/sci/ - Science & Math

I am not stuck in the delusion that reality is comprehendable.

It's you yourself who find it "beautiful".
Personally, I think the world is an ugly pile of shit.

>>4709931
>There has to be something that told nature what it should fucking do.
What told that "something" what it should fucking do?

think of how fast mould develops on bread, a matter of days?
you dont think in literally billions of years those processes evolved to there present state (keeping in mind evolution is both observed and proven)?

is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are faeries at the bottom of it too?

>>4709949
>>4709949
self correction
their**

>>4709931
>>4709949

Metaphysics shouldn't be used to justify the existence of physical phenomena when there are naturalistic explanations available.

Belief in a god is not equivalent to belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden, unless you think that god is some guy in the sky. It does wind religious people up if you say that though...;)

Nothing in the universe is intrinsically beautiful.

>>4709931

OP... stop fucking trolling or get educated.

Evolution told our cells what to do. The cells heal themselves because the ones that historically didn't died out and never reproduced; only the self-healing ones passed down their (self-healing) genes.

As for the more general laws of nature (such as gravity or other laws of physics)... They are completely random. The reason they appear to work so well is because this is the universe we all live in, the natural laws we were made for. If the laws were different, the universe wouldn't work for us, but there's no reason to assume it wouldn't work, period. We have too small of a sample (just one universe) to determine what conditions can cause a universe to "run" effectively per se.

>>4709931
This is literally how I used to think when I was 12 years old.

Using the same argument, I could say that everything in the universe is ugly, and that nobody would ever design something so imperfect.

God I fucking hate people that use the word "beautiful" to describe every fucking physical phenomena. Atheist and Christians alike should be fucking euthanized for doing that.

>Be God
>Create billions of planets and stars and other shit for no reason

>>4709978
go to bed god

>>4709983
No because I must lead them (and myself) to true freedom.

>>4709983
I can't get to sleep - can't stop thinking about the next chapter of Naruto. I really hope Kabuto redeems himself. I've always liked him.

The fact you hold that opinion shows you are ignorant of evolution and many other areas of science. Stop debasing nature by trying to explain it using superstition.

>>4709991
>kabuto
>not having kabutops
Why am I not surprised god didn't evolve his pokemon
Casual

>>4709931
I'm an atheist and somewhat of a hobby astronomer. I find myself marveling at nature's beauty more than most "Christians" I know (at least the few I know for certain that they are indeed religious - Eurofag here, we don't usually care about each other's religion).

In fact, observing nature and the universe is one of the most humbling things mankind can do, especially if you don't believe a grey-bearded man put all that in place just for you, because you're just that special.

You find much beauty in the universe, therefore God is irrefutably proven to exist. That's just not how it works.

>>4709931
strawman arguments, strawman arguments everywhere.

>universe is far to complex and beautiful to have sprung up on its own
>therefore a more complex being sprung up on it's own and created the universe
I hope you're starting to see the issue here OP

Natural laws are made-up bullshit. It's a convenient fiction. The pendulum "knows" how to swing all on its own, but good luck deriving a closed form solution to the differential equation of a pendulum in terms of elementary functions.

"Trust me, it works." <- physicists

>How every cell in your body knows how to work together especially when it's trying to heal itself.
I hope you die slowly of cancer.

>patterns exist
>how can you not believe in god

This is how retarded your argument is.

>>4709931
That's called an argument from ignorance. You can't explain how the complex shit got here, so you immediately attribute it to a deity.

It's all well and good if you actually admit that you believe things because they feel good, rather than if they're actually true or not. But it's another to use your irrational beliefs in a debate.

Yeah I'm at least agnostic now.

>>4710097

The golden ratio and fibonacci sequence appear in the Mandelbrot, why aren't you full-on deist yet?

>>4710108
citation sorely needed

what about the Buddhabrot, what about the mathematical universe theory?

>>4710123
Deuteronomy 23:1

what about Ulam spiral?

>>4710123

Because chaos

>>4710132
That image is "Sacks Spiral." The Ulam Spiral is square.

>>4709935
this

>>4709931
> How can one resort to atheism when there is so much beauty in mathematics and overall in science?

Because there's no evidence for a Big Sky Jew. And since such a thing would be a big producer of evidence by its very (and alleged) nature, then obviously it doesn't exist.

Science was all about evidence. Too bad you missed that part of LEARNING ABOUT IT.

>>4709935

>I am not stuck in the delusion that reality is comprehendable.

But then.. no human being would ever try to gain knowledge. Science = trying to comprehend reality. And master it accordingly through applications.

>>4710085

I'm sorry but what you just said is complete bullshit.
I never said there is a deity. You implied that wrongfully. I just said there has to be SOME-FUCKING-THING (carefull with your ignorant implications of some white bearded person) that told (again, careful now) that told our observable universe what to do.

>>4710060

>I hope you die slowly of cancer.

There is beauty in violence of course. Your emotional attachment to people suffering from cancer as well. You have to look at the entire picture, not just how you experience it.

>>4709931
deism is a valid stand point.
If you think the universe or math is too elegant that it need a creator, it's a tolerable thought, but as soon as you claim "HURR generic religion n°163 is true", then fuck off.

>>4709931
why does everything need someone to tell it how to act? stop being so damn anthropocentric

>>4710205
if you can't describe what that something is, it doesn't do us any good now does it?
It still sounds like your just spitting out the irreducible complicity argument with a deferent flavor

>>4710034
the physicists are usually willing to show you how it works, you're just retarded.

>>4710209
Everything not syntactically in error is valid. Please use the word you mean, not the word you think makes you sound smart.

>>4710208
>Rose glasses
>Everything is fucking wonderful
I hope you have to watch your family die slowly in a death camp.
>party on

>>4710108
the golden ratio is kindergarten tier. it's e for people who only know addition and multiplication.

>>4710226
<div class="math">e = 2+ \frac{1}{1 + \frac{1}{2 + \frac{1}{1 + \frac{1}{1 + \frac{1}{4 + \frac{1}{1 + \cdots}}}}}}</div>

Because, aliens.

>>4710230
>>4710226
<span class="math">\varphi = 1+ \sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+\sqrt \cdots}}}}}<span class="math">[/spoiler][/spoiler]

>>4710225

I bet you're going to be the next Einstein.

>>4710331
The square root of 1 is 1.

>>4710097
What is the thing on top supposed to be? Genuinely curious.

>>4710459

Get out.

>>4710459

>>4710331
>phi = 1 + sqrt(phi)

But that's wrong.

>>4710331
I'm not even sure this shit converge

>>4710502
It is a root of <span class="math">x^2-3x-1[/spoiler].

>>4710517
sorry, <span class="math">x^2-3x+1[/spoiler]

>>4710502
of course it does , you have 1+x=x² which is the definition of phi

>>4710520
No, if <span class="math">x=1+\sqrt{x}[/spoiler] then
<span class="math">x-1=\sqrt{x}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">x^2-2x+1=x[/spoiler]
<span class="math">x^2-3x+1=0[/spoiler]

ITT: OP learns that Nature != God

>>4710520
actually phi is equal to sqrt(all this shit), not 1+ sqrt(all this shit), this is phi²

>>4710530
yeah x is phi² not phi, my mistake

>>4710520
That doesn't mean it converges.

The right value is found by repeated iteration of the function g(x) = 1+sqrt(x) starting with x_0 = 1.
You can obviously find a fixed point like x = 1 + sqrt(x) but (different from your equation because the guy messed up the expression). But just because it has a fixed point doesn't mean repeated iteration converges to the fixed point.

Successful troll is successful.

>>4710673
I believe iterations converge in p-adics

OP is tard.

Math is an abstract human language we apply to nature in an attempt to probe and describe it.

Nature has no laws, nature is nature.

We give it laws.

Hur dur, its so beautiful, something must have created it.

Worst reasoning ever.

>>4710688
then who created maths?
protip: not humans, we just discover results, we don't create them.

>>4710711

Your an idiot. We created maths. We apply to patterns we observe in nature.

Herp

>>4710717

Math doesn't fucking need us to be created you dumb piece of shit. It has always been there. Before we human beings existed and gave it a name gravity also fucking already exist.

>>4710873
derp gravity != maths

>>4710688
>implying atheism is good reasoning
Maybe, but it's just as close minded as any religion.

Why is it considered illogical to consider a higher being than oneself set everything into motion?

What does it matter to you if one did?
Would that really invalidate everything that you know?

Have you ever marveled at the geometric complexity and symmetry of a snowflake?

If you knew nothing of how water molecules interlock in hexagonal patterns, giving rise to the shape of snowflakes on the macro scale, you would see snowflakes as necessarily designed by an unseen intelligence. Because you would not be able to conceive of any other explanation.

Everything else in nature is like that. It looks obviously designed until you understand the interplay of natural forces responsible, why something evolved to be the way it is, etc.

>someone had to make it

but who made the guy who mad everything? Please answer this.

>>4710717
this is like the proverbial "tree falling in the forest" if there is no one to think it, does 1+1=2? I say yes, someone thinking something doesnt change it. Maths is an organization of information, not a rearrangement of something physical. Math just exists.

If no one is alive to experience the universe is the universe there? If you die, and your death affects exactly nothing, did you really exist? Just un answerable questions.

>>4711893

No one did, he has always existed. How is this any different from asking how the universe come to be?

I.E.
> Okay, but what caused the big bang to happen
> X
> Okay, but what caused X to happen
> etc.

Religion cheapens and soils the natural beauty of the universe by lying about its true origins and nature and substituting it for abominations of reason.

>>4711349
It's as close minded as believe leprechauns don't exist. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

This is the same logic my grandma uses. If you find something beautiful or complex then it must have an intelligent designer.

>>4711932
>>If you find something beautiful or complex then it must have an intelligent designer.

Therefore god is ugly and simple, because it has no designer.

>>4711937

As much as I'd like to agree with your logic, I can't because the inverse is not necessarily true.

>>4711913
but everything has to have a beginning. How can something so amazing as god just be? Doesnt something so amazing have to be created?

Everything just abides by laws of physics, nothing more. Ther'es no "creation".

You see, we can go on forever and ever; lets say tomorrow Stephen Hawking discovers "pregrav particles," some mysterious particle that gravity owes its existence to. Then what created those? Next we discover more and more base forces or particles that the previous one is owed to, again, ad infinitum...Eventually, within logic, you can assume one of two things:

A) There is a first mover (i.e., a creator, or as Abrahamic religions believe, God, Yahweh, Adonai, El, Allah, etc)
B) That there is an infinite series of smaller or previous forces and particles that literally has to continue on for infinity and somehow our universe works such that this infinite continuity allows for the existence of all things in this universe

Now, on from logic to science.

In truth you can't actually assume either is true. That's right, people, from a die-hard Catholic, you heard it hear first; Agnostics are right. That is, to say, they are scientifically correct, in that without further proof of either of these possibilities one cannot, as a person of science, vest themselves in either of these possibilities.

The problem though, with this reconciling of logic and science, is that you can never investigate these possibilities and come to a conclusion.

cont...

OP, obviously something told something to do something first, i.e., it is the "first teller."

Devout Catholic here. Thomas Aquinas proved that shit like 800 years ago or whenever he was alive. It's called the Proof from Motion, google it if you never heard it, but suffice to say:

Z was moved by Y, Y was moved by X, X was moved by W, ad infinitum. Somewhere along the line, though, SOMETHING must have made the first move, without having been moved itself, otherwise existence is based on an infinite series of forces, cells, etc in an unending line, which seems a little fishy to most philosophers and logicians. We call this "First Mover," that is, the one who made the first act to cause all other motion in the universe, and was never moved itself, and owes its own motion to nothing but itself; we call this first mover God.

Want a more tangible example? I believe Stephen Hawking said a couple years ago that because of the existence and nature of gravity that the universe does not require a creator and that it can create things on its own. Fine and well, I won't dispute this as I'm no astrophysicist, but let me ask you simply,

What caused gravity to come into being?

cont...

Investigating possibility A, that there is a God, has been tried for thousands of years and there still is not much concrete, absolute and definite scientific proof that there is indeed a higher power. Science has failed here, for the most part, thus far.
Investigating possibility B, that the universe is based on some infinite series of movers, is an oxymoron: you can't examine a possible infinity and come to a conclusion because of, duh, the definition of infinity, that it never comes to a conclusion. So you can never actually prove there is an infinity, because you can never actually discern if it is infinity or not. If you reach a conclusion, then it's not infinite (and logically you found your first mover - AKA God) and if you don't reach a conclusion, it COULD be infinite - or it could just have a conclusion further down the line. You don't know, and you never can for sure.

So then, the theists are logically and scientifically wrong to presume there is most definitely a God, the atheists are in the same wrong for presuming there isn't, and the agnostics, while logically right in recognizing you can't know whether or not there is a God, cannot ever hope to find scientific proof by the same logic that makes them correct.

Alright, let's take a long breather after that. Where does that leave us all? It leaves us with a sad truth about our sciences and logic, for all our human pomp, we can never prove that God exists or doesn't. This is where the whole freaking point of a religion comes in.

I'll finish in the next post.

>>4710873

Lol this thread.

ITT:We think math exists independently of humans

Patterns existed before humans, not math.

Math is our description of these patterns.

/sci/ has some pretty stupid lately. Can't wait to see the bad retorts to this post

You can never know. You have to BELIEVE. That's why it's called FAITH. I don't believe you can ever prove God by science and logic, but I do believe he does exist. Others believe he doesn't. There is no knowing to be had. There can only be belief. You must make your choice, OP. There are only two options: You must believe, or not believe.

And, hell, if you want to talk to the statisticians - 50/50? Take the risk, and just believe.

>>4712000

Your actually the one taking the risk by accepting that a religion must be true.

Out of the hundreds of religions and there postulated "hells" you think yours is the true one?

If you accept that one of the religions existing today, or that has existed in the past, is true, odds are against you buddy.


>Be Thomas Aquinas
>Postulate that a first mover is necassary because infinite regress is impossible
>The first mover has existed for infinity

Mfw realizing aquinas was a fucking retard.

>>4712026

I'm pretty sure Aquinas postulates that the first mover's own infinity must be unfathomable to humans, and being a Catholic, and believing in a benevolent, all-powerful, all-loving God, most are willing to accept this, seeing as many things are accepted to be beyond our understanding. I mean, even the very concept of infinity is hypothetical because you literally can't measure it.

Also, assuming that my faith is the right one, again, requires belief - and judging by a few pieces of circumstantial evidence (the fact that only Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are worthy of noting) I'm pretty sure believing one of those is a decent bet, except that most Westerners think Hinduism is pantheon bullshit and aren't willing to believe in Buddhism's lack of a first mover. So that narrows you down to Islam, Judaism and Christianity - all of which guarantee eachother into paradise (Christians have "Anonymous Christian" doctrine, Muslims believe the other two are "people of the book" and thus destined for Heaven, and I think Jews don't even believe in an afterlife necessarily so you're screwed one way or the other with them). As a gambler, honestly, I'd say it's a safe bet to go with any of those, and personally Catholicism seems the most balanced out of those. Either way, taking one of the Abrahamic ones is a pretty good bet based on the circumstance and it fits pretty well with logic and science too. I'm pretty sure even pagan faiths have first movers, like Oranos for the Greeks and Ra for the Egyptians.

Believing in a first mover is a 50% at getting eternity? Hell, I'll do it.

Humans perceive beauty in their environment, therefore the myths of a specific tribe of desert savages are true. QED bitches

>>4712055

The concept of infinity is entirely hypothetical, a non-observable non-measurable, purely mathematical quantity. Another reason why Aquinas was retarded.

>Herp the origin of our universe can't be unfathomable to humans but the being that created it can be.


There are a plethora of other religions besides the Mega religions that pervade our cultures today, and even more sub religions inside each of those that differ on what they believe. Each one believing that the other is wrong and that they will suffer eternal agony.

>>4712105

I think there's a big difference between fathoming the origin of the universe and the infinity of God, seeing as God is the only thing that's actually infinite, as before the universe there was Him. The way God created the universe, or proof that the universe requires him, may well be easier to discern than his own nature. That's not illogical at all.

Also, the world is something like 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, and I'm only guessing, another 1 billion Hindus and 2 billion Buddhists. Let's say the Christians statistic is inflated due to cafeteria Christians and such, and there's only 1.5 billion of them. That makes 6 billion of the big ones and close to 1 billion other, most of which are probably comprised of irreligious. Yeah, I think I'll go with the healthy majority and assume one of the religions out of the 6 billion is correct. I think I'll take the fact that there's only 200,000 Zoroastrians as a sign that their beliefs are incorrect. Not bad odds if you are willing to take the majority as evidence that something is special about one of those.

As for the subreligions, most of the religions have some special dispensation for them, i.e., they still get to go to Heaven because "they're trying."

>>4712186
Everyone in Germany supported Hitler

>>4712193

lol, very clever, regardless, I think it's not too difficult, if you look at the demographics, to see that a healthy majority of the planet still believes in spirituality and in a creator. And I think there's way too many weird and unexplained/unexplainable mysteries for everything to just be up to science and logic. See qualia (herp derp)

Wow is it really summer already? Why do you people feed the trolls so much? This was an absolute shit troll as well. At least wait for a good one to start a shitstorm.

You're fucking retarded.

>>4711913
now see that's just fucktarded
So first you say the universe is SOOO beautiful and complex that it must need some sort of intelligence telling it what to do, then when asked where that intelligence came from you simply take him out of the equation and say it's always been there
To create the universe this being must be at least as complicated as the universe it's creating, so why does it get a get out of origin free card when the universe doesn't? In the words of Sagan why not just skip a step and say the universe has always existed instead?

>>4712193
That is not true. There were many cases of planned assasinations from within Germany.

>>4711999

I'm sorry sir but you're fucking retarded. You're discussing math rhetorically instead of well.. really.

hurr durr I'm an atheist who believes absoluting nothing happened and then out of ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY ALL OF A FUCKING SUDDEN the Big Bang happened and gradually life began.

Let me repeat that OUT OF NOTHING, EVERYTHING happened.

>>4712836
hurr durr I'm a theist who believes absoluting nothing happened and then out of ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY ALL OF A FUCKING SUDDEN the God happened and gradually life began.

Let me repeat that OUT OF NOTHING, GOD happened.

>>4712844

God didn't happened you dumb fuck. You're talking about something that created time. It's not bound to the laws it fucking created.

I'm sorry but that was a fucking dumb analogy.

>>4712859
So then what created god? Eventually you have to figure out how something comes from nothing. Good luck faggot.

>>4712865

Are you actually this retarded? Stop trying to use fucking logic reasoning when that same deity isn't bound to that, you dumb fuck.

>>4712875
>Stop trying to use fucking logic reasoning
I don't know whether to laugh or cry

>>4712883

Hurr I'm a fish, I see water all around me and there I assume that there only is water to surround me. There is nothing else but water to surround me durr

>>4712893
Hurr therefore the waterless environment above me isn't subjected to the same laws of physics my watery home is

>>4712893
No, that would be you with your religion and all your fellow believers thinking only your religion is the one true one.

>>emergence

>therefore, allah exists

>>mathematics and science are beautiful

>therefore, we should believe religious books when they say something that contradicts science

>>4712893
fish can jump out of the water to prove there is something beyond it
Besides whatever flavor of book/deity you're fighting for at the moment, what proof do you have of this place your god resides in?
Or is proof beyond him too?

>>4712865
have you ever heard the expression "Turtles all the way down"

Because physics is incomplete.

>>4714086
Stop it Jesus. Let this thread die.