[ 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: 188 KB, 688x1434, 1264947407001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1344806 No.1344806 [Reply] [Original]

Give me any scientific reason to believe in god.

No logical fallacies or something like "hurr we cant prove it exists so it must exist"

This thread is cancer but I just want to point out that there is no logical, scientific or natural basis on your believes, thats why we call it supernatural.

Everything we know about this universe is natural.
Supernatural does not exist.

>> No.1344813

>This thread is cancer

Quite so.

>> No.1344817

How about this theory (a geuss)?

The OP is a faggot.

>> No.1344825

>>1344813
>>1344817
very good arguments

>> No.1344841

>>1344817
RoboMendel ##shotgun

>> No.1344845

>>1344841

fucking owned

>> No.1344864

>>1344841
Do mine!

>> No.1344874

COME ON DUDE GUESS MINE

>> No.1344884

I'm a huge faggot please rape my face.

>> No.1344889

>>1344841
Dude, did you buy a million Fermis and build a tripcode breaker?

>> No.1344896

Oh no how did this get here i am not good with computer

>> No.1344899

What is this?

>> No.1344905

Religion has always picked up where science leaves off. The problems begin when science advances enough to answer questions religion has already "answered".

>> No.1344901

>>1344889
Actually, since it's a secure tripcode RoboMendel's using, I'm willing to bet "4chan's frendly tripcode revealer" is actually just RoboMendel themselves.

>> No.1344912

>>1344901
I can factor large primes using palmistry.

>> No.1344932

lol

>> No.1344943

>>1344864
>>1344899
Can't do yours. Or mine.

>> No.1344958

ITT: People that think they understand the concept of "God" when even religiousfags admit to not understanding the concept of "God".

Also

>mfw People think they can prove/disprove a transcendent idea with less then transcendent means.

You either can prove something, you cannot prove something,

...or there is just not enough information at this time to make a rational conclusion.

>> No.1344965

>>1344958
>transcendent idea
reactionimage.tar.7z.rar

>> No.1344974

>>1344965

Well yeah, thats what the idea of a deity is....

If we could prove the existance of a deity or disprove the existence of a deity, then the deity in question is not a deity at all.

>> No.1344983

how this happen i dont even

>> No.1344986

>>1344974
No I reaction image'd because you managed to use that phrase and keep a straight face. Or trolled.

>> No.1344997

>>1344986

Please explain where there was even the idea of a troll in this thread, besides the actual creation of this thread.

>> No.1345005

>>1344986

Oh I see, you are implying that a transcendent idea is an oxymoron.

>> No.1345168
File: 118 KB, 800x530, AtheistMotivation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1345168

>>1344806

>Give me any scientific reason to believe in god.

There is no sceintific prove of god.

But there is no sceintific evidence in the BELIEVE that laws of nature ARE being consant at any time under any circumstances, on any scale either.
since we don`t see/understand laws of nature on the smallest scale for example.
Declaring it constant is just as obscure as declaring a flying spaghetti monster does exists. Maybe there aren`t even laws on the smalest scale.

Besides that, one can`t even prove if he or the universe is real, in which case laws of nature are just an illusion.

See sceince alone can not be enough to form a grounded and stable consideration, one has to believe at least something.

Believing appears to be the destiny of a human, so why swim against the tie, and fallow a verry unlikely logic.

>Everything we know about this universe is natural.
i defie natural as "something not influenced by human". So even God would be called a natural phenomenon.

>> No.1345234

>>1345168
this here
godwin

>> No.1345289

there are no christfags on /sci/...

>> No.1345316 [DELETED] 

bump

>> No.1345336

>>1345168

What the hell are you talking about?

>> No.1345351

>>1345336
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/#H1

>> No.1345356
File: 44 KB, 475x316, gerbils goebbels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1345356

>>1345168
yea, ok, so; no evidence against solipsistic fantasy, true. But even within fantassy, imagined science has stronger argument for it than anything else (at least in mine.)
What on earth do you even mean?
Are you in high school? I bet you're in high school.

>> No.1345379

>>1345351
you seem to be confusing a lack of absolute proof with "hurr durr just speculation, why not guess anything."

Everything KNOWABLE indicates science being as consistent with the laws of nature as possible, at least, relative to the laws necessary to prove spag monst or anything else non science.

>> No.1345421

A "creator" exists and he is God in this realm and is limited by his own mind.

You don't pick up a copy of MegaMan and demand proof of a creator. Only an idiot would think that it was without being behind it.

The regulations of a universe in an abstract space are always arbitrated.

>> No.1345422

If a creator is required to create, then he cannot not exist by virtue that you can read this.

>> No.1345434

>>1345421
MegaMan wasn't created, he arose naturally through physical laws.

>> No.1345443

>>1345379

Yes but how does the scientific method and its laws apply to something/a concept whose definition is something not defined/unable to be quantified by natural laws.

Basically, if you can prove/disprove a deity by using the laws of nature/human perception.... then the object in question is not a deity at all.

Religion is the manifestation of this idea via human interpretation and for the most part, it is flawed.

Trying to interpret the concept of "God" using the laws that which we are governed by is like trying to diagnose diseases with a protractor.

Read Fyodor Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor"

This man makes an argument that Religion Kills God.

>> No.1345464
File: 32 KB, 320x320, atheism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1345464

this, more or less

if the world is finitely old, then physical things and physical rules had to have a beginning, and since they're natural things, they have to have a cause.

if the world is infinitely old, then it is still a contingent thing. it exists, but it could just as well not exist, so there has to be a reason that the world exists instead of not existing, and since an infinitely old world has no beginning and wasn't created, how this reason is composed is unclear

>> No.1345467

What we know, we know through observations. Our theories are also the product of observations. You can't believe something exists without a physical observation that points to its existence.
Unlike the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang theory, there are precisely zero observations in the universe as we know it that point to the existence of an all powerful creator.

A lack of proof does not mean it doesn't exist, but why the fuck should we think it does without a single shred of observed evidence?
I theorize that the world was created by a floating hippie bus filled with gay cephalopods. HEY! JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN JUST DISPROVE MY THEORY!