[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 24 KB, 289x293, atheistdevilscolor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1126378 No.1126378 [Reply] [Original]

Discuss.
I personally am an Athiest, as you cannot prove that God exists.

>> No.1126385

de facto atheist

/dawkins

>> No.1126388

if god exists and is an all seeing eye, then how come he allows bad things to happen

>> No.1126396

>>1126388
could be completely ambivalent to human affairs

>> No.1126397

>>1126388
HURR GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS WE CAN NEVER COMPREHEND! HURRR

>> No.1126399

you can prove he exists indirectly. there is no "look it's god" evidence laying around. coincidentally, wormholes have never been observed either.

>> No.1126402

>>1126388
the bible says god is a loving being. this of course does not mean that if he existed that he would be such a nice person, or that he even intervenes in mortal affairs

>> No.1126403

>>1126399
>you can prove he exists indirectly

...Well, go ahread then.

>> No.1126406

I am personally some kind of religion that says a god or gods exist/s because you cannot prove that they do not exist.

>> No.1126408

>>1126403
well for one, the universe exists.

>> No.1126410

I personally am an agnostic, because you can't prove that [noun] [verb/adjective]s.

David Hume is the best.

>> No.1126412

>>1126399
Either you're a high school student or you need to take a PHI101 class. Go learn some fucking logic.

>> No.1126415

>>1126408

and science has yet to come close to answering that one

>> No.1126419

>>1126408
That's because I wanted an apple pie. God had nothing to do with it. Next.

>> No.1126421

>>1126408
That's not evidence for or against the existence of a creator.

And don't pull that by contradiction crap, it's invalid in a system this complex.

>> No.1126424

>>1126412
sorry, too busy learning real science to be bothered with the musings of insane dead people

>> No.1126426

>>1126410
>David Hume is the best.
Prove it then.

>> No.1126427

>>1126378
>I personally am an Atheist
>Atheist
>A
One doesn't capitalize theism thus one doesn't capitalize atheism.

>> No.1126429

>>1126415
...but there ARE possible answers to that one.

>> No.1126430

>>1126421
i think it's plenty of evidence.

i don't need someone else's methods for discerning the truth behind the God question

>> No.1126432

>>1126426
By gosh, you're probably right. That doesn't appear to my flawed senses to have been a statement that fits Hume's Fork.
Of course, it may not actually have been a statement at all, for all I know.

Please allow me to rephrase:
I believe David Hume is the best.

>> No.1126436

>>1126399
pretty much exactly this

>> No.1126438

>>1126430
I personally find your so-called evidence to be lacking.

>> No.1126443
File: 52 KB, 450x300, samefag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1126443

>>1126399
>>1126436

>> No.1126447

>>1126443
>nigger

>> No.1126449

>>1126430
Notice how you have to put "I think." Evidence is objective because objectivity is the principle of the scientific method, which has the highest success at attaining adaptive, valuable information of all methods of obtaining information.

If you use some method other than science to obtain your information, you're the scum consumed by natural selection.

>> No.1126453

I don't understand how people can believe in god.. Can someone explain?

>> No.1126460

>>1126453
Some people think they can give evidence to something about which it's a logical impossibility to ascertain any sort of data.

-> Some people are nuts, dude.

>> No.1126465

>>1126430
how is that even remotely evidence FOR god?

>> No.1126469

>>1126465
How did the universe come into being if God didn't set off the Big Bang? Seems like pretty substantial evidence to me.

>> No.1126470

>>1126449
doesn't personal opinion seem more valid than the scientific method in this discussion?

would you use the scientific method to decide if being a nice person is a good way to conduct yourself?

>> No.1126476
File: 35 KB, 300x383, av169_lg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1126476

>>1126469
AND THERE IT IS FOLKS, GOD OF THE GAPS

AND FOR MY NEXT TRICK, PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT RELIGION IS ULTIMATELY GOOD

>> No.1126478

>>1126469
How did God come into being?

Existence doesn't make any sense for us humans because everything should have a beginning, and yet at some point there is going to be something we probably cannot understand that explains why anything exists. Until then, all theories for why anything exists (a question the big bang theory does not mean to answer) are as equally valid to me as all other theories, and I'm going to continue denying that anything including me exists because it's just too absurd for anything to exist.

>> No.1126479

>>1126469
Stating that an unknown is the result of God is a bad fallacy. That's no better than saying "I don't know how an airplane flys. Therefore, God makes airplane fly."

>> No.1126480

>>1126476
LOL

>> No.1126483

>>1126476
The Big Bang theory was invented by a catholic priest to PROVE the existence of God

>> No.1126485

This doesn't belong here.

>> No.1126488

>>1126476
Damn it, whenever I think of a witty comeback Dawkins has always got there first.

>> No.1126490

Why subject of fairy tales on science board.

>> No.1126491

>>1126483
Newton thought witches existed.

THEREFORE WITCHES EXIST.

>> No.1126498

haha hey guys let's see who can be the snarkiest about questions that cannot be answered

>> No.1126502
File: 36 KB, 300x383, av169_lg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1126502

>>1126483
YOUR APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IS NOT VERY EFFECTIVE; JUST BECAUSE IT'S CREATOR STATED IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S CORRECT.

TAKE FOR EXAMPLE REVEREND THOMAS BAYES, CREATOR OF BAYES' THEOREM!

>> No.1126503

but what if god IS the universe?

what if we can't even begin to imagine other things in the universe that to us would reak every law of nature, to that uncertainty is what i believe humans call god,

in all hoestly think if god exists we wouldn't eving begin to imagine what he is

>> No.1126507

>>1126503
deism.com

>> No.1126515

>>1126503
Come on dude, dawkins already told you that the god of the gaps argument is fallacious, don't keep acknowledging it.

>> No.1126523

>>1126469
It didn't, time is an emergant property of a static universe.
it didn't, the big bang was startet by 2 membrane universes coliding
It didn't, the universe actually follows a cyclical neverending cicle of big bang, big crunch
It didn't, the world is a dream


Why did >perfect< create >imperfect<?
When did he decide to create the universe? If he's without a beginning he would never reach the point where he chooses to.
Why move the problem of initial exsistance a step back?
Why choose to belive in a huge dick when there are much better alternatives?

>> No.1126538

>>1126515
then how do we explain gaps

>> No.1126539

>>1126515
>dawkins is a scientist, therefore he cannot be wrong

/thread

>> No.1126542

>>1126503
smoke some weed and shut up while the smart people talk faggot

>> No.1126549

I've never understood how people can explain how the big bang came to be with God.

If a god was necessary to create the Big Bang, then who created God? It's the same question.

>> No.1126553

>>1126549
Or I suppose rather, how did God come to be.

>> No.1126554

>>1126538
has your mom ever known what she was gonna give you for your birthday and you knew that she was gonna give you a gift but you didn't know what that gift was?

it's sorta like that, except there is no mom that knows, and science can determine that gift one small step at a time.

>> No.1126555

>>1126483
>>1126502
If Newton invented gravity to prove witches, and didn't just believe in witches on the side it'd be different. Same goes for Bayes. He set out to prove God existed, and he came up with the Big Bang - which all evidence suggests is right. You're either an atheist, or you believe int he Big Bang.

>> No.1126560

>Implying Dawkin's belief that there is no God is a proven fact

>> No.1126563

>>1126523
ok, your whole perfect creating imperfect argument has so many holes. before i begin, let me iterate my atheism.

have you ever seen anything perfect? do you even know what a perfect anything does? therefore how can you deduce what a perfect being would do when creating anything? you cannot put yourself into the mindset of something that you cannot relate to.

>> No.1126564

>>1126555
0/10

>> No.1126574

>>1126549
God always existed, and he created the universe with the Big Bang. It says so in Genesis chapter 1. Read a book for once, you might learn something.

>> No.1126575

I'm not an atheist and not a theist.
I won.

>> No.1126578

>>1126555
Most nigger-ific attempt to prove Sky Daddy I've seen in a while.

-17/10

>> No.1126581

>>1126555
That's some shitty logic right there. Not to mention a disgusting misinterpretation of Lemaitre's motivations - he was attempting to explain a physical observation.

>> No.1126582

>>1126538
you think god explains shit? you can infer anything from from that!

"What caused the big bang?"
"god did it"
"So should we expect another big bang happening any time soon in nature?"
"No clue, I don't understand god"
"So can we start our own big bangs?"
"No clue, I don't understand god"
"So can we predict how much matter results from different big bangs?"
"No clue, I don't understand god"
And so on forever

>> No.1126585

>>1126574
Why is God allowed to have "always existed", but the universe couldn't have "always existed" in some form?

>> No.1126587

>>1126575
No such state exists; agnostics are atheists implicitly

>> No.1126590

wow /sci/ you really don't like people disagreeing with you
do you?

>> No.1126593

>>1126574
Good job being an obvious troll.

>> No.1126598

>>1126555
The form of your argument is:
Person believed X about person's discovery, Y.
Y has evidence.
Therefore, X must also have evidence.

Okay so I believe that within the brain are little green trolls that make you be risk averse in gain framed gambles.
individuals are risk averse in gain framed gambles
therefore our brain has little green trolls.

reductio work for you? also bayes discovered bayes theorem, not big bang.

>> No.1126600

god went back in time and created himself
also, christians don't see atheists as TEH DEVIL!!!, stop spreading propoganda

>> No.1126601

ok scifags, here's a tough one.

barring the bible being correct, give me a well thought out, and literate explanation as to why there can be no "higher being" or "god"

>> No.1126602

>>1126590
We're fine with disagreements, as long as the reasoning and evidence is sound.

Disagreements based on shit evidence, faulty logic, and double standards? Those we get pissed off about.

>> No.1126605

>>1126585
Because the universe is material, and God is an immaterial being?

>> No.1126607

God does can not do anything right now because the poles are changing right now.
This shift in the magnetosphere prevents God from being able to interfere with our demension at this time.
Boy is everyone going to be pissed when the poles stop changing.
P.S. God can't hear your prayers right now. It is all just static.

>> No.1126609

>>1126563
logically a thing creating perfect things is itself more perfect than a thing creating imperfect things

if god is the most perfect thing imaginable the universe should be god himself.

>> No.1126612

STOP FUCKING SAYING THAT
YOU HATE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE DOGMA
EVERY HUMAN ON EARTH DOES, ITS NOT A BAD THING

>> No.1126613

>>1126601
this might fool some retards, that's why you get 2/10

>> No.1126618

>>1126601
There's no reason there can't be one. But in the event of an absence of evidence in favor of or against it's existence, its nonexistence is the safest assumption.

>> No.1126621

>>1126605
What the fuck do you mean by immaterial? Outside of the universe? In that case, for all intents and purposes, immaterial is imaginary. Try again.

>> No.1126625

>>1126601
god defies logic. you can't prove shit and you can't learn shit from it.. it's inherently fucking useless.

>> No.1126628

>>1126598
It doesn't work like that. What do we know about God? He created the universe. If he created the universe, it must have a beginning. Evidence for a beginning is evidence for God. The Big Bang is pretty well sat on God's side of the court.

>> No.1126630

>>1126602
but still can't you understand some people will always be like that, that they have made up their mind and logic will not change them and instead of respecting their decisions we get mad because they don't listen to logic

>> No.1126633

>>1126628
Sure is circular in here. Who says God had to create the universe?

>> No.1126634

i can't speak for all of /sci/ but i draw a distinct line between being "religious" and being "spiritual"

sure, i believe all the equations, proven theorems, and every other evidence based idea put forward by science, but i also think that there is some sort of "higher power" or what have you. obviously, its not the judeochristian god, but i just can't shake the feeling that there is some higher purpose to life that humans just can't fathom. maybe it's just my upbringing, and maybe it's just my fear, but that's how i feel about the matter.

>> No.1126635

>>1126621
If you read a bible you'd know he's all around us, thats in this universe

>> No.1126636

>>1126628
>What do we know about God? He created the universe.
How do you know that? And you can't prove that he was the cause of the big bang.

>> No.1126639

>>1126630
Yes, and I respect those people/ignore them IRL. But this is /sci/, and when people post here they're opening their arguments up to criticism.

>> No.1126641

>>1126635
Sorry, but citing a fairy tale book doesn't explain why you're trying to prove that imaginary things are real.

>> No.1126643

>>1126636
Because he says so in the Bible?

>> No.1126645
File: 70 KB, 300x383, av169_lgcircle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1126645

>>1126628
CIRCULAR LOOOOGIC

>> No.1126647

>>1126635
How would the people who wrote the Bible know that much about a god to begin with, if he's so mysterious and omnipresent?

>> No.1126652

>>1126605
That doesn't help. Who says that immaterial beings, whatever that means, can always have existed any more than material universes?

>> No.1126653

>>1126634
humans are significance junkies.

>> No.1126655

>>1126641
You only think he's 'imaginary' because you thought he existed outside of the universe. Clearly that's absurd.

>> No.1126659

>>1126628
Yeah dude, evidence for a beginning is evidence for a beginning; principle of parsimony or as wikifags call it, occam's razor, rules in science. God is not an accepted premise, as this argument would require.

>> No.1126660

>>1126634
Either there's a god who interacts in a meaningful way with the universe, which means his existence can be proven, or god doesn't interact with the universe and is only a word that describes the cause of the big bang in the same way that "Tiggie" is the name of my sister's pet cat.

>> No.1126661

>>1126655
>it's absurd that he existed outside of the universe
>he created the universe
>then where the fuck was he before he did that

>> No.1126663

>>1126652
I think its pretty self-evident

>> No.1126665

"Citing God's omniscience as evidence for his omniscience is highly inadequate because even I could do that. The only true answer is this: it does not make logical sense for any being to be able to know that any other being including themselves knows everything. From this we can conclude that even if God is omniscient, He does not know that He is, and has no grounds for telling us that He is. The obvious questions follow, "How does He know He is omnipotent or omnipresent then?" Again, the answer is that He does not."

Encyclopedia Dramatica is smarter than Godfags, as if we didn't know that.

>> No.1126668

>>1126661
give this man some tits

>> No.1126669

>>1126660
i feel you man, and it's something that i'm always questioning, but somethings don't need to be proven scientifically.

>> No.1126671

>>1126663
No, it's not at all. It's not even nearly self-evident that immaterial beings (again, whatever that means) can exist in the first place.

>> No.1126672

>>1126663
It's not, actually. You're just trolling.

>> No.1126673

>>1126655
And it's less absurd for him to exist within the universe? If he is within the universe, would he not have some measurable coordinate? In fact, if he's a part of the universe, wouldn't we be in error to conclude about him without some sort of evidence of his presence, which is measurable given that he's in the universe?

So gimme some space latitude and space longitude here and we'll start talking.

>> No.1126675

>>1126639
right and i completely agree with that, i really dislike it when people start shouting TROLL!!
because it just moves /sci/ a little bit closer to /b/

>> No.1126680

>>1126669
>implying there are other methods of obtaining proof

>> No.1126681

>>1126675
The thing is, is that because of the anonymity factor on this board, sometimes a troll is legitimately just a troll. Usually it's fairly self-evident, though.

>> No.1126688

i don't think it's any business of science to answer questions like this. explain the laws of nature and how the universe works, leave the religious rhetoric for the priests and philosophers

>> No.1126689

So everyone, I happen to know that there are a pack of teleporting, invisible, non-detectable, non-corporeal dragons that will open a hole in space time from across the universe to come here and kill everyone if we allow gays to marry. You can't disprove this possibility, so it's better if we don't take any chances.

>> No.1126692

>>1126634
You are worse than religios bigots!

You're the creep that sneaks religion into every fucking creek of society! You're the imbicile that makes religion seem harmless to the masses. You're the fucking faggot my kids listen to when I'm not around!
FUCK YOU!

>> No.1126694

>>1126680
>implying i need any proof beyond my own feelings on the matter

this isn't some equation to be solved. this is a very personal issue that science has no right to be mucking around in.

>> No.1126700

>>1126688
Well said.

>> No.1126701

>>1126688
How the fuck are priests more qualified to talk about the universe than scientists? Haven't seen a NOMAfag in a while.

>> No.1126703

>>1126681
absolutely ,but for the most part once people start shouting TROLL and raging it makes /b/-tards feel they could post on here as if it were /b/.

>> No.1126705
File: 38 KB, 300x383, av169_lgU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1126705

>>1126694
HAVEN'T YOU EVER HEARD MY SONG? IT GOES

SCIENCE REPLACES PRIVATE PREJUDICE WITH PUBLICLY. VERIFIABLE. EVIDENCE.

>> No.1126706

>>1126587
Most people simply don't care about God.

>> No.1126707

>>1126692
why? because i think for myself? and if you're forcing atheism on your children, you're no better than the bible thumping midwestern farmers who beat their kids for masturbating.

>> No.1126709

For anyone that thinks that science should have nothing to say about a god that interacts with the universe, get off of /sci/. We don't need your useless, empty brains here.

>> No.1126711

>>1126701
>implying the existence of a god has any bearing on the discoveries made by scientists.

they're two different issues bro.

>> No.1126715

Atheists see Christians as legumes? I don't get it.

>> No.1126716

sage

>> No.1126717

ITT dawkins fanboys argue with godfags.


if you can't present any evidence for you're argument then why are you on a science board?

>> No.1126722
File: 1012 B, 140x33, 1274127985388.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1126722

>>1126709
Agreement. Our friend Dawkins has many words to say on this matter in The God Delusion; there's no reason to believe that religion and science are totally separate as they both describe the same thing.

>> No.1126725

>>1126711
if god has no consequence, then what's the point.

>> No.1126727

>>1126717
I mean thats what dawkins does all day long so thats what dawkins fanboys would do all day long RIGHT?

>> No.1126731

>>1126711
If the god is involved in ANY way in the universe currently, and therefore isn't a deist god, then there are not two different issues. If this god produces something in the universe, science should be able to see it in some way at some time, now or in the future. Priests don't know shit about fuck.

>> No.1126732

here's my take, if god doesn't interact with us in a way that can be easily observed, then i see no reason to even bother with the question of whether he exists or not. and obviously, he doesn't interact with us in such a way.

sort of like describing the conditions before the big bang. the events before the BB have no observable effect on events after the BB. it's just useless information and a futile attempt to discern it.

>> No.1126733

>>1126707
you're not thinking, you're feeling. and your feeling don't make sense..

and i don't force atheism on my children, they aren't ready to think about that stuff.. still they can't go one day without some asshole showing spirituality down they're throats.

it's like spirituality = an open mind. that's not the case. spirituality = a dull mind. i want my kids sharp.

>> No.1126734

>>1126711
Why are they two different issues? Every god but the lazy, pointless deist god steps on science's toes SOMEHOW.

>> No.1126735

Agnostic here. Why? Because an assumption (atheism) based on science is still just an assumption.

>> No.1126736

if God doesn't exist why shouldn't i kill my neghbor and dump him in a septic tank?

>> No.1126739

>>1126587
this is the worst fucking mindset to every have.

theists say god exists
atheists say god doesn't exist
agnostics say they don't know

atheists attempting to include agnostics in their fucking pseudo-religion are as bad as any religion

>> No.1126743

>>1126735
0/10, read a fucking book you nigger.

>>1126736
Because that's not conducive to societal health, it's illegal, and if the only thing that holds you back from doing that is a god then you're an insane fucktard anyway. Kill yourself.

>> No.1126746

>>1126733
>they're = their
fuck

>> No.1126749

Fucking dammit. Why isn't this gone already? KEEP SAGING RELIGION/ATHEISM THREAD.

>> No.1126750

>>1126736
i know, that's why, as someone who does not believe in a god, i go out and rape children daily.

>> No.1126752

>>1126735
Do you belive, without the shadow of a doubt, that god exist?
It's a yes/no question..

>> No.1126754

God does exist.
I have just saw him flipping Burgers in Burger King!
I have da evidence!

trollface.jpg

>> No.1126756

>>1126739
you're wrong dude

>> No.1126757

>>1126752
Perhaps an agnostic does not answer the question. You may interpret it as you wish.

>> No.1126758

Fuck, I didn't think I'd have to explain to retarded agnostics what atheism is.

Theism is the acceptance of the notion that an interventionist god exists. Atheism is the rejection of that claim, NOT the acceptance of the claim that no god exists.

Being gnostic means you have knowledge of some kind. Being agnostic means you do not have said knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know that no gods exist, and I reject current claims that they do. You fucks are more infuriating than Christfags.

>> No.1126759

>>1126736
because it's not conducive to a productive society, which is basically why man invented religion, to give a better reason to act civilized than just "do it cause it's the right thing" eternal damnation is a way better motivator.

>> No.1126761

atheism is not scientific in principle. hell, sagan even referred to himself as agnostic. einstein a pantheist.

people who use science to justify atheism are fucking retarded.

>> No.1126764

>>1126739
>theists say god exists
>atheists people who are not theists
>agnostics are people who are not theists
wait..

>> No.1126766

>>1126759
How is this even relevant to the discussion? Just because a control mechanism is useful doesn't mean its tenants are true.

>> No.1126768

>>1126761
wrong again dude..

>> No.1126770

>>1126752

My hair is either black or blonde. Which do you believe it is?

You have no evidence, and cannot easily determine the truth. Which is it?

>> No.1126771

>>1126739
come on dude, no one is stupid enough to fall for that. no atheist is one of those gung-ho-100%-certain atheists, many of us are de facto.

>> No.1126775

>>1126766
you missed the point.

i never said anything on the validity of the methods, or the ideas espoused, i was just stating why you don't go around raping people just because some big man in the sky isn't looking over your shoulder.

>> No.1126776

>>1126754
Blasphemy

>> No.1126777

>>1126770
wrong.
it should be:
>My hair is definately blonde
>do you agree?

>> No.1126779

>>1126768
jesus christ you're a retard. science does not prove or disprove a god, nor does it give you reason to not believe in things that are unfounded. sure you can say god does not exist because there is no direct evidence, but the scientific method does not.

>> No.1126780

If elected moderator of /sci/, I promise that I will delete every religious debate thread on sight. Email moot@4chan.org with the headline "My son's name is also Bort for mod of /sci/" if you want to see an end to this plague on our most precious board.

>> No.1126783

>>1126775
I've been raging too much, I'm sorry. It's still a tangent, though a correct one.

>> No.1126786

>>1126777

Fine, us that. Now answer it.

>> No.1126787

>>1126776
Sorry.
God works in McDonals.

>> No.1126790

>>1126780
you can't be online 24/7

gtfo

>> No.1126791

>>1126780
A tripfag mod? Ugh.

>> No.1126793

>>1126779
science renders god useless
philosophical tenents says god doesn't exist
even the idea of god itself renders itself useless by it's very definition

>> No.1126794

>>1126759
productive society is hardly what i would call a world full of murder rape and robberies on every level of society

>> No.1126797

>>1126783
it's all good in the hood.


i tend to stay away from these threads, but sometimes the temptation is too great.

>> No.1126799

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

>> No.1126800

This debate is pointless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable.

>> No.1126802

>>1126794
they're still the minority of cases.

how many rapists and murderer's do you know personally?

not many, i'd wager.

>> No.1126803

>>1126786
it is not blonde, why would I belive it is? without evidence you asume a claim is false

>> No.1126809

>>1126780
They used to call me bort way back in the day on some old forum i used to post on

i hated them

>> No.1126810

>>1126800
How do you know that the claim that any god exists is unfalsifiable? Faggots in this thread saying that their god is immaterial and shit, yeah, that's unfalsifiable diarrhea donkey shit, but the blanket claim that any god can exist isn't inherently trivial.

>> No.1126811

>>1126802
they aren't going to exactly introduce themselves as such

>> No.1126812

>>1126791
Surely even if it's only the hours I'm available to patrol /sci/, I could make a significant difference in the quality of this board. That's why as of sometime soon, maybe after my finals are over, I'm starting a simple random sample of all the posts on /sci/ at any given time and seeing how many are in religious debate threads. It is my hope that when I present the data to moot he will understand that there is indeed a great problem on our board and a person willing to solve it.

That's why I urge you to email moot today, with the subject line "No, my son's name is also Bort !!ZHheTGO/uLa for mod of /sci/". For a better /sci/.

>> No.1126816

>>1126793
science renders nothing of anything

you really need to get off of dawkins dick and learn how to think scientifically

>> No.1126828

>>1126816
which scientific need does god scientifically fill?

>> No.1126837

>>1126810

Hell, if you'd like to render my statement false, and falsify the concept of God, please do so we can never have these topics again.

>> No.1126843

>>1126828
science provides us with directly testable laws and theories. gods existence, by some definitions of god, cannot be tested for. i agree that the god(s) of all todays religions, by literal interpretation, are disproved by reason. but the existence of a supernatural power is not.

its not a scientific question as to whether or not god exists.

>> No.1126845

>>1126837
I never said I could do it now. In fact I specifically stated that we could know in the future.

Again, how do you know that the existence of a god is necessarily an unfalsifiable claim? Burden of proof is on you, you're making the positive claim, don't try and shift it to me again.

>> No.1126848

Thou art God.

>> No.1126851

>>1126848
i'd subscribe to five percenter ideology

>> No.1126880

>>1126843
>its not a scientific question as to whether or not god exists.
That's what I mean. If you wanna know how something works, you never ask god, you ask science. That's not how it used to be.
If you wanna know metaphysical things you turn to philosophy where the burdon of proof eliminates god as an answer
And if you choose to force god as an answer to any given question, you left with no usable knowledge; god is by definition beyond our comprehension.

This mean god is pointless. God only "works" for people who chose to ignore large parts of reality, logic and even the very idea of god.

>> No.1126889

>>1126845

Unfalsifiability is negative to the positive of falsifiability dumbass

>> No.1126898

here's an idea. sciencefags get off dawkins dick, godfags get off jesus' dick


/thread

>> No.1126901
File: 12 KB, 243x183, 1235566367624.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1126901

>>1126889

>> No.1126911

>>1126851

Pantheistic Solipsism all the way.

>> No.1126967

>>1126607
i feel like dying after reading this

>> No.1126976

>>1126967
It explains why god isn't doing anything right now, and why he did do things in the past before the poles started switching.

>> No.1126978 [DELETED] 

>>1126376

tesdt[www]wdin[.]epic[anon]cucudmber[talk]carrot[.]ddog[se]ludlzb3b921c396a70337535ec8b93b035526

>> No.1126981 [DELETED] 

>>1126375

tesdt[www]wdin[.]epic[anon]cucudmber[talk]carrot[.]ddog[se]ludlz3a66d271c5eaa41bb5bca72a6731e70a

>> No.1126988

>>1126976
it also limits gods powers reducing him from being god to being a strong alien..

who'd worship a strong alien?

>> No.1127002

>>1126988
god was a god before the big bang.
but since time began at the big bang the laws of the universe bind him and prevent him from controling it.
I feel sorry for god. He created everything and now all he can do is watch as we make up shit to explain why everyone in this thread is a fag.

>> No.1127006 [DELETED] 

>>1126375

tesdt[www]wdin[.]epic[anon]cucudmber[talk]carrot[.]ddog[se]ludlz11dd2ea2702500cd9e510cc06f6eb66e

>> No.1127007

>>1126410
FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>> No.1127014

>>1126988

*raises hand*

>> No.1127016 [DELETED] 

>>1126374

tesdt[www]wdin[.]epic[anon]cucudmber[talk]carrot[.]ddog[se]ludlzf810c71dd6f15dcc06f8cf693588e9b5

>> No.1127033

Fucking retards everywhere ITT.

God = The creator of the universe and all life
The Big Bang created the universe and all of life. Therefore The Big Bang = God

0/10 to all of you. Fuck off.

>> No.1127108

OP,
Just by saying "you cannot prove that God exists", you have lost all of the respect of true scientists. You must always question your peer's findings and theories, and even question the most accepted theories and ideas of the community.

>> No.1127143

All science has proven is that the judeo/christian idea of a god is false.

/thread

>> No.1127152

>>1127143
>proven
You are wrong. Fuck. It hasn't been proven or disproven.

>> No.1127155

>>1127152
lol read a bible. look at world. see the difference

>> No.1127165

>>1127108

Words of real smart person

>> No.1127167

>>1127152
last i checked, praying doesn't work, and god doesn't talk to people.

>> No.1127168

>>1126378
WRONG
God Lives!

>> No.1127179
File: 4 KB, 109x126, 1228916215081s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1127179

>> No.1127180

ITT fail.

Christians: Provide proof god exists
Athiests: Provide proof god does not exist: many great theories (the atom for example) were around before they were proven to have existed (by einstein with brownian motion).

The only acceptible faith stances are:
Agnosticism
Pragmatic Atheism.
Pragmatic Agnosticism.

All faiths provide good guidelines on how to live your life.

You sure are shit /sci/

>> No.1127185

>>1127180
> All faiths provide good guidelines on how to live your life.

u mad

>> No.1127186

>>1127185
I refuse to call scientology a faith. Scientology is a cult.

>> No.1127189 [DELETED] 

>>1126376

tesdt[www]wdin[.]epic[anon]cucudmber[talk]carrot[.]ddog[se]ludlza3d79cf3c38fbfde8cfab87a78e642f8

>> No.1127201

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYsTlbDLvkg
Enjoy the indoctrination.

>> No.1127214

>>1127186
Jehovah's wittnes, Mormons, Islam.
The world of religion is a world of shit.

>> No.1127220

>>1127214
ok bro. not all muslims blow themselves up in kike shopping malls. you're taking the exception and making the rule.

>> No.1127221

>>1127214
Islam is based on what is essentially the old testament.

Mormons are basically a variant of christian

Jehovas witness are basically a variant of catholicism

>> No.1127222

>>1127220
But still they belive in shit.
I won't tolerate that.
At least they are not christians.

>> No.1127224

>>1127214
>I judge the world of religion and swear by science, yet I know nothing of either of these

I just wrote your last words.

>> No.1127226

>>1127222
you're no better than the christfags that won't tolerate evolution in their schools.

if i remember correctly there is a passage in the koran and tells you lrn2science or gtfo

>> No.1127228

>>1127224

Well who wants to be brainwashed to believe jewish fairy tales?

>> No.1127230

>>1127226
I hate muslims, because I have to.
Nothing personal.

>> No.1127233

>>1127228
Yeah. You should probably learn about religion and science before you

Consider the discovery of the atom, particularly the invention of quantum mechanics. It troubled many of the conservatives - including Einstein - particularly the notion of quantum jumping. It took young, fresh minds, who were free of the shackles of accepted thought to come up with something so daring and radical.

>> No.1128347

200 fucking posts? Really?

/sci/ asks for it. We deserve all the trollin we get.

>> No.1129154

There are hundreds of reasons and I could list them all.

>> No.1129174

>>1126375

http://tinyurl.com/2c6m48e epic lulz 89261e7488ae31fba191420c79247574