/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7117825

>>7117832
>xkcd

literally cancer

>>7117837
> literally

>>7117861
Speed of light is literally 299 792 458 m x s^−1.

>>7117825
>God

Literally who?

>>7117825
Pfffft

>>7117866
The origin of the constants.

>>7117876
That's weird, I thought atheists were supposed to have arguments. Just goes to show that it's just a trend.

>>7117825
they aren't. Lets say that it happens over and over again. Would you be aware if universe didn't manage to stay alive and it collapsed almost at the same time as it started? No, because you along with everything that exist now, wouldn't exist in such a universe.
You are a puddle of water that thinks someone dig that hole in the groud just for it, fine tuned that hole to fit all of its water. or somehting like that

>>7117889
>ou are a puddle of water that thinks someone dig that hole in the groud just for it, fine tuned that hole to fit all of its water

I think this fits perfectly, besides, the universe is pretty inefficient place for life, God seems to care more about creating stars than humans.

>>7117905
And yet, here we are.

>>7117889
>>7117889
But any other hole isn't configured the way this hole is.

I am going to give you the ultimate proof theres a god.

The moon rotates around the earth, it rotates around its axis so perfectly that we see only one side of the moon. That side has a face on it.

Oh, come on that IS divine design !

>>7118055
What's the point of the rest of the universe?

>>7117876
Nuthin' personnel, kid

>>7117889
hello carl sagan. I heard you died some time ago

>>7117825
God does not exist because I am not omnipotent. Yes, I am a solipsist.

>>7117825
The universe isn't fine tuned to us, we're fine tuned to the universe.

>>7118074
Have you SEEN the fun things the designers did with it... its the best theme park ever

>>7118238
Bingo.

The fine tuned universe argument is like fish saying amongst themselves - how convenient is it that we have gills and live in the water?

OP makes a fundamental point.

Science can ask why really but its the same path as looking for god.. In a way.

So what is god?

Look for a pattern.

Day and night.

Birds and bees.

Gravity.

Protons and electrons.

You could literally find all the order you like.. In a disordered universe.

And yet the question remains.

...but damn you got some hefty evidence.

Then your all like, but the earth in six days!

Like some guy pbuh could ever explain that without modern methods.. And like most of us would understand without a masters degree in it.

Ya get the point.

...but god remains elusive.

They defined faith good though.

...don't expect me to explain it

>>7118238
yeah, people who honestly believe in OPs reasoning seem to imagine themselves as something separate from the universe. something that existed before and wasn't caused by said universe and the universe just grew around them, to fit them not the other way around, funny how someone can be so illogical

>>7118301
Well, to the believers of the fine-tuned universe idea -
If there were another universe with different laws of physics inhospitable to life somehow humans would still exist to ponder "why are the laws of physics so inhospitable to life?"

Before realizing humans don't exists in that universe to ponder bullshit fine-tuned universe ideas.

>>7118280
>OP makes a fundamental point.

No, he doesn't.

>So what is god?
>Look for a pattern.
>Day and night.
>Birds and bees.
>Gravity.
>Protons and electrons.

wot

>You could literally find all the order you like.. In a disordered universe.

entropy is always rising in a closed system, you are just not aware of the fact that our world is not a closed system, we have this giant yellow thing in the sky feeding us energy, if you were to take away the sun no life could have been possible on earth, no order.
And on the scale of the universe entropy is rising, just because you find some little bit of order here doesn't mean you found god, it just means that in some other part of the universe entropy is going harder.

>...but god remains elusive.

Because he is by definition unknowable. Something that exists outside our universe, something that cannot observed, something you can't interract with, the same definitiion holds true for unicorns and my dreams about fucking emma watson, they are all equally idiotic and unreal.


Prob a troll, is that some le epic /sci/ meme I don't know about?

>>7118325
> Something that exists outside our universe,
No, by definition, He is everywhere. "Omnipresent"
>something that cannot observed,
Not directly, but many real stuff also can't.
>something you can't interract with
By definition, he is what created everything, so everything you interact with is an example of your interaction with god, by this assumption.
>the same definitiion holds true for unicorns
Unicorns are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, human-like or creators of the universe and so on.
>my dreams about fucking emma watson
You fucking Emma Watson is not real. The dreams, are.

>>7118345
>No, by definition, He is everywhere. "Omnipresent"


My fears came true, this isn't a troll.
If he created the universe he must have had existed before it, thus outside it.

>Not directly, but many real stuff also can't.
>but many real stuff also can't.

real stuff that can't be observed isn't really real, you know?
That's how science works, if you can not observe something, observe it's effects on the other objects around it, measure it or experiment with it, then you might as well paint your face and start dancing for rain.

>By definition, he is what created everything, so everything you interact with is an example of your interaction with god, by this assumption.

The same thing, learn what science is.

>Unicorns are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, human-like or creators of the universe and so on.

emma watson is? I knew it!
How would you know that about god? We already established that no science can't be done with him so no knowledge of him can be had, so on what exactly are you basing all this on? Bullshit? Yeah I thought so.

>You fucking Emma Watson is not real. The dreams, are.

Well, that's it /sci/, going to bed; I come here everyday to get a bit depressed at how stupid people can be, and you never fail to deliver.

>pic related

>>7118361
>If he created the universe he must have had existed before it, thus outside it.
Thought you meant "only exists outside".
>real stuff that can't be observed isn't really real, you know?
Subatomic particles can't be observed, but they are real.
>>By definition, he is what created everything, so everything you interact with is an example of your interaction with god, by this assumption.
>The same thing, learn what science is.
How does science being what it is implies that affirmation is wrong?
>How would you know that about god?
That's the definition of "god".
>Well, that's it /sci/, going to bed; I come here everyday to get a bit depressed at how stupid people can be, and you never fail to deliver.
This is not an argument.

>>7117825
>Complex Question
Nice fallacy, faggot

>>7118369
>Subatomic particles can't be observed, but they are real.

Wot.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+do+we+know+subatomic+particles+exist

Do you do that often? To you pick one word, in this example "observe" and ignore all others in a sentence and pretend you are right?


>That's the definition of "god".

where does the definition come from?

>This is not an argument.

No, that was a clue to stop posting, but you can't understand that either.

>>7118381
>Do you do that often? To you pick one word, in this example "observe" and ignore all others in a sentence and pretend you are right?

ahaha that's usually the easiest way to find out who intends on making a valid argument. and who fixate on arguing without regard to the actual argument at hand.

it's some psychological shit, but there's plenty of people who do that all the time, it's funny a lot of them happen to also point out spelling mistakes.

anyways I just popped in this thread to say there is no fundamental proof of subatomic particles, only designed conjecture that meet expectation.

I mean, how many inventions have we made using the quark again?

>>7118381
>Do you do that often?
I read the rest, but your claimed that something can't be real and not have been observed, which is wrong nevertheless.
Also, you did the same by assuming I was claiming things can be real without having observable EFFECTS.
>where does the definition come from?
Usage of the word "God".
>No, that was a clue to stop posting, but you can't understand that either.
You might be done, I am not. I am here to argue, not to make arrogant assertions while I leave the debate.

>>7118381
This from my >>7118403 post
>Also, you did the same by assuming I was claiming things can be real without having observable EFFECTS.
refers to this >>7118345 post of mine.

>>7118400
>Well, that's it /sci/, going to bed; I come here everyday to get a bit depressed at how stupid people can be, and you never fail to deliver.
This sentence he posts in >>7118361 shows he is probably less prone to actually arguing than me.
>anyways I just popped in this thread to say there is no fundamental proof of subatomic particles, only designed conjecture that meet expectation.
That's proof based on Inductive Reasoning, I disagree with Popper.

God is energy.

>>7117825
>why is the universe fine-tuned?
It isn't you nigger

All those arguments you've heard about changing a variable and all life suddenly not existing are for starters based on _single variable_ shifts. People have done more extensive studies showing that varying multiple parameters at the same time can lead to additional pockets of stability

Not to mention that fact that you can't know those "unstable" solutions don't also lead to life in some other manner.
If we lived in a universe with different laws than our own do you honestly think that you would try plugging in our current universes variables and come to the conclusion that life can exist?
Fuck no, you would conclude like a dumbass that it makes a few things different in your reality and say "lolnope that universe can't have life because this thing is different"

>>7117825
it's not

It really fucking sucks to think that all the misery,sorrow and tragedy on earth and in the universe are just cosmic coincidences. We were created along with the misfortune by UNIVERSAL RNGGGG. The Universe is fucking torturing us.

>>7117885
Why bother with an argument that won't have conclusion right now :v.