/sci/ - Science & Math

>>943378

a shitty answer is better than no answer

You aren't allowed to ask why there is something instead of nothing. Well, you can, but there will never be an answer (God is a shitty answer).

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

He answers your question.

>>943386
Says you.

>>943378

Excuse me sir, but that all depends on your definition of a God.

Why in the fuck is there so much hate over shit other people fucking believe. Jesus. Arguing over whether or not God is real isn't going to help us achieve faster than light speed travel you know.

>>943386
No it's not. It's inventing an answer with absolutely no evidence.

The Big Bang theory makes no claim that everything "sprang into existence;" it only describes what happened after creation. We can make no claims about time zero with our current understanding of physics.

>>943394
You can believe in god all you want, if you think that that's a good explanation for the origin of the universe.

As long as you recognize that there is a) no evidence to back you up and that b) it is not the scientific way to go assuming things without evidence.

Big bang cosmology does not claim matter or energy "sprang" into existence. It only makes a claim vaguely similar to OPs post with regards to space.

>>943356
FUCK OFF ASSHOLE. YOUR THE CACNER OF /SCI/, FUCKING DIE!

>>943386
Would lead to a Type I statistical error. Which is CATASTROPHIC.

>>943409
>CACNER

>Big Bang cosmology is the claim that matter, energy, space, and time all sprang into existence.
no it isn't. the question how spacetime and energy came to be is not answerable. we can only describe what happened afterwards...

Most of you are wrong, watch the >>943393 fucking video. He brings up this EXACT point. Shit was created from NOTHING, and there's a well documented and relatively new theory as to why.

>>943418
TROLL

>>943356
sure is alot of trolls tonight

>>943403

Actually, it's pretty logical to assume the possibility of a God like entity that can manifest it's self in an area of space with nothing in it. It's something that's not so far fetched when you have particles that can exist in multiple places at the same time. I'm not saying that's my only answer, but you have to admit that something like that is possible.

>>943435
TROLLSSSSSSSSSS

>>943435
God is a quantum machine.

>>943393
>Dawkins
stopped watching

>>943441

I'm not saying something like that is entirely impossible. Why would this be considered impossible, and why is an idea like that considered trolling?

>>943441
why so much trolling in /sci/?

>>943356
TROLLS EVERYWHERE!

>>943431
why do you think i'm a troll? explain yourself, faggot!

>>943435
Then what created god, etc etc.

To say "well, god is infinite" is much more illogical than just saying "shit, we don't know, and we never will."

>>943467

You probably didn't read my post properly.

I presented the possibility that "God" is something that can propagate it's self from nothing, and perhaps there is something out there that can do this that we have yet to discover, or I might be totally wrong, and I'm OK with that.

>>943478
Oh, then you're alright.

>>943478
god wasn't, isn't and never will be more than speculation in it's purest form

>>943356
Sure is alot of trolls here

>>943356
FAGGY FAGGY FAGGY FAGGY
Trolls

>>943488

And that really is your own speculation on the situation.

>>943356
Trolls gotta troll

>>943508
well no, i'm just saying that no evidence exists in favor of the god hypothesis. that's not speculation, it's principle.

>>943532

OK, but that doesn't take it out of the realm of possibility either. That's because in science, when you stake a claim on what is fact, you have to come up with backing for your claim, or else it's speculation.

Since you claim that God is impossible, and mere speculation, what evidence do you have to show that one cannot exist in any sense of the word?

>>943512
Has the asspie stopped?

>>943543
i GUESS you're right, i shouldn't have said there never will be evidence since i'm not clairvoyant, i'm not GOD per se

although, once that's removed from my argument, i think it's pretty sound to say that god is speculation. it's not about giving evidence that it doesn't exist, my friend, because the null hypothesis is not "god exists."

>>943560

Even still, to say something doesn't exist, even if to say that a speculation does not exist, without evidence is in fact a speculation. You know about as much as I do. I have my own ideas about what constitutes as a God, and there is evidence to show for it in theoretical physics. You on the other hand, don't have evidence to back your speculation.

>>943627
>evidence
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

>>943647

Personally, I think you're just using an Ad Hominem.

>>943627
please by all means, produce this evidence of god. i mean, i'm sure if you know anything about theoretical physics then you know that objective measurements of some sort constitute evidence. lets see them!

>>943627
seriously, i'm not saying that god doesn't exist, i'm saying that you're speculating by postulating god's existence. i'm fully aware that god can be neither formally proven nor disproven

>>943356

The reason you're at fault for making this comparison is that big bang theory is planned to end in one of several ways like big rip and big freeze and religion postulates no forseeable end for their respective gods no disrespect intended

>>943722

/thread

>>943704

Like I said earlier, that all depends on what your idea and definition of a God is.

Personally, I believe that a God is omnipotent, everywhere at once, has the ability to propagate it's self with nothing, and think.

You know what evidence I have towards this? the fact that one particle can exist in more places at once at any given time, being sprung into existence with seemingly NOTHING to bring it fourth, and you know what? That sub atomic matter makes up 90% of me and you and everything around you, even in a vacuum. It is everywhere whether you like it or not. You know what else? As vast as this universe is, and considering that this kind of sub atomic matter exists all throughout it, it's entirely possible that at some point there are series of on/off logic sectors that ends up creating some sort of consciousness. You have to admit, something that large, could very well have a sub-atomic brain somewhere in it.

So as to my definition of a God, I think I have presented evidence towards it. I never said it had to be some guy with a beard did I?

>>943763
you heard it here folks

And you know what else? If I'm totally wrong and nothing is ever of importance? I'll be perfectly happy with finding that out, because I would still be concentrated on finding a way to travel faster than the speed of light to reach other solar systems and colonize them. I am a lot more concerned about that than how damaging it is to not have a faith.

>>943763

You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting certain findings of particle physics.

If you want to present your "evidence" as such you should cite specific scientific articles that observe the relevant behavior of such particles, instead of simply regurgitating your interpretation of the "gist" of something you remember reading somewhere more than once.

>>943801

You know what? I'll just let you be and leave you alone, since you would much rather talk about the details I left out rather than the ones I mentioned above. If you have something to say that specifically points out the things that I said are WRONG, then just email it to me.

memberftw01@gmail.com

Have fun. It's 3:30 AM for me, I'm going to bed. Goodnight.