/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1682524]

Dawkins’s writing gives the impression of clarity, but his readable style can cover over major conceptual confusions. For example, the core of his case against God’s existence, as he summarizes it on pages 188-189 of his “The God Delusion.”, seems to go like this:

1. There is need for an explanation of the apparent design of the universe.

2. The universe is highly complex.

3. An intelligent designer of the universe would be even more highly complex.

4. A complex designer would itself require an explanation.

5. Therefore, an intelligent designer will not provide an explanation of the universe’s complexity.

6. On the other hand, the (individually) simple processes of natural selection can explain the apparent design of the universe.

7. Therefore, an intelligent designer (God) almost certainly does not exist.

As formulated, this argument is an obvious non-sequitur. The premises (1-6), if true, show only that God cannot be posited as the explanation for the apparent design of the universe, which can rather be explained by natural selection. They do nothing to show that “God almost certainly does not exist” (189).

[Anonymous No.1682630]

Why does anyone care what dawkins says? He's just some idiot who wrote a book.

[Anonymous No.1682650]

>>1682630
I honestly have no idea, but sadly many people do. Hopefully we can help to educate them.

[Anomynous No.1682659]

It is a non-sequiter as posted, though the argument was probably built as a counterargument to intelligent design. The capacity of an intelligent designer to fill the explanation of the apparent design of the universe does not work as the designer itself would then need explanation. You can't have a mind first design methodology without first having an explanation for that mind.

[Anonymous No.1682719]

LOL, I always thought that that bullshit line of reasoning was an amateur troll. I didn't know it was a professional troll.

[Anonymous No.1682735]

>>1682659
But it's not true that the creator has to be more complex than the creation. For example the mandelbrot set is infinitely complex, but the generating function is ridiculously simple.

[Anomynous No.1682759]

>>1682735
Intelligent design is based on the idea that evolution can't explain the complexity present, because god. Evolution can explain it, because the next generation of something can be more complex and interesting than the preceding generation. At which point god is not necessary to explain the complexity of the universe and falls to occam's razor.

[Anonymous No.1682770]

>>1682659

That's not how science works.
You can posit black-holes without having to explain where they come from.

[Anonymous No.1682776]

>>1682759

>At which point god is not necessary to explain the complexity of the universe
The "God hypothesis" doesn't solely rest on the argument from design. Providing a better explanation for apparent complexity doesn't exactly lead to the stated conclusion (God almost certainly does not exist).

[Anonymous No.1682777]

>They do nothing to show that “God almost certainly does not exist

Let me rephrase his argument in a more mathy time way.

Premise 1: Complex things cant create themselves
Premise 2: Life and the Universe is complex
Conclusion: Life and the Universe was created by something more complex (god).

However, if premise 1 is true, than God can not exist.

So its not so much that God almost certainly doesnt exist. But that the argument for his existence almost certainly cant be true.

[Anonymous No.1682790]

>>1682524
>They do nothing to show that “God almost certainly does not exist”.
They do absolutely everything needed to show that using God as an explanation is totally unnecessary, doesn't answer any questions, doesn't allow for construction of any models and only complicates things.
In everything we've observed the simpler explanation, the one that does not invoke intelligent supernatural entities, works best as a basis for scientific inquiry.

[Anonymous No.1682796]

[Anomynous No.1682800]

>>1682770
I can also posit strange-holes, but if I don't have a good explanation for how they come into being, anything I base on that is standing on poor ground.

[Anonymous No.1682880]

>>1682777
It is not claimed that God ever created himself. He simply always existed. He is not complex either, he is an infinite being. Such an infinite being is limited to his infinite knowledge to act only in a manner that that would itself entail.

ie. YHWY (I am that I am). Beside him there is no other.

[Anonymous No.1682897]

>>1682880
>It is not claimed that God ever created himself. He simply always existed.
Why complicate the matters then and not just say that the Universe simply always existed?

>He is not complex either, he is an infinite being.
An infinite being that was capable of designing this Universe had to have been complex.

>Such an infinite being is limited to his infinite knowledge to act only in a manner that that would itself entail.
Then it's not omnipotent, like the religion promoting it claims.

[Anomynous No.1682896]

>>1682880
>He simply always existed.
Explain how God is allowed to have always existed while the universe cannot have always existed without resorting to a Special Pleading Fallacy.

[Anonymous No.1682914]

>>1682880
Accepting that something can have always existed removes the need for a god in the first place, as you could just say that the universe has always existed.

[sage No.1682937]

>>1682880
> He is not complex either
>infinite knowledge

[Anonymous No.1682960]

>>1682896
Because it's not a logical contradiction for something to be eternal and unchanging. It's a logical contradiction for something to be eternal and changing.

[Liberty !primeMEbkw No.1682964]

here, let me redirect this:

>>>k

/k/ - religion and politics

[Anonymous No.1682967]

>>1682914
see
>>1682960

[Anonymous No.1682997]

>>1682896
>>1682897
>>1682914
Because the universe is NOT infinite, nor has it always existed. Because science; it is made of finite particles and has existed for finite time.

Time is a product of change, it is part of the fabric of the natural universe. This change could not, and did not always exist. If time was infinite, ie the natural world infinite, then we would never get to the present. The present would entail infinite of time to have occurred before reaching it, ie. can't happen in nature, no infinite exists in nature. Time as we know it, had to have a beginning. An infinite loop would prevent us from being in the present, and would also not explain why there is something rather then nothing, and also would not explain why the universe is accelerating in its expansion.

Cosmological argument, in the natural world all things that happen have a previous cause. We have traced this cause all the way back to a singularity, which itself must have a first cause. Since a un-caused cause does not, and cannot occur in nature, there must be a supernatural (outside of nature) cause for its own existence, as observed by science.

[Anonymous No.1682999]

I think we can all agree the Abrahamic god almost certainly doesn't exist. Cannot be just/merciful and all powerful and let 250k die in a single day because of an tsunami. Or how about progeria? (see semi-unrelated pic)

[Anonymous No.1683031]

>>1682999
>Implying good and bad exist outside of God's law.
Evil exists,
Therefore absolute morality exists (since some things are truly evil)
Therefore an infinite standard exists for morality, ie. God.

Without God one must accept that morality is only relative. In nature, survival of the fittest is acceptable, what makes there action bad or good?

If an alien race existed that viewed humans as cattle, why would it be 'wrong' for them to treat us as such.

To disbelieve in God is to give up on a supreme morality to even judge such a being. An existence for evil is therefore another proof for God.

I would argue further, that what you are is a direct result of all that is. That is to say you are only you because there is evil (and everything else). For you to be you, all that is, must be. Arguing with God is therefore an argument against your own existence.

[Anonymous No.1683112]

>>1682997
I understand that the universe is finite and has existed for a certain amount of time, but assuming that it needs an enternal cause means you are suspending your logic at a certain point for no reason.

>this change could not always exist.
Why not?

>If time was infinite, ie the natural world infinite, then we would never get to the present.
Trying to measure time in any absolute way is futile. The only reasonable way to measure time is to the work out the difference in time between two events, so even if time was infinite it could be regarded as an endless series of finite intervals.

>an infinite loop
As long as some point in this infinite loop is a singularity, it doesn't matter how long it's been going on for, as we could just call the singularity the begining of time as we know it.

>cosmological argument
Quantum physics would disagree with you. Sometimes things happenfor no reason.

[Anonymous No.1683133]

>>1682999
Why would a merciful God make people not die? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Life in this world is supposed to be temporary.

[Anonymous No.1683137]

>>1683112
Quantum physics does not say that things happen for no reason.

[Anonymous No.1683142]

all atheistfags will be totally loling when they die and understand that there's been a god present all along.

[Anonymous No.1683145]

>>1682880
It is not claimed that Eternal President Kim Il Sung ever created himself. He simply always existed. He is not complex either, he is an infinite being. Such an infinite being is limited to his infinite knowledge to act only in a manner that that would itself entail.

ie. YHWY (I am that I am). Beside him there is no other.

[Anonymous No.1683155]

>>1683112
So your argument is for a cyclic universe model, something that has been thrown out by almost all philosophers and scientists in the modern era. To say the universe just exists in cycles, is to say that the universe is operating in a cycle.

The universe has been shown to be expanding. Not only is it expanding, but it it accelerating. There is no logical, or scientific reason to believe that the universe will suddenly turn back into a point when all evidence shows contrary.

My argument against an infinite causal chain is simple. For the current moment which came about from cause to exist, that would imply an infinite string of prior events to have taken place. For the prior stated reason, that is false. I also argued that it is false because we could not get to the point where we are at the current moment due to cause, since an infinite number of events would have to take place prior to getting to it, ie. never getting to it.

This model also doesn't explain why there is something (the universe), rather then nothing, cycle or otherwise.

Quantum physics does not show that things happen for no reason. Rather it is an approximation that attempts to model what is happening without disturbing the already set flow of what would happen.

[Anonymous No.1683161]

>>1683031

Capitalism exists,
Therefore absolute morality exists (since some things are truly capitalist)
Therefore an infinite standard exists for morality, ie. Eternal President Kim Il Sung.

Without Eternal President Kim Il Sung one must accept that socialism is only relative. In nature, survival of the fittest is acceptable, what makes there action capitalist or socialist?

If an non-Korean race existed that viewed Koreans as cattle, why would it be 'capitalist' for them to treat us as such.

To disbelieve in Eternal President Kim Il Sung is to give up on a supreme socialism to even judge such a being. An existence for capitalism is therefore another proof for Eternal Kim Il Sung.

I would argue further, that what you are is a direct result of all that is. That is to say you are only you because there is capitalism (and everything else). For you to be you, all that is, must be. Arguing with Eternal President Kim Il Sung is therefore an argument against your own existence.

[Anonymous No.1683165]

>>1683031
You didn't define "evil", which is an invention of mankind. The rest of your argument is thus invalid.

[Anonymous No.1683173]

>>1683161
I am truly glad you take the time to not only read my post, but respond and think about it. You are doing what I want you to by in this manner. You will be without excuse when you stand before the Lord, since all knowledge was presented to you, and yet you still did not believe.

[Anonymous No.1683183]

>>1683173
I am truly glad you take the time to not only read my post, but respond and think about it. You are doing what I want you to by in this manner. You will be without excuse when you stand before Eternal President Kim Il Sung, since all knowledge of socialism was presented to you, and yet you still did not believe.

[Anonymous No.1683187]

>>1683031

>Without God one must accept that morality is only relative.

Which God? Which system of morality?
First of all no human has access to God or his morality, they only have mediators/charlatans who claim to have access to divine information. So that's a big problem

Second, once you select a God and his moral system you reject other God's and their moralities. Placing primacy on Christian God precludes Allah and Sharia law, or Vishnu and Hindu morality, etc.

Even if a human claims to have subscribed to an "objective/absolute morality" we can still say, "so what?!" It's still just a human making a value judgment. It's still relative in a very real sense.

When there are multiple "objective" systems of measurement, selecting one over another becomes becomes a matter of preference.

>If an alien race existed that viewed humans as cattle, why would it be 'wrong' for them to treat us as such.

Finally a bigger problem is that an arbiter of morality, like God, can transcend rational human interests. If he dictates what is right or wrong, he could announce that the elimination of the human species by aliens is moral and virtuous.

He could also suspend human morality and ask individuals to kill their children on top of a mountain, because as the designer of morality he has that power.

Religious morality suffers from
1. epistemology: you dont actually know God's will
2. relativism: it's up to a human to place precedence on one morality over another
3. Divine Tyranny, anything becomes moral if God dictates it to be.

It's much more reasonable to build a morality centered around rational human interests, what we want for ourselves and our children. A morality that looks at consequences and also uses principles of virtue, not religious superstition.

[Anonymous No.1683186]

>>1683031
>Evil exists
By what standards? You didn't define it. It's an invention of mankind. Remove mankind off the face of earth, there won't be evil anymore. Morality is a set of rules created by mankind to bind societies together.

[Anonymous No.1683192]

>>1683161
Hahaha :)

>>1683142
As an atheistfag, I don't have too much of a problem if there were a creator-being, but what I don't understand is why I have to worship it.

>>1683173
Stop trolling this shit.

[Anonymous No.1683198]

>>1683165
Wrong, you can ignore my initial argument and understand precisely what I am saying, when I explained what it is I am saying after my argument.

I defined evil to be that which is contrary to God's law. Which makes evil an absolute concept.

I then showed that if it is not absolute it is must be a relative concept. I then showed that if it is relative, your ideas of "evil" are not other people, species, or consciousness will consider evil.

I then showed that for you to argue that God is evil, you are claiming there is an objective standard in which to judge him. Since a relative concept of evil will not be the same for such a being that you see fit, and is therefore irrelevant as it would be with any other species, being, or person that thinks different from you.

My last argument is about determinism and stands alone as an argument regardless of how you define "evil".

[Anonymous No.1683212]

>>1683198
>>1683198
>define evil from God
>use this definition of evil to prove God's existence

[Anonymous No.1683215]

>>1683198
Wrong, you can ignore my initial argument and understand precisely what I am saying, when I explained what it is I am saying after my argument.

I defined capitalism to be that which is contrary to Eternal President Kim Il Sung's law. Which makes capitalism an absolute concept.

I then showed that if it is not absolute it is must be a relative concept. I then showed that if it is relative, your ideas of "capitalism" are not other people, species, or consciousness will consider capitalism.

I then showed that for you to argue that Eternal President Kim Il Sung is capitalist, you are claiming there is an objective standard in which to judge him. Since a relative concept of capitalism will not be the same for such a being that you see fit, and is therefore irrelevant as it would be with any other species, being, or person that thinks different from you.

My last argument is about determinism and stands alone as an argument regardless of how you define "capitalism".

[Anonymous No.1683219]

>>1683198
Well, you've gone and confused the hell out of me.

In your one post you say evil exists thus god exists because evil is contrary to god, and now you're saying evil doesnt exist because it's relative?

[Anonymous No.1683223]

>>1683198
Then why not Allah or Yahweh? Or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Anonymous No.1683235]

>>1683155
>I also argued that it is false because we could not get to the point where we are at the current moment due to cause, since an infinite number of events would have to take place prior to getting to it, IE. NEVER GETTING TO IT.
Achilles and the turtle would disagree with that.

[Anonymous No.1683236]

>>1683198
Your Christian God isn't really moral. Actually he killed over 2M of people, while Satan killed only 12.

[Anonymous No.1683246]

>>1683235
Fuck achilles and that turtle. What kind of logic is it to halve the distance between him and the turtle infinitely? Why not herp derp take a longer step?

[Anonymous No.1683260]

>>1683187
You are assuming many things.
First, you are assuming multiple "gods" can or do exist. This is simply not reality. What makes God God is his infinite nature. If there are multiple persons of God (and there are), they will share the same infinite knowledge and will (which they do). God is a state of being.

Second, you are assuming the will of God can change. God is a changeless being. In nature things are constantly changing. For God, God can only be what he is. He is infinite and changeless, a constant which is infinite. YHWY (I am that I am).

>>1683219
Yes I assume evil exists because that is my premise... My conclusion necessarily follows my premises. That means you must deny one or more of my premises for my concussion to be not necessarily true.

To deny my premises is to say morality must be relative or non-existent, as I said on the vary next paragraph.

If morality doesn't exist you cannot say God is "evil" since it is just a concept you makeup in your mind and not a reality.

If you say morality is relative, I say that a relative morality that you have is not what others have nor will it be the same for God and thus is not relevant to an argument that God is evil. It can only be said he is 'evil' from your perspective.

From your perspective if you think God is 'evil' I argued that that is in effect an argument against him having made you (your existence). What makes you, you is your experiences, thoughts, choices, actions, circumstance, etc. If any of the variables where changed, you as you know yourself would not exist.

[Anonymous No.1683274]

>>1683260
So by your definition of God, he exists, so therefore, by definition, god exists.

derp

[Anonymous No.1683272]

>>1683246
Sometimes this story is told in another way: By the time Achilles has run the initial head start of the turtle the turtle will have walked a bit further away, so it gets a "new", though shorter, head start. And this can be continued ad infinitum so he'll never catch up, which is a fallacy as we know today, because a sum of infinite terms can still have a finite value.

[Anonymous No.1683279]

>>1683260

>>1683187
You are assuming many things.
First, you are assuming multiple "Eternal Presidents" can or do exist. This is simply not reality. What makes Kim Il Sung Eternal Preident is his Eternal nature. If there are multiple persons of Eternal Presidents (and there are), they will share the same Eternal knowledge and will (which they do). Eternal President Kim Il Sung is a state of being.

Second, you are assuming the will of Eternal President Kim Il Sung can change. Eternal President Kim Il Sung is a changeless being. In nature things are constantly changing. For Eternal President Kim Il Sung, Eternal President Kim Il Sung can only be what he is. He is Eternal and changeless, a constant which is infinite. EPKS (I am Eternal President Kim Il Sung).

>>1683219
Yes I assume capitalism exists because that is my premise... My conclusion necessarily follows my premises. That means you must deny one or more of my premises for my concussion to be not necessarily true.

To deny my premises is to say socialism must be relative or non-existent, as I said on the vary next paragraph.

If socialism doesn't exist you cannot say Eternal President Kim Il Sung is "capitalist" since it is just a concept you makeup in your mind and not a reality.

If you say socialism is relative, I say that a relative socialism that you have is not what others have nor will it be the same for Eternal President Kim Il Sung and thus is not relevant to an argument that Eternal President Kim Il Sung is evil. It can only be said he is 'capitalist' from your perspective.

From your perspective if you think Eternal President Kim Il Sung is 'capitalistl' I argued that that is in effect an argument against him having made you (your existence). What makes you, you is your experiences, thoughts, choices, actions, circumstance, etc. If any of the variables where changed, you as you know yourself would not exist.

[Anonymous No.1683282]

>>1683272
Just like the intelligence of an infinite number of Christians will have a finite value.

[Anonymous No.1683283]

>>1683260


>You are assuming many things.
First, you are assuming multiple "gods" can or do exist. This is simply not reality.

You missed the point. Regardless how God exists, there are different human theories about that "true God", i.e different religions/moralities to subscribe to.

A human still faces the information problem, we have no direct way of attaining transcendental knowledge of God's will.


>Second, you are assuming the will of God can change. God is a changeless being. In nature things are constantly changing. For God, God can only be what he is. He is infinite and changeless, a constant which is infinite. YHWY (I am that I am).

Irrelevant.
It's possible to be pre-determined, static, and changeless in moral opinion and also have absurd moral opinions that never change. Such as, it's moral for some species of aliens to come and destroy all humans.

But we could never know what God thinks is moral since we have no access to his mind. We only have a variety of different religions proclaiming to express the will of the one true God, and each have different ideas of what is moral and immoral.

I see no use in theistic morality, appealing to the authority of a religious tradition which itself appeals to the authority of an inspired writer who claims to have been inspired by God is absolute rubbish. It's fine as a form of aesthetics and meditation. But it's a horrible way to organize society and make laws.

[Anonymous No.1683308]

>>1683274
I assumed God existed, because someone assumed God existed and that he was evil. I showed that he is not evil if he exists.

I have arguments for his existence which I have used already. That was not the point of that post however.

God is a being that can be experienced through internal knowledge. Having experienced God myself, all "proofs" or ideas about God are only secondary to that experience I have had with him.

God is a self-relevant truth. The question should not begin with his existence, it begins with your existence. God is God, you exists, therefore God created you. God is not part of creation he is that which is.

[Anonymous No.1683309]

>>1683279

1. we can't know what God thinks is moral, in the end there will always be some human or human construct pretending to know what God wants

2. different religions paint different pictures of morality, its up to the human to pick a religion and thus pick what is "objectively moral" (ironic)

3. even if we knew what God thought we might not agree with it, if he thought raping animals was moral, we might disagree

4. a morality based on medieval superstition wont be able to adapt to a changing world
5. absolute standards dont exist in any area of life except maybe in math, why should morality be "absolute"? right and wrong are certainly not mathematical

[Anonymous No.1683314]

>>1683272
I just find that unless Achilles is more than 4 feet away from a turtle is he racing, regardless of a head start, he should be able to simply step over the turtle. Him having to take an infinite number of steps in between seems broken ;)

>>1683260
I see. I wasn't accusing god of being evil. I personally don't believe in him or that evil is something concrete. I just found the contradiction between your two posts confusing.

[Anonymous No.1683318]

>>1683308


What you convince yourself to believe is your business. Unless you can provide a rational argument for God or Religious Morality then just keep your thoughts to yourself.

It's no use saying I've experienced God therefore he exists and you should believe X,Y,Z.

[Anonymous No.1683320]

>God is God, you exists, therefore God created you
An apple is an apple, I exist, therefore the apple created me.
Or as that other poster would say:
>Eternal President Kim Il Sung is Eternal President Kim Il Sung, I exist, therefore Eternal President Kim Il Sung created me.

[Anonymous No.1683324]

This thread is a wonderful illustration of what is known as "Bounded Rationality".

I would suggest you look at the evidence for the existence of the paranormal before you grasp at straws trying to 'disprove' any type of God.

[Anonymous No.1683330]

>>1683308
I assumed Eternal President Kim Il Sung existed, because someone assumed Eternal President Kim Il Sung existed and that he was capitalist. I showed that he is not capitalist if he exists.

I have arguments for his existence which I have used already. That was not the point of that post however.

Eternal President Kim Il Sung is a being that can be worshipped through cult of personality. Having worshipepd Eternal President Kim Il Sung myself, all "proofs" or ideologies about Eternal President Kim Il Sung are only secondary to that adoration I have had with him.

Eternal President Kim Il Sung is a self-relevant truth. The question should not begin with his existence, it begins with your existence. Eternal President Kim Il Sung is Eternal President Kim Il Sung, you exists, therefore Eternal President Kim Il Sung created you. Eternal President Kim Il Sung is not part of creation he is that which is.

[Anonymous No.1683333]

>>1683330
wtf?

[Anonymous No.1683336]

Natural selection shows nothing about the design of the universe, what the fuck are you talking about?

It shows the origin of species, which has nothing to do with the universe's inception

[Anonymous No.1683338]

>>1683330
Are you back again? Holy fuck you're a useless idiot.

[Anonymous No.1683340]

>>1683308
A couple things regarding this. First, I was under the impression my parents created me. Next, one could question the truth of your "experiences" which are a result of your perceptions. As I have not experienced your perceptions, I can not take that you feel/felt god as true. Furthermore, I could technically question the validity of my own perceptions as they too could be faulty. Thus, I return to the problem I always come across when thinking about this and how does one prove they exist or experience anything. Fuck.

[Anonymous No.1683342]

>>1683318


It's actually impossible to go from I experienced X to X actually exists. Since our experiences are our own subjective representations of object X we can't actually know if there exists an object that actually corresponds to our experience.

Furthermore, we don't have the machinery to experience God. As finite beings our experiences are structured by time and space and causality.

Saying you experienced God is like saying you took a picture of the entire universe with your camera. A finite machine can't capture the infinite.

Furthermore God doesn't exist in any comprehensible way to us. Unless you think he exists like a finite object, like a tree or idea...in which case he wouldn't really be the God you want him to be.

[Anonymous No.1683345]

>>1683283
>But we could never know what God thinks is moral since we have no access to his mind. We only have a variety of different religions proclaiming to express the will of the one true God, and each have different ideas of what is moral and immoral.

We know exactly what God thinks. He thinks all that can be thought, as a moment, a constant of being. That is why we can trust him for morality, because he has seen all possible outcomes. He knows the effects of sin and therefore has the authority to tell us what is destructive to ourselves, because he already knows. He knows our best interest, regardless of what we think is best.

The things that God has reveled are in the bible. He did not suddenly reveal himself to humanity. He has given a consistent message since the beginning of humanity starting with Adam & Eve. The truth of the word of God can be experienced in life. Once you have seen the truth, there is no longer reason for doubt.

I know the truth because the truth can never be anything but. You can look at history, confirmed in the bible, the Jewish people, prophecy both fulfilled and to come. What will happen is already determined and is coming together as it was said. Jesus IS the word and the truth made flesh. He is the salvation and pathway God has provided back to himself.

[Anonymous No.1683348]

>>1683342

It's actually impossible to go from I worshipped X to X actually exists. Since our adorations are our own subjective representations of idelogy X we can't actually know if there exists an idelogy that actually corresponds to our adoration.

Furthermore, we don't have the machinery to worship Eternal President Kim Il Sung. As finite beings our adorations are structured by time and space and causality.

Saying you worshipped Eternal President Kim Il Sung is like saying you took a picture of the entire Democratic People's Republic of Korea with your camera. A finite machine can't capture the Eternal.

Furthermore Eternal President Kim Il Sung doesn't exist in any comprehensible way to us. Unless you think he exists like a finite object, like a tree or idea...in which case he wouldn't really be the Eternal President you want him to be.

[Anonymous No.1683363]

>>1683342
Not you you were responding to, but...

We have part of the infinite in us. That is why we can experience the infinite. Of course we can't completely encapsulate it or experience more than an infinitesimal part, but we were created specifically to be able to experience the infinite.

As for not being able to go from an experience of X to the existence of X, we can't do otherwise. Sure, we can discount some of our experiences. But from the sum of them, we can't help to go to conclusions about the existence of something. Our minds cannot function without making leaps to ideas about existence.

[Anonymous No.1683375]

>>1683345

We know exactly what Eternal President Kim Il Sung thinks. He thinks all that can be thought, as a moment, a constant of being. That is why we can trust him for socialism, because he has seen all possible outcomes. He knows the effects of greed and therefore has the authority to tell us what is destructive to ourselves, because he already knows. He knows our best interest, regardless of what we think is best.

The things that Eternal President Kim Il Sung has reveled are in the Korean Law. He did not suddenly reveal himself to Koreans. He has given a consistent message since the beginning of Democratic People's Republic of Korea starting with Soviets & Americans. The truth of the ideology of Eternal President Kim Il Sung can be experienced in life. Once you have seen the truth, there is no longer reason for doubt.

I know the truth because the truth can never be anything but. You can look at history, confirmed in the Korean law, the Japanese people, prophecy both fulfilled and to come. What will happen is already determined and is coming together as it was said. Kim Jong Il IS the law and the truth made flesh. He is the salvation and pathway Eternal President Kim Il Sung has provided back to himself.

[Anonymous No.1683385]

>>1683308
>God is a being that can be experienced through internal knowledge.
Biologically speaking internal knowledge is an impossibility, nobody is born knowing so everything you must take from somewhere else. What you experienced was probably a very physical sensation that was a response to the need your mind created for god. It's like when an hypocondriac is given a placebo and suddenly he starts feeling better.

[Anonymous No.1683389]

>>1683324
No one in here is trying to DISPROVE God. Everyone is just pointing out the fallacies in the religionfags attempts to PROVE Him. Those two are completely different things. Pointing out a prof is false doesn't disprove it. It just shows that this prof doesn't prove anything.
And the fact that religionfags don't get the difference between these two is probably why they'll never get it.
Saying
>God is God, you exists, therefore God created you.
Is just as saying
>An apple is an apple, I exist, therefore the apple created me.
It's complete and utter bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1683401]

It is not rational to discard half of what makes you human. To assume feeling cannot be trusted while your senses can be, is irrational. There is no prior reason to assume either to be false. It is equally rational to deny your senses and accept only feeling.

As a Christian I accept both and therefore God. Or you could accept neither and therefore nothing.

[Anonymous No.1683419]

>>1683401
It's not that people don't accept their feelings but beliving they are explained by the supernatural before looking for natural explanations or affirming they must ultimately be rooted in the latter is what makes them irrational. If everyone was rational there'd be no religious people same as there can't be science if everyone was irrational.

[Anonymous No.1683421]

>>1683389
Interesting, I await being "disproved" that:
*the universe began in a singularity and
*Every effect has a cause

Existence, therefor God.

[Anonymous No.1683434]

It is not true socialism to discard half of what makes you Korean. To assume feeling cannot be trusted while your senses can be, is not socialism. There is no prior reason to assume either to be false. It is equally rational to deny your senses and accept only feeling.

As a Korean I accept both and therefore Eternal President Kim Il Sung. Or you could accept neither and therefore nothing.

[Anonymous No.1683439]

>>1683421
Interesting, I await being "disproved" that:
*the Democratic People's Republic of Korea began in a singularity and
*Every effect has a cause

Existence, therefor Eternal President Kim Il Sung.

[Anonymous No.1683443]

>>1683137
>>1683155
>quantum physics does not say things happen for no reason.

It shows that energy can come into a system due to random fluctuations, without anything causing this. Similarly, radioactive decay happens randomly, without any particular cause (beyond the weak force).

>To say the universe just exists in cycles, is to say that the universe is operating in a cycle.

I don't really know what you're saying here.

> There is no logical, or scientific reason to believe that the universe will suddenly turn back into a point when all evidence shows contrary.

The expansion of the universe is accellerating now, and probably will keep expanding. However, depending on several factors it could slow and eventually reverse. I don't particularly think it will, but it's a possibilty.

>that would imply an infinite string of prior events to have taken place.

That is true. However, the same is true of numbers. There is an infinite set of numbers between 0 and 1, and if you kept counting in infinitely small sections you would never get any closer. However, 1 exists and can be counted to.

>This model also doesn't explain why there is something (the universe), rather then nothing, cycle or otherwise.

No scientific model does. There are some advances in this area, which might help to show why anything exists, but at this point no-one knows.

>it is an approximation that attempts to model what is happening without disturbing the already set flow of what would happen.

That is... one way of looking at it. It fails to explain a large number of phenomena, but still.

[Anonymous No.1683447]

>>1683419
Yes, and naturalism discards feelings as its foundation for truth as an assumption from the beginning, which is my point. How do you know you can trust your senses if you have already assumed feelings have no explanatory power. You say feeling is a product of evolution which is to say what you perceive is only due to evolutionary benefit and not to actual bases for truth. The same can be said about our scenes, they are only of evolutionary benefit and provide no necessary truth.

The assumption that truth is only that which can be observed by the scientific method, disproves itself. This assumption and many others cannot be proved through its methods.

My foundation for knowledge discards nothing as its assumption, which is a more rational view for finding truth in this existence.

[Anonymous No.1683451]

>>1683443
>radioactive decay happens randomly, without any particular cause (beyond the weak force).

A gross misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.1683457]

>>1683401
So it's equally rational to starve to death?

Half of what makes us human is considered sin in most religions. How is that fair?

How is it any more rational to follow "feelings" which have no discernible origin than senses which do? Besides that, you missed my point by assuming that there is a distinction between the two.

My point...somewhere in my post was that we perceive our universe through our senses. As imperfect instruments, they can "misfire" causing us to believe we have sensed something that might not exist. There is no rational basis to attribute the unknown to god either.

[Anonymous No.1683461]

>>1683421
Your first premise is false since you are assuming universe must have had a beggining. Singularity was the starting point of time for us, not the universe.

Your second affirmation is just poor resoning since causality itself cannot be an effect. It's logically contadicting.

Furthermore, neither of them is a valid argument for the existence of god.

[Anonymous No.1683470]

>>1683324
>I would suggest you look at the evidence for the existence of the paranormal before you grasp at straws trying to 'disprove' any type of God.
If there's no evidence for the existence of something, I reject the claim that it exists.
If there is evidence of something paranormal, then it can't be supernatural.
If the evidence of paranormal is unaccounted for by the existing theories, then it simply means we need more time to explain it.

There is nothing in any "evidence for the existence of paranormal" that would validate religious beliefs.

[Anonymous No.1683487]

>>1683421
There are two major flaws in your chain of prof:
>Every effect has a cause
You just don't know that for sure. Especially when you're talking about the big bang, which fucks up all our models and understanding of physics.

And the second flaw:
>Existence, therefor God.
As far as I understand, you're trying to say that God caused existence. But why does it have to be a God? Just because we don't know what brought everything into existence doesn't have to mean that is had to be a God that did it.

Again, I did not disprove the existence of God, I just showed that your prof in fact doesn't prove anything.

[Anonymous No.1683497]

>>1683470
To find the paranormal to exist, and your entire skeptic belief system to have been misconceived, you would refuse to consider other knowledge you had previously discarded because of the skeptic system which was already made false in the existence of the paranormal. This is not rational, it is a plain denial of God regardless of any and all possible proof of him simply because you do not want to believe in his existence and not because of any rational thought.

[Anonymous No.1683505]

>>1683497
To find the collectivism to exist, and your entire skeptic idelogy system to have been misconceived, you would refuse to consider other knowledge you had previously discarded because of the ideology system which was already made false in the existence of the collectivism. This is not true socialism, it is a plain denial of Eternal President Kim Il Sung regardless of any and all possible proof of him simply because you do not want to believe in his existence and not because of any true socialist thought.

[Anonymous No.1683510]

>>1683443
>It shows that energy can come into a system due to random fluctuations, without anything causing this.
QM models the properties of the vacuum state, which include fluctuations which can give rise to particle pairs and a resulting energy vacuum. Nothing about this suggests causelessness.

[Anonymous No.1683535]

>>1683457
It's not that religions teach that the natural should be discarded altogether. What most of them ultimately teach (with the exception of, say, Satanism) is that the natural is to be made subject to the spiritual, and that the spiritual should not be made subject to the natural. We should use our reason to make our natural obey our spiritual. That is the restoring of order that makes us truly human, and a vessel of life.

[Anonymous No.1683539]

>>1683487
My point was all we have observed (and can observe) points to the first premise being true. There is no reason to doubt it other then because you wish God to not be true, and not because of a rational reason for disbelief in this (also it is testable and consistent with the scientific method).

Those 2 premises imply something which is beyond nature, immaterial (or not of material in the universe), causeless, timeless, and more powerful then the energy of the universe (all powerful), and also of free-will (chose to cause this action). God is the only thing that can possess those traits, call it whatever you want.

[Anonymous No.1683588]

>>1683535
That's just ridiculous, the body-mind-spirit trichotomy is an invention of greek philosophers, not religions. Christianity in its origins made little to no distinction between them before starting to preach to greeks and romans coincidently, who were more rational than jews or anyone back then. That's just a perfect example of religious thinking trying to incorporte rational arguments to appear less crazy.

[Anonymous No.1683612]

>>1683539
>My point was all we have observed (and can observe) points to the first premise being true. There is no reason to doubt it other then because you wish God to not be true [...]
No, my reason to doubt it, is because you are applying it to the big bang. And we already know, that our current scientific models and laws break down at the big bang therefore it is possible that your first premise also breaks down at the big bang. This is why things like the LHC are built. We want to know what happened at the big bang and maybe we can find a model that we can apply to it.
>Those 2 premises imply something which is beyond nature
No, it fucking doesn't. It just implies something that is currently unknown.
>call it whatever you want.
Alright, so I'm gonna call it "apple", or "President Kim Il Sung" for now.

[Anonymous No.1683656]

>>1683588
No.
1) There's no trichotomy. Mind and spirit are the same thing.
2) The Greek philosophies were religions.
3) The Greeks didn't invent it. They learned it from the religions of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and probably Hindus and Hebrews. It was the influx of this influence that originated the chain of Greek philosophers starting with Thales and Pythagoras.

[Anonymous No.1683734]

>>1683656
>1) There's no trichotomy. Mind and spirit are the same thing.
ugh, even your own religion disproves you.

http://www.gotquestions.org/body-soul-spirit.html

>2) The Greek philosophies were religions.
Care to explain why or is it just your opinion?

>3) The Greeks didn't invent it. They learned it from the religions of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and probably Hindus and Hebrews. It was the influx of this influence that originated the chain of Greek philosophers starting with Thales and Pythagoras.
First ones to enunciate it (Plato's Tripartite soul). Else is speculation unless you can provide evidence for your believes.