/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9962234
pedos are out of fashion here

>>9962234
logic my ass

provide scientific evidence for god

>>9962234
>Why is /sci/ atheist
It isn't. Most of /sci/ is aware that religious monks were the only ones who did science and preserved old scientific knowledge during the middle ages.
Without Christianity there wouldn't be any computers today.

>>9962234
Why do you expect a competent thread without providing his evidence and arguments? If you're posting in the first place you must want (You)s, so at least met /sci/ half way. Why do you assume a scientific board will be familiar with theistic arguments or at least entertain them? Pic related, go back to /lit/.

>>9962252
Who /litsci/ here?

>>9962249
>The fact that you acknowledge that clerics kept and copied books in the middle ages means you are not atheist

Aquinas proved that in the beginning of everything there was something that didn't have a beginning. Whether that something is God or not is another thing. And, besides, modern quantum mechanics could completly destroy Aquinas' argument.

>>9962291
But he did prove that First Cause is god!

>>9962295
How so? You can't prove that there is a god nor that it is indeed the christian God.

>>9962234
Stop pretending you've read Aquinas.

>>9962234
Aquina's teleological arguments are all wrong. They were disproved hundreds of years ago.

>>9962234
>I just came from reddit and I want to shitpost in 4chan /sci/, I'm going to post about religion because anyone who posts about science on the internet isn't religious
the post

>>9962312
I remember the times when /sci/ used to be full of this shit, I think it's where the christians: 1, atheists: 0 meme begun, but I might be wrong

>>9962309
By who? Where can I read the refutation of the 3000 pages of his Summa?

>>9962234

Not science or math.

>>9962249

>Without Christianity there wouldn't be any computers today.

Without Christianity studying science and preservation wouldn't be limited to just an elitist caste of priests and we wold get computers much early.

>>9962234
>when Aquinas logically proved the existence of god
did he fuck, aquinas was a shit-tier logician

>>9962348
You should read "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization".

>>9962372
Great argument.

>>9962348
At the moment christianity was most dominant in europe bookprinting wasn't invented. Mass printed media appeared when Martin Luther's evangelism was on the rise.

Also there were computers centuries before.

test

>>9962234
They didn't
at least not the existence of any religious deity
Because religion goes against logic

>>9962376
Ok, fine: argument.
The first two of Aquinas' cosmological arguments were basically along the lines of avoiding infinite regress of motion and causation, which makes sense. But he simply assumed that the unmoved mover and the uncaused causer was God, backed up by no empirical evidence. In addition, these two arguments contradict themselves by establishing that 1: **Everything** is caused/moved by a causer/mover, and 2: There must exist something (God) that is uncaused and unmoved.

The argument from contingency was pure bullshit, as it assumed that there must be a necessary being with, again, no empirical evidence. Aquinas thought that a world comprised entirely of contingent beings might have just as easily never existed, which is actually not a completely unreasonable notion. Life on Earth was a fluke, the formation of our Sun was a fluke, why must the creation of the universe be otherwise?

In any case, the cosmological arguments, even if they were valid, don't prove the existence of any particular god, much less the Abrahamic God central to Christianity, nor do they rule out polytheism.

tl;dr: Aquinas was a tool.

>>9962375

You should read how it didn't.

>>9962382

Unfortunately it was, yes. Otherwise we would progress faster.

We weren't talking about abacus.

>>9962414
He didn't 'assume' that an unmoved mover was god he defined the unmoved mover that must exist lest infinite regression to be god why? because the could only be a god like being the power to create ex nihilo be created ex nihilo.

If you think le aquinas powerpoint is a proof, you need to go back to /christian/.