4384989
I was going to say something about reasonable atheism, but 4chan doesn't like the post. It's in image format.

>>4384992
Your reasoning is sound. To clarify, just in case, I am saying that yes, the physical world and our existence in it is essentially The Matrix, as far as God is concerned.

>>4385002
Don't be sorry. It's your right, just as much as anyone elses.

Anyway, i gotta get up early tomorrow.

/thread

good conversation /sci/ nerds. i enjoyed it

>>4385003
I would say that, and then I would say "You are full of shit and being an asshat for making a claim that you cannot possibly know. Stop wasting my time with stupid bullshit."

>>4385006
haha, fair enough

night

>>4385006
>>4385010
On this account I just say
>Don't make a claim without stating a modifier on it's dubious nature if you cannot support it.
Or
>If the person you are talking to is stupid, don't make claims at all. No, really, they will always take it the wrong way. Shut up, buy them a beer, and THEN go ahead and bullshit.

>>4385015
this is true
people kill when you tell them they are wrong

and yes a modifier is necessary
have an excellent day/night anon

>>4385015
Well, obviously I'm using more vulgarity than I normally would. I'm still pissed that the dude earlier played the "I'm offended" card, and fixated on the "debate" word to completely dismiss my arguments.

>>4385018
half this thread is me, op

and i apologised for the sake of not derailing the thread

/peace out

>>4385021
Itsok. My bad too.

>>4384911

You know, I never really got this logic. Even if you can intellectually stomach the idea of believing in a God or Gods, I don't really know how you can actually get from that to believing in it while being consciously aware that the only reason you "believe" is because the alternative is too scarring to tolerate.

>>4385041
Because the sort of people like me who can't stomach nihilism are also the kind of people who can alter their beliefs at will at full force.

The sort of people like you who CAN live with nihilism are not that sort of people.

Type A people (me and similar) do not have a strong sense of self and need God as a central pillar of hope and optimism.

Type B people (you and similar) have a much stronger sense of self and can live without that, probably by creating your own axioms for reality.

>>4385065
DId you just concede the common pejorative that religion is a crutch for the weak?

>>4385074
Yes, but that also depends on what you mean by 'weak'.
In truth, The Church as you know it is not a crutch, but a blinder and social rat-trap. With rare exception, it no longer resembles or adheres to the principles of the Church as Christ described it.
Thus, it has become not an opiate, but a narcotic meant to enforce dependency, in a roundabout way, but such is what occurs to all mainstream religions: society grasps a firm hold of them, they become the victim of public scrutiny, and any real truth and integrity becomes drowned out and scorned away.

>>4385089
>nd any real truth and integrity becomes drowned out and scorned away.
In favor of 'popularity' and 'political acceptance' and being 'nice'