/sci/ - Science & Math

You can't? I knew it. After explaining the whole universe, I believe there'll be no atheist.

Same questions can be applied to "god".

>>5908931

OP, if you want to troll atheists, go to >>>/pol/ or >>>/x/.

scientists in general do not deny the existence of god, they just don't believe it either, because there is no proof or evidence either way. and the scientists who do believe in god do not base it on logical or scientific grounds.

>>5908939

No it can't. By believing in theistic God, you can assume that God is an expection to it, and by applying that to the universe, you basically suppose that the universe is God itself. So either way, there's a God or "supreme being".

>>5908942
I'm not really trying to troll atheists. My apologizes if I seemed like so. But the fact that the universe according to big bang has to have a "beginning energy" means there's a supreme being. Prove me otherwise.

>>5908946
>you basically suppose that the universe is God itself.

If you're going to extend the word "god" to include "when physics gets weird," it's essentially become totally divorced from its original meaning. Which makes conflating it with religious beliefs like Christianity ridiculous and dishonest.

>>5908951
>Prove me otherwise.

fail troll is fail.

>>5908953
Yeah, you not being able to prove makes me troll. Fail atheist is fail.

>>5908952

To hell with Christian God. I'm merely talking about "supreme being". Wondering how could the universe have created itself from nothing?

>>5908946
>gibberish
>therefore you're wrong
nope.
If things need to be created, rather than just spontaneously coming into existence, then who created god?

>>5908951
>define god to mean myself
>i exists
>god exists
>problems atheists?
Your argument is that stupid.

In any case this thread be the nest of a not so sneaky troll, be the ban swift and the hammer heavy on this one.

>>5908957
>>5908957

Higher power. I feel you OP. I'm a uni student doing a double major in physics/bio and I agree that after studying the universe and life in depth and detail I believe a high power that humans wouldn't be able to comprehend exists. I refuse to believe everything happened simply by chance.

>>5908961
meant to quote this:
>>5908946

>>5908959
Because you pleb, it's a "supreme being". You can easily make an assumption that he has been there since forever. But you can't make the same assumption to the universe, because we know that it has a beggining.

>>5908931
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

\thread

>>5908964
>been there since forever.
You obviously don't understand words such as forever.
>we know that it has a beggining, but god doesn't need one because... JUST BECAUSE I SAID SO OK!
har har har har har

>>5908961

Seems like none of you plebs has the answer to my question and as a result of that you're just trying to show how "troll-ish" my posts are. Can't you just simply show that The Big Bang didn't need a supreme being.( Without somene giving the first energy to "bang")

>>5908964
>assuming things about magic/religion

Hope you enjoy rotting in hell.

0/1000

>implying this somehow is evidence of a god
>implying there aren't an endless sea of universes with different laws that contributed to the formation of this one
>implying the universe is linear
>implying time is linear
>implying we are not all mental renderings of a super intelligent microcosmic energy entity with the illusion of free will and individualism to pass the non linear time

>>5908968
I've read that book. It has wrong assumptions. In quantun mechanics, it's said that subatomic particles exist from nothing for a short amount of time. But no, it doesn't exist from nothing, it exists within the vacuumed space which has an enegry that turns into mass-matter.

>>5908970

I do, do you?

If God can create itself, so can the universe create itself.

>>5908971
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Krauss gives a good prentation that will answer all your questions, including our current understanding of cosmology, the big bang, and how the universe came from nothing.

\thread

>>5908962
>muh ape mind is seeing faces on mars

there's a reason why we avoid intuition when doing science.

>>>/x/

>>5908981
>I've read that book. It has wrong assumptions.
>this thread is not based on false assumptions
top kek

>>5908985

Wow, what an arrogant response. I'd be willing to bet you have absolutely no university education and visit /sci/ and call yourself an atheist because you want to feel superior and smarter, yes?

Grow up, childish fool.

>magical sky wizards can exist always, without being explicitly created by someone
>matter cannot exist always, without being explicitly created someone

>>5908982
see; >>5908981

>>5908983

Then the universe itself is the God. Got it?

>>5908987

Then show me.

>>5908951
Your argument is the same that religion has always pushed. "Oh you can't know X! How did Y happen? You don't know so it must be God!" Then when science DOES figure it out, they move a benchmark, because that's all religion can can do in arguments like this. It's a kneejerk defensive reaction in the face of evolution and astrophysics. It's pretty silly, but even if you were to prove the Big Bang was created by something like universal inertia or some mechanism having to do with Quantum Physics, they would just push the benchmark further and say a Supreme Being was needed to make it.

>>5908990

people like you give science a bad name and make yourself look like such idiots. just leave. /sci/ isn't the place for you because you watched a couple of zeitgeist documentaries and some dawkins.

>>5908989

I'm meaningless. On the other hand, you are shitposting on a science board. Please die.

And I gave you a good response, humans evolved a sense of purpose, the same way we evolved facial recognition. We see faces on mars where there are none and we see purpose in the universe where there is none.

You are an ape, and so am I, the only difference being, I admit it and I can control myself.

>>5908994
>whole post
Top lel
Then call it universe, atheist believe in universe

>>5908996

I see where you're coming from. 20000 years ago, people believed in Zeus or Ra, because they couldn't answer the universe and after getting to know more about the universe, they no longer believed in such gods. But this isn't actually the same as those. Because it's known that no matter can exist from nothing.

>>5908931
>How would atheist explain what happened before big bang?

Being an atheist has nothing to do with it. The early universe is something we're still exploring. Nobody has it figured out yet.

>but muh god of the gaps

Ugh, stop.

>>5908997
And /sci/ isn't the place for you to post OMG GOD IS REEL AND SCIENCE IS EVUL CONSPIRECY

>>5908981
You make a very silly mistake most novices do.

Our current vaccum state is not the same as the vaccum state that existsed prior to the big bang. Krauss isn't talking about simple vaccum flucations we see today. That doesn't even make any goddam sense to anyone who has studied any physics or cosmology! The current vaccume state didn't even exist until after the big bang! Do you even science kid?

Krauss is talking about a "prior vaccum like state" which gives rise to space-time/big bang. It is all about symmetery breaking.

The "prior vaccum" state also has flucations, but of space-time. Krauss shows that this state with zero energy, is extremely unstable, and the flucations of space-time will create a fully fucntional universe.

You know about da symmetries?

>>5909005

How could science be a conspiracy theory if I am the one studying it? You need to accept that people in science will have different views and beliefs. Not all people of science are anti theist bigots such as you. To me people like Richard Dawkins and yourself are on par with religious fundamentalists preaching about how much they hate others who don't agree with them. You are weak, you lack intelligence (which is why you don't have any university education in a STEM field) and you also have an obvious god complex and almost immediately have to refer to ad hominem attacks because you feel threatened by someone more intelligent (with the degrees to prove it) than you having a different view other than atheism.

Tip: I was an atheist for 6 years. I put those years behind me. Now stop acting like a spoiled brat.

>>5909011
Nay, care to explain please?

>>5909028
Not really...no time today

If you are actually interested on the papers which prove all that shit, just look up Krauss on arXiv.org.

There plenty of good peer-reviewd scientifc papers on quantum cosmology and how Krauss proves that it is possible for the universe to arise from "nothing". Anyone can find them.

Good luck

>>5909023
GOD IS REEL BECAUSE THE BIBEL SAYS SO
I R SCIENCEIST SO I R KNO DIS
SIENSE PROOFS GOD EGGZIST N ANYON HOO SAY IT DONT IS IMATUR LIERS

>>5909044

I am a deist, not religious. Once again, you make yourself look childish and idiotic. Yes, it's possible to believe in a higher power without being religious.

>>5909040
...and if your not smart enough to understand actual scientifc papers

...He made the laymens book "A universe from nothing" just for you, as well as did a series of talks to educate the public on this shit. He really covered all his bases so anyone could understand this shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Enjoy

>>5909047

Reality emanates eternally from the ground of being.

belief in a personal god is narcissism

>>5909053

Deism is not a personal god...

Some of the smartest people in history such as Issac Newton and Wernher Von Braun were deists.

>>5909057
>5909057
Issac Newton was actually a very devout Christian and he had said that his greatest achievement was his lifelong celibacy.

>>5909057
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

>>5909068

False:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

We don't know right now, and that's OK.

>>5909068

He was an non-Trinitarian heretic.

Thunder exists. You can't explain that. It's objective proof of Thor.
Man exists. You can't explain that. It's objective proof of the allfather Odin.

>>5909090
Energy given off in the form of sound during an electrical discharge?

>>5909101
And where does this energy come from?
It can't come from nothing!
It comes from Thor!

universe came from energy fluctuation and energy fluctuation came from the logical fact that you can't have an absolute state of rest without a privileged reference frame.

thus the atheist has a coherent explanation of reality which if true requires no further explanation, whereas the deist is left with a finely tuned omnipotent being to explain, which lets face it they can never explain why such a being would exist rather than nothing

also problem of evil and all that

>>5909110
Hey, man.
Some things are just plain evil and god hates them!
Just ignore the fact that religion's definition of evil varies wildly with time

>>5909051
I'll just take the liberty to say
/thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

i do not think that our science has yet developed to the point where this question can be answered satisfactorily. For eg, if the multi-verse theory gets proven, beings/objects in the container universe may provide the energy for the bang.

dude, there are billions of galaxies having billions of stars, hence trillions. perhaps even more, solar systems. Life wouldnt be that hard to occur by chance. btw im not an atheist, but im agnostic and always seeking profound explanations.

>>5908942
>thinking that atheists exist on pol
theres a christian/catholic general thread almost every day, and always one on sunday

anyone who identifies as an atheist there is practically crucified

>>5908931

Are you familiar with the term "god of the gaps," OP?

>>5908931

The Big Bang is proof of the Big Bang, nothing else. Origination, not creation. There's no logical need whatsoever to propose an intelligence is behind it all.

You religious twat.

>>5908931
> claims it's unknown
> claims being unknown makes it known as some "god" thing

Even derp doesn't herp this badly.

I will never understand the resort to autistic comments in an anonymous image/message board.

>>5909154

because autism?

Being atheist does not mean we claim to know how things started. It does not claim that we know anything. It just is the denial of it being a deity of any sort. If science can''t answer it know - well, Lawrence sort of did 50 times in this thread - then we will work on the answer. The lack of explanation does, by no means, mean God.

>>5909161
> It does not claim that we know anything

We know that god doesn't exist though, because the idea contains logical contradictions within itself, such as omniscience + libertarian free will, or omnibenevolence + gratuitous evil.


1. if god exists, then god is necessary
2. it is possibly the case that god doesn't exist
3. god is not necessary
4. god doesn't exist

>>5909172 We claim to know one thing, which is much less than religion does.

I want to sum up this thread:
>Atheists don't know about my god induced big bangs.
>"Bro, do you even symmetries?"

I was going to post something about how you can't use a god of the gaps argument just because we don't know something but... Honestly, the answers I have seen make it irrelevant.
Stay classy /sci/

>>5909002
>Because it's known that no matter can exist from nothing.
What about the fact that the concept of "before" is something that makes sense only once the universe is developed, dumbass? Read a fucking book. Time is one of the various dimensions, it's not something that is above all.