Hasn't gotten any closer to it's goal in the past 70 years, should we just get rid of this field?

File: 42 KB, 404x316, 3baf41145419579.Y3JvcCwxMzgwLDEwODAsMjcwLDA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Hasn't gotten any closer to it's goal in the past 70 years, should we just get rid of this field? Anonymous Mon Sep 19 22:49:28 2022 No.14860270 [Reply] [Original]

Seems like the more we learn about life, the more implausible abiogenesis becomes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 22:52:57 2022 No.14860278 File: 26 KB, 486x486, Stuart_Kauffman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14860270 not impossible, it's just we need we need a new kind of physics to discover it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 22:53:02 2022 No.14860279 >>14860270 Spontaneous generation was disproved in the 18th century. I don't know why people insisted it would happen if you stirred the sealed jar just right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 22:55:38 2022 No.14860288 >>14860278 i.e. something that delves beyond the material, into the realm of the soul. The immaterial soul that drives life and the material are inseparable, they are two aspects of the same substance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 22:57:23 2022 No.14860291 >>14860278 Discover what? We have all the chemicals necessary for life at our disposal, they just don't gravitate towards life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 22:59:00 2022 No.14860297 They should posit hypothetical dark aliens that made life

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:01:18 2022 No.14860301 >>14860291 Contra the current zeitgeist, biology is not just applied chemistry. That's my point. And I'm not suggesting anything religious at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:06:51 2022 No.14860314 >>14860297 They tried that with panspermia. "There's no way for life to originate HERE, but maybe we can kick the can down the road to pretend God isn't real!!!"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:11:48 2022 No.14860322 File: 46 KB, 750x600, MUexperiment.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14860279 >people who know nothing about anything related to the board come to /sci/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:12:10 2022 No.14860324 >>14860297 Kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:12:50 2022 No.14860326 >>14860322 No amount of excitation of a sealed, sterilized jar has ever produced life. This is settled science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:14:17 2022 No.14860331 File: 8 KB, 474x223, Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14860270 Why do you lie? Because you're a beLIEver. Those who learn about life are more likely to be atheists than those who don't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:14:57 2022 No.14860333 >>14860331 Who are "scientists?" Can we get a breakdown by category?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:23:58 2022 No.14860359 >>14860326 UREY MILLER experiment, you're seriously delusional lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:25:59 2022 No.14860362 >>14860359 Using man-made methods to produce amino acids in a soup of their components is evidence of intelligent intervention, not spontaneous generation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:30:47 2022 No.14860370 >>14860279 Now it's given a new, more sciency name and we pretend that it's another theory.

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:36:55 2022 No.14860383
File: 821 KB, 841x1271, phys dot org rna glass.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14860270
What are you talking about? It got closer this very summer.

>https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2022.0027
>https://www.science.org/content/article/did-volcanic-glasses-help-spark-early-life
>https://phys.org/news/2022-06-scientists-breakthrough-life-earthand-mars.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:37:56 2022 No.14860385 >>14860322 Nobody these days tries to argue lightning struck a pond anymore bro, outdated

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:41:49 2022 No.14860399 >>14860297 lol, lmao even

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:44:29 2022 No.14860405

>>14860322
>look, we synthesized some amino acids using specialized laboratory equipment under controlled conditions!
>this PROVES abiogenesis
I hate how every texbook jerks off over this retarded experiment. You might as well say Wöhler and Kolbe's syntheses proved abiogenesis by making organic compounds from nothing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:47:13 2022 No.14860411 File: 165 KB, 671x535, scientists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14860333 Why the stupid questions? Ah, right, because you are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:47:19 2022 No.14860412 >>14860405 It's the latest atheist materialism cope. They'll jerk off over anything that allows them to get rid of the nuisance of intelligent life, even if it's completely specious.

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:50:21 2022 No.14860420

>>14860411
So a minority of scientists in the physical sciences are hard atheists. Thank you.

“According to an old saying, the first gulp from the cup of knowledge is separating us from God, but on the bottom of the cup God is waiting for those who search for him.” - Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 23:57:26 2022 No.14860430 >>14860420 I wanted to answer, but stay safe from traumatic information, you good but silly lamb or sheep.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 00:03:07 2022 No.14860434 File: 85 KB, 687x516, soyence experiment.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14860411 >chemistry, the king of all sciences is highest not surprising, would be interesting to see what the math autists believe in.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 00:57:00 2022 No.14860490 File: 1.45 MB, 3840x2160, 1661209823280198.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14860322 If your definition of life is one molecule required for life, then I can make life by exploging a hydrogen balloon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 01:08:06 2022 No.14860504 >>14860430 You had to combine physics and astronomy to get even one discipline where the amount of atheists was a couple percentage points higher than the amount of theists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:08:32 2022 No.14860738 >>14860270 >should we just get rid of this field? >the more we learn about life What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:32:04 2022 No.14860774 >>14860270 >Hasn't gotten any closer to it's goal in the past 70 years Why are you lying? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35546190/

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:37:04 2022 No.14860783 >>14860291 Boiling water has all the chemicals necessary for ice but doesn't gravitate towards ice. You're an idiot.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:38:45 2022 No.14860785

>>14860783
That's not really the point, but you're almost there. Boiling water could freeze if the conditions changed to allow it to, but no known set of conditions present anywhere in nature allows for the spontaneous generation of life from organic molecules.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:42:08 2022 No.14860792

>>14860362
>Using man-made methods to produce amino acids in a soup of their components is evidence of intelligent intervention
What intervention? The "man-made methods" are to reproduce a past state from which precursors of life can naturally occur. .

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:44:41 2022 No.14860799 >>14860504 Why does scientific expertise dramatically reduce belief in God?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:45:52 2022 No.14860802 >>14860792 The "past state" is a closed system inside sterilized glassware with an extremely high voltage current blasting through it. Find me one world in the universe where the entire surface is glassware and electrodes and I'll concede the point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:45:53 2022 No.14860803 File: 15 KB, 323x570, 2413.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14860799 >scientific expertise dramatically reduce belief in God Source?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:46:53 2022 No.14860806 >>14860799 Materialism is the dominant religion in the sciences right now. It used to be Catholicism, but times change.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:48:25 2022 No.14860810 >>14860806 yes, IQs went way down

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:48:35 2022 No.14860812

>>14860785
>That's not really the point
Yes, you missed the point by ignoring the specific conditions under which life formed. The same chemicals will do different things under different conditions and different timeframes.

>but no known set of conditions present anywhere in nature allows for the spontaneous generation of life from organic molecules.
The set of conditions prior to life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:50:02 2022 No.14860815 >>14860803 See >>14860331 and >>14860411 Do you have short term memory loss?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:50:23 2022 No.14860819 >>14860812 You assume that life started this way, therefore it must start this way. It's a tautology, not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:51:34 2022 No.14860820 >>14860815 >Do you have short term memory loss? No, I just got here, and predictably, your pics don't actually support your claim. lol. Try again?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:51:37 2022 No.14860821 >>14860802 >The "past state" is a closed system inside sterilized glassware with an extremely high voltage current blasting through it. No, that's a reproduction of a past state. Learn how to read.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:53:44 2022 No.14860823 >>14860806 >Materialism is the dominant religion in the sciences right now. Why is materialism so much more successful at making predictions than immaterial models?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:54:20 2022 No.14860825 >>14860823 >Why is materialism so much more successful at making predictions Materialism doesn't make any predictions. It's yesterday's metaphysical dogma.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 03:55:56 2022 No.14860828 >>14860823 It hasn't delivered on the creation of the universe or on the origin of life and consciousness so it seems pretty bunk.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:05:33 2022 No.14860841 >>14860820 >your pics don't actually support your claim How so?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:06:33 2022 No.14860842 >>14860819 >You assume that life started this way No I don't, it's just the best explanation we have.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:08:07 2022 No.14860849 >>14860825 >Materialism doesn't make any predictions. Every successful scientific model is materialist. Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:08:45 2022 No.14860851 >>14860841 It doesn't establish anything about the cause. Your reactions are actually pretty funny because they in and of themselves demonstrate my point that rationality and scientific thinking has nothing to do with atheism.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:10:11 2022 No.14860855

>>14860849
>Every successful scientific model is materialist.
No scientific model depends on materialism. Models that deal with matter naturally assume that matter exist, but they don't say anything about matter being the fundamental substance, or the only substance.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:12:22 2022 No.14860857

>>14860828
>It hasn't delivered on the creation of the universe
How do you know it was created?

>or on the origin of life
It delivers all the time. See >>14860774

>consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience

And nothing you wrote even responds to what I said. There are no immaterial scientific theories doing the same or better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:15:10 2022 No.14860862 >>14860802 >sterilized Everywhere is sterlized prior to life

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:16:20 2022 No.14860864 >>14860851 >It doesn't establish anything about the cause So you're saying an alternative is belief in God makes people less rational and less scientific? OK... that's worse.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:17:46 2022 No.14860869

>>14860504
>Scientists are extremely more likely than the general public to be atheists
>Scientists are still from that public and thus live a lifetime of exposure to and early bombardment with religious indoctrination
>Haha, they aren't mostly atheists! Checkmate! God is real!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:18:37 2022 No.14860871 >>14860864 I'm saying your pics don't establish what it is about putting young adults in an atheist-infested institution that makes them atheist. I'm also saying you have zero capacity for critical thought or desire to find out the truth. :^)

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:23:38 2022 No.14860878

>>14860855
>No scientific model depends on materialism.
Right, only the successful models depend on materialism, for some reason.

>Models that deal with matter naturally assume that matter exist, but they don't say anything about matter being the fundamental substance, or the only substance.
So what? Models also don't explicitly say unicorns don't exist. Something unmentioned by any successful model is just superfluous and nonexistent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:24:15 2022 No.14860880 >>14860878 >So what? So you directly concede that none of them depend on materialism being true. lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:26:08 2022 No.14860882 >>14860869 Becoming an academic requires 8-12 years of bombardment with materialist propaganda, which you must repeat in order to get your advisors to like you.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:26:23 2022 No.14860883

>>14860871
>I'm saying your pics don't establish what it is about putting young adults in an atheist-infested institution that makes them atheist
Why is the institution dominated by atheists in the first place? You just kicked the can down the road.

>I'm also saying you have zero capacity for critical thought or desire to find out the truth.
That's funny coming from a person who dogmatically rejects science.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:27:45 2022 No.14860886

>>14860883
>Why is the institution dominated by atheists in the first place?
Who knows? Your picture doesn't say anything about that, either. lol

>That's funny coming from a person who dogmatically rejects science.
Show me where I rejected science. Why are you lashing out at imaginary characters in your head?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:27:45 2022 No.14860885 >>14860880 >So you directly concede that none of them depend on materialism being true. Oh boy, you're illiterate. How are "the successful models" = "none of them."

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:29:00 2022 No.14860890
File: 60 KB, 440x428, 324234.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14860885
>How are "the successful models" = "none of them."
Because when I point out that none of them depend on matter being the fundamental substance, or the only substance (i.e. none of them depend on materialism being true), your only response is "so what".

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:30:36 2022 No.14860894

>>14860882
>Becoming an academic requires 8-12 years of bombardment with materialist propaganda
Scientific theories are not propaganda. You're confusing them with your religious dogma you were indoctrinated with and unquestionably follow. No matter how hard you try, empirical reality will never be equivalent to your fairy tales.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:34:35 2022 No.14860904 >>14860886 >Who knows? Everyone but you. There is no evidence for God. >Show me where I rejected science. So you accept abiogenesis. Great.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:37:17 2022 No.14860910 >>14860904 So no actual data to prove your claims? Okay.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:39:22 2022 No.14860913

>>14860894
I'm not talking about scientific theories, I'm talking about Materialism. Science doesn't depend on Materialism, but Atheist Materialist professors will often fish for religious sentiment to weed people out of further progress in graduate school.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:40:23 2022 No.14860914 >>14860904 >So you accept abiogenesis. Great. The consensus is that abiogenesis is astronomically unlikely and that most experiments aren't properly replicating the early climate of Earth with any rigor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:41:30 2022 No.14860918 >>14860913 The malevolent drone knows what you're talking about. It's simply programmed to try to frustrate and stifle you. You should keep that in mind and not waste your energy trying to reason with it.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:41:33 2022 No.14860919

>>14860890
>Because when I point out that none of them depend on matter being the fundamental substance, or the only substance (i.e. none of them depend on materialism being true), your only response is "so what".
Again you prove your illiteracy. That was my response to a different statement. My response to that statement was that every successful model depends on materialism. The Standard Model doesn't include unicorns and ghosts, because they don't exist.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:43:20 2022 No.14860923
File: 279 KB, 1120x935, 3243554.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14860919
>That was my response to a different statement.
Here's the statement in question.
>Models that deal with matter naturally assume that matter exist, but they don't say anything about matter being the fundamental substance, or the only substance
lol

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:45:17 2022 No.14860926

>>14860913
>I'm not talking about scientific theories
Yes, you are. No scientist is bombarded with 8-12 years of metaphysics.

>Science doesn't depend on Materialism
Science doesn't depend on the Earth being round, it just happens to be true.

>Atheist Materialist professors will often fish for religious sentiment to weed people out of further progress in graduate school.
Proof?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:46:02 2022 No.14860929 >>14860926 Jew.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:46:18 2022 No.14860930 >>14860910 You were already given the data. Thanks for admitting there is no evidence of God and abiogenesis is true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:47:20 2022 No.14860933 >>14860914 Source?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:47:22 2022 No.14860934 >>14860918 True. Logic doesn't work on ideologues.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:48:23 2022 No.14860936 >>14860933 Scientific consensus.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:52:14 2022 No.14860945

>>14860930
>You were already given the data.
You've already conceded that the data doesn't say anything about exactly why impressionable kids who attend atheist-infested institutions and get subjected to atheist intelletual authorities become atheists. You just blurted something about how "everyone knows why", and I think that's true. Everyone does know what your long-nosed tribe is doing. :^)

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:53:38 2022 No.14860948

>>14860923
>Here's the statement in question.
No, that's different from what you described. You said:

>>So you directly concede that none of them depend on materialism being true.
This corresponds to
>>No scientific model depends on materialism.
>Right, only the successful models depend on materialism, for some reason.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:55:18 2022 No.14860950 >>14860948 >No, that's different No, it isn't. >>14860878 >>but they don't say anything about matter being the fundamental substance, or the only substance. >So what? So thanks for conceding.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:55:45 2022 No.14860952 >>14860929 Not an argument. Thanks for conceding you were talking about scientific theories, materialism is true, and you lied about professors weeding out the religious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:56:28 2022 No.14860954 >>14860952 Thanks for conceding that the holocaust was a hoax and Hitler was right.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:57:51 2022 No.14860955 >>14860936 Not a source. Thanks for admitting you lied about the consensus and that you dogmatically reject science.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:58:11 2022 No.14860956

>>14860894
>Scientific theories are not propaganda.
Sure? I can tell you some were it is clearly the case. A scientific theory is usually not propaganda, but some are.
The whole scientific process is materialistic to achieve materialistic goals. It's overwhelming successful in that but has limitations. Origin of live is one of them. Live is way to complicated to found the reasons by methods of science. Even if you can build a simple liveform it is always a remake with methods made up by an higher organised one. Further science is soulless. E.g. you can't find out the meaning of let's say Beethoven's 9th with Fourier Analysis and any other scientific method, and that's just human realm.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:58:14 2022 No.14860957 >>14860954 / thread

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:59:44 2022 No.14860959

>>14860945
>You've already conceded that the data doesn't say anything about exactly why impressionable kids who attend atheist-infested institutions and get subjected to atheist intelletual authorities become atheists.
Where?

>You just blurted something about how "everyone knows why"
Actually I said everyone but you knows, and the reason is there is no evidence for God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 04:59:54 2022 No.14860961 >>14860959 jew

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:02:23 2022 No.14860965 >>14860955 >Not a source. Thanks for admitting you lied about the consensus and that you dogmatically reject science. That's dangerous, anti-vax talk anon. You might be a right-wing stochastic terrorist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:02:27 2022 No.14860967 >>14860959 >Where? Here: >>14860883 That's nothing more than a thinly-vieled concession. lol

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:07:54 2022 No.14860976

>>14860950
>No, it isn't.
It is. Notice how your original second statement doesn't say anything about "depend:"

>Models that deal with matter naturally assume that matter exist, but they don't say anything about matter being the fundamental substance, or the only substance.

Only your first statement said that:

>No scientific model depends on materialism

Again we see your illiteracy. You conflate two different statements. All successful models are materialist. Something which is not part of any successful model is nonexistent.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:10:07 2022 No.14860978

>>14860976
>your original second statement doesn't say anything about "depend:"
LOL. So you concede that no relevant scientific theories claim matter is fundamental, or that it is the only substance, but you feel they somehow depend on it being true? Okay, give me an example of a scientific theory that would empirically fail if materialism was false. :^)

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:14:10 2022 No.14860984

>>14860956
>I can tell you some were it is clearly the case.
Telling and proving are two different things.

>The whole scientific process is materialistic to achieve materialistic goals.
What is a materialistic goal?

>Origin of live is one of them. Live is way to complicated to found the reasons by methods of science.
Proof? This is just your religious dogma.

>Even if you can build a simple liveform it is always a remake with methods made up by an higher organised one.
Nope, the point is always to reproduce natural conditions.

>Further science is soulless.
So are you.

>E.g. you can't find out the meaning of let's say Beethoven's 9th with Fourier Analysis and any other scientific method
No need to, just ask the artist. Complicated procedures are not needed for simple questions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:15:11 2022 No.14860986 >>14860961 Not an argument. Thanks for conceding you lied.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:16:12 2022 No.14860987 >>14860967 How?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:25:54 2022 No.14861003

>>14860978
>So you concede that no relevant scientific theories claim matter is fundamental
Where did I concede that? You're actually illiterate. Of course the Standard Model says matter is fundamental.

>give me an example of a scientific theory that would empirically fail if materialism was false.
If materialism was false, there would be a successful theory that was immaterial. There is none, because materialism is true.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:28:21 2022 No.14861008
File: 1.10 MB, 1000x499, Screenshot+2022-08-10+at+15.58.02.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14860270
>Seems like the more we learn about life, the more implausible abiogenesis becomes.
its the contrary, pleb. It's just your fear, that keeps you in denial.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:29:32 2022 No.14861012 >>14861003 Notice how you can't provide any examples of a theory that would fail if materialism was false.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:30:47 2022 No.14861015 >>14861008 >its the contrary, pleb Then how come I only ever see your position spouted by YouTube-educater redditors?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:32:45 2022 No.14861020 >>14860785 Look up proteinoid microspheres. Semi-ceullular structures that can perform a certain degree of homeostasis, division and can form instantly in volcanic environments

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:37:35 2022 No.14861036 >>14861015 do you actually dig into research on the topic or do you just watch a bunch of youtube? that could explain your experiences.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 05:40:32 2022 No.14861043 >>14861036 >do you actually dig into research on the topic Yes. Now show me what competent researcher thinks they have it figured out. Protip: I said "competent researcher" not, "popular YouTuber".

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 06:30:47 2022 No.14861098 >>14861008 Molecular biology killed materialism. Stay stuck in the 1800s when people thought the cell was a globule of jelly if you'd like, but don't pretend modern science has helped materialist in any way, rather it has destroyed it.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 06:39:05 2022 No.14861103
File: 79 KB, 995x332, 53243.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14861098
20th century scientific discoveries BTFO materialism so hard they had to rebrand it as some vague and nebulous "physicalism", which conveniently fails to explain what fundamental characteristics something needs to have in order to be "physical".

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 08:43:58 2022 No.14861245 >>14860806 Wrong, that is a belief, is not a religion. A religion requires a covenant with the divine.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 08:48:13 2022 No.14861253 >>14861245 They worship Satan, does that count?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 08:48:15 2022 No.14861254 >>14860270 Wrong. Over a sufficiently long time, random fluctuations could cause particles to spontaneously form literally any structure of any degree of complexity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 08:49:49 2022 No.14861255 >>14861245 >ummm sweaty??? all the bad things about religion apply to my worldview but it's not ACKCHUALLY a religion Non-autistic non-retards define "religion" functionally, and the functional definition says you're a religious zealot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 08:54:38 2022 No.14861259 >>14861254 The universe, however, is not a closed system and solar radiation destroys the components of life shortly after forming if they're not contained within a cell.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 08:56:01 2022 No.14861261
File: 79 KB, 471x519, 54345.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14861254
>Over a sufficiently long time, random fluctuations could cause particles to spontaneously form literally any structure of any degree of complexity.
Remember when the blind watchmaker thing was a strawman? FFW to the current year and now this is what people actually believe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 09:23:46 2022 No.14861302 >>14860314 I always struggled with that. I mean yes panspermia could happen but that doesn't take away from life needing to start somewhere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 09:26:54 2022 No.14861305 >>14861302 That's the kind of desperate cope you get when scientists are too afraid to admit they're wrong.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 10:53:38 2022 No.14861430

>ITT: pile of religious retards don't know about Incompleteness Theorems

There is no bottom to the cup of knowledge. There is no complete set of information. There is no logical end to the regress of causation.

And more importantly, there's absolutely zero need for the First Cause to be an omnipotent intelligent designer. That is A LOT of completely unnecessary properties, an esoteric cause does not have to be intelligent, it just has to create life where random physics wouldn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 10:55:33 2022 No.14861434 >>14861430 >low IQ pseud >thinks infinite regression is rational >inserts irrelevant references to "incompleteness theorems" Like clockwork.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:06:43 2022 No.14861454 >>14861012 >Notice how you can't provide any examples of a theory that would fail if materialism was false. I already did, the Standard Model. Notice how you can't provide a single successful theory that says materialism is false. Why is that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:08:07 2022 No.14861459 >>14861098 >Molecular biology killed materialism. How?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:08:51 2022 No.14861461

>>14861454
> the Standard Model
Why would the standard model fail?

>you can't provide a single successful theory that says materialism is false. Why is that?
Because it's unfalsifiable metaphysical dogma, which you've already conceded numerous times, and will concede again in your next post as you fail to explain why the standard model would fail. lol

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:11:55 2022 No.14861464

>>14861103
>20th century scientific discoveries BTFO materialism so hard they had to rebrand it as some vague and nebulous "physicalism", which conveniently fails to explain what fundamental characteristics something needs to have in order to be "physical".
Physical just means pertaining to matter and energy. What is vague about that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:12:59 2022 No.14861467 >>14861464 Nice concession.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:37:45 2022 No.14861490 >>14860802 find me another earth, buddy this planet is weird spacewise to begin with

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:39:46 2022 No.14861493

>>14861259
>The universe, however, is not a closed system
How does this respond to what you're replying to?

>solar radiation destroys the components of life shortly after forming
It destroys some molecules and does not destroy others, depending on wavelength, and atmospheric composition,. This chemical selection is actually a key feature of pre-biotic RNA formation. Also, the destruction of certain molecules provides ingredients for reactions, and its energy drives reaction.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.1c01839

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:42:48 2022 No.14861497 >>14861261 >Remember when the blind watchmaker thing was a strawman? Strawman of what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:48:46 2022 No.14861516 >>14860322 No one takes this seriously anymore, even scientists ignore it, which just shows how desperate abiogenesis fags are.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:49:46 2022 No.14861520

>>14861461
>Why would the standard model fail?
Because it would not describe the fundamental constituents of the universe.

>Because it's unfalsifiable metaphysical dogma
It should be trivial to falsify materialism, just show something immaterial. So you're saying no successful model will ever be immaterial? Then why do you believe materialism is false?

>which you've already conceded numerous times
Where?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:50:48 2022 No.14861524 >>14861467 Concession of what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:54:28 2022 No.14861533 >>14861524 Of this: >fails to explain what fundamental characteristics something needs to have in order to be "physical". >inb4 another round of braindead denial Do ghosts "pertain to energy"?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:57:10 2022 No.14861539

>>14861520
What predictions does the standard model make, that would be demonstrably false if materialism was false? Notice how you will shit out dozens of posts trying to deny or deflect, but never address the question. :^)

>just show something immaterial
What does "immaterial" mean? "Not made of matter"? Light is not made of matter. Space is not made of matter. Time is not made of matter. Doesn't stop your cult claiming that everything is "material". lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:59:50 2022 No.14861544 >>14861493 Entropy in an open system causes complexity such as life to fall apart. It cannot randomly appear in a system with entropy.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 11:59:59 2022 No.14861545

>>14861533
>>fails to explain what fundamental characteristics something needs to have in order to be "physical".
I did. The fundamental characteristics are that it pertains to matter and energy. That's what physics is about. If you require more detail, pick up a physics textbook. They are very detailed.

>Do ghosts "pertain to energy"?
I don't know of any successful physical model involving ghosts, so no.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:07:21 2022 No.14861564 >>14861545 >no. How do you know? Maybe ghosts and magic and god "pertain to energy". Go ahead and prove they don't. lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:07:21 2022 No.14861565 >>14861544 Entropy doesn't say complexity or non-random structures can't form, it says they are unlikely to form.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:07:34 2022 No.14861566 >>14861545 Measure me the matter and energy component of the human soul please.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:09:01 2022 No.14861572 >>14861565 It says they're more likely to be destroyed than last long enough to become fish and monkeys. The universe moves towards simplicity, i.e. lower energy states.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:09:56 2022 No.14861575 >>14861572 The earth isn't a closed system because of the sun so it doesn't move toward a lower energy state.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:14:59 2022 No.14861587 >>14861575 UV light destroys organic compounds, making the possibility of life emerging in a surface pool (as abiogenesis proponents believe) extremely dubious to the point of falsehood.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:20:40 2022 No.14861598

>>14861539
>What predictions does the standard model make, that would be demonstrably false if materialism was false?
Besides the prediction that the fundamental constituents of the universe are material, it's impossible to say, because there is no model of the immaterial that would tell us how the world would be different. Either the addition of the immaterial does nothing, in which case it is superfluous and nonexistent, or it does something and there should be a successful model incorporating it. There isn't, because it's nonexistent.

>What does "immaterial" mean?
So you don't even know what you're arguing against? Then why do you believe it's false? According to this thread, immaterial means God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:23:30 2022 No.14861604 >>14861598 >it's impossible to say Once again a concession. lol.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:25:08 2022 No.14861606 >>14861544 >Entropy in an open system causes complexity such as life to fall apart. You're incredibly confused. Entropy can decrease in an open system. Entropy is not adverse to complexity. Life increases entropy in the total system.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:26:34 2022 No.14861609

>>14861564
>How do you know?
I just said. I don't know of any successful physical model involving ghosts. If you know of one, please share it. Something which is not part of any successful model is superfluous and nonexistent, and doesn't pertain to anything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:27:46 2022 No.14861613 >>14861566 You would have to prove the soul exists for that demand to even make sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:27:51 2022 No.14861614 >>14861609 >I don't know of any successful physical model involving ghosts. Okay, but how do you know ghosts, magic and god don't "pertain to energy"?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:29:16 2022 No.14861618

>>14861587
>UV light destroys organic compounds, making the possibility of life emerging in a surface pool (as abiogenesis proponents believe) extremely dubious to the point of falsehood.
Doesn't follow. The destruction of certain organic compounds and the energy provided by UV is in fact necessary for abiogenesis. See >>14861493

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:31:05 2022 No.14861619 >>14861604 >Once again a concession Of what? Thanks for conceding the immaterial is nonexistent, and you don't even know what you're arguing against.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:33:13 2022 No.14861622

>>14861614
Because there is no successful physical model involving them. Real things pertaining to energy actually have effects on the world and can therefore be studied scientifically. Fake things don't and can only propagate as superstitions in the minds of the gullible.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:38:21 2022 No.14861631
File: 1.16 MB, 1x1, nucleic-acids-function-and-potential-for-abiogenesis.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14860270
Wait what? What do you base that on? RNA world hypothesys has come a longway, we know that ribonucleic acids were formed under old earth conditions in vast quantities, and we know that an RNA as shotr as 250 nucleic acids can be a selfreplicating ribozyme.
Abiogenesis is basically solved, the evolutionary biologists are not working on "could it have happened", we know it could. The research is now concentrated on the details of how it happened.
We laso know basic lipids and even phospholipids also formed under those conditions, and we know they naturally form liposomes and micelles, and naturally interact with rybosimes.
pdf related

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:39:35 2022 No.14861635 >>14860411 It would be interesting to see a sex breakdown of this since it appears belief in God is highest in those fields that are highest in females.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:56:45 2022 No.14861657 >>14861619 >Of what? Of all my points so far.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 12:57:55 2022 No.14861659 >>14861622 >Because there is no successful physical model involving them. Doesn't mean they don't exist and "pertain to energy". :^)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:03:27 2022 No.14861669 >>14860411 Wow I would have thought it to be the opposite, with physicists being more religious and biologists being more prone to atheism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:07:09 2022 No.14861675 >>14860857 Lowest IQ post ITT

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:11:04 2022 No.14861681 >>14861675 Wikipedia is on my side. Thanks for admitting that I'm right.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:12:17 2022 No.14861684 >>14861659 If there is no successful model involving something, it doesn't exist. Learn basic science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:13:24 2022 No.14861688 >>14861657 I never conceded any of your points. The Standard Model predicts that everything is matter. If everything wasn't matter, the model would be falsified.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:14:53 2022 No.14861690 >>14861688 >The Standard Model predicts that everything is matter. Is light matter, too?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:15:30 2022 No.14861692

>>14860270
>>14860278
Don't we already have the closest thing to it with those self-replicating protein chains that have been found deep underground? Or are they in the ocean? Either way that seems like the only way you are going to get life to emerge naturally so...

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:16:20 2022 No.14861694 >>14861690 What does light have to do with anything? You're illiterate. I was talking about matter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:18:23 2022 No.14861696 File: 67 KB, 645x729, 53243322.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14861694 >What does light have to do with anything? Okay... I knew you were clinically retarded from the start, but now it's completely overt. Thanks for the chitchat.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:19:39 2022 No.14861698 >>14861694 Light exists and is not considered matter

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:20:14 2022 No.14861700 >>14861696 Not an argument. See >>14861619

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:21:20 2022 No.14861703 >>14861698 How does that disprove the Standard Model or prove your magical immaterial god?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:23:20 2022 No.14861705

>>14861703
>How does that disprove the Standard Model
It disproves the statement "the standard model predicts that everything is made of matter. If everything wasn't matter, the model would be falsified"
Light exists and is not matter, therefor from your own statement, the standard model is falsified.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:24:00 2022 No.14861706 >>14861705 >It disproves the statement "the standard model predicts that everything is made of matter" I didn't say that everything is matter. I said materialism is true. Why did you lie?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:24:27 2022 No.14861709

The schrodinger equation itself is not matter and can't be considered material in any way, although there's a strong argument that the wave function doesn't actually exist at all and is just a formalism so this wouldn't really be a problem for materialism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:25:27 2022 No.14861711 >>14861706 >I didn't say that everything is matter See >>14861688 "The Standard Model predicts that everything is matter. If everything wasn't matter, the model would be falsified." Why are you lying about what you just wrote?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:26:07 2022 No.14861713 >>14861711 That's not my post. I'm saying that everything is material, not that everything is matter. You're illiterate.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:28:02 2022 No.14861715

>>14861713
>That's not my post.
Yes it was, and you're blatantly lying.
>I'm saying that everything is material, not that everything is matter
lmao you've been caught contradicting yourself point blank. There's literally zero reason for you to dig your heels into the ground right now, it's not going to work.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:29:02 2022 No.14861717 >>14861715 >Yes it was No, it wasn't. Thanks for conceding that everything is material and God doesn't exist.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:30:17 2022 No.14861718

>>14861715
>Yes it was, and you're blatantly lying.
>lmao you've been caught contradicting yourself point blank
he does this in every thread. the guy is a shameless kike 100%. he especially likes to post huge blobs of one line responses in green shill threads

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:32:28 2022 No.14861721

>>14861717
lmfao sorry anon, you blatantly contradicted yourself and now you're lying to save face, and everyone sees it.
There is no difference btw between the statements "materialism is true" and "everything is matter". They mean the same thing, so you making this new statement makes no difference at all anyway.
I don't know why you're doing this.
>>14861718
Why are you being anti-semetic about it? This guy is a moron, no need to attack jews for it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:33:56 2022 No.14861725 >>14861721 >Why are you being anti-semetic about it? oh, nice. got another one

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:35:29 2022 No.14861731 >>14861721 >There is no difference btw between the statements "materialism is true" and "everything is matter". They mean the same thing No, they don't. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:36:10 2022 No.14861734 >>14861725 I'm neither jewish nor anti-semetic. Doesn't have to be one or the other. btw what's a green shill thread? You mean about green energy?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:38:24 2022 No.14861739

>>14861731
I know what materialism is and there is nothing in that wikipedia article that contradicts what I just said.
The philosophy of materialism is that matter is the only substance, everything is matter. The statements "materialism is true" means "everything is matter".
I have literally no idea what you're even trying to do right now. It's okay to be wrong, there is no reason to try to save face on an anonymous image board. You contradicted yourself and were shown to be wrong, it's okay, it happens.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:39:14 2022 No.14861743 >>14861739 >I know what materialism is and there is nothing in that wikipedia article that contradicts what I just said. Everything about it contradicts you. Why did you lie?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:41:39 2022 No.14861747

>>14861743
The first line in the wikipedia article is
>"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions"
I have no idea why you'd think you'd be able to gaslight yourself or anyone else like this, it's pathetic really. You're pathetic and your life is probably sad and lonely lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:42:33 2022 No.14861748 >>14861747 Matter is a fundamental substance in nature. What's the contradiction?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:43:53 2022 No.14861750 >>14861748 Materialism being true means everything is made of matter. They mean the same thing, as you just denied in this post >>14861731 You're sad and pathetic. Seriously anon, go get some help, you really need it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:48:02 2022 No.14861761 >>14861750 >Materialism being true means everything is made of matter. False. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:49:43 2022 No.14861765 >>14861750 >Materialism being true means everything is made of matter. False. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism to understand what science and materialism really mean.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:50:26 2022 No.14861768 >>14861761 Point to a single line in that wikipedia article that says that materialism is true if non-material substances exist. You need help, anon

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:51:28 2022 No.14861772 >>14861765 LMAO now you shift the goalposts. you seriously need help, anon. I'm not insulted you when I say this you need to go get some help, you're not mentally well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:51:44 2022 No.14861773 >>14861768 Point to a single successful theory that says materialism is not true. Also see >>14861765

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:53:08 2022 No.14861776 >>14861772 I am very well mentally, unlike you and other people who deny materialism and science. Then again, most of you are Russian trolls working around the clock to destabilize the West.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:53:17 2022 No.14861777

>>14861773
You need help anon. You need to go get some help. This debate is not as pressing as you seem to think it is and you're losing your mind.
Go to a therapist and get some help. Maybe you need medications or something, idk. But it's clear you're sick and you need some help. Take this advice and better yourself.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:56:09 2022 No.14861785

>>14861776
>you and other people who deny materialism and science
Where have I denied materialism or science?
>Then again, most of you are Russian trolls working around the clock to destabilize the West.
You are not well, anon. You believe in conspiracy theories and blatantly contradict yourself. You are showing signs of schzophrenia or paranoid personality disorders. You need help.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 13:58:16 2022 No.14861787 >>14861777 >you're losing your mind. Oh. You're that Russian troll again: >>/sci/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=losing+your+mind

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:00:10 2022 No.14861792 >>14861787 Why are you linking me a post where some guy is arguing with the amazonposter?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:02:05 2022 No.14861794 >>14861792 No point pretending. I know exactly who you are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:02:55 2022 No.14861796 >>14861794 Who am I?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:04:18 2022 No.14861799 >>14861796 We both know who you are, Ivan. Anyway, thanks for conceding that materialism is true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:05:40 2022 No.14861804 >>14860270 Abiogenesis is obviously true because of physics. Your god doesn't exist, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:06:21 2022 No.14861806 >>14861804 >Abiogenesis is obviously true Source?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:08:08 2022 No.14861811 >>14861806 Have you studied high school level physics?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:08:46 2022 No.14861813 >>14861811 Yes, and it says nothing about abiogenesis. So where's your source?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:09:10 2022 No.14861814 >>14861813 So you haven't. Got it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:09:20 2022 No.14861816 >>14861799 I have no idea what you're talking about >Anyway, thanks for conceding that materialism is true. Where did I deny materialism is true, or concede that it is true? You're not very smart

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:10:25 2022 No.14861818 >>14861804 God created the universe at the big bang. This is necessary to explain the big bang, so it's needed for our scientific models Now what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:10:35 2022 No.14861820 File: 150 KB, 800x750, 1649798919312.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14861814 >I have no source but I must scream

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:11:30 2022 No.14861822 >>14861818 Now you take your meds >>14861820 The redditors are right and your god isn't real, sorry

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:12:03 2022 No.14861824 File: 418 KB, 1024x1024, 1649798777102.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14861822 >The redditors are right Source?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:12:45 2022 No.14861825 >>14861822 >Now you take your meds Not an argument lol >The redditors are right and your god isn't real, sorry God created the universe at the big bang, and this is necessary for our scientific models.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:13:35 2022 No.14861830 >>14861824 Spend some time on reddit (r/science for example), you might become a bit smarter although I'm not too hopeful

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:14:09 2022 No.14861832 God literally collapses the wavefunction in order to directly guide the evolution of the universe, i.e. theism is true as well, and god is necessary for our best scientific model (QFT) lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:21:26 2022 No.14861840 >>14861832 >>14861825 Quantum mechanics proves that an omniscient god can't exist. So your bible is debunked lol

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:24:21 2022 No.14861845

>>14861840
>Quantum mechanics proves that an omniscient god can't exist.
No it doesn't LMFAO it shows the exact opposite
>So your bible is debunked lol
I don't believe in the abrahamic god
God created the universe at the big band and this is necessary to explain the big bang, so it's necessary for our scientific models
God collapses the wavefunction of a particle in order to directly guide it's evolution, and the evolution of the universe, so theism is true as well

All empirical scientific evidence indicates a theistic god created and guides the universe directly.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:26:13 2022 No.14861847

>>14861845
>No it doesn't LMFAO it shows the exact opposite
Lol. Look up the uncertainty principle. Perfect knowledge is literally incompatible with reality (quantum mechanics), so god is incompatible too.
>I don't believe in the abrahamic god
Don't care. I just guessed that you were but it applies to whatever fairytale you believe in

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:28:57 2022 No.14861850

>>14861847
>Lol. Look up the uncertainty principle. Perfect knowledge is literally incompatible with reality (quantum mechanics), so god is incompatible too.
No, perfect knowledge for a measuring device inside the universe isn't possible. There is nothing stopping the god from perfectly guiding the universe and collapsing the wavefunction directly each time, in order to directly guide the evolution of the universe, and nothing in QM that contradicts this (everything in QM actually indicates this is what is happening)
>Don't care. I just guessed that you were but it applies to whatever fairytale you believe in
You're wrong so it doesn't matter what you say right now lol
All scientific evidence indicates that a Theistic God created the Universe at the big bang, and directly guides the evolution of the universe, and this is necessary to explain our best scientific models lol

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:31:51 2022 No.14861855

>>14861850
>There is nothing stopping the god from perfectly guiding the universe and collapsing the wavefunction directly each time, in order to directly guide the evolution of the universe, and nothing in QM that contradicts this (everything in QM actually indicates this is what is happening)
You are arguing for a hidden variable theory with god as the hidden variable. Unfortunately this has been debunked by the experimental tests of bell-like inequalities. And all of this follows fundamentally from the uncertainty principle. So yes, god has been debunked.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:33:35 2022 No.14861856 >>14861850 >>14861855 >inb4 "bell tests only rule out local hidden variables!!!" Locality has been experimentally verified too so yea, the god hypothesis has been killed

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:36:26 2022 No.14861861

>>14861434
Infinite regression is illogical specifically for not allowing an end point. The Incompeteness Theorems are a class of constructions entirely about denoting unavoidable limitations of logic.

Due to the Halting Problem, there is no way to be certain of the future without actually following every intermediate step. Due to the Diagonalization Theorem, it is impossible to construct a set containing all rational numbers.

These pose drastic complications to the Christian of God, specifically. You have to take a mind-numbingly OBSCENE exaggeration of anything possibly required of a First Cause as an axiom for numerous vital properties for the ensuing worldview, even declaring it fundamentally exempt from logic in a perpetual and ongoing fashion.

The entire mass of doctrine, centuries upon centuries of ivory-tower bitching that has caused multiple wars and demanded Roman Emperors to drag clergy in a room to answer the damned questions over minutia that it itself declares unimportant to the masses, is treated as axioms.

God is not rational, God is an excuse to stop thinking, because God has a variety of properties actively contradictory to reason. And the following posts are a rabbit-hole of "God in the Gaps" from thoroughly missing the point that we have dug LUDICROUSLY far beyond any remotely direct means of learning and still turned up virtually nothing that might be taken as immaterial.

Sure, you can be a facetious jackass and do stuff like call God a hidden variable for quantum physics, or say that Dark Matter is the ghosts of primordial aliens, but these fall far short of even a hypothesis because there's nothing to engage with. They are statements to be taken at face value, there is zero argumentative power.

I have the same opinion on Christian doctrine regarding Hell, because all the fire-and-brimestone stuff is actually baseless heresy. Hell being bad is tied entirely to God not liking you, so if you reject God, there's no reason for Hell to be bad.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:38:13 2022 No.14861864

>>14861855
>>14861856
I'm not describing Bohmian mechanics (which have not been ruled out either despite what you are erroneously claiming, it would require a universal lorentzian, which is fine, it would just mean relativity isn't entirely correct, which is not a problem)
I'm describing a god that directly collapses the wavefunction. It would not contradict any experiment showing locality nor would it violate measured results of uncertainty for finite measuring devices inside the universe.
There is nothing whatsoever in QM that contradicts what I am saying. God is needed to explain the big bang and to explain the collapse of the wavefunction. All evidence indicates a theistic god created and guides the evolution of the universe directly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:39:46 2022 No.14861867 >>14861864 Like I said, that's just an objective collapse theory which has been debunked by the bell tests. Literally just look it up. I never even mentioned bohmian mechanics (which has also been debunked btw)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:40:15 2022 No.14861870 >>14861657 >Of all my points so far. Obvious lie. For example, the point you just made was refuted by the Standard Model predicting that the fundamental constituents of the universe are material.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:41:16 2022 No.14861872 >>14861659 >Doesn't mean they don't exist It does. How else do you determine that something doesn't exist?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:42:17 2022 No.14861873 >>14861675 Not an argument. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:42:56 2022 No.14861874 >>14861864 Also, I must add that the very idea of wavefunction completely negates the idea of god because it is fundamentally uncertain.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:44:38 2022 No.14861877

>>14861867
Nothing you're saying is correct. Bohmian mechanics has not been debunked (I don't hold a bohmian interpretation anyway, but it's not debunked) and there is nothing in QM that contradicts what I'm saying.
Objective collapse theories have never been debunked. Bell's test do not in any way debunk objective collapse what are you even talking about. You're literally making shit up right now.
Nothing in QM contradicts what I'm saying. In fact, all our models require a God creating the universe at the big bang, and a God that collapses the wavefunction to directly guide the evolution of the universe.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:46:07 2022 No.14861879

>>14861877
>In fact, all our models require a God creating the universe at the big bang
The First Cause being intelligent is an unnecessary axiom, that's the entire fucking point of Big Bang cosmology. It didn't think, it just happened, and by happening it set everything in motion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:46:09 2022 No.14861880 >>14861877 Bell's tests rule out all local hidden variable theories. Your idea of god is just another local hidden variable theory. Not very hard to understand.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:47:28 2022 No.14861882 >>14861877 As to the big bang, look up the hawking hartle wavefunction which explains how the universe can start from literally nothing (not even space and time)

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:47:45 2022 No.14861883

>>14861874
The wavefunction is entirely deterministic. Do you mean wavefunction collapse?
>>14861879
No it isn't, it is a required axiom to explain the big bang, and there is nothing in big bang cosmology that contradicts this.
>It didn't think, it just happened, and by happening it set everything in motion.
It did think, it created the big bang, and set everything in motion
>>14861880
Nope, it's a god collapsing the wavefunction. It would not be a local hidden variable.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:49:30 2022 No.14861885

>>14861882
>As to the big bang, look up the hawking hartle wavefunction which explains how the universe can start from literally nothing (not even space and time)
It does not explain this, and it does not explain the creation of the universe. You are again just making shit up

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:51:31 2022 No.14861888

>>14861883
It's not deterministic. Quantum mechanics completely debunks determinism and hence also god.
>It would not be a local hidden variable.
It would be a hidden variable. If it's not local, then it's already debunked by special relativity and you don't even need quantum mechanics to debunk it

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:55:08 2022 No.14861894

>>14861888
>It's not deterministic. Quantum mechanics completely debunks determinism and hence also god.
The wave function is a linear second order partial differential equation and is entirely deterministic. Collapse of the wavefunction seems non deterministic, because the God directly collapses it in a way that can't be predicted by us or any other measuring device inside the universe.
>It would be a hidden variable. If it's not local, then it's already debunked by special relativity and you don't even need quantum mechanics to debunk it
Nope, it would be a god. It would neither be a local hidden variable nor would it violate special relativity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:55:33 2022 No.14861895 >>14861885 It does. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88kC2Nx8M for a summary by Hawking himself

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:58:14 2022 No.14861898

>>14860331
You know why?
Because it's basically social conditioning
>lmao why le science man believes in God?
If you make some research you will find that old scientists believed in God because when you live outside of your rat-cage you find weird things.
Hell, even a scientific law is ok with religious beliefs because it agrees with science and we will NEVER know the exact origin of life

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:58:50 2022 No.14861901

>>14861883
>No it isn't, it is a required axiom to explain the big bang, and there is nothing in big bang cosmology that contradicts this.
Then who created God, because that's literally fucking exactly the same "required axiom" because it's moving the goalpost a step back. In both cases, we deal with infinite regress by declaring something the First Cause, presupposing that nothing comes before it.

You presuppose the First Cause is an intelligent actor of arbitrary origin, who has a whole host of very exacting moral standards, with a nearly perfectly non-interacting punishment and reward scheme, that we have somehow missed any positive evidence for.

My presupposition is that the First Cause is its bare minimum, an arbitrary origin point and NOTHING MORE. The only ongoing influence needed of the First Cause is that it happened, and so I feel it JUST happened, no higher power tied to it.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 14:59:14 2022 No.14861902

>>14861894
The very idea of the wavefunction is meant to encode indeterminism. Schrodinger's equation can tell you how the indeterminism evolves over time but it will still remain indeterministic. You're just coping now and haven't expalined why your god is not a hidden variable theory

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:04:10 2022 No.14861912

>>14861901
>Then who created God
God is eternal, unlike the universe, which had a beginning and was created by the god at the big bang.
Falsify big bang cosmology and prove the universe is infinite and eternal and we no longer need a god. The big bang directly proves that there is a god that created the universe.
>>14861902
Nothing in this is an argument against the fact that the god directly collapses the wavefunction in order to
It's not a local hidden variable because it's not an aspect of the particle. It's a god that steps into the universe, collapses the wavefunction, and steps out. It's not a variable that's part of the particle or matter, it's a god that is separated from the material and directly controls and guides it in a way that will always be impossible to predict for any finite measuring device inside the universe.
Collapse of the wavefunction directly proves that there is a theistic god that is guiding the universe and everything in it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:05:24 2022 No.14861915 >>14861912 in order to guide the universe*

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:07:26 2022 No.14861921

>>14861912
>It's not a local hidden variable because it's not an aspect of the particle
That's literally irrelevant to what a hidden variable theory is. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
>Collapse of the wavefunction
Is not a real thing. This is basic quantum mechanics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:08:32 2022 No.14861923 >>14861921 >That's literally irrelevant to what a hidden variable theory is. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Nope >Is not a real thing Yes it is... now you are seriously saying stupid shit

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:12:23 2022 No.14861930

>>14861923
Not my problem you failed quantum mechanics (and probably even middle school physics), but I'll give you short explanation anyway
1. Wavefunctions are not "real things" they are just ways of describing a state of knowledge
2. Wavefunction collapse is just the process where you update your knowledge by making a measurement. Since the wavefunction is not a real thing, neither is its collapse
This is literally basic QM.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:13:54 2022 No.14861933 >>14861930 There exists an ontic wavefunction and the god collapses the wave function to directly guide the universe. The wave function is not just a mathematical formalism, it's a real thing. Your copenhagen is outdated by several decades now

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:16:48 2022 No.14861938

>>14861933
>There exists an ontic wavefunction and the god collapses the wave function
Lol, schizophrenia. Anyway, I'm done here since you're denying basic QM despite it being explained to you, so it's clearly unreasonable for me to continue talking to you

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:19:32 2022 No.14861940

>>14861938
The schrodinger equation is literally just energy conservation for particles. The wavefunction is a real thing, and collapse of the wavefunction is a real thing, and ALL experimental evidence shows this.
You are denying basic science, and you've been proven wrong, and now youre running away lmfao
better luck next time

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:21:07 2022 No.14861943 >>14861940 >The schrodinger equation is literally just energy conservation for particles Correct and that's completely irrelevant to what I said and you don't even realize that lmao.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:22:40 2022 No.14861949

>>14861912
>God is eternal, unlike the universe, which had a beginning and was created by the god at the big bang.
>Falsify big bang cosmology and prove the universe is infinite and eternal and we no longer need a god. The big bang directly proves that there is a god that created the universe.
These are not remotely equivalent, because an eternal creatorless universe is an open acceptance of infinite regress with no First Cause. It's exactly as valid to say "but who created God?" in response to "God created the Big Bang", because they're equally missing the goddamn point.

The Big Bang THEORY was originally devised by a devout Christian who coined a great deal of the God-in-the-gaps arguments for it pre-emptively, but atheistic Big Bang COSMOLOGY operates from the notion that the arbitrary cutoff point for causation is the Big Bang itself, because the First Cause is a fundamentally arbitrary distinction, because you can ALWAYS ask "but what caused it?"

My cutoff is that reality just happened one day, because that's the minimum requirement. An outside actor requires very complicated answers to the subject of consciousness to delineate required sub-functionalities in relation to eachother as somehow arising simultaneously and inseparably, then you need to get into answering why the fuck this actor has any particular property.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:23:09 2022 No.14861951

>>14861943
The wavefunction of a particle is a soluton to the schrodinger equation for the particle, which exists and collapses upon measurement.
Literally all QM says this and all evidence shows this. You are genuinely retarded if you're saying there is no wavefunction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:27:27 2022 No.14861960 >>14861951 Notice how there is no thread of coherence among the multiple posts you publish

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:30:06 2022 No.14861963

>>14861960
Notice how every thing I'm saying is coherent and I am directly replying to you and you are continuously making shit up and denying basic science, for some reason.
You are literally just denying basic QM and pretending to be an idiot. There is nothing about my posited "theistic interpretation" that is contradicted by anything in QM or that does not naturally follow from QM.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 15:34:51 2022 No.14861973 >>14861709 >The schrodinger equation itself That's an abstraction. It doesn't exist by itself.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 16:05:32 2022 No.14862026

>>14861973
>energy conservation for particles doesn't exist
The absolute state...
Literally ALL EVIDENCE shows that
1) God created the universe at the big bang
2) God directly controls the evolution of the universe by "non-deterministically" collapsing the wavefunction of particles to decide where they move, how they entangle, etc.
All scientific evidence indicates this, you are anti-science if you are an atheist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 16:10:13 2022 No.14862038 >>14862026 God violates conservation of energy so it's been debunked

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 16:14:56 2022 No.14862045 >>14862038 >God violates conservation of energy Nope. There is nothing science that disproves God, and all evidence indicates there is a God that created the universe and is directly controlling everything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 16:45:12 2022 No.14862089 >>14861861 >Infinite regression is illogical specifically for not allowing an end point. You mean a beginning point? How is that illogical?

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:03:59 2022 No.14862123
File: 115 KB, 902x1024, 1637611531556.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14862026
Why would collapse of the wavefunction imply a God is collapsing it vs. It just being random?
The only thing you've proven is that you can't use quantum mechanics or physics in general to disprove God, not that God is necessary for physics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:19:46 2022 No.14862137 >>14862123 >The only thing you've proven is that you can't use quantum mechanics or physics in general to disprove God Wut, he didn't prove shit. In fact, you can use qm to disprove god like I did. I expected you to be smarter bfsm poster.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:31:57 2022 No.14862151 >>14861861 Pseud.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:33:38 2022 No.14862153 >>14861870 >>14861872 I don't think you can recover after >>14861694 and everything that followed. lol. Meds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:35:06 2022 No.14862158 >>14862153 >he thinks photons are not matter

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:39:23 2022 No.14862169 >>14862158 >no volume >no mass >"matter" LOL. It's really funny to watch the YouTube-educated parroting a dead 18th century ideology. Meanwhile in reality, your position is so untenable that it's been superceded by physicalism.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:48:39 2022 No.14862190

>>14862026
>>energy conservation for particles doesn't exist
You said the equation itself. Energy conservation is just a description of how particles behave. Of course particles exist.

>Literally ALL EVIDENCE shows that
>1) God created the universe at the big bang
What evidence shows that? The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe, it's just the earliest event we have information about.

>2) God directly controls the evolution of the universe by "non-deterministically" collapsing the wavefunction of particles to decide where they move, how they entangle, etc.
Direct control is deterministic by definition. You're contradicting yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:50:47 2022 No.14862194 >>14862153 >I don't think you can recover after >>14861694 That isn't my post, so why would I have to "recover" from it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:51:11 2022 No.14862196 >>14862169 >>no volume >>no mass Ordinary particles don't have volume too you retarded dumbfuck

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:53:04 2022 No.14862199 >>14862194 >That isn't my post Oh, you're doing THIS one ( >>14861713) again? LOL. Deeply deranged.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:54:05 2022 No.14862200 >>14862196 Show me where I said they do, tranny. Either way, I accept your concession. No one considers them to be matter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:55:31 2022 No.14862204 >>14862200 No one cares about your retarded definition of matter. Also, tone down the transphobia (I'm not trans myself just in case your retarded brain doesn't understand that)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 17:55:44 2022 No.14862205 >>14862199 >Oh, you're doing THIS one ( >>14861713 #) again? That's not me either. I guess you have no response to my posts, so you're going to try to pin others on me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 18:05:50 2022 No.14862221 File: 219 KB, 483x470, 2344.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14862205 >That's not me either. Yes, it is. He argues identical points and uses identical phrases. You really are insane. lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 18:07:08 2022 No.14862225 >>14862204 That's not "my" definition of matter, nigger. Those are basic properties of matter or stuff made of matter. >tone down the transphobia YWNBAW.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 18:08:14 2022 No.14862229 >>14862225 Show me one book where matter is defined like that. YWNBAScientist

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 18:11:54 2022 No.14862242 >>14862229 Show me one post where I defined matter like that. You people are legit mentally ill, which is to be expected since you are literally parroting a dead, extremely outdated and long-supplanted metaphysical dogma.

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 18:15:50 2022 No.14862253

>>14862242
You implied that those were necessary properties of matter. Yet no elementary particle has volume and nowhere are non-zero volume and non-zero mass listed as necessary properties of matter. You have successfully shown that you're unable to make a logical post. My work here is done, get yourself admitted to a mental hospital.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 18:17:53 2022 No.14862261 >>14862253 >Yet no elementary particle has volume Show me where I said they do. This is the second time you do this weird spergout. >and non-zero mass Matter has non-zero mass. Take your meds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 19:16:10 2022 No.14862384 >>14862221 >Yes, it is. Nope. >He argues identical points and uses identical phrases. Like what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 19:43:31 2022 No.14862431 >>14862137 >In fact, you can use qm to disprove god like I did. Where?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 19:48:09 2022 No.14862443 Atheists were utterly BTFO itt

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 19:53:39 2022 No.14862455 >>14862229 Matter is literally defined as having nonzero mass and volume.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 19:55:29 2022 No.14862463 >>14862443 Now they're so mad they're openly polposting to try and get jannies to intervene.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 20:06:50 2022 No.14862496 >>14862463 Where

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 20:07:44 2022 No.14862500 >>14862443 >>14862463 Meds

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 20:28:45 2022 No.14862540 >>14862500 The theistic interpretation of quantum mechanics completely blows you out You idiots didn't even know matter is defined as having nonzero mass

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 21:00:04 2022 No.14862605

>>14862190
>The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe
Wrong
>Direct control is deterministic by definition. You're contradicting yourself.
It is deterministic in that God determines where it collapses, it is not determined by local hidden variables. No contradiction

Anonymous Tue Sep 20 23:36:54 2022 No.14862849

>>14862089
No end point for reasoning about prior events, to be clear, and philosophers and formal logic and mathematicians REALLY do not like expressly Sisyphean tasks.

Unfortunately, causation demands either infinite regress or a First Cause except from it, and so we end up with two categories of axioms regarding the nature of existence, neither of which CAN BE logical because they're premises decided upon to apply logic to.

You can add epicycles to invisible ghosts for centuries to make complete bullshit into an accurate model, but the excess complexity renders such uselessly convoluted. This is EXACTLY where the Trinity interpretation of God comes from, relentlessly crowbarring into place a logical system for the flowery language and drastic behavioral differences in the scripture.

The empirical, materialist axioms of modern science and the prioritization of devolving authority for individual choice have given us A LOT of stuff in exchange for rendering the wankfest of ex-kike fanfiction fundamentally indefensible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 20 23:41:31 2022 No.14862854 File: 47 KB, 640x360, a9f0yue32dy61.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14860270 >life can't generate out of nothing >but an all-powerful boltzman brain can, and that's what created life literally the only two options

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 12:34:36 2022 No.14863789

>>14862605
>Wrong
Wrong
>Was the Big Bang the origin of the universe?
>It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time "zero," the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature.
>The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#m12

>It is deterministic in that God determines where it collapses
So it's deterministic.

>it is not determined by local hidden variables. No contradiction
That doesn't follow. God would be a non-local hidden variable, which would make wavefunction collapse deterministic. Do you think deterministic means determined by local hidden variables only?

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 12:40:10 2022 No.14863798
File: 11 KB, 406x189, autopoiesis.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14860270
More interesting today is Autopoiesis systems rather than Abiogenesis, which is already the standard.

Autopoiesis systems are basically clusters of small systems inside a larger system that operate semi-independently and generate their own sets of rules outside the limits of the larger system. Such that life/complex structures can have their own natural functions thats independent of the static unbounded particles of the universe.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 12:46:04 2022 No.14863808

>>14860270
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

>thermodynamic definition of life
https://youtu.be/x26a-ztpQs8?t=34m50s

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 12:46:32 2022 No.14863809

>>14863789
>So it's deterministic.
It would be determined by the conscious will of a God which is not physical, it would not be determined by any law of physics in the sense that you're thinking about them.
>That doesn't follow. God would be a non-local hidden variable, which would make wavefunction collapse deterministic. Do you think deterministic means determined by local hidden variables only?
It would be neither a local nor a non local variable in the sense that you're thinking about it. It would not be a law of physics, it is not something inside the universe so its not something that could be considered a physical variable in the sense that you're probably thinking about it.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:17:33 2022 No.14863845

>>14862849
>No end point for reasoning about prior events
So? Reality does not have to conform to what's easy for humans to understand.

>neither of which CAN BE logical because they're premises decided upon to apply logic to.
That doesn't make them illogical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:20:49 2022 No.14863851 >>14863809 >It would be determined by the conscious will of a God which is not physical So to god it would be deterministic, which means if god applied Bell's theorem, it would get contradictions. As contradictions are not possible, god cannot exist.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:23:50 2022 No.14863860

>>14863851
That's not what Bells theorem is, you're using it wrong, and bells theorem or any law of physics wouldn't apply to God anyway so it's a moot point. There is no contradiction here.
You seem to think you'd be able to detect God influencing the particles. You can't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:25:46 2022 No.14863864 >>14863860 >and bells theorem or any law of physics wouldn't apply to God So you're saying your use of quantum mechanics to prove god is wrong? Okay.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:31:41 2022 No.14863875

>>14863864
Bells theorem shows that classical mechanics with local hidden variables can't reproduce the observed effects of quantum particles. In in no way disproves the possibility of God influencing particles.
>So you're saying your use of quantum mechanics to prove god is wrong? Okay.
No, you thinking that bells theorem can be used to disprove God is actually retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:33:28 2022 No.14863879 >>14863875 Bell's theorem is not just about classical mechanics. It applies to ANY local hidden variable theory. Try again.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:34:56 2022 No.14863883

>>14863809
Dude you didn't respond to my post >>14862123
Why would collapse of the wavefunction imply a God is collapsing it vs. It just being random? You can't conclude it one way or the other, we could take either interpretation and apply it and we wouldn't be able to tell one from the other.
At best you can say you have an interpretation of quantum mechanics that is consistent. You haven't shown why anyone should take that interpretation

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:36:54 2022 No.14863886 >>14863879 This is pathetic. There is literally nothing in bell's theorem that states that a God can't collapse the wavefunction, whether the variables would be local or non local don't matter, as God is not a physical variable

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:37:06 2022 No.14863888 Schrodinger's cat and Wigner's friend thought experiments also disprove the idea that wavefunction collapses happen, so the idea that a god collapses wavefunctions is disproved.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:38:12 2022 No.14863889 >>14863886 See >>14863888. No matter how you look at it, quantum mechanics is very anti-theistic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:38:35 2022 No.14863890 >>14863883 >we could take either interpretation and apply it and we wouldn't be able to tell one from the other. Exactly >>14863888 Collapse does indeed happen and this is confirmed in all experiments

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:39:40 2022 No.14863891 >>14863889 There is nothing in QM that's anti theist no matter how much this pisses you off

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:43:07 2022 No.14863900

>>14863890
So is the cat alive or dead? Notice that if you answer that it's either alive or dead, that's equivalent to saying that a particle in the double slit experiment went through either one slit or another. And the latter clearly is incompatible with interference patters on the screen, it can be disregarded as being incompatible with quantum mechanics. So the objective wavefunction collapse is also incompatible with quantum mechanics

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:44:37 2022 No.14863903 >>14863891 It is completely anti-theistic. Quantum mechanics is incompatible with the concept of omniscience so it is also incompatible with god. There's simply no way around this except if you believe in retarded things like many worlds theory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:45:04 2022 No.14863905 >>14863900 It depends on if God decides to decay the particle at whatever time it wants. If God chooses to decay the particle it dies, if not it doesn't

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:47:31 2022 No.14863909 >>14863905 So you're saying it's either alive or dead and are hence contradicting quantum mechanics

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:51:55 2022 No.14863915

>>14863903
Literally nothing you're saying is correct. God is not restrained by physics so nothing in QM would preclude a being that is outside of space and time from being omniscient. No being inside the universe can have perfect knowledge. A God that controls the universe from the outside can.
>>14863909
The cat is in superposition until God chooses to collapse it into some state.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:57:32 2022 No.14863924

>>14863915
Quantum uncertainty is not about the limitations of humans, it's fundamentally uncertain. You could set up a meteor to destroy the earth whether or not a particle decays or not and not even a god will be able to know the answer in advance.
>The cat is in superposition until God chooses to collapse it into some state.
Then the predictions made after the collapse will contradict quantum mechanics for the reasons stated earlier.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 13:59:56 2022 No.14863928 >>14863924 Retard-tier take. Something may be impossible to know from inside the system but completely knowable from outside.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:01:56 2022 No.14863931 >>14863928 Please get educated about quantum mechanics before making extremely naive philosopher tier comments like these

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:03:19 2022 No.14863933

>>14863924
>Quantum uncertainty is not about the limitations of humans,
I never said it was. It's about the limitations for any measuring device INSIDE THE UNIVERSE.
This by definition does not apply to a godlike being who is not itself a measuring device inside the universe.
>You could set up a meteor to destroy the earth whether or not a particle decays or not and not even a god will be able to know the answer in advance.
Yes it would, because it is not restrained by physics. It's like you can't understand that God is not restained by any law of physics. The god has complete control over the entire universal wavefunction and can manipulate it however it wants. There is nothing in quantum mechanics that can contradict this even in principle.
>Then the predictions made after the collapse will contradict quantum mechanics for the reasons stated earlier.
No they wouldn't
There is nothing you've said that is correct

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:04:29 2022 No.14863934 >>14863931 It seems you don't know what you're talking about

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:07:16 2022 No.14863940 >>14863931 Bot-tier reaction. If you're an omniscient being looking from outside, everything the question of what will happen isn't even valid from your perspective. You would see every possibile outcome simultaneously.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:11:24 2022 No.14863946

>>14863933
>No they wouldn't
By making objective collapses, you're preventing future interference patterns which is incompatible with quantum mechanics. It's as simple as that.
>The god has complete control over the entire universal wavefunction and can manipulate it however it wants
So now it doesn't just collapse wavefunctions but also manipulates them to suit its whims? If you don't see how this blatantly contradicts everything about science and quantum mechancis, I don't know what to tell you
>Yes it would
So it violates quantum mechanics
>It's about the limitations for any measuring device INSIDE THE UNIVERSE.
It's not about that either because that's just a hidden variable theory. You're very confused.

>>14863934
>>14863940
These posts aren't even worth replying to seriously. If you want to deny the uncertainty in quantum mechanics, don't post on the science board. It is a fact that not even your precious god can predict whether a particle decays or not. Gods have been reduced to incompetent, ignorant and powerless creatures by the laws of quantum mechanics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:13:51 2022 No.14863948 >>14863946 >If you want to deny the uncertainty in quantum mechanics No one was denying it. I'm simply pointing out to you, a certified bot, that this "uncertainty" takes on a completely different form if you're not inside the system.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:15:50 2022 No.14863952

>>14863946
>By making objective collapses, you're preventing future interference patterns which is incompatible with quantum mechanics.
There is nothing about objective collapse that is contradicted by QM
>So now it doesn't just collapse wavefunctions but also manipulates them to suit its whims? If you don't see how this blatantly contradicts everything about science and quantum mechancis, I don't know what to tell you
It does not contradict ANYTHING in quantum mechanics which is why you can't make an argument.
>So it violates quantum mechanics
No it wouldn't
>It's not about that either because that's just a hidden variable theory. You're very confused.
It's not a hidden variable theory.

>If you want to deny the uncertainty in quantum mechanics, don't post on the science board. It is a fact that not even your precious god can predict whether a particle decays or not. Gods have been reduced to incompetent, ignorant and powerless creatures by the laws of quantum mechanics.
You are genuinely a moron. The uncertainty principle only applies to things inside the universe, by definition it does not apply to a God. You're actually retarded if you can't understand this.

There is nothing in QM that would stop a God from having complete omniscient and omnipotent control over the universal wavefunction.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:17:18 2022 No.14863953

>>14863948
No it doesn't you absolute retard. Any knowledge about the system is expressible as a wavefunction, which inherently includes uncertainty. Like I said, please learn some quantum mechanics before making these naive comments. I know that you're upset by the fact that your god can no longer be omniscient but grow up and stop denying reality

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:18:48 2022 No.14863959 File: 449 KB, 892x468, inside saturn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] We're looking in the wrong places. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kff_ytg0-8w @11:48

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:19:38 2022 No.14863963

>>14863953
The wavefunction is entirely deterministic, it is uncertain to measuring devices inside the universe. The wavefunction itself is completely defined and there is nothing stopping a God from having complete knowledge about it and controlling.
You are deferring to physics to prove that a God is weaker than physics. By definition the God is greater than the laws of physics and not restrained by them.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:20:07 2022 No.14863964

>>14863952
No arguments in this post at all. Just mindlessly repeated statements about your fanatic faith in the scientifically impossible omniscience of a non-existent god.
>There is nothing about objective collapse that is contradicted by QM
It completely contradicts QM which is why they are different theories and not just different interpretations of QM.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:21:03 2022 No.14863965

>>14863953
>No it doesn't
It does. The question of "will X happen or not" doesn't exist outside of the system at all because you are not subject to its time. If you're looking from outside, everything is already done and the "uncertainty" simply takes the form of multiple outcomes all of which are knowable to you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:21:20 2022 No.14863966 >>14863964 There is nothing scientifically impossible about a God. You are claiming things that are not true and not even implied by the theories you're using to argue.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:24:34 2022 No.14863973

>>14863963
>The wavefunction is entirely deterministic, it is uncertain to measuring devices inside the universe.
I'm tired of explaining this to you again and again. What you're talking about are hidden variable theories which have been disproved.
>>14863965
>The question of "will X happen or not"
The fact that you are thinking in these terms tells me that you've not understood quantum mechanics at all. It's not about what "happens" or not. The idea of a "happening" itself is only approximately compatible with quantum mechanics.
>>14863966
>*more desperate babbling*
Sigh

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:26:17 2022 No.14863976 >>14863973 >The fact that you are thinking in these terms You're the one thinking in these terms. Anyway, you're clearly mentally ill and poorly educated and this is boring.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:27:34 2022 No.14863979 >>14863976 Lol, how pathetic. Learn some quantum mechanics before trying to argue with those who know more about it than you next time.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:29:10 2022 No.14863981

>>14863973
>I'm tired of explaining this to you again and again. What you're talking about are hidden variable theories which have been disproved.
The wavefunction is literally deterministic, this is standard quantum mechanics. Schrodingers equation is completely deterministic. What isn't deterministic is the apparent collapse.
If you don't know this it's clear why you're saying stupid shit. You don't actually know quantum mechanics

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:29:25 2022 No.14863982 >>14863979 You just keep screeching like a bot and losing your mind. Meanwhile my point stands completely unchallenged. Seethe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:31:41 2022 No.14863986 >>14863979 You don't know quantum mechanics

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:31:48 2022 No.14863987 >>14863981 >You don't actually know quantum mechanics It's easy to establish who among us knows more quantum mechanics. Can you explain what entanglement is mathematically? >>14863982 Silly.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:33:11 2022 No.14863991

>>14863987
You're literally losing your mind, though. First you post this trash:
>>14863924
>Quantum uncertainty is not about the limitations of humans, it's fundamentally uncertain. You could set up a meteor to destroy the earth whether or not a particle decays or not and not even a god will be able to know the answer in advance
Then when it's pointed out to you that the question of whether or not the Earth will be destroyed doesn't even make sense from outside the timeline of the system, you spew out some psychosis about how I'm the one thinking in terms of whether or not something will happen. lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:33:40 2022 No.14863992 >>14863987 You literally didn't even know that schrodingers equation is deterministic.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:35:10 2022 No.14863993

>>14863991
>>14863992
You didn't answer my question and instead resorted to vague meaningless blabbering. The verdict is clear. You don't know what entanglement is and are just repeating your stupid misunderstandings of QM that you learnt from some other retards.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:36:16 2022 No.14863995

>>14863987
>Can you explain what entanglement is mathematically?
If two particles aren't entangled they can just be described as a linear combination of something like |state a> + |state b>.
Of they are entangled they have to be expressed by something like |state A> cross |state B>

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:36:43 2022 No.14863998 >>14863993 You are a fully psychotic bot. Thanks for the illustration.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:37:49 2022 No.14864000 >>14863993 Your question is irrelevant and a non sequitur. It does not mean anything to the conversation.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:39:44 2022 No.14864005

>>14863995
What a confused post indicating further your lack of understanding of QM
>If two particles aren't entangled they can just be described as a linear combination of something like |state a> + |state b>.
No. Any state can be expressed as a linear combination of other states. This has nothing to do with entanglement.
>Of they are entangled they have to be expressed by something like |state A> cross |state B>
Yikes. If they are not entangled, they would be able to be expressed as a tensor product of states not the other way around.

>>14863998
>>14864000
Okay. Take a physics class before challenging me next time. You'll stand a better chance

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:40:53 2022 No.14864006 >>14863995 Although I must commend you for trying and not running away like these two >>14863998 >>14864000

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:41:29 2022 No.14864008 >>14864005 >t. YT-educated

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:41:49 2022 No.14864010

>>14864005
You have not said a single thing that's correct or that can be used as an argument against a God controlling the universal wavefunction.
What about entanglement renders it impossible for a God to have complete control over the universal wavefunction? Nothing. So why did you being up entanglement?
It's because you're trying to deflect, poorly at that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:43:54 2022 No.14864012 >>14864010 You don't understand such a simple thing as entanglement and you're arguing about gods and universal wavefunctions? Talk about delusions of grandeur. Take your meds immediately

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:45:23 2022 No.14864015

>>14864012
You don't understand entanglement or quantum mechanics and you have no argument against the God controlling the universal wavefunction, which is why you continue to deflect.
There is nothing in qm that renders a theistic God impossible. Go back to school

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:47:22 2022 No.14864018 >>14864015 >"i just demonstrated that i don't know basic qm but im just going to say "n-no you!" instead!!!" Okay retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:49:13 2022 No.14864020 >>14864018 >more deflection Explain what about entanglement precludes a God from controlling the universal wavefunction You can't because it doesn't, so you will deflect again and further show your position is untenable

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:50:35 2022 No.14864022 >>14864020 You know, anon... you are the reason subhuman trash like it keeps posting here. Keep giving it attention and trying to reason with it, I'm sure you'll have a productive discussion with it sooner or later.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:53:13 2022 No.14864027

>>14863809
>It would be determined by the conscious will of a God
So it would be deterministic. Make up your mind.

>It would be neither a local nor a non local variable in the sense that you're thinking about it.
It would be a non-local hidden variable by definition.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:54:14 2022 No.14864033 >>14864022 That's right, console your fellow retard while seething at me about how I proved how your non-existent god cannot even be omniscient.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:56:33 2022 No.14864036

>>14864033
>I proved how your non-existent god cannot even be omniscient.
You never did this and if you actually think you did you're an idiot.
There is nothing that precludes a God from having complete control over the universal wavefunction, which is why you continue to deflect.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:58:13 2022 No.14864038 >>14864036 You should follow the advice of your fellow retard (14864022 ) and stop embarrassing yourself further.

Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:58:28 2022 No.14864040

>>14864033
You really are too mentally ill and deranged for basic reading comprehension. I was simply telling your fellow retard that overt nonhumans like you need to be shat and pissed on rather than reasoned with. Giving nonhuman elements the opportunity to shit out their preprogrammed talking points is counter-productive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 14:59:39 2022 No.14864041 >>14864040 Exactly the type of post I'd expect from a religious fanatic. Lol.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 15:00:52 2022 No.14864044 >>14864038 You have given no argument as to why it's impossible for a God to have complete control over the universal wave function. You will continue to deflect

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 15:02:13 2022 No.14864048 >>14864041 You're the only religious fanatic ITT. I'm not religious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 15:37:04 2022 No.14864126 Atheists have been completely destroyed in this thread holy shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 18:12:04 2022 No.14864499 So how does entanglement preclude god having complete control over the universal wavefunction? What was the point of bringing up entanglement instead of staying on topic?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 19:46:38 2022 No.14864748 >>14863959 He's predicted a whole lot that science was "baffled" by. Eventually you'd think people would start listening.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 21 22:21:14 2022 No.14865125 >>14860799 Tell that to all the great men of science who knew there had to be a supreme creator

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math