Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 141 KB, 989x600, 037603769.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11917530 No.11917530 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>the faith-based theist
takes the existence of god as axiomatic. although they have good intuition, they do a terrible job of justifying it

>the atheist
grows an inflated sense of intelligence by debunking the dimwitted arguments of the faith-based theist. as a result, they confidently make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bath water, claiming that god does not exist. and despite being proponents of logic and science, they take a position that is inherently paradoxical. it's a claim that reality lacks a coherent metaphysical identity (god). a statement which is metaphysical by construction – i.e., which refers to nature or physical reality from above, occupying a higher level of reference - cannot be true where it explicitly denies its own metaphysical support. it implicitly affirms its own truth while denying its own truth

>the nontheist
is not arrogant like the atheist. they realize they do not currently have the knowledge to take a position, so they reserve the possibility for the existence of god

>the logical theist
uses logic and mathematics to reason from first principles to prove reality holds certain properties, which fits the traditional definition of god. such as, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.

>> No.11917566
File: 20 KB, 480x468, 1533064965948.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11917566

There's no such thing as logical theism.
However, the stupidity value of atheism is equal to the stupidity value of all other potential religions, factorial.

Proof:
I. To say a God exists is to assert something that is by definition unprovable. That's the whole point of "God." It's not provable either way.
II. To say a God DOESN'T exist is asserting an infinity of things that are all by definition unprovable.

The stupidity value of atheism is ∞!

>> No.11917573
File: 38 KB, 640x360, homer at home.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11917573

Boy, everyone is stupid except me.

>> No.11917584

>>11917566
>There's no such thing as logical theism.
yes there is, it's arguing for the existence of god with a priori reasoning.

>> No.11917590

>>11917573
Esoteric homerism is truly the final redpill

>> No.11917593

God could exist.

But the being described by the ancient jews in their fables is just a mirror to their violent,primitive culture.

The Creator would be far more ineffable and more morally rational than what they depict.

>> No.11917602

>>11917584
What's the point of trying to prove something that's unprovable by definition? That doesn't even make sense.

>> No.11917612

why do you always say shit like
"they leave the possibility open for the existence of god"
but never "they leave the possibility open for the non-existence of god"

Also omniscience is contradictory, the Halting problem still exists

>> No.11917625

>>11917566
>To say a God exists is to assert something that is by definition unprovable
you can definitely prove that god exists, defined as the identity of reality, holding properties common to major religions. in fact, it has already been done. it's called the cognitive theoretic model of the universe. it's formulated as an ontological tautology, meaning that it is necessarily true. to claim otherwise would entail a logical contradiction or would mean reality is intelligible

>> No.11917639

>>11917612
>they leave the possibility open for the existence of god
probability = 1
they leave the possibility open for the non-existence of god
probability = 0

I'm not OP but halting problem doesn't undermine the godtard world view, it supports it.

>> No.11917645

>>11917612
>why do you always say shit like
>"they leave the possibility open for the existence of god"
>but never "they leave the possibility open for the non-existence of god"
because it was being contrasted with atheism. of course this is also true

>>11917602
see
>>11917625

>> No.11917647

>>11917625
>defined as the identity of reality
Lol.

>> No.11917648

>>11917625
>you can definitely prove that god exists
Do it then, because I think you are talking shit

>> No.11917655

>>11917625
you cannot prove that anything exists at all, theres something called the Analytic Synthetic distinction
Logic cannot be used to prove anything in the real world, thats why we always need to do experiments no matter how good our theory
You must DEMONSTRATE things in the real world, since you cannot PROVE them

>> No.11917656
File: 214 KB, 1280x1024, 1137646805113.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11917656

>>11917645
>formulated as an ontological tautology
Fucking Lol^Lol

>> No.11917657

>>11917625
unintelligible*

>> No.11917663

>>11917648
maybe if you read further

>the cognitive theoretic model of the universe

>> No.11917668

>>11917663
>>11917655
maybe if you read further
or knew anything about logic

>> No.11917679

>>11917663
I read further and got a face full of jargon and schizobabble, I want you to express yourself in English so that your views can be challenged.

>> No.11917691
File: 370 KB, 1280x1080, 1574537054568.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11917691

Note also that any "atheists" who don't positively affirm that there's no God aren't really atheists, they're agnostics.

>> No.11917714

>>11917612
>Also omniscience is contradictory, the Halting problem still exists

can be solved by showing that self-reference is ubiquitous, and thus that there is no problem on the global level of structure. in other words, it shows that all of the specific “self-reference problems” that have arisen involve particular (non-general) features or assumptions, are globally unnecessary, and can be solved within reality at large by dispensing with these features and/or assumptions. It simply isn’t necessary to proscribe self-reference or self-inclusion in general (as in ZF), or engage in heavy semantic manipulation to avoid it (as in NGB); one need merely be careful.

>>11917655
>you cannot prove that anything exists
you commit yourself to the “claim” of reality, analytic or synthetic as it may be, by mentioning “reality” as a legitimate topic of discourse (actually, you’re given the existence of both the analytic and synthetic aspects of reality from birth). on the other hand, to avoid the claim that reality exists as reality, you need to avoid any mention of reality at all, in which case you’re in no position to discuss a theory of reality, otherwise you cannot identify or comprehend anything let alone form a coherent objection to it

>> No.11917721
File: 41 KB, 374x374, 1 - D8CRtMS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11917721

>>11917714
bruh

>> No.11917743

>>11917679
the CTMU is in English. ignorance of terms is no excuse. i'm not sure why you're even interested in challenging my views when you don't even understand them.

>> No.11917749
File: 38 KB, 362x346, 2 - CjcQBE6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11917749

>>11917743

>> No.11917752

>>11917691
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

>> No.11917804

>>11917743
>i'm not sure why you're even interested in challenging my views when you don't even understand them.
I'm trying to understand them so that I can challenge them, I know you are wrong because you are arguing the existence of a God, but I can't prove you wrong until I can figure out what you are actually trying to say

>> No.11917815

>>11917752
Lol. Use whatever word combo you want to describe it, but “negative atheism” is literally just agnosticism. What an idiotic cope. Atheists are really the dumbest fuckers on the planet.

>> No.11917849

>>11917804
you apparently know something is wrong, yet you admittedly don't even understand it. do you not see the issue with this reasoning? hint: confirmation bias

>> No.11917860
File: 2.50 MB, 1920x1080, 3 - oXSwdRI.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11917860

>>11917849

>> No.11917862

>>11917849
I'm still waiting for you to actually make your argument

>> No.11917879

I'm agnostic because that's the only real sound position.

However, let's all be honest. Atheism fucking sucks. You live and die for no reason then you decay into fucking dust for no reason at all.

The idea of grand intelligence, with the potential of some kind of metaphysical arc to existence is quite compelling. The idea that such ideas even enter our heads at all as an intuitive development in human consciousness is fascinating in itself. Almost all of our other intuitions seem quite based in basic fact and experience. Perhap by some random great cosmic irony/joke, whether god exists or not, it is a psychological concept that is essential to maintaining sanity? Perhaps humans will one day to be the cosmic gods we dreamt of, with blackhole generators powering vast reality altering machines.

>> No.11917893

>>11917862
i already cited it. the CTMU

i could explain it in easier terms, but you have already concluded that i am wrong

>>11917860
have a question?

>> No.11917902

>>11917893
>CTMU
nothing to do with proof or disproof of any god you abject twat

>> No.11917907
File: 10 KB, 370x320, 4 - 4XTFNGL.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11917907

>>11917893
>have a question?
yeah, why do you suck at making arguments
the CTMU has been a meme around sci for years because of how nonsensical it is
unless you want to actually outright defend the CTMU instead of just referencing it no one is going to waste their time on it
also >>11917902

>> No.11917928

>>11917893
>i could explain it in easier terms,
Yes do this, I want to hear it as you understand it, in your own words.

>> No.11917940

>>11917879
>You live and die for no reason then you decay into fucking dust for no reason at all.
yes it is a very bleak position

>>11917902
yes and reality is unintelligible

>> No.11917982

>>11917879
>The idea of grand intelligence, with the potential of some kind of metaphysical arc to existence is quite compelling.
I honestly don't get this, what about it is so compelling to people? It's just woo as far as I can tell

>> No.11917998

>>11917928
from the name itself: it is the unification of cognitive theory, the universe, and model. cognitive theory is the description of the universe as a set of perceptions. the model is the mapping of the universe and theory

>> No.11918027

>>11917982
Well an afterlife or reincarnation is more reassuring than an nihilistic nothing. The amount of mental gymnastics that people perform to keep that in their belief system is understandable.

As far as grand intelligence, there is a lot of mystery about the universe that leads to that idea coming up now and again
See Ed Witten's brief thoughts on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Zl9o7I4Fo

>> No.11918046

>>11917998
What does this "unification" and "mapping" actually involve, and how does that prove the existence of a God?

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action