/sci/ - Science & Math

DUDE BUDDHISM LMAO
>>>/lit/
>>>/x/
>>>/out/

>>9303362
Would you rather die in hope, or in fear?

>>9303376
Wow, so edgy and cool.
Your screeching of "MUH SCIENCE" is a highly convincing argument.

pic related; you

>>9303362
>tfw you can have all the things without believing irrational ideas

>>9303486

How is it irrational? It is a completely valid argument.

1. We live in a cause-and-effect universe where everything is contingent upon a set of preceding variables
2. The current state of the universe is a direct result of its preceding state, which was the direct result of its preceding state, etc. etc.
3. To avoid circular reasoning, there must have been a thing at the very beginning of the contingency chain
4. That thing at the beginning of the chain must be non-contingent
5. Thus, that necessary, non-contingent thing is unlike anything else in the otherwise entirely contingent cosmos

Conclusion: You can be a screeching, neckbearded asshat and insist on referring to that thing as "the big bang," which is, at it's core, a follow explanation that does not actually answer the root problem of causality and is thus equally as nebulous and unfalsifiable as claiming that "God did it." Or you stop trying to be special snowflake edge-lord and just call it "God" like humans have been doing since the dawn of mankind.

>>9303514
*hollow explanation

>>9303514
>>9303517
Sounds good but proofs are needed.

>>9303362
>>9303376
>>9303476
>>9303485
>>9303486
>>9303514
>>9303517
>>9303521
Actually, God created evolution and used evolution to create body plans (Forms) and form these Forms, variations and thus evolution.
Also, those "Six Days", actually refer to 'divine days' and those are measured in billions of years.

>>9303526
Implying so much but proving so little.

>>9303362
I'd rather be a rising ape than a falling angel

>>9303559
>It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
True.
>God exists as an idea in the mind.
True.
>A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
True.
>Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
True.
>But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
True.
>Therefore, God exists.
If all others are true, then this MUST be true.

>>9303575
2/10 bait, too obvious

>>9303578
>There is existence.
True, dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum.
>Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived.
True.
>God is perfection and perfection in existence.
True.
>Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism.
True.
>That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection.
True.
>That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
True.
>Hence God exists.
If all others are true, then this MUST be true.

>>9303485
religion in a nut shell

>>9303575
>>9303588
>le 0.00056%/10 bait
So much opinions but so little proofs.

>>9303623
Philosophical proof is proof.
How about you disprove God?
Oh wait, you can't.
>Atheists: demanding proof, without giving proof.

>>9303627
>Philosophical proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHgxOXEQaFU

>>9303627
Do I have to say it?

>>9303630
>>9303631
I still don't see that proof, yet you still demand proof.
Almost as if atheists are disingenuous hypocrites?
But that possibly can't be true, because that would mean they're all sophists?!

>>9303637
Your implying something exists so the burden of proofs is on you.

>>9303643
You're implying something doesn't exist so the burden of proofs is on you.

>>9303651
>saved
I'm not implying nothing theres just no proofs so it can't exist without a sizable amount of proofs.

>>9303653
>devas
I'm not implying nothing theres just no proofs that it doesn't so exist without a sizable amount of proofs

>>9303643
>>9303651
>>9303653
>>9303658

>believing in proofs

.yks eht ni yug draeb emosewa on si ereht taht em ot sevorp sfoorp ffo kacl sihT

>>9303665
>not believing in proofs with no proofs that proofs aren't real
fuggggg :D

>>9303666
˙ʎʞs ǝɥʇ ui ʎnƃ pɹɐǝq ɐ si ǝɹǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʇ ǝʌoɹdsip ʇouuɐɔ noʎ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɯ oʇ sǝʌoɹd sɟooɹd ɟɟo ʞɔɐl siɥ┴

>>9303675
So this is the power of God.

>determinism
*blocks your path*

>>9303514
It's not certain that the Universe is causal tho.

>necessitates

>>9303514
>1. We live in a cause-and-effect universe where everything is contingent upon a set of preceding variables
QM disagrees.

>3. To avoid circular reasoning, there must have been a thing at the very beginning of the contingency chain
This assumes there is a beginning at all, could just be infinite recurrence, which is not circular.

>5. Thus, that necessary, non-contingent thing is unlike anything else in the otherwise entirely contingent cosmos
Then it surely can't be God, which is clearly just a projection of human intelligence. Whatever the answer is, if there is an answer, it's surely much weirder than an intelligent being.

>>9303706
>implying the wave function collapses
ISHYGDDT

>>9303575
>It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that the best gf is a gf than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible gf that can be imagined).
True.
>The best gf exists as an idea in the mind.
True.
>A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
True.
>Thus, if the best gf exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine a gf that is greater than the best gf (that is, a greatest possible gf that does exist).
True.
>But we cannot imagine a gf that is greater than the best gf (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a gf greater than the greatest possible gf that can be imagined.)
True.
>Therefore, the best possible gf exists.
If all others are true, then this MUST be true.
>A gf that is mine would be greater than a girlfriend which is not mine.
True.
>tfw when no gf

>>9303526
>divine days
Source? I can't even find anywhere that defines what that means, let alone that it's what Moses was trying to say in Genesis. You're trying to harmonize creationism with evolution and the belief that the earth is however many years old, but they're simply irreconcilable with one another.

>>9303362
Hey retard, guess what shits all over your deterministic universe: quantum mechanics, evolution, and the birth of the universe itself.

If absolute determinism is real then you were destined to start this retarded thread and I was destined to respond to it once the universe was born billions of years ago. Yup, sounds retarded. You didn't decide by free will to start this thread, it's just apart of the "determined" sequence of events to occur. All the animals that have ever died had no real say or do in their time of death, it was there "determined" time to die. Yup, sounds retarded. Quantum entanglement =/= Determinism, suck a dick retard.

>>9303813
>mental proliferations are real

what did rationalists mean by this

>>9303813
quantum mechanics doesn't shit on determinism you retard

>>9303362
>DUDE GENERIC STONER DEISM LMAO
We're all happy for you that you tried weed for the first time.

>>9303828

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1210/in-which-way-does-quantum-mechanics-disprove-determinism

Read the first answer given, it will clue you in a little, retard.

>>9303842
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/
Read these articles, it will clue you in a little, retard.

>>9303575
>Using the well-known debunked "ontological argument"
Even considering this as a valid argument, you only proved that Allah is true as non-physical god and disproved Christianity with the biggest cuck Jesús as their god.
Now go do the right thing and convert to Islam

>>9303569

>>9303813
Why do we assume that reductionist materialism and freedom incompatible? The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the conscious free whole is emerging out of materialist parts. The how is unclear of course. Explaining the emergence will be the theory of everything, will explain brain->mind, quantum theory + relativity theory, beginning of the universe and the nature of God. I plan to write a thesis about this soon.

>all religions are true
Kill yourself heretic. Thy judgment cometh

>>9303805
>"no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. ...If nevertheless there is a disagreement ... it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people."
t. Pope Leo XIII

never have, never will
atheists only make up 5% of the university population (citation needed) so someone's gotta do it

it's really simple, atheism is just a consequence of the belief that everything (everything single thing) is objective/deterministic, there's no "other" unexplainable thing (love, god, sin etc)
Seems logical to me

>>9303910
>linking to crank blog full of pseuds
>blogpost links mostly popsci
>author has no grasp of hep-th
yeah, fuck right off with this
read Landau to understand *why* QM is incompatible with determinism

>>9304059
>it's really simple, atheism is just a consequence of the belief that everything (everything single thing) is objective/deterministic, there's no "other" unexplainable thing (love, god, sin etc)
Seems logical to me

>>9303588
Jesus so much
>assuming that
I ain't got time fo this shit

>>9303485
hey plebbitor I never mentioned science
Neither did you
So get this shit fucking thread off this board
Also I was pointing out that your ""revolutionary"" idea has already been thought of and expressed numerous times
Kill yourself so the universe can experience it

>>9304086
Make arguments or fuck off. Making claims isn't an argument.

>>9303476
How about quickly?

>>9303362
>>9303559
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_d3KN1d7Y0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFQ36zXbm00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLA02-ubvFY

>>9304792
>>9304400
Is this enough proof?
I mean, this is the way quantum mechanics came to be: Just following logic that leads to a certain conclusion then test conclusion if possible or analyse each step and check if there is a fallacy or something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_d3KN1d7Y0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFQ36zXbm00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLA02-ubvFY

>>9304792
https://motls.blogspot.cz/2012/08/peter-shor-on-deterministic-fakes-of.html
Since your "argument" was a blog post by a hobbyist, my "counterargument" will be a blog post by an actual theoretical physicist.
But the original suggestion to read Landau still stands, so do it if you want to understand this yourself, without relying on information from others.

It's funny because the guy who made that painting worked with Tool several times to make their album arts, and that's exactly their take on religiousness.

>>9304921
No, I'm telling you to address the arguments in the post, you retard. Saying it's an ""argument"" by a "hobbyist" is NOT an argument.

>/sci/ - Religion and Homework
Good to see we're back to basics. These are trying times we live in, a touch of nostalgic comfort can go a long way to easing a troubled soul.

a deterministic universe is the absence of a god no? I mean God supposedly gave us free will.

As far as I see it its a choice of Atheism and Determinism against God and free will.

>>9303362
>When did you accept all this random shit I just made up?

>>9304948
>what is calvinism

>>9303842

Determinism isn't binary. Quantum mechanics could disprove a pure determinism, but there are multiple levels of determinism. There are much softer deterministic elements to the universe. How the universe interacts can be calculated. Rocks being dropped, Rockets being sent to mars etc can be calculated. Everything is part of a complex deterministic system. Quantum mechanics only gives a little variability over a long period of time. Then there are "soft" social and behavioural traits that are deterministic.

>>9304964

Redpill me then. I googled it and cant find anything that seems immediately relevant to the topic.

>>9304972
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Predestination

Here you go, anon.

>>9304980

well i guess that was interesting. Must suck balls to be a Calvinist though.Trying to rationalise the world to fit into a traditional religious viewpoint sounds exhausting.

>>9304964
Heresy

>>9304939
In other words, you expect me to read about 20 blogs of an amateur proponent of a theory that's wrong. Yeah, not interested in reading his fan-fiction. From the summaries, there's no argument there.
If you cite sections that you find relevant, we can work it out though.

>>9303514
>To avoid circular reasoning, there must have been a thing at the very beginning of the contingency chain

Wow slow down there Aquinas think about what you're saying. A certain number is the direct sum of a previous number plus 1. To avoid circular reasoning, there must be a number at the very beginning of numbers.

I've just demonstrated that there *must* be supernumerical numbers by your own logic. Is your mind blown yet? Or is this argument flawed.

Everyone here may agree or disagree about the existence of God but let's say God exists. Which religion do we follow? How can you prove that Christianity is the right religion and Islam isn't?

>>9305082
heaven angels of course, isn't it obvious?

>>9305082
>Christianity
I came down to earth as a man to save you my children. Love me and your neighbour as thyself and you will be saved.
>islam
LOL just behead those who don't agree with you and Fuck underage girls

Which one is the true religion I wonder?
I guess it depends if youre a pedo or not.

>>9305082
>How can you prove that Christianity is the right religion and Islam isn't?

Start a world war. God will favour those who follow the true religion and lead them to victory. Christians have more nukes than Muslims but Muslims are more likely to use biological weapons.

>>9305082
Just pick the one that makes you the most happy. If you enjoy potluck dinners and bingo, become Catholic. If you enjoy beheadings and suicide bombings, become Islamic.

>>9305091
You've convinced me.
Allahu Akbar

>>9305082
DEISM! Atheists tune out arguments for god because of their hatred for religion and its fairytales. Anyone can assume superiority by mocking 2,000 year old fables but you never really appreciate any atheist discussion on the mere existence of a god, because they rely on the stupidity of fundamentalists to feel smart and never need any other satisfaction. The atheists who do not believe in free will because of causality must always have a lingering thought saying, "But what caused the universe"... and they just ignore it. Either the universe came from nothing (lmfao), existed forever (what is entropy?), or was created by an omnipotent, incomprehensible, infinite, God. Which makes more sense?

>>9305079
But that's exactly how natural numbers are constructed? What do numbers have to do with this anyways?

being atheist on 4chan is not edgy. that was last decade. now being a christfag is the fedora thing to do

>>9303575
fuck off Anselm

>>9303362

We don't understand consciousness so how can you say the universe is deterministic?

Also, if there actually is some "entity, how the fuck did he create the universe? And why is he such an asshole? It's much easier to assume that our universe was never created and that it simply came about do to nature.

Existence of supernatural entity doesn't mean that it's the christian god you worship. Maybe there is a god, but not the one you believe. What makes christian god more likely to exist than any other?

>>9306060
That entity doesn't have to have created the universe, And seriously does anyone even care to look at the youtube vids that Anon linked?
Deez ones:
>>9304902

>>9306070
Because he came down here 2000 years ago.
>shitposting about religion on /sci/
>>>/his/

>>9306175
Would a god present on earth in 2017 be thusly more valid if dates matter?

>>9306179
No because when he comes down again he will bring the end of the world so we wouldn't be here to ask questions according to the Catholic Church.
It all boils down to a matter of faith.

What we do need is a person reaching salvation for then turning down all contradictions wich sums up the bible whit what's thought in a manner of enlightment. One that walked through the path of righeousness. One that know the path. Evidently we just find an mountain of contradictions from page one in the bible. To find a life totally overwhelming by untruthful excessess. I mean even if read completely between the lines that the bible is an uncorrected uarban plattform for a total delusive context made to make you brainwashed into beliving things next up to being a bucket of shit. Knowing that is like waking up to a mental madness you see others possess. Must feel like being forced to belive hell is the only eacape. But if you are able to sense this and walk righteously still then you are one of a kind. Some say eastern and western beliefs are in the end both the same.

God from a non-beliver is merly just a name to a phenomenon we still yet have gotten to underline our existince. Like it needs another answer. In particular we have no reason to find a reason to water the tought of a skydaddy wich eventually send you to hell for things humans do to themselfs due to an world we came unprepaired for. Everyrhing must be learned first. It's not the other way around. That said we do try to correct a moron, he will hate you. Correct a wise man and he'll appreciate you. It's just human ignorance grand scale. Being able to belive but not see. Theres 99 ways to look at a book but only one way to determent it's absence of fable, myths, falsefied agendas, folk lore written between many different authors. Often so far of that it is selflessly given the word contradictions with bluff, untrue, vulgar, delusive. Some of it's words anf sayings are so far out that it takes only a child to find it untruthful and pain in the ass for an eternity. The problem is that people blindly follows such sayings a doings they use so much effort spreading.

who even the bing bong anyway if wasnt god?

>>9303514
>Thus, that necessary, non-contingent thing is unlike anything else in the otherwise entirely contingent cosmos
Well, conditions of big bang were unlike anything in modern cosmos, kek, so what?

>>9303362
You can literally experience that for yourself with a high dosis of LSD but muh scientists just shake off altered perception as hallucinations, as if reality isnt defined by perception alone. You can literally ask god, yourself, if this is true and he will confirm it. look up thousands of trip reports and religious teachings.The abstract concepts of Yin/Yang and Tao are the ultimate truths.

>>9303575
>A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Addition of property of existence requires mental resource that wasn't used for size of the being, this resource can be used to imagine a being greater than existing one. Therefore god can't exist.

>>9303813
Mein neger, quantum mechanics is deterministic.

>>9304896
Idealism is an antiquated idea, along with "necessary truths. Also what was up with all the random puppy zoom ins.

>>9305599
Or the universe was created by a non-sapient non-sentient primal mover that in no way resembles the Abrahamic God.

>>9306853
That is not an argument against it. π is a very old concept, fraction are even older, that doesn't mean they are legit or discredited just because they are old.
Attack the arguments instead of going for nonlegit arguments like "the ideas are old". Math doesn't change over time and neither do facts or the laws of physics. So if being an old idea is enough reason to discredit something then in the distant future we can discredit that 2+2=4 because that is an old concept and idea

Buddhadharma.

>>9303514
>he still believes in arguments that were btfo by kant over 200 years ago

>>9303376
>>9303362

>>9303362
>accept that we live in a deterministic universe

OP is necessarily a faggot

>>9306963

It was created around a time where no one knew shit about anything. We now know that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon resulting from the complex interaction between matter, light, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, biophysics, chemistry, etc. Reality is outside the mind, it existed before the kind. Idealism is just referencing emergent phenomena.

>>9303526
the bible isn't meant to he taken literally, the six days is referring to the six circles in the flower of life

>>9303722
QM only adds more proof of god tho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM&index=1&list=PLuo_6io8kHuUPQT-mttIclTmXDLj6rb3O&t=35s

>>9303362
>necessitates the existence of a non-contingent entity
OK, but why would you think this entity would be intelligent or even have any sensory awareness given that these qualities are built up from and dependent on non-intelligent physical scaffolding in every single instance of them that has ever been observed?
If it's the most fundamental, least built up thing in reality then it shouldn't have any built up qualities since the whole point is you're trying to account for these qualities with something lower level and prior to them.
If anything, what this causeless cause would be like is more along the lines of a cosmic ocean that bubble universes like our own emerge from. You wouldn't call it God because it wouldn't have any thoughts or motivations, it'd be even less sentient than an amoeba.

>>9303722
In general QM does not. There are several interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation or Bohm mechanics. Even Heisenberg believed in cause-and-effect.

>>9303514
The universe is not causal though. We know at the very least that certain quantum phenomena, are completely up to chance. We also have no scientific explanation for a lot of phenomena, the most obvious being consciousness. Since we don't know how these phenomena work, it would be putting the horse in front of the wagon to assume they are deterministic.

There's no reason there had to be something at the beginning of the chain, it isn't circular reasoning it's impossible to comprehend idea of an infinite timeline, just like it's impossible to comprehend something that's infinitely large, or space in anything but 3 dimensions, or an infinitely small object. We didn't evolve to understand these ideas; their completely counter intuitive.

You're giving science and human intelligence far more credit than it's due.

>>9309335
Oops, wagon in front of the horse*

>>9304059
That's not what atheism means

>>9303514
Assume the start is absolute nothing, nothing includes no rules. With that existing and not existing is the same. The concept of beginning and end also doesn't exist here as time is part of the rules that only exists as part of our existence. The conclusion of this is interesting too - there is no reason for one universe to exist over another from absolute nothing. So what makes the most sense when nothing and everything is equal? An infinite multiverse where every imagible possibility exists as a reality.

>>9303362
You can neither prove nor deny the existence of a god. Arguing about it is a moot point.

>>9307734
Actually I don't think we know that for sure. If we did then why do scientist argue so much about how much free will if any we have. Moreover if scientists use the argument that the earth just happened to be in the habitable zone because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to observe it, doesn't that sound a lot of idealism to you? The vids never argue that because of us the universe exists, he argues more or less that idealism needs some kind of all aware entity of some sort for the universe to take form in a way.

As for "muh science", scientists do agree that if we are able to create a simulation of a universe then chances are that WE are living in some kind of simulation, and then it is not farfetched to see the computer/program executing the script/code as the all aware/knowing entity and there comes another argument: Even if you have the script/code if you have no software or hardware that knows how to read it then it can't run, It is needed to be read correctly in order to even be able to run/exist. I mean, just hypothetically I know python, go back in time to before python was a thing, write down a python program (because text editors still existed) but I have no way of executing it, does the program exist? If yes, then I can just write gibberish in a text document and argue that it is the most complicated program ever because in the future someone will make a hardware/software that will read that gibberish as a programming language and do super complicated stuff. That seems retarded, thus, the program does not exist until the source code can/has been read by software/hardware to execute it and have the program come into existence.

Also, quantum mechanics behaves in a way that points towards quantum mechanics having an awareness. The same quantum effect or whatever you wanna call it, can give a completely different perspective/interpretation of a thing. For example light, it is a wave or a particle depending on how you observe it.

>>9307985
>>9307734
I don't know about OP but why would it need to be intelligent or anything? Isn't the point just that there is some kind of "observer" that is aware of everything? I mean, the computer is fully aware of everything that is going on in it but it still has no counsciousnes. It doesn't even grasp the concept of color or anything, for the computer it is just a bunch of ones and zeros, but does that mean it isn't the computer that gives rise to what I see on my screen? For both the computer and the screen it is just ones, zeros, and a flow of electricity, neither is aware of the color they produce, neither is aware of anything we experience from it, but the computer still "observes" everything that is going on on the screen. Even a virus/bug is observed by the computer but is not seen as a virus or bug, just as ones and zeroes that it is "aware" of.

>>9311572

If we are in fact living in a simulation, this simulation has persisted for billions and billions of years. I don't see how our reality could have been fabricated to persist for this long. The universe still has trillions and trillions of more years left in it's lifetime as well.

I'm interested in what science finds more about brains, consciousness and quantum mechanics, it's the closest we are ever going to get to understanding how reality actually works and persists imo.

>>9311635
You wot mate? did you forget to brain? If they have enough computer power to simulate this, then they have probably enough to make it simulate at a faster rate, maybe 1000 years is just one second in their time

>>9310463
You can prove God exists. One way I have thought of is by first coming up with a precise and accurate definition for consciousness. Then finding that consciousness can not be formed from unconscious matter.

At which point you eliminate the possibility that life emerged out of unconscious nature. Finding that there must have been a conscious being to construct life as we know it.

This proof has not been done yet, but I know it can be done.

>>9303376
buddhism is nothing like what op is describing though, when will this meme end?

>>9311777
Divine trips speak the truth

>>9311777
Spare me, 4chan philosopher.
>"Fellow anons! I've thought of a way to prove god exists!"

May I recommend r/iamverysmart

>>9311777
Consciousness is literally just the degree to which an information processing unit can process information in a unified and whole way. Consciousness arose in nature out of what you call "unconscious matter", we can actually prove this, so no, you are nowhere even close to being able to "prove" god exists, you fucking moron.

>>9303362
Determinism=/=Religion. In fact most religons stress nondeterminism due to "lol we have free will"

>>9303722
QM doesn't really apply on a macroscale

>>9303476
How about in comfort, having accepted reality and not being so afraid of the end that I need to convince myself that there's reason to cling to hope.

>>9303916
>islam aka no theology only laws religion
>implying that theology (as describing what can NOT be understood or described) isn't actually wrestling with God himself because you are trying to ''limit'' him so he's understood to the human brain.