/sci/ - Science & Math

How many formulas to 3d render this... self made object

>>8424481

I think it's the other way around. The more you look at biology the more it becomes obvious why human designs look the way they do. The similarity is there, but human artifice came after biology so it's it which is similar to biology rather than biology being similar to it.

>>8424481

nice opinion but soon you'll realize living organisms are messy, god would have not allowed this level of disorder

>>8424503
>level of disorder

>>8424503

Yeah, unlike the op picture which is a stylized cartoon that looks like it's made out of metal, the real thing looks more like a random piece of pond scum.

>>8424509
This actually looks pretty well organised, I don't see the pond scum

>>8424510

It's literally just a stick with legs.

>>8424509
Still looks metal as fuck to me

>>8424514
Not at all. I'm not defending the OP, but it has a clear level of distinction from a 'stick with legs'.

The geometry of the head alone is a solid indication of some form of specialization.

>>8424516

The cartoon looks like it has smooth, clearly delimited metal structures. The real thing is way messier and more organic looking. It's all irregularly shaped and frayed in random places and doesn't look like its head was put together with screws.

OP, read this paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4125

It's called "Life is Physics", it's written by two biophysicists and argues that evolution and life is probably an emergent property of a deeper physical phenomenon. It's not a concrete theory, just an interesting review of the current state of the theory of evolution. It's also well sourced with lots of cool anecdotes from fields ranging from condensed matter physics to microbiology.

Must have been drunk while designing the neck nerves in giraffes.

>>8424542
this

also see the vas deference in humans

>>8424481
Also scientiste fear the absence of god and the meaninglessness of our existence. Intelligent design tries to convert science into a religion.

While the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, I think there's something else we're missing. It's difficult to believe that something like the brain just "evolved" out of some simple RNA.

>>8424542
Recurrent laryngeal nerve actually makes a lot of sense embryologically. Is primary nerve of pharyngeal arch 4 and was short but aorta remodeling elongates it. Good solution to still have innervation as a fetus but allow for aortic changes as new body parts form

>>8424481
Brainlet

>>8424609
Except there's literally NONE

>>8424563
I swear this board doesn't know shit about embryology. Bladder/penis offshoots of GI endoderm basically and for males/females all the vas deferens and gonads and ovaries etc develop off mesoderm at mesonephron area. Gonads are actually ones in wrong place if anything, they descend from there. Efficient to not have insanely different embryo logic process between men and women. Need to make a human out of what starts as a ball then differential cell growth and folding/apoptosis basically. Only so much room to work with.

>>8424609
I get more tripped up with the genesis of life. I can understand -hypothetically- how we get from single cell to humans (although if that's really all that happened it sure went blisteringly fast), but there are too many things that need to happen at once for life to begin.

>>8424609
Yeah, read this paper that I posted above: https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4125

The point is basically that evolution is probably something deeper than just natural selection. It really goes into the self-referential, self-organizing nature of life/evolution. They mention that the modern view of pure natural selection seems to come up a bit short, but they're not arguing that it's not real. Just that natural selection is a single instance of a more general physical phenomenon that has given rise to life.

>>8424627
Yeah that's weird too. Some moron is probably going to mention the Miller-Urey experiment now.

>>8424609

>It's difficult to believe that something like the brain just "evolved" out of some simple RNA.

People overrate 'consciousness' so badly. The brain is a massively redundant pile of jelly hosting miniature storms of electricity and chemicals. Whenever you hear 'nobody knows how it works', what they really mean is 'nobody has bothered to go through the trouble of reproducing an extremely inefficient 100 trillion connection structure'. I don't think it'll take hundreds or thousand of years for us to understand the brain; I think it'll take hundreds or thousands of years for us to accept we already understood it long ago and just didn't believe it because our sense of self-importance made us believe there's way more to our minds than what's there in reality.

>>8424636
Oh to be 15 again.

>>8424637

>believing you're the center of the universe and made out of magic is the mature adult position on 'consciousness'

>>8424521
it's a fucking depiction

ffs you goddamn autists

>>8424640

>it's a fucking depiction

That's the point you brainlet.

>>8424638
>strawmanning this hard
Anyway, the fact that you think the brain is extremely inefficient shows just how uneducated your ignorant ass is. Your opinion is worthless.

>>8424636
This is dunning Kruger effect in full force. I am actually a neuroscience phd student and can tell you that tens of thousands of the brightest people on earth have spent their entire careers bashing their head across the wall when it comes to the brain.

>>8424644

It's definitely extremely inefficient. That's why you have people with most of their brain destroyed who still function decently. There is a 0% chance you need to reproduce every single connection in order to reproduce its functionality.

>>8424645

>I am actually a neuroscience phd student

Not an argument.

>>8424648
Read up on the optimization involved in vision, shit is insane.

>>8424586
Seems an omniscient and omnipotent being, bent on sending you to hell for eternity if you fsk up, makes your life even more meaningless. If there isn't one, at least you can make your own meaning, and man might be destined for something greater than eradication of all but a handful come the ever-imminent apocalypse.

>tipsfedora.jpg

>>8424648
No one is okay immediately after brain injury that is large. After therapy due to neuroplasticity then ya they can be okay. It's actually rediculous that the brain can remodel and repurpose itself post injury considering I imagine any animal to have had traumatic brain injury would likely not survive so no reason for this to develop really.

>>8424627
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M

>>8424651
Lol what kind of argument do you want to the assertion that the brain is a disordered shamble of jelly and "chemicals". Read through kendalls neuroscience I guess is the best argument I can give you.

>>8424661

>It's actually rediculous that the brain can remodel and repurpose itself post injury considering I imagine any animal to have had traumatic brain injury would likely not survive so no reason for this to develop really.

You make it sound like this is a designed feature. It isn't that ridiculous though if you think of it as a consequence of redundancy, and redundancy is exactly what you'd expect out of a process that came together organically vs. one that was designed by a human engineer.

textbook case

>>8424675
Redudancy that can only develop if animals that have it are more likely to survive and pass it on to their progeny. things don't just happen for no reason, have to slowly develop over hundreds of millions of years and be selected for.

>>8424541

Otherwise known as the Good Form, the Dao, or the Will.

>materialism finally catching up to philosophy

>>8424690
Philosophy is a meme subject, peddled by people too dumb to understand the natural sciences.

>>8424683

>Redudancy that can only develop if animals that have it are more likely to survive and pass it on to their progeny

That's not true. See:

>>8424542

Nature produces all sorts of inefficiencies and redundancies. It's more 'lazy' than efficient. By analogy, an efficient man might plan ahead, do a little hard work up front, and establish a comfortable living for himself so his life total of effort expended is low, while a lazy man always taking the paths of least resistance might end up homeless and expending more effort dealing with the hardships of panhandling and exposure to severe weather as a consequence. It's not that traits need to be optimally beneficial to promote survival and propagation; it's that traits need to be good enough to do that. They also need to be able to appear in the first place in order to have a chance at being good enough. Wheels are a pretty efficient design, but most animals don't have those.

>>8424667

>what kind of argument do you

The kind that establishes why you believe we would actually need to reproduce every single connection in the brain to reproduce what it does. I've never even heard someone claim that before. It's definitely not the prevailing opinion of people involved in AI development.

>>8424693

Someone post that image with the quotes.

>>8424677
>No nothing
textbook case of illiteracy

>>8424693

>>8424636
It's not the brains mechanical functioning that isnt understood is the presence of conciousness.
For which THE ONLY proof each scientist has is his own subjective experience, he literally has no idea to know if anyone else is experiencing conciousness.

That is a VERY hard problem to solve if it even has a solution

>>8424694
living things are actually incredibly efficient and don't waste energy on things that don't improve survival and chances of reproduction. Look up the enzymes of oxphos or vision sometime. Anything energy intensive not in use by the body withers away immediately (muscle atrophy, organ atrophy without innervation or hormones, etc). To develop an energy intensive process that does not improve chances of survival or reproduction is actually simply not seen in living things. Any inefficiency is a minor variant that if it proves useful is selected for further and hence over many generations it is further refined. Brain plasticity is actually very complex and highly conserved across humans and other animals so it is not just a minor thing.

And we obviously don't need to recreate every neuronal connection in the brain for it to be working. It changes its connections every second anyways. But it is doing it in a highly ordered fashion with different neurons having different purposes in different regions. It is certainly not disordered, especially in the basal ganglia, midbrain, and brainstem. I am just not sure how consciousness is overrated from your argument. In fact the fact that it is a constantly changing network makes it way harder to replicate because you are not sure if the connections alone would recreate it.

>>8424509
spoiler: this picture is fake (i know i was sad to learn that too), ie: not a real phage.

The real pictures of them look like this:

>>8424716

The problem is there isn't a problem. The "presence" you're referring to isn't really there.

>>8424703
This is why the civil rights movement was wrong. Color makes people stop pondering questions about meaningless shit!

>>8424509
>>8424516
i always think back to that one jimmy neutron episode with the viruses.

>>8424769
>that scream

>>8424729
You're not really having experiences. Got it.

>>8424729

>The "presence" you're referring to isn't really there.

What would it "not really being there" entail? If the only difference between it being there and it not being there is an inane technicality in the fine print then it is there.

This comment isn't really here. It's just a random conglomeration of pixels on your screen, empirically identical to any other random conglomeration of pixels on your screen. Can you treat it accordingly and stop replying?

>>8424627
>from single cell to humans
>it sure went blisteringly fast
The 4000 million years or the 9 months?

>>8424609
The brain is just a bundle of specialized cells designed to create perception in an organism.

>>8424487
This.

>>8424520
>The geometry of the head alone is a solid indication of some form of specialization.
ITT brainlets marvel that pieces of matter arrange themselves into geometric structures.

>>8424822
What we're still fundamentally lacking is an understanding of structure formation. Genes coding for proteins is nice and all, but it is nowhere near clear how the structural blueprint and organic shaping/arrangement arises or how that might even be encoded.

>>8424487
This. Especially looking at the human body. The way it works is so haphazard and retarded sometimes that it's pretty hard to imagine it arising any way other than evolution

>>8424481
Phage is baby stuff. Start looking at cytoskeletons or whole cell organisation and it becomes mind blowing very quickly

>>8424728
Little molecular syringes, perfect form.

>>8424978
>The way it works is so haphazard and retarded sometimes
People say this but when you ask them how they'd change the human body they have nothing to say.
Every single little change you attempt will have unforeseen consequences.

>>8424503
God is an asshole which is why instead of working perfectly my sinuses are currently ballooning to a volume = 1.25 times that of my whole head
>fuck this gay earth

>>8424636
>can't tell if b8

>>8424984
>how they'd change the human body
-Remove the appendix
-Separate breathing and feeding tube
-Remove wisdom teeth
-Turn our retinas the sane way around
-Have the recurrent laryngial nerve run straight to the brain rather than looping around the aorta for no reason
-Replace our broken vitamin c synthesizing gene with a functional one
-Run the vas deferens on a less unnecessarily long route
-Run a second artery along the back of our limbs rather than having veins branch off and go around
-make testicles internal and make the vagina warmer
-widen the female pelvic opening
-replace our knees with a ball and socket joint like the hip or shoulder

>>8424996
>make testicles internal and make the vagina warmer
wut?

>>8424996
>>8424996
>replacing knee with a ball and socket joint
man how fucking dumb are you

this would only cause problems, i see no benefit.

>>8424728
Beautiful.

>>8424716
It doesn't, and it doesn't matter. This knowledge long predated Descartes, but he brought it forward and formalized it.

It's logically and mechanically unsolvable. No matter what, your reality and your logical framework is reliant on one core axiom, the mind and the senses. Neither can be proven valid without using themselves, rendering all reasoning self referential and circular. Truth is relative, and that is the point all of these chains of relative truths will always converge on.

And it doesn't even matter, in practice. But it is very important to understand in theory.

>>8424996
>-Remove the appendix
Have fun with gut flora problems after severe diarrhea.
>-Separate breathing and feeding tube
Inefficient and makes no sense anatomically, immune system wise, any of it.
>-Remove wisdom teeth
Yes. Get rid of the fucks.
>-Turn our retinas the sane way around
Do... what to them?
>-Have the recurrent laryngial nerve run straight to the brain rather than looping around the aorta for no reason
This is an overplayed "proof against intelligent design!" point that's infected people involved in science. It's an example of delusions and myths induced by anti-religion mindsets.

Google it. It has a very efficient reason for doing what it does.
>-Replace our broken vitamin c synthesizing gene with a functional one
Yep. Us and guinea pigs are among the few mammals that have dun goof livers. Need to screen for unintended consequences. Possibly rather than repairing that specific gene, just make a new pathway from scratch.
>-Run the vas deferens on a less unnecessarily long route
The prostate is in the way, and running any differently bring it closer to the intestines, makes it more likely to be infected or mechanically compressed. There's not space without stuff in the way. Some rearranging would have to be done.
>-Run a second artery along the back of our limbs rather than having veins branch off and go around
So you can be more likely to damage it and bleed out, and where it can be uselessly sitting on top of muscle layers.
>-make testicles internal and make the vagina warmer
Testicles are external because sperm need to be maintained at a certain temperature. The vagina is fine, and making it warmer would waste calories on thermogenesis and make bad bacteria and fungus thrive more easily.
>-widen the female pelvic opening
Pelvis morphology already varies greatly, and there's a reason for that. Bipedal locomotion is much easier and more efficient with slimmer hips. Through history there's been a balance between cranial size at[...]

>>8425177
birth, and hip size. Modern day with genetic engineering and relatively safe environments, you could actually have smaller head size at birth and more neurological development happen later. This was the strategy of marsupials, sort of.

Question is if you'd want to.
>-replace our knees with a ball and socket joint like the hip or shoulder
I don't even think I have to talk about this. That's a terrible idea mechanically, come on anon.

>>8425177
impressive

>>8424521
>The cartoon looks like it has smooth, clearly delimited metal structures
He meant heavy metal you autist.

>>8425177
>-Remove wisdom teeth
Why not a bigger jaw instead?

>>8424996
>Turn our retinas the sane way around
I hope you don't mean this

>>8425249
I imagine it'd have even more difficulty mounting, but I don't know. As someone with a very screwed up jaw that's watched other people enjoy their working jaws, I suppose I'm biased towards just leaving it alone.

Maybe a better way to look at it is that I'm proof there's room for improvement.

natural selection gives the appearance of design

>>8425252
He means this.

>>8425269
Wouldn't that make the nerves more vulnerable to shock?

>>8425273
Why? How?

>>8425269
How is that blind spot manifested?

>>8424996
>-replace our knees with a ball and socket joint like the hip or shoulder
Bettter idea modify our leg bones to be more similar to the stance of a theropod dinosaur, while it will make us unable to climb trees anymore who cares we move on land now.

>>8425306
It's constantly in the lower outer edge of your vision. Hold your fingers out straight, close one eye, and move them around in your side vision. You'll eventually see a chunk of your finger disappear, or become distorted. That's the blind spot.

Usually the brain uses input from the other eye, but with only one it just tries to infer and fill in the blank. It usually gets it wrong.

>>8425316
That is pretty interesting. In the image >>8425269, is it a top or a side view?

>>8425316
this is somewhat disturbing

>>8425316
I'm full pleb for not knowing about this already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f1yBDQa-3s

>>8425306
LOOK OUT JOHNNY

>>8425700
and ?

>>8425717
If you don't see it, lean in a bit closer

>>8424481
It is not only in biology, it is in the whole universe. Take a look on HOLY GEOMETRY. I was atheist before, now i see that God do exists. In the catholic catechist it says that we will recognize God by his creation using the ability to reason he gave us.

>>8424481

Skeptics are implying that LUCA somehow encoded instructions for ribosome production on a lengthy, multimillenial whim. Its predecessors had to have survived in hostile conditions like the ocean without assistance from protein production for generations only with a cell wall and a nucleus/nucleolus for billions of years before the ribosome is perfected.not to mention other hostile forms developing in the environment already determining ways to infect or consume its cell. Then let's say the ribosome is finally perfected, now the cell is tasked with adapting with proteins for defense/offense and nutrient acquisition for evolutionary edge. There was definitely some type of assistance given by a higher being. The sad thing is that science is more ignoring the existence of intelligent designers rather than trying to scientifically disprove it.

>>8425753
>There was definitely some type of assistance given by a higher being.
Citation needed.

>>8425757
>Citation needed.
Genesis 1:1

>>8425757
>>8425765
Case in point. ;). Instead of going even attempting to argue or dismantle the other 75% of that beautifully dense assertion i laid on your guys' chest, you went after the one opinionated statement as if I were some voodoo priest. I mean you can call me a kook, cuck, or kool-ainide junkie; but just try disproving my scientific assertions, at least.

>>8425774
protip: you can't (Sagan 6:66).

>>8425313

You do not often leave your house do you?

>>8425177
>>-Remove wisdom teeth
>Yes. Get rid of the fucks.

Lmao at your small jaws lads.

>>8425316

The retina also needs constant stimulation so the eye muscles make microscopic shifts to keep the light waves fresh. Same thing happens when You've worn a tie for a while and forget it's even attached till you physically shift it.

>>8425177
>This is an overplayed "proof against intelligent design!" point that's infected people involved in science. It's an example of delusions and myths induced by anti-religion mindsets.
>Google it. It has a very efficient reason for doing what it does.

Justify this. If the massive detour is beneficial why does it only do it on one side? In giraffes that nerve goes 4.5 meters out if its way

>>8424796
The four billion years. And also the cambrian explosion. It's hypothetically possible for it to have occurred by chance, but in the same way it's hypothetically possible to flip a hundred heads in a row on your first try: not very likely.

>>8425966

He's just contrarian-meming. The clear explanation is evolution only gets to move one step at a time; it doesn't plan shit based on final efficiency. So that nerve was efficient for each step along the way as it evolved from its original place in fish, but horribly inefficient in the end.

>>8425974
I know, but I'd still like to hear what the counter argument is. He claimed there is some benefit from having the detour (on one side)

>>8425974
>it doesn't plan shit based on final efficiency
This is true. However, if that's your model of the world, how do you explain >>8425753

>>8425978
Short answer is no one knows. Lots of theories though.

RNA world is pretty plausible

>>8425966
Its because as a fetus all your arteries were symmetrical but due to heart folding and degeneration of redundant arch arteries it travels with the aortic arch as it remodels. Aortic arch is from the 6th pharyngeal arch and recurrent laryngeal is the nerve to that arch which is why it was there in the first place. So basically as a fetus u need a nerve to this arch, which the recurrent laryngeal nerve is on both sides. But then left side remodeled and it gets pulled down a little farther

Here is an embryology textbook page on the matter

Honest question for the fedoranerds ITT: how do you explain the most basic structural elements of existence? Sure you can imagine life arising from chemicals, and chemicals from particles, but how do you explain the reason for "dimensions" existing as a concept? Or mass? Or information? Or meaning? How are these things defined, what are they based on, what do they arise from?
It's a difficult question to word because it's talking about some of the most basic intrinsic elements of existence, so tell me if it's not clear. I just feel like at some point you need to acknowledge that there's a thing we can't encompass, a causal beginning, a basic set of rules and definitions, whatever. Then, as Thomas of Aquinas said, "that thing is what we call God."

>>8425985
I know why it happens. The question is why is not wired in such a way as to avoid looping around the aorta and being dragged far out of its way. Its not a particularly difficult change in an engineering sense

It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view, but seems stupid for a machine that was deliberately designed

>>8425989
How do you explain God? Why does he exist? How does he exist?

>>8425989
Dunno, magic maybe

>>8425996
Its more efficient to reuse the nerve you already needed for arch 6 for innervation than to degenerate and regenerate it. Engineering accounts for building efficiency just as much as it accounts for end product efficiency. But either way the nerve is innervating all along the path from larynx up to pharyngeal constrictor muscles. Even if it branched off top instead it would still go down pretty far.

>>8425999
Thomas of Aquinas, bro. Also faith. Also Occam's razor. Also not an argument. I'm saying you need to just have faith or blind acceptance at a certain point, you can't science away all your questions. Some atheists seem to have a problem with that, so I'm asking what the alternative is. As far as I can tell, there is none, so you're logically compelled to believe in God. Now the extent of how you define God may vary, but you can't deny the existence of a supernatural, anti-rational element to existence.

>>8426005
So move it to the other side of the aortic arch. It doesnt need to loop around it at all

>>8426010
>Also Occam's razor
Would suggest you shouldnt turn the concept of a first cause into "god". Mountains of unnecessary complexity

> so I'm asking what the alternative is
Accept that you dont know the answer

>>8426013
Left recurrent laryngeal also carries nerves from aortic arch baroreceptors for info on blood pressure so it actually does

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26153249/

>>8426010
>I'm saying you need to just have faith or blind acceptance at a certain point, you can't science away all your questions.
Well no shit. After a certain point, you can't provide external justification for any beliefs.

That doesn't mean "God" in your specific Judeo Christian conceptualization is the answer.

>I'm asking what the alternative is
Stop worrying yourself over the subject, since neither theism nor atheism provide conclusive or logical answers.

>>8426016
>Option 1: We don't know, we call it God
>Option 2: ???
Fill in the blank. Is that simple enough for you?

>Mountains of unnecessary complexity
Complexity comes from the ideas and philosophies people wrap around the concept of God, not the concept of God itself. Also
>Accept you don't know is somehow less complex than classifying the part you don't know and referring to it as God.
You literally spit my answer back at me. This isn't helpful. If you're already relying on a certain faith that's fine, but I wasn't asking you.

>>8425989
Why would the fundamental behaviour of the universe be called God when it is not intelligent, conscious, or willful? This is just a puerile attempt to "win" the argument through semantics by redefining "god" into irrelevancy.

>>8424996

>Remove the appendix

Thought to be a reservoir for colonic bacteria though, could affect recovery from infections (i guess not so bad with modern medicine)

>Separate breathing and feeding tube

It is already pretty much is. Moving the larnyx further up would just limit space in the mouth more. I don't think that would be a geat trade

>make testicles internal and make the vagina warmer

Testicles internal = dead sperm.

>replace our knees with a ball and socket joint like the hip or shoulder

The lever action of the patella is great for propulsion. Wouldn't want to lose it. Also the action motion of that type of joint what need extra stabilisation anyway.

>>8426037
You don't really understand. Intelligence, consciousness and agency are all natural phenomena. God is supernatural, those properties don't really apply. They're comfortable shorthand for us to grab onto, but they don't actually explain the behavior or nature of God.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

There are a lot of different concepts of God. I'm not arguing for one in particular, certainly not the Judeo-Christian one, although I will admit I've referenced Christian philosophy. But that's just my point. Almost all religions have a certain amount of philosophical justification for their representations of the supernatural. Atheism denies the supernatural completely. I'm asking for a justification: everyone else has one. You can argue that Hinduism has a shitty grasp of the nature of reality (and I would agree), but at least it proposes something more than a blind assertion of contrarianism.

>>8426024
Thanks for the answer. This sounds more like agnosticism though. Is there any explanation from the perspective of hard atheism?

>>8426035
>>Option 1: We don't know, we call it God
>Option 2: We dont know

One of these is simpler than the other. Calling it "god" immediately piles on unsupported interpretation, and even if you arent adding any interpretation why use a loaded word like "god"?

>not the concept of God itself
Any concept is more complex than no concept

>>Accept you don't know is somehow less complex than classifying the part you don't know and referring to it as God.
It literally is. There is no justifiable reason whatsoever to call a hypothetical first cause "god"

You could just as easily call it "the universe" or "reality" or "magic" and express the same concept without adding your own interpretation

>>8426059
I think quite a few changes are only really relevant with modern medicine: wisdom teeth being another one. These aren't really an argument for either position, since evolution has had no time to react to modern technology and a designer would have built humans to survive in the prehistoric era, not to survive only with the help of antibiotics.

>>8424487
This.

Form follows function.

>>8426021
I didnt know that thats actually quite interesting thanks

If you take it out to the extremes you see in giraffes though it still seems like a better wiring scheme could have been used

>>8424728
It isn't a fake image. It is an art image that morons just think it is real and popsci bullshit news articles and pinterest fuds go right along with that.

>>8426068
Again, not asking you. That's cool that you believe the first premise, even if you're autistic about labelling it something for the sake of shorthand, but I'm wondering about alternatives.

Incidentally, any concept is less complex than no concept. Saying "there's a magic metaphysical black hole there and we never talk about it" raises considerably more problems than "there's a magic metaphysical black hole there and we label it God", even with your bitching about unsupported interpretation.

>There is no justifiable reason whatsoever to call a hypothetical first cause "god"
I'll reference this one more time, because you're not the only autist in this discussion, I am one too:

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm

Read this for an example of what I'm talking about. It's a definition of God with none of the emotional baggage of Richard Dawkins's childhood. I'm not saying it's conclusive, I'm saying it's better than stubborn assertions to the contrary. It's something. Strict atheism must have something too, what is it?

>>8426063
That contradicts what you just argued. The fundamental behavior of the universe is natural by definition. It's what we observe. When we observe supernatural shit then we can talk.

The universe is the way it is for no apparent reason. Why do we need a supernatural "explanation"? In reality you are not explaining anything, just positing nonsensical magic because you want magic to be real. I don't require a "justification" to reject a useless, baseless claim.

>>8426098
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Controversy

even the opposing arguments just fail. There can be no denying logically - that there exists an "Uncreated Creator" that surpasses time and space.

>>8426122
All the arguments prove is that causality fails as a concept at some point. Anything more than that is just making up a conclusion that you like

>>8426127
Causality doesn't fail, it just arrives at the origin - an uncreated creator.

-everything that begins to exist has a cause.
-the universe begins to exist.
-the universe has a cause - that by definition transcends time and space. An uncaused cause.

I call it an uncreated creator - or just God. Really this is just a semantics argument and you can call God whatever you'd like, i won't stop you.

>>8426158
>it just arrives at the origin - an uncreated creator.
Which violates the principle of causality, demonstrating that the principle is wrong

>>8426182
No, it sits outside the scope of causality. Hence "supernatural", that is, outside the scope of the natural.

>>8425181
That shit can not be good for the cat.

The dumb shit people do to their pets.

>>8426182
everything fails as you approach the beginning of the universe, including the laws of physics and quantum mechanics as we currently understand them. Everything (including causality) makes sense until 10^-9999 seconds before the big bang.

Once we agree that an "uncaused cause" is why we are here, we can start discussing determinism and 'free will' etc. Call it whatever you want to - you theist you.

>>8424503
Oh my god when I try to visualize bacteria I start to think about how gross their cytoplasms are.

I also have a hard time not thinking of organisms and cells as objects. Cells seem very much so like fuckin really fuckin cool objects. If I had toys like that when I was a kid hot damn hot damn

>>8426118
>for no apparent reason
Actually, the very absence of a natural reason implies a supernatural one.

The fact is, the moment you try to negate someone's position, you implicitly replace it with one of your own (the antithesis). Only while there are certain compelling arguments toward some positions, you're not giving any reasoning for yours, other than "I don't require a justification to reject a useless, baseless claim." For example, rejecting a claim (like you just did) is itself making a claim, so best case scenario you've already sunk to the level you profess to despise. Only it's not even best case because your entire argument is "muh burden of proof", which only works for agnosticism, which, again, you are not implying.

But agnosticism on a subject can be considered legitimate or illegitimate, that is, justified or unjustified. This in turn implies a certain value to the subject as knowable or unknowable. This is itself holding a position on the issue of holding a position, and that implies a value of the base position, so to avoid that you need to avoid holding a position on whether you hold a position or not. Obviously you can chain this back infinitely far until you reach an extreme variant of positivism, where you would claim you were unable to know anything except that itself is a claim you don't feel comfortable making. Even as an agnostic you play yourself.

Let go of your superiority complex and admit you believe in God.

>>8426211

>Let go of your superiority complex and admit you believe in God.

There is nothing more egotistical than believing the universe requires something like your own intelligence just to exist or that you have an important and intentionally designed role as a part of this universe.

>>8426214
>solipsism

>>8426218

Does anyone sincerely believe in solipsism? I doubt it.

>>8426214
To believe the universe "requires" you is pretty egotistical, yeah. To believe you're important a bit less so: conscious beings aren't exactly littered across every star in the sky.

Too bad nobody made either of those claims, have a (You)

>>8426234

>conscious beings aren't exactly littered across every star in the sky.

You have no way of knowing that.

>To believe the universe "requires" you

Cool strawman, never said that.

>>8426251
>There is nothing more egotistical than believing the universe requires something like your own intelligence just to exist
Are you ESL or just mentally deficient?

>conscious beings aren't exactly littered across every star in the sky.
>You have no way of knowing that.
Oh, the latter, then.

>>8426211
>My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

>>8424509
>pond scum
shig'd

>>8424996
>make testicles internal
Wouldn't sperm die if testicles were internal?

>>8426214
have some self-worth mate. what is it - "To Be, or Not to Be"? It is something unique and special. Your own conscious, moral, God-like mind and existence is actually some rather solid proof in and of itself.

Every living thing is a miracle anon, when you consider you live in a sea of empty black nothingness on a scorched rock in orbit.
>in B4 we evolved from Rocks that appeared out of nowhere for no reason.

>>8425177
>replace knees with ball and socket joint.
Oh great, as if being clumsy to fall over in two directions wasn't bad enough.

>>8426306
Aw come on, you know that's not how non-Christians find reason to come to God and believe in him.

>>8426276

>To believe the universe "requires" you

Is not the same as:

>believing the universe requires something like your own intelligence just to exist

Note the "something like" part. Your retarded attempt at parsing that sentence would only make sense if you literally believed you were God. That's what it's referring to, the idea that the universe requires God i.e. something like your own intelligence, just to exist.

>>8426315
>that's not how non-Christians find reason to come to God and believe in him.
>implying i want to save your wretched soul
This argument - as valid as it is - doesn't hold merit with the common hell-bound atheist because they grant themselves no self-worth. a sad fact that is.

>>8426211
>Actually, the very absence of a natural reason implies a supernatural one.
No it doesn't. There is no such thing as a supernatural reason.

>Only while there are certain compelling arguments toward some positions, you're not giving any reasoning for yours, other than "I don't require a justification to reject a useless, baseless claim."
That is plenty of reasoning. Far more than your useless, baseless claim.

>For example, rejecting a claim (like you just did) is itself making a claim, so best case scenario you've already sunk to the level you profess to despise.
Wrong. It is clearly useful to reject superfluous nonsense. It is clearly based on reason to only accept claims with evidence and reason. Our positions are not equal.

>Only it's not even best case because your entire argument is "muh burden of proof", which only works for agnosticism, which, again, you are not implying.
You aren't very good at reading then. Nowhere did I "imply" a lack of agnosticism. Clearly God is possible, only because anything is possible, no matter how nonsensical. Rejecting your claim doesn't mean I claim the opposite.

>But agnosticism on a subject can be considered legitimate or illegitimate, that is, justified or unjustified. This in turn implies a certain value to the subject as knowable or unknowable.
What?

>>8426361
but my dad told me ghosts are real. he said he has encountered them before. take your stupid shit to /x/ so they can put you in your place.

>>8426361
You're just arguing in circles mate - is this because you are a contrarian incapable of learning?
>That is plenty of reasoning. Far more than your useless, baseless claim.
No he actually gave you reasoning. You argue like a faggot by the way.

>>8426323
As a Christian, this is something I used to believe when I was in high school. I held on to believing in God as something to explain the existence of the universe. I still do, sort of. I take God as a given. I don't try to understand "God's will" or "God's ways." It's unknown and unknowable. We can reflect on our lives and the information available to us but we could never discern ultimately why things are the way they are. We can study science and discern the physical mechanisms behind things in the universe and all the patterns that exist here but believing in God isn't believing in an explanation for all those things. Believing in God is believing, assuming and feeling (almost like intuition) that there is something higher than all of this and all us and the entire universe and anything we can comprehend. It's something that must just be taken and felt.

At least that's what it's like for me.

>>8426369
What reasoning did he give? Let's see:

>but how do you explain the reason for "dimensions" existing as a concept? Or mass? Or information? Or meaning? How are these things defined, what are they based on, what do they arise from?
This is not reasoning. He assumes such a reason exists and then asks for it. Begging the question.

>Actually, the very absence of a natural reason implies a supernatural one.
This is not reasoning, merely a false claim. How does the absence of a natural reason imply a supernatural reason? What even is a supernatural reason? "Magic" or "god" does not explain anything, they're just words with no logical power.

>>8426373
so in other words if we replicated the human nervous system in a robot and it claimed to be capable of feeling the presence of a God in the same way you do, you'd stop believing in God?

>>8426352
No, I'm a Christian too. You can't convince people this way. People have to feel the Lord.


For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:

a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.

>>8426387
Nope. I'd still believe. God is something I take as given no matter what.

>>8426387
wat. what grade you in boi?
>>8426373
very nice answer. It's similar to that for me. I see the glory of God in everything.

>>8426388
I agree, but people are prideful and don't necessarily see this way either. I've had no converts myself. More often than not, they don't see the truth of the Lord Christ until a time of great sorrow, sometimes utter despair.

What you should realize is that people like this guy - are Reprobates. If he does ever come to know the Lord, he should know to repent his blasphemy first and foremost, every last instance that his mind can recall, repent it.

>>8426418
>no converts
Are you a priest? Be wary of what you say to others about the Lord. Have you seen those people who walk around with big wooden crosses and shout at the air about how people are stupid for not believing the Lord and their souls damned to the lake of fire? Do not be what causes people to shun Christianity. Please. As Christians we must love not just each other but everyone, even people who disagree with us or think that we are foolish. There is no love in anger.

>Vanity of vanities. All is vanity. What does man gain from all the toil at which he toils under the sun?

>>8426373
based faithbro

>>8426396
>no matter what
Cuck

>>8424509
Where can I buy this dragon dildo?

>>8424996
make all penises about 7 inches long and extremely pleasurable to women :^)
also make women orgasm quicker, FUCK.

>>8426454
Down wet duh DC tok

>>8424481
>Hey you need to get smarter!!!!
>Better lose that jaw length brain cant grow if it doesnt shrink up faggot!!

>Hey you need to get warrmer!!!
>Now your body temperature is constant but guess what now you have to eat constantly enjoy

>Hey you wanna be agile?
>Well you gonna have to lose that oversized jaw Mr. Feline Im sorry but those are the rules

>Hey faggot you wanna be smart well your head is gonna get bigger. What about birds? Well they are just biologically better than you thats why they can be smart without those big heads you shit

>Psst hey hey theropods I got a nice idea how about your jaws become hardened protein that cant chew for shit?
>You dont like it ? Too bad its gonna happen

>What do you mean why you cant chew stuff?
>Saurosids you have no trouble eating stuff without chewing it so I just didnt work my maigc

>Oh poor Synapsids they want to eat plants if only they had stomachs that could digest cellulose if only oh wait gut bacteria that should work.

>Rather than I improve the efficiency of oxygen in your body I focus on stupid shit like your muscles which need oxygen

>Guess what humans? There are gut bacteria that like basically control you and stuff no really your immune system turns to shit if they are destroyed thanks to me Mother Evolution well they seemed so friendly I just decided to leave them there you know I mean like common already

>Whats all this talk about race?
>Hello hominid you guys are special you can interbreed with eachother yep fuck genetic uniqueness that I handcrafted enjoy that autism and depression from those neanderthals now teehee

>Well seeing as how you arent going to need it Im just gonna slowly make your muscles weaker and reduce the density of your skeleton as well, I mean you have technology you dont need this at all

>Oh shit its cold better shrink your dicks even though a longer sperm tube can reach the cervix faster and speed up reproduction but it is what is

Fuck evolution.

>Lets make you smart
>Fuck your eyesight

>Lets make you smart
>Fuck your reproductive ability

>Lets make you smart
>Fuck your social skills

>Gee I wonder how I can get these walking apes to kill things to live,I know Ill give them dopamine from killing stuff that should work
>What do you mean murder? War? Oops

If someone designed chickens put eggs through the ass I can assure he is not a genius.

>>8426974

>Lets make you smart
>Fuck your social skills


But that's a meme anon.

>>8424481
OMG OMG OMG everything that remotely looks like it has some mechanical function has to be created! because all things that i made look like they have mechanical functions! im just assuming the converse must be true then also!

>wat.jpg

LOLOLO ofcourse the converse is always true!
thats just logical. dont you understand that anon?
i mean, come on it just has to be right?

>>8426963
this^

>>8425700
WTF IM BLIND

>>8426091
Very cool. Do you know a good site to see real pics of microorganisms?

>>8427277
Autism you retard.

>>8424521
The real thing is way messier and more organic looking.
That's because at these small scales we wouldn't be able to observe a straight line even if we wanted to. That fuzziness is a result from the imaging technique not from the actual composition of the virus.

>>8425234
No, I don't think he did. Read again:
>>8424509
>a stylized cartoon that looks like it's made out of metal
>made out of metal

>>8424481
>Obviously no one did
How can anyone believe this makes any sense from a logical standpoint

>>8424586
Looks like a chryssalid to me.
Should I be afraid?

>>8424481

Someone did.

Ask yourself this, people who think it only appears designed.

What evidence do you have for that proposition?

>>8427925

>asking for evidence that something didn't happen

>>8427925
You're not a very intelligible person are you...