/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 49 KB, 500x452, Deism-mouse-pad-web.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 20:44:31 2010 No.1818439 [Reply] [Original]

Any other people who believe in Deism out there tonight? I feel in my gut something created the universe. No I don't believe this "god" interferes with our lives or changes laws or performs miracles etc. If I had to chose logically I would be atheist but it doesn't feel right to me but irl I just say I'm atheist when I get asked because otherwise I feel like I sound like someone just trying to be different.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 20:47:31 2010 No.1818451 Exercise your left brain some more and better educate yourself, and those "gut" feelings will go away.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 20:48:31 2010 No.1818452 Atheist here. I see no reason for there to be any deities.

>>	Scia Tue Sep 28 20:53:31 2010 No.1818480 disregard atheists. they are arrogant and butthurt

>>	GodofCider Tue Sep 28 20:54:31 2010 No.1818486 >>1818480 ...???... I don't think I am.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 20:55:31 2010 No.1818489

>>1818480
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!
SCIA IS A 16 YEAR OLD DEIST!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 20:59:31 2010 No.1818507 I don't really see anyone butthurt or crying. I can see how you think educating myself would change my opinion but it doesn't I've read plenty of atheism books. And like I said it's a gut feeling not a educated one and I do prefer atheism logically.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 20:59:31 2010 No.1818509 >>1818451 you need to learn to get information from ALL your brain, friendo.

>>	Scia Tue Sep 28 21:00:31 2010 No.1818513 >>1818507 >>1818489 >>1818486 butthurt so burrhurt

>>	GodofCider Tue Sep 28 21:01:31 2010 No.1818517 >>1818507 What it sounds like to me: replace the subject matter from deity, to flat earth. Just as a point of reference. Curiosity: Were you once religious/theistic, whatever it is that you'd like to call it?

>>	Scia Tue Sep 28 21:05:31 2010 No.1818541 atheists assume only one answer can be logical and that their logic is objectively correct

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:06:31 2010 No.1818551 >>1818517 I suppose I could do that. And I was catholic previously not on my own terms just grew up with it and had my confession, and communion. I never made confirmation. Not until maybe 4 years ago I was able to see past the bullshit.

>>	GodofCider Tue Sep 28 21:08:31 2010 No.1818557 >>1818551 >I was able to see past the bullshit. And this lead you to see that...there is a deity, but a deistic one. The others are deluded in worshiping their 'false' deity?

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:09:31 2010 No.1818558

Atheist here.

Don't listen to the assholes, man. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe. I never saw a deist try and push creationism, teach that condoms were evil, or commit an act of divinely inspired terror.

Only you can come to a conclusion about what you believe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:10:31 2010 No.1818563 >>1818551 most bullshit is caused by the religious peoples themselves, Its hard to actually know anything about a religion if all you are told about it is from your parents, pastor, minister, etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:12:31 2010 No.1818575 what's the point in believing something person-like created the universe if you don't believe it has any effect? That's completely pointless and makes you sound dumber than a creationist. Haha jk about that last part.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:15:31 2010 No.1818587

Another atheist here

As long as you are aware that it's not a rational/logical basis for believing in it, I see no problem; just be aware of the limitations of the belief and struggle with it a while, I think having a thorn in your side will produce a better understanding and more useful thought then just settling on the issue.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:17:31 2010 No.1818596 >>1818587 Agreed. Introspection does wonders for one's outlook.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:18:31 2010 No.1818603 File: 25 KB, 320x367, 1282203649701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Define your god and give me your evidence. Your the one who makes the claim.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:20:31 2010 No.1818613 >>1818575 I feel there is a end not a heaven necessarily but something and not nothing that is my only difference in belief.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:22:31 2010 No.1818619

I have some serious questions for you guys. I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember, but having thought about it more, I can't really reason myself out of some questions:

1) Why did the singularity before the big bang even exist in the first place?

2) What ultimately governs the constants and laws that comprise our knowledge of the physical world?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:24:31 2010 No.1818626 >>1818619 1 seems more philosophical, but 2 can be answered that it is because of the fundamental forces of nature

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:25:31 2010 No.1818628 >>1818619 Atomic instability answers both questions

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:26:31 2010 No.1818629

>>1818626
>guys asks why universe works the way it does
>fag answers because that's the way it is

FAIL. Truth be told, we don't know why the universe is the way it is or what the driving forces behind everything is. Quite frankly, I doubt we ever will.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:27:31 2010 No.1818635

>>1818619

>>1) Why did the singularity before the big bang even exist in the first place?

Here's a little thought experiment: combine 1 and -1, and you get zero, right? Likewise, if you carry out this operation in reverse, you can separate 1 and -1 out of zero. Something from nothing? Not exactly. Something and "anti-something" from nothing. Specifically, particles and their anti-particle equivalents dividing out of a state of nothingness science calls quantum potential. This has been directly observed in particle colliders and is known to happen spontaneously, a sort of quantum 'static' at the smallest scales, particle pairs splitting off from one another and then annihilating shortly after. (Better known to most as Hawking radiation).

One of the more recent experimental confirmations of the big bang, by the by, has been the discovery that the total negative gravitational energy in the universe is precisely balanced out by ordinary matter and energy. The result is that the "total energy state" of the universe works out to be zero, meaning it can easily have come from nothing without violating the law of conservation. The universe isn't a "something" that popped into existence out of "nothing" in other words, it's a state of imbalance that collapsed from a more balanced state by way of entropy.

So where did that perfectly balanced state come from? It didn't. That's nothingness. At least, the scientific understanding of it. As it turns out the philosophical/mathematical concept of nothing may not exist outside of either discipline.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:28:31 2010 No.1818636 >>1818628 I just googled atomic instability and got a bunch or journal articles. Care to point me in the right place (where a layman can understand)?

Continued Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:28:31 2010 No.1818637

And where did the space for all of it to expand into come from? Again, it didn't. The big bang didn't occur in preexisting space, nor did all 3-dimensional matter move away from a central point within 3D space. Imagine all 3D matter and energy as 2D pen dots on the surface of a balloon. As you inflate the balloon, from the perspective of any one dot, all the other dots seem to be flying away from it. But it looks the same to any other dot. Because the space they are part of is expanding from a higher dimensional point. You could forgive any one of them for mistakenly thinking they were the center of all creation, situated directly on top of the big bang's point of origin. But of course they'd be wrong.

Citations:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026832.100-the-free-lunch-that-made-our % 20-%20universe.html
http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid=news&type=anews
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacu % 20u%20m-fluctuations
.html
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/matter-wins-over-antimatter-100518.html
http://www.universetoday.com/72605/hawking-god-not-needed-for-universe-to-be-created/

>>2) What ultimately governs the constants and laws that comprise our knowledge of the physical world?

We call them laws because we have a tendency to anthropomorphize, but they're simply natural properties. Any extant object has them. If you were to randomly generate a solid mass it would have "laws" of it's own, governing how fluid can flow around it, how aerodynamic it is and whatnot. Laws are the irregularities in the way the universe turned out.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:37:31 2010 No.1818676

>>1818635
>>1818637
This is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent things I've ever seen come out from /sci/. I asked the questions, and you've really made it much clearer.

Just to expand on 2, if the forces of nature are irregularities in the way the universe formed, if the universe formed differently (i.e. with different irregularities), our fundamental forces would be different, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:39:31 2010 No.1818688 >>1818676 Put another way. If they had formed differently from the way they did, then you wouldn't be reading this.

>>	The Oracle Tue Sep 28 21:40:31 2010 No.1818696 >>1818635 It wasn't a big Bang. It was a big Division.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:42:31 2010 No.1818702 >>1818688 not the asker, but i'm getting sucked in. that chance seems incredibly small, so probability shows we shouldn't be here. wtf?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:43:31 2010 No.1818705 >>1818688 Can you imagine what would happen if the force of gravity was just a tad stronger? I don't even want to think about it D:

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:45:31 2010 No.1818712 >>1818705 Meh, gravity's not that strong to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:45:31 2010 No.1818714 >>1818702 1/10^1000 in an infinite space over an infinite time is 1/1

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:46:31 2010 No.1818716 >>1818712 That's my point

>>	GodofCider Tue Sep 28 21:47:31 2010 No.1818724 >>1818714 Right. One way or another, the chance of us being here are 1/1. Because we're here.

The Oracle Tue Sep 28 21:51:31 2010 No.1818740

Things in <> maybe known by others in a different name.

>>1818619
The ratio of the initial collision in the <pre-bang vaccum null spacetime>. The Universe, like a particle, sits in a sea of anti-universe (what is commonly thought of as 'nothingness', although that is quite trite).

>>1818635
Dimensional awareness is an illusion of memory. There are more dimensions than possible interactions of matter and permutations of possibility from our current understanding. For instance, I see 4 dimensional objects because my reaction times are quicker, and I can see the object travel through time and space longer -- making objects appear curved. Differentials in time are represented through alpha (visible vs nonvisible color). "Color trails"

The dimensions you see are simply perspective, which is a requirement of memory, which is not a requirement for existence to happen (as anyone who has been a little too drunk can testify).

I ask you, What, from the outside in, is (infinite) small, while from the inside looking out, is infinite big?

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:52:31 2010 No.1818748

I think there's a god out there. When it comes down to it, science can unify shit up the ass all it wants, but the real fundamental things, it can't explain. Like, why a neutral state in the universe existed at all, or why atoms (as opposed to some other structure) are the building blocks for matter. Something had to have put it all in motion to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:54:31 2010 No.1818763 >>1818748 Just because science can't explain a thing (yet) is no reason to believe in imaginary things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:58:31 2010 No.1818777 >>1818763 That's why certain people are agnostic it makes sense but it's a pussy choice.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:59:31 2010 No.1818780 >>1818748 Okay, so... what's the answer, then, Diest?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 21:59:31 2010 No.1818782 >>1818748 If everything needs a cause, then who created god? And why a god? Just because you don't know, you say 'goddiddit' to fill the void. A big, fat, argument from ignorance.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:02:31 2010 No.1818795

Haven't read the thread, but I think deism is a completely logical and defensible standpoint, and consider myself a deist myself.

I simply think something created the universe, like the clockmaker analogy I'm sure you've all heard before.

Also, I despise that atheists think there can be only one definitively logical viewpoint to any situation. If this were true, we wouldn't need lawyers or courts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:03:31 2010 No.1818799 >>1818795 *myself a deist FUUU, etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:03:31 2010 No.1818801 >people arguing metaphysics We'll probably never discover the true forces at work in the universe, or why shit is the way it is, other than it being "fundamental," whatever that is.

The Oracle Tue Sep 28 22:05:31 2010 No.1818811

>>1818748
To speak of something is to bound it. Mathematically, it is defined as a set. Your ideas are Gods because they operate as such and control your world. Like all things in this connected universe, Gods live and die by your worship, which is why you go to Church to give praise -- to keep the idea alive. In return we live happily in ignorance -- back to our 'puppet' like state.

The true enabler of ideas and yourself is beyond encapsulation as the infinity of infinities. The devil is in the details -- which is why you can never find your true god.

It is thought that 'Good' and 'Evil' (+,-) were the first Gods we created and enslaved ourselves with.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:06:31 2010 No.1818817 >>1818795 That is not an atheist trait. The only trait that atheists share is lack of belief in any god.

The Oracle Tue Sep 28 22:09:31 2010 No.1818832

>>1818782
If words describe Gods, words words contain sets, and sets contain infinity, then the creator of Time is not bound by it and equals 0.

In math, 0 and infinity are the same thing, therefore -- in God's world, he doesn't have to be created because that would indicate a starting point when there is no timeline to make one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:10:31 2010 No.1818841 >>1818817 Well, not by the definition of atheism, no. I spoke from my personal experience with atheists of a more militant variety there. If you don't believe in god, s'all good. It makes sense. But I think deism does, too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:10:31 2010 No.1818843 >>1818832 Mind=blown

>>	Goethe_girl !i2in/qISHQ Tue Sep 28 22:11:31 2010 No.1818848 i'm a deist :3 it's arrogant to assume that you know about something as massive as the origins of the universe, without any real proof therefore by default, whatever 'created' the universe is "God", even if "God" isn't sentient

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:14:31 2010 No.1818860 >>1818832 Jesus, am I reading a Pepsi logo advertisement document, or what?

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:16:31 2010 No.1818872

>>1818841

It also makes sense that unicorns could be real, since they're just a horned horse, but they're not.

A lot of fictional stories have good explanations and make sense. That doesn't make them true.

There's no reason to pretend that a god exists who is completely imperceptible. Let it go, man. Free yourself from this clinging need for magic.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:16:31 2010 No.1818875

tl;dr

A lot of the founding fathers of America were deists.
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to name a few.

Freemasonry require belief in a deity, but this deity does not need to influence people in any way.

Many Christians and Catholics believe they worship one God while they are actually worshiping three. Father Son and Holy Spirit. This can not be argued, and any Catholic will always say they believe in one god when you ask them, "How many Gods are there?", but you can make them look like an idiot once you hit them with the no YOU BELIEVE IN THREE GODS.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:17:31 2010 No.1818880 >>1818513 The big question isn't whether atheists or christians are right. It's who's easier to troll.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:20:31 2010 No.1818892 >>1818872 Yeah those are totally the same, wait god is a unicorn thanks for the clarity.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:20:31 2010 No.1818898

>>1818848
Yes. Though I would never use the word sentient, as that implies senses. The words I would use for God that would go to the idea of personal or impersonal would be Rational and Intentional. The reason why I find that God must be Rational is because reason itself needs a cause in something higher. The proposition that reason is an illusion produced by colliding particles is something I cannot take seriously. The alternative is that reason is derived from something transcendent of space and time, which is God.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:21:31 2010 No.1818902

>>1818439
Any other Trolls out there tonight? I feel in my gut a troll created this thread. No I don't believe this "troll" interferes with our beliefs or changes opionions or performs lols etc. If I had to chose logically I would be indifferent but it doesn't feel right to me but irl I just say I'm not a troll when I get asked because otherwise I feel like I sound like someone just trying to be a troll.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:21:31 2010 No.1818904

>>1818875

In the movie Religulous, Bill Maher interviews the guy who plays Jesus at the Holy Land amusement park, and he makes that argument. The Jesus guy goes "No man, just three forms of the same God. It's like water. You get water, ice, and steam. It's all water, though."

Granted, your argument will work almost always, but that was probably the best counter-argument to it I've ever heard.

Also, just because important people in the past believed in magic, doesn't mean that it's real. It actually makes you sound pretty fucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:23:31 2010 No.1818910 >>1818875 Yeah, the whole "God is three people" shtick is where Christianity went off the rails.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:23:31 2010 No.1818911 >>1818902 Yep I'm a troll because this thread is full of people raging and non serious questions and answers with thought put into them other than a few posts. You caught me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:24:31 2010 No.1818913 Keep /sci/ on-topic: sage and report this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:24:31 2010 No.1818916 >>1818892 He isn't a unicorn? You're going to have a hard time proving that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:24:31 2010 No.1818919 File: 21 KB, 463x358, trinity-diagram.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1818904 Only, water doesn't behave like this.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:24:31 2010 No.1818920

>>1818848

>>it's arrogant to assume that you know about something as massive as the origins of the universe, without any real proof

But there is such proof. See:>>1818637
>>1818635

You just weren't aware because the religious do not bother to say current with regards to science.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:26:31 2010 No.1818928

Really, just believe what you want to believe.

I came to a realization while reading an article about atheism. The militant atheists were being portrayed as pseudo-intellectual bullies, trying to force their ideas on everyone, the fundie Christians were portrayed in an equally negative light. The one sane voice was a Lutheran pastor who stated that science asks the how, religion the why, and it made me realize that while this war between internet atheism and fundamentalist christianity is very loud, the victors will be the sane moderates. Deists, agnostics, rational atheists, moderate Christians have already won this war, by not being a part of it and making an asshat of themselves.

This board has a lot of asshole athiests. By declaring people who believe intellectually inferior to you, and berating them for not agreeing with you, you're just hurting your cause. Be humble about it, allow people to believe what they want, and be gentle with your beliefs. It shows Christians that you lot are not the assholes they're told you are. Be the bigger man.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:26:31 2010 No.1818930 >>1818748 >>Something had to have put it all in motion to begin with. See: >>1818637 >>1818635

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:27:31 2010 No.1818936 >>1818919 Yes it does. Liquid is not a gas, gas is not a solid, and solids aren't either liquids or gases. However, water can be all three of these. I mean, his belief is built on bullshit, but his analogy was perfectly sound.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:28:31 2010 No.1818940

>>1818902
Fucken lol'd dude, and you made me feel trolled 5/10
>>1818904
Still water ice and steam are only different because of the temperature and pressure the H20 molecule are under. I mean maybe God changes his shape because of the pressure and temperature but I actually wanted to see that movie and never got a chance' I gotta get it on netflix tomorrow'

As for me I'm going to go play sc2 peace /sci/entists and janitors.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:28:31 2010 No.1818944 File: 102 KB, 303x500, losingreligion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1818928 >>moderate Christians have already won this war, by not being a part of it and making an asshat of themselves. Doesn't seem to be what's happening, though.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:29:31 2010 No.1818945

>>1818920
Lol, there is no proof. You are no more scientific than any religious person, making such claims as proof. The big bang is the consensus theory because it fits quite nicely, but it still has its problems, and it has competitors that are taken seriously in the scientific community. To say it is "proved" is just silly, especially since that's not what science does.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:30:31 2010 No.1818950 >>1818936 Yes, but it doesn't fit in well with official church doctrine. Don't get me wrong, it's better than official church doctrine. At least it sounds like he believes in 1 god rather than 3.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:30:31 2010 No.1818951

>>1818940

Honestly, man. The best things in Religulous are the people he interviews. Bill Maher is a total douche the entire time. I don't like him being the spokesperson for rational thought, since he just ridicules people through the entire flick.

We need another Carl Sagan. The man was a sorcerer of tact.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:30:31 2010 No.1818952

>>1818872
See, my deistic belief in a god isn't restrictive in any way--there's nothing to be "freed" from. I behave as I always have. I simply think the notion of a creating force, i.e. "god," is logical. And no, I don't really feel the need to defend that argument on a message board. You can start that conversation if you want, but I'll probably just go do something else.

Also, reducing human spirituality to a "clinging need for magic" seems condescending and slightly sophistic to me.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:33:31 2010 No.1818959
File: 11 KB, 188x300, albert-pike-signature.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1818928
Religion has been, since its inception, a tool.
Read the letter writen by this man;
Albert Pike - Civil War General & Master Mason.
There exist with all tools a plan for their use.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:33:31 2010 No.1818961 >>1818951 Agreed. And he had tact because he had genuine respect for people of various beliefs, which comes out for example in his book Contact.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:35:31 2010 No.1818973

>>1818928

>>Really, just believe what you want to believe.

That's a poor way to arrive at truths.

>>I came to a realization while reading an article about atheism. The militant atheists were being portrayed as pseudo-intellectual bullies, trying to force their ideas on everyone, the fundie Christians were portrayed in an equally negative light. The one sane voice was a Lutheran pastor who stated that science asks the how, religion the why

But that's a stupid argument. It presupposes without justification that there is a "why" in the first place. Purpose implies intent, which implies a conscious intelligence acting on reality. It's basically a very subtle way of slipping in the assumption of a god without most noticing.

>>This board has a lot of asshole athiests. By declaring people who believe intellectually inferior to you, and berating them for not agreeing with you, you're just hurting your cause.

Doesn't seem that way: >>1818944

"Moderate Christianity" is a bit like "Moderate Scientology" or "Moderate homeopathy". It's not 'more sane', it's just 'less crazy'. No matter how much you attempt to polish and modernize Judeo-Christian mythology, it still bears the unmistakeable traits of something written by primitive minds, making their best guesses as to where it all came from.

It's like if I were to hire a renown artist to embellish a child's drawing, so that it appears photorealistic. Someone with a sharp eye will still be able to figure out what the source material was.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:39:31 2010 No.1818995

>>1818945

>>Lol, there is no proof. You are no more scientific than any religious person, making such claims as proof.

That's a stupid thing to say. I presented said proof, you just refuse to accept it, because that's what religious people do when confronted with proof.

>>The big bang is the consensus theory because it fits quite nicely, but it still has its problems, and it has competitors that are taken seriously in the scientific community.

There is one serious competitor, not many, and it does not contradict the big bang theory. It holds that our particular universe originated via brane collision, the product of larger universes which did originate via big bang events.

>>To say it is "proved" is just silly, especially since that's not what science does.

Yes, it is. You're confused. What you're referring to is the fact that science never proves anything to an absolute standard. But that's not to say that proof is impossible. Only that said proofs are implicitly probabilistic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:41:31 2010 No.1819002 >>1818952 It's neither condescending nor sophistic. It just offends your sensibilities. Anybody could logically arrive at that conclusion. Human spirituality has no virtues, and it doesn't need you to defend it. It has no use. Give it up.

The Oracle Tue Sep 28 22:42:31 2010 No.1819009
File: 7 KB, 268x188, images..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1818860
Last year Pepsi spent several hundred million dollars on a new logo. Everyone figured they had just ripped off the Obama logo. But now an internal document from the branding company has surfaced: Breathtaking bullshit.

See, there's no way the branding agency could charge millions if they just went in and told Pepsi, "Yea, we kinda rotated your old logo a little bit, and made the wavy white line thingy in the middle go diagonal." Instead, they prepared this 27-page document, titled "BREATHTAKING Design Strategy," to prove that this logo is a veritable Da Vinci Code of branding, drawing on everything from magnetic fields to the "Golden Ratio."

http://bunnitude.com/misc/files/pepsi_gravitational_field.pdf

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:42:31 2010 No.1819015

>>1818944
Christian here.

To be honest, the death of mainstream Christianity is a good thing. If you look at the things Jesus said, mainstream Christianity is a sham. It's nearly impossible for Christians to live in the wealth and comfort of the United States and conform with what Jesus aid. The true Christians are in the peace corps, food banks, and homeless shelters, quietly toiling away. That's what the early Christian church looked like- the reason Christianity spread like a virus was the fact that early Christians set up hospitals in the plague colonies, where they would often be able to nurse people back to health, and thus convert them, often at great risk to their personal well being. It's gotten too soft. If people lose their faith after a bit of shaking, they are pussies. The real message of Christianity is to love your neighbor, without exception, and to not give a shit about what the world says. There are few true Christians left. Let this mainstream faux-christian cult die, for those who are actually doing what Jesus wanted will continue their work, even if people call them fools.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:43:31 2010 No.1819016 >>1818995 I don't think you understand the scientific method. And you are certainly unaware of the various competing cosmological models. I don't believe them -- I believe some variation of the big bang is true. But to say it is proved is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:43:31 2010 No.1819024 >>1818995 Can you link me to this theory I want to read up on it

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:44:31 2010 No.1819028 Wtf ever deists. As long as you don't attempt to stop stem cell research, you can have your silly superstitions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:44:31 2010 No.1819029 >>1819015 Amen. Long live Kierkegaard!

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:44:31 2010 No.1819031

>>1819016

You don't have to even believe that. Good scientists won't tell you that they "believe" it's what happened. It just seems likely with our current evidence. We hope to find out more, and it being disproven wouldn't be a bad thing for science, it would just be exciting.

>>	Scia Tue Sep 28 22:46:31 2010 No.1819042 this thread gets the official atheist butthurt seal

>>	The Oracle Tue Sep 28 22:46:31 2010 No.1819043 >>1818872 How can you perceive something that is unbounded? Are you saying that existence requires boundaries? Then what creates those boundaries, knuckle head?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:51:31 2010 No.1819079 >>1819043 If magic is outside the boundaries of existence, then, by definition, it doesn't exist. Quit trolling.

The Oracle Tue Sep 28 22:52:31 2010 No.1819082

>>1818848
The universe repeats itself in all directions. From up to down, inside to out, from right to left. Backward and forward on the line you walk is all that matter.

We could be experiencing life backwards while the universe flows forward because we sit on the back of Earth. That is because you walk on the line of Earth, not on the line of time.

Until you know otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:53:31 2010 No.1819087 >>1819043 >>How can you perceive something that is unbounded? How can a notion humans invented be beyond our perception?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:53:31 2010 No.1819090 >>1819082 You just made all of that up.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:55:31 2010 No.1819105

>>1819082

>>The universe repeats itself in all directions.

No it doesn't. It was suspected to for a time, but recent probe data has revealed an open geometry for the universe, meaning infinite expanse in all directions with no repetition. An eventual heat death with no "big crunch".

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

You see, I know this because being an atheist I actually bother to keep current on developments in science. :3

The Oracle Tue Sep 28 22:56:31 2010 No.1819108

>>1819079
Magic can't be outside the existence of the universe because you can encapsulate the idea in a word.
A word is a limit for an object as a set is a limit for numbers.

You cannot see, speak, imagine, or do things that are impossible. All things share tangents with all other things, as if life were written in a single stroke of a pen. All you have to do is fold the paper right for the lines to meet.

Hahaha. Hahahahahahahaha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:57:31 2010 No.1819119

>Human spirituality has no virtues

This is where I think we just fundamentally disagree.
If you're defining "virtues" as concrete, physical, material benefits, then you're completely missing the point of the concept of spirituality.

To me, spirituality deals with self-awareness and questions of morality. It doesn't necessarily have to be tied to any god or religion. Also, I feel ignoring it is missing out on much of the human experience.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:58:31 2010 No.1819124 File: 176 KB, 391x500, Fuck Yes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1819108 10/10

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 22:58:31 2010 No.1819129 File: 15 KB, 367x338, 1278106798024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >thinks instinctively about incredible claims >is a rubbish critical thinker

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:01:31 2010 No.1819137 >>1819119 What you're talking about is philosophy, and it has nothing to do with magic or spirituality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:02:31 2010 No.1819148 OP Here I found out there are other deists on here and read some logically formed opinions. And now I'm out for the night.

The Oracle Tue Sep 28 23:02:31 2010 No.1819152

>>1819105
You have a limited understanding of the universe.

The expansion of space causes a non-stop whitehole at the center. That's right. You read it here folks. The big bang never ended and it will never stop.

Why would a singularity dissipate once it 'exploded'?
Infinity can be divided infinitely once, but into many different parts forever.

Your massive galaxies are from mass quantum fluctuations of empty space. If you zoom out far enough, all you will see is what look like neurons and static -- and if all of time were instance, would flicker in and out without reason.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:04:31 2010 No.1819166 >>1819152 >>You have a limited understanding of the universe. You mean NASA, right? I just repeated the results from the Herschel and Planck probes. I don't think you're more credible than legitimate astrophysicists, bro.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:05:31 2010 No.1819174 Oh look, that faggot scia is itt. predictable/10

The Oracle Tue Sep 28 23:10:31 2010 No.1819189

>>1819119
He is right. The human spirit has no virtues. That is why free will exists. You assign your own virtues.

ITS THE ULTIMATE MMORPG OF THE FUTURE WHERE WTF AND HERE I AM MEET TO CREATE OMG WHAT IS THIS AND YOUR MANAPOOLS ARE EMOTIONS

...wait. Yo itsnot. Nes isit?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:10:31 2010 No.1819191 File: 54 KB, 1146x657, thread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:11:31 2010 No.1819193

>>1819137
They are very closely related things in my eyes. The difference, I guess, would be philosophy is more intellectual while spirituality is more emotional and intuitive. Regardless, I still think spirituality has virtue.

You can disagree, but I think writing it off like that just reeks of the Asperger's syndrome so many /sci/entists suffer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:13:31 2010 No.1819199 >>1819189 I don't think he meant "virtues" in that sense. A better word might be "worth."

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:25:31 2010 No.1819247

>>1819166
Oh, my my my, look at the little human who owns objects that aren't apart of him and takes no responsibility for his ideas.

(You've got some stupid ass logic),permutation of me. According to what you didn't say, no one can know anything because its from someone else and borrows it from nothing. Keep following that pattern down the line and eventually -- oops -- where'd knowledge come from?

I guess, according to you, the responsibility of knowledge not only belongs to no one but came from no where. WORD CALCULUS BITCH

I guess people like you have no place in TRADEMARKING.

Can you say... backasswards?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:27:31 2010 No.1819259 Its time for satire!! Herp Derp! I'm a Deist! But all that really means is that I hate organized religion and can't give up the notion of a divine being, thus I will use a god of the gaps theology to explain the universe! Herp Derp!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:28:31 2010 No.1819264 >>1819247 >thispostgavemecancer.jpg

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:33:31 2010 No.1819294

>>1819259

I still don't see how not giving up the notion of a divine being is derp-worthy.

Whether or not god exists is precisely the type of question where its perfectly reasonable for an individual to consider their own personal feelings and convictions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:35:31 2010 No.1819304 Deism is for high school kids.

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:36:31 2010 No.1819312

>>1819294

God is a human and cultural explanation.

If we wiped out all religious/super natural notions within society and then asked the next generation of how they think the universe got here, what do you think their answers would be?

Ideas are inherited. If you fail to see this idea and cannot apply it to religion then you are pretty herp

>>	The Oracle Tue Sep 28 23:37:31 2010 No.1819318 >>1819105 Oh, and if you don't know how they arrive to a conclusion, you are just a complex parrot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:39:31 2010 No.1819330 >>1819312 Although my typo here was pretty derp on my part. meant to say that god's origin can be explained through human invention because they lacked science to explain why they have night and day, etc. and persists through culture

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:39:31 2010 No.1819332 >>1819264 Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:40:31 2010 No.1819338 >>1819312 existence of a god =! religion

>>	You Tue Sep 28 23:41:31 2010 No.1819345 >>1819330 Since God is an object out of space, you cant use words to refer to him inside of it.

>>	You Tue Sep 28 23:43:31 2010 No.1819352 >>1819338 God is superexistant.

>>	You & Me Tue Sep 28 23:46:31 2010 No.1819370 And here we watch the same cosmic being having many different conversations with himself. What an insane creature, class. Write this down in your notebooks because its not going to be on the test!!

Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:46:31 2010 No.1819371
File: 166 KB, 1136x837, 1274630155345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If god exists outside of reality there are two extremely important questions.

1. How do you know this? Are you sure you're just not making shit up?
2. Such a being, if it existed, would not be able to interact with our universe so what's the point?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:47:31 2010 No.1819375 >>1819338 What? Are you some kind of idiot of a higher degree? The concept of a god came before religion, the term is being use analogously. Stop being such a faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 28 23:51:31 2010 No.1819397 >>1819338 Really? Where do you think you got he idea of God from?

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 00:55:31 2010 No.1819585

>>1819371
Objects in this universe are fractal sets, that is, definite infinities. Cantor came along and found that out before he went batshit insane trying to comprehend something so simple, so the story goes. This very process is what allows the word analogy to even exist, as without definite repeating infinity, it would have no platform to stand.

(Or.And.)

Being that things are (nothing&everything) but magnitudes of analogy, things are magnitudes of being.

Observe, will you, your video game systems. You connect to the world, designed to run many magnitudes of time faster, through means of your own, a controller and a line, in which "the machine" interprets your commands and changes the electric forces within, moving your body for you. Within a 'flash' a universe materializes, with the press of a button, from darkness that rests on the manifold of ours, a subspace within our own.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 00:59:31 2010 No.1819597

A place whose existence-justification is logic, not what is experienced and thought of inside.

Now, imagine your game as similar to this one and your character as yourself, and look at the world around you inside the game. If you were observant, you could make math to describe your universe. You could make your own mimicry of the logic from the universe above you to tell you when and where things will happen... but that doesn't really mean anything about the box outside of your view, does it?

Video games are real, and so is the subspace and imaginary space within (in 0s and 1s if you want to get technical). Therefore the logic that allows them is real, which means it was there before we discovered it as knowledge is ACQUIRED.

You could create a virtual world, inside a video game, where little characters use 'free memory' to allocate mini-scripts to run smaller virtual worlds.

To deny there is nothing 'above' us is to deny there is nothing below.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:00:31 2010 No.1819599
File: 25 KB, 339x368, Smithposter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The point is that being is you (and simultaneously myself). You need to realize that at some point, in your repetition of limited fractals and portals, that interactions stop and it simplifies to either, onething, somethings, everything, or nothing -- and that all of them are the same because... here we are. I mean... I am.

Me. Me. Me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:02:31 2010 No.1819606 >patronising >patronising >patronising i feel you OP. its in your heart.

>>	The Final Riddle Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:05:31 2010 No.1819617 At the very top, where Infinity and Nothing meet, are you and the machine, dancing mari-ly. What, when observed from outside in, is infinitely small, but from the inside out, is infinitely big?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:17:31 2010 No.1819646 >>1819617 >>1819617 >>1819617 niggers!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:17:31 2010 No.1819647 >>1819617 your mom

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:18:31 2010 No.1819651 >>1819597 >>1819585 Shut up Deepak Chopra

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:20:31 2010 No.1819663 File: 214 KB, 301x397, Cross the universe to find faggot like you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1818587 >As long as you acknowledge your beliefs in God is stupid, I'm okay with it

Logic Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:21:31 2010 No.1819670

The irony is, through all of this, we cannot BE without it, but we cannot be free under logic, yet, we live in an illogical place, in space, without rhythm or reason, other than to be, at light speed, apart of a story on how God was born.

You live on a rock, in outer space, with no fucking clue whats going on. Evolved billions of years so that a monkey can sit down and jerk off to internet porn of drawings to things that, if presented in real life, would scare him off into the horizon?

Yea. You guys have awesome logic. This is totally real.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:24:31 2010 No.1819681

I don't see why how it's illogical at all, I mean there are really two options here. The exsistance always exsisted or what OP thinks. Neither is illogical. Organised religion has just put you fags off the idea that exsistance had been created by something.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:26:31 2010 No.1819690

Deism, atheism, agnosticism, and pantheism are all the same thing where it matters. The only difference is "herp de derp i believe in an invisible unobservable thing that created existence and has no effect on anything anywhere". Think about it, what does believing in a deist god do for you? Do you want to knock on doors and tell people how loving your meaningless god is? Do you have to go pray at a deist church?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:26:31 2010 No.1819691 >>1819651 The difference is the information is for free, by me, and not controlled by MON-EE. If you don't want to lick, I don't really give a shit, because time will unfold as it is untold.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:27:31 2010 No.1819697 >>1819193 Emotion is not a valid epistemological approach. Ergo, spirituality is fail.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:28:31 2010 No.1819700 I see no reason why scientists feel they have to identify as atheist. The very fact that they all join to fit in invalidates the legitimacy of "their" beliefs.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:31:31 2010 No.1819708

>>1819690
Me, again, I'm sure you don't need my name, but things that are unsee-able have colors that are all the same. Without black there is no white, no line to see day and night, and contrast is lost in the fright that will be.

If God is one and everything, asshole, then how will you compare him to anything to TEST him? Your logic methodology specifically needs CONTRAST in order to work which is why morons like you aren't even sure if they exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:31:31 2010 No.1819709 File: 23 KB, 200x195, anus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Niveus !qyCeV9YlYI Wed Sep 29 01:33:31 2010 No.1819717

ahem

as someone who was sent to christian schools his whole life, eventually gravitated towards deism, then into panentheism, then finally arrived basically at atheism/agnosticism(i don't apply either of these labels to myself unless we are talking about a specific context, it doesn't make sense to define yourself in terms of what you don't believe in, i much rather prefer "rationalist", or "scientific reductionist", etc.), i can tell you that your concept of deism merely projects legitimacy onto unaccountable terms such as "god" and "religion". you are entitled to believe that something created the universe, but that belief is simply unfounded, and you are doing no justice by making the same mistakes i made in saying things like "the universe is god", "everything is god", "logic is god". if everything is god, then nothing is god, and ultimately the concept is unnecessary.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:33:31 2010 No.1819718 I think we need to scrap the word 'god', you can say exsistance might have been created, but as soon as you use the word god athiest jump straight to religions and derp all over the place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:33:31 2010 No.1819719 >>1819691 I like you. You sound like someone I would hang out in real life. It is a shame that 4chan is such a anti social place. Any other websites you hang out at?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:34:31 2010 No.1819720 >>1819697 Emotions and ideas can be quantified by Color based Superalgebra, the same math used for determining quantum physical events and objects. So, suck on that wise one.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:34:31 2010 No.1819723

>>1819700

>>I see no reason why scientists feel they have to identify as atheist. The very fact that they all join to fit in invalidates the legitimacy of "their" beliefs.

They identify as atheists because otherwise people like you set out to paint them as religious, as you did with Einstein after his death, and even Darwin.

The fact that they have affirmed a shared atheism cannot somehow make atheism incorrect. Reality does not change because people gather and agree on things. That's nonsensical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:35:31 2010 No.1819726 File: 230 KB, 356x527, 1278189104395.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE MORONS GOING ON ABOUT.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:35:31 2010 No.1819728

>>1819718

>>I think we need to scrap the word 'god', you can say exsistance might have been created, but as soon as you use the word god athiest jump straight to religions and derp all over the place.

You can't even spell atheist right, for fuck's sake, and you're acting like you didn't get the idea of God from the religion most popular where you grew up in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:36:31 2010 No.1819730 >>1819726 you don't understand? please leave or attempt to contribute.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:37:31 2010 No.1819735 File: 27 KB, 449x586, 1285475158394.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1819730 contributing

Niveus !qyCeV9YlYI Wed Sep 29 01:40:31 2010 No.1819740

>>1819717

if you'll allow me to explain further:

deist/pantheist/panentheist: do you believe in god?

atheist: no, the concept is contradictory/doesn't make any sense

deist/pantheist/panentheist: but how can you say that? god can be anything, you don't know what god might be....

atheist: if i don't know what god is, then how can i believe in god?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:40:35 2010 No.1819739 >>1819717 You can't prove time isn't a 0sum Infinite loop. Origin is irrelevant, as are your stupid ideas of morality. The only law is what you can and cannot do. That's why you are stuck in your little box by your abusers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:41:31 2010 No.1819746 >>1819708 ...what? You completely missed my point. Fine, I'll humor you. If God and the universe are the same thing, why bother making a distinction?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:43:31 2010 No.1819749 >>1819728 >God god*

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:43:31 2010 No.1819752

>>1819717
You can't prove time isn't a 0sum Infinite loop.
Origin is irrelevant, as are your ideas of morality.

The only law is what you can and cannot do. That's why you are stuck in your little box by your abusers.

Just because you observe a consequence, doesn't mean it is a real object that can be traveled through, unless you plan on traveling back in mass.

Niveus !qyCeV9YlYI Wed Sep 29 01:43:31 2010 No.1819753

>>1819739

>You can't prove time isn't a 0sum Infinite loop.

i don't have to.

>Origin is irrelevant, as are your stupid ideas of morality.

did i say something about morality? if origin isn't irrelevant, then what is relevant? in defining god, we have to assign some kind of characteristics to him. one cannot know the unknown.

>The only law is what you can and cannot do. That's why you are stuck in your little box by your abusers.

wat. so you're saying that logic exists, but outside of that, there is no causality? makes perfect sense, brah.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:44:31 2010 No.1819758

>>1819723

You seem to be assigning me to groups I am not associated with.

Some scientists may indeed be genuine atheists, many others might not have any other opinion one way or the other but merely identify as atheist because it is the thing to do. Still, some scientist cave into it because they would not be respected if they were not.

So, for the most part, are they legitimately "their" beliefs

>>	Niveus !qyCeV9YlYI Wed Sep 29 01:45:31 2010 No.1819763 >>1819753 >>1819752 >Just because you observe a consequence, doesn't mean it is a real object that can be traveled through, unless you plan on traveling back in mass. this doesn't mean anything. what does "it" refer to? smoke less chronic.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:46:31 2010 No.1819770

I believe that reality is much like s factual pattern. There are an infinite amount of parallel timelines. God is something too abstract too comprehend because it(he) operates on higher demisions. Is omnipresent and omnipotent because everything that could happen, has happened in the "mind of God". In a way, the entire reality and fabric of existence is basicly a thought or dream of God.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:46:31 2010 No.1819774 For me the term 'god' has always just meant the creator or creation of exsistance. I hate using the term though, beacuse it varies amongst people, and starts stupid arguments like this one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:46:31 2010 No.1819775 >>1819746 So that I can misguide people by their noses, through morality, to give me the life of a God that I don't deserve. Satan comes in an attractive suit, and shines with a gold light around his head to imitate the sun.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:47:31 2010 No.1819780 File: 28 KB, 499x376, 1284246996290.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] derp derp derp derp derp derp derp!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:49:31 2010 No.1819790 there's no fucking God you stupid fucks, Jesus Christ I am facepalming so hard!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:50:31 2010 No.1819793 >>1819790 >No God >Jesus Christ :3

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:50:31 2010 No.1819795 >>1819790 Not one person in this thread claimed 'God' was real.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:51:31 2010 No.1819799
File: 16 KB, 255x352, 1260544716639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mfw none of these silly beliefs ITT affect anything at all

At least Christianity actually has SOMETHING. Deism means absolutely nothing at all. You might as well be atheist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:51:31 2010 No.1819803 >>1819790 why so angry? i thought atheists were logical not emotional, or are you part of that hip teenage trend of atheism

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:52:31 2010 No.1819808 >>1819775 I never really believed in the devil and whole hell thing. I do believe in humanity creating our own hell.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:53:31 2010 No.1819811 File: 34 KB, 300x421, cougars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1819803 That's because your my best friend

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:53:31 2010 No.1819812 >>1819799 None of these terms are needed unless you're practicing a religion. Even 'Atheist'.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:55:31 2010 No.1819817 >>1819763 What do you think I mean? What you call time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:56:31 2010 No.1819824 I see no reason to believe in god/gods. The universe does not need a god to create it or make it work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 01:58:31 2010 No.1819830 >>1819812 I know, I just wanted to make a distinction. It's like "At least 10 actually has SOMETHING. 0.00000000000001 means absolutely nothing at all. You might as well be 0."

>>	Rainbow Serpent Wed Sep 29 02:00:31 2010 No.1819836 File: 158 KB, 400x473, epicfail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1819812 Inb4 'atheism is a religion herp derp'

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:00:31 2010 No.1819840 >>1819719 I know you don't have to. Just like I don't have to read the rest of your post. Like how that works?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:01:31 2010 No.1819843 >>1819830 Well people don't like to be rounded up or generalized. It's the same with music genres, all these subgenres aren't really needed, but people like to be specific.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:02:31 2010 No.1819848 >>1819774 You are pretty smart bro. I'm pretty sure it didn't take you long to decide it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:02:31 2010 No.1819851 >>1819799 the point is to be optimistic and think that the universe is looking out for you or somehow has good intentions, even though AIDS, SYPHILLIS, BILLIONS OF STARVING AFRICAN CHILDREN, HOLOCAUSTS, ETC.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:05:31 2010 No.1819863

>>1819843

this.

what people don't realize is that it's helpful not to think of these descriptors as mutually exclusive all the time, not to think of them as nouns that we can pidgeon-hole people into, rather as adjectives. just because someone dresses a certain way(mall goth for example) doesn't mean that mall goth is the only music they listen to, they might also listen to prog and post-rock for all you know.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:06:31 2010 No.1819865

The religions of man are clearly codified superstitions and methods of social control that have copied each other countless times. It's interesting that these days, no scientifically observed miracles occur.

However, this does not rule out the existence of higher-dimensional beings outside of the universe as we perceive it. One of these beings could have set the Big Bang off. Atheists are guilty of making a logical jump when they claim this is impossible, just as deists are guilty of making a logical jump when they say it definitely happened.

The only rationally defensible position is agnosticism.

>>	Niveus !qyCeV9YlYI Wed Sep 29 02:07:31 2010 No.1819868 >>1819817 how is the nature of what time is in any way relevant to my first post? time is basically a measurement of the position of moving objects. that's all

Niveus !qyCeV9YlYI Wed Sep 29 02:12:31 2010 No.1819874

>>1819865

we can come to quite a few very specific conclusions about what god can't be.

if he is all knowing and all loving, then he cannot be all powerful, otherwise he would intervene with man's suffering.

if he is all powerful and all knowing, then he cannot be all loving. and so forth.

if he is merely loosely some abstract intelligence that is presently unknowable, then there is no reason to believe in what we do not know.

as a person acts, so that person believes, meaning if a person acts as if there is no god, then they must lack belief in god, and that is the definition of an atheist.

see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaOvOEpvlHg

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:15:31 2010 No.1819884 >>1819865 Well the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, whether it's god, santa claus, that celestial teapot or my good friend Andrew the Awesome.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:20:31 2010 No.1819903

>>1819874
>as a person acts, so that person believes, meaning if a person acts as if there is no god, then they must lack belief in god, and that is the definition of an atheist.
I disagree with you here. Although I believe there is no God within our universe that intervenes, I don't discredit the potential for one outside the universe. However, I will act as if there is no God - because his existence means nothing to my style of life - all the while maintaining that the question cannot be answered.

>>1819884
>What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, whether it's god, santa claus, that celestial teapot or my good friend Andrew the Awesome.
Science can only be applied to questions within our universe. Attempting to answer the unanswerable in either the positive or negative is complete arrogance.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:24:31 2010 No.1819910

>>1819903

Science explains how events are possible by describing cause and effect relationships. All that is knowable is known through science. It is arrogant to suggest that there is anything outside of science, simply because we want to believe there is. That which is not knowable, and not testable, and "unanswerable", is pointless to question until it is answerable, other than for the sake of being interested by it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:27:31 2010 No.1819914 >>1819910 + Science does not account for a God. Therefore(in practice), there is no God. Therefore, atheism is correct.

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 02:28:31 2010 No.1819916 How is the question of deities even acceptable?

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:31:31 2010 No.1819922

>>1819910
I maintain that for the creation of the universe, science is limited to explaining the effects only. This means we can't answer questions like:

Is this universe a computer simulation?
Is there a creator outside this universe?
Are you the only person who exists?
Are there other universes?

So I maintain that the God hypothesis cannot be affirmed or negated. However, questions like "Do supernatural events occur?" may be answered.

GodofCider Wed Sep 29 02:32:31 2010 No.1819928

>>1819916
>So I had this idea...it's something that can't be detected, for all intents and purposes uses magic to get things done, created the universe, is sentient without a body, is all powerful, all knowing, whatever other contradicting terms I'd like to throw in there, only exists where you're not looking. But you can't say it's made up, even if I literally did just make it up(See FSM), because that'd make you arrogant, since you can't 'know' that it's not made up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:33:31 2010 No.1819933 >>1819910 It will only be answerable if you question it.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:39:31 2010 No.1819950

>>1819922

You can replace "creator" with any other made-up concept. Say there is a purple people eater floating around out in space, if you will, and up until the moment that you tell me about this purple people eater, I have never heard of or considered it. I am a a-purple people eater-ist. The fact that there hypothetically might be purple people eaters is unknowable to me and irrelevant to my existence. In the context of any conceivable definition of a God that exists outside the universe, is not know knowable or testable, I lack belief. Therefore, I am an atheist, just as I would be an a-(insert anything else)ist, that you made up on the spot. That is all that it means to be an atheist. Nothing arrogant about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:40:31 2010 No.1819953 >>1819933 It will only be questionable if I use science to question it.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:44:31 2010 No.1819965

>>1819950
Say we scrap all specifics, and just say there is a theory that exsistance didn't exsist at one point. If I were to say it is possible something caused non-exsistance to exsist, would you take that into consideration? Or are you firm in your belief that exsistance was at no point created, but always exsisted?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:46:31 2010 No.1819968 >>1819953 Perhaps science can prove it, but our current science isn't advanced enough. Would you say it's unreasonable to strive to find out? Or is the fact that it is currently out of our reach enough of a reason to give up on it completely?

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:46:31 2010 No.1819969

>>1819950
I agree, but the difference is between testable made up ideas and untestable made up ideas. We can look for moon people on the moon.

But we can't look for invisible moon people on the moon. This is the domain I relegate questions about creation to. Sure, it could be - or maybe it isn't. As long as it has no discernible impact on my life, I don't bother acting as if it exists.

However, I won't answer the question in the negative or the positive. I'll say "it's very unlikely, but possible." This is what I consider agnostic atheism.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:48:31 2010 No.1819977

>>1819968
No, by all means we should keep trying. But while we are still trying, we should not make any leaps of faith - because then we'd be as bad as fundamentalists.

We can say "You know the God thing guys? It's not looking so good.. but we're not sure."

We can't say "NOPE NO GOD"

Not yet

Possibly not ever

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:52:31 2010 No.1819985

>>1819968

I wasn't advocating that we shouldn't try at all to push the boundaries of science. I was just arguing that science is the only mode of ascertaining knowledge, because that is essentially the definition of science. I was merely pointing out the duplicity in someone such as a Christian who might say that the question of whether or not God exists, is unknowable by science, yet that they are right in believing in it, whereas scientists are arrogant for thinking that they need scientific evidence in order to believe in it.

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 02:53:31 2010 No.1819991 >>1819977 Now replace 'god' with 'pixie' in that post; and read it out loud.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:53:31 2010 No.1819993 >I feel it in my gut >I can safely call myself rational oh, /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 02:58:31 2010 No.1820011 >>1819991 There is a difference between something that is assigned no details and something that is. There are theories of a god outside the bible.

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 03:00:31 2010 No.1820020 >>1820011 And how would you describe those proposals? 'something, something, something, incorporeal, magical, invisible, outside of space-time(as though this is even coherent), something'

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:06:31 2010 No.1820049 >>1819991 My response to the existence of pixies is the same as mine to the existence of God: Highly unlikely, but possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:08:31 2010 No.1820057 >>1820020 I jsut said 'god' doesn't have details givin to it, it is just a subjective term to describe what started exsistance, if it was started at all. You can't compare the two.

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 03:09:31 2010 No.1820058 >>1820049 So, anything(no matter how stupid) that I think of, and claim to exist, you can't deny, and say it doesn't. Purely on the grounds that you can not 'know' that it does not exist. Upon which point I must ask: what is fiction?

GodofCider Wed Sep 29 03:13:31 2010 No.1820070

>>1820057
Your proposal has no working definition in the least? How are you even remotely capable of critically thinking about a subject, upon which you refuse, or are unable to decipher, any definitive qualities?

This is akin to arguing over the 'cshdfs' found inside of your sewer, while simultaneously having no definition of what a 'cshdfs' is; aside from the fact that it apparently exists within your sewer, despite not actually having any evidence to support your undefinable proposal in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:16:31 2010 No.1820074 >>1820070 god = creator or creation of exsistance. Exsistance obviously exsists, so the theory is valid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:16:31 2010 No.1820076 >>1820058 Nothing is fiction, only highly unlikely. Similarly, nothing is fact, only highly likely. Evidence increases the probability of existence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:17:31 2010 No.1820080 >>1820074 If I were to say however, that whatever created exsistance was shaped like a fish and was conscious, then you could compare it to pixies.

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 03:21:31 2010 No.1820088 >>1820074 ...out of curiosity does this 'god' also have a 'creator'? As an aside, you know this how?

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 03:23:31 2010 No.1820092 >>1820076 So, what you're telling me, is that you think everything ever thought of, is real(in the literal sense)?

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:23:31 2010 No.1820094

>>1819808
The "devil" and "hell" idea were created by people to get an idea across that couldn't be "pointed" at or "drawn". It is irrelevant to today's culture but is still misapplied because it benefits other people.

Morality doesn't actually exist. The devil is an "algebra" to show people a pathway to avoid undesirable things. They are still controlled by a "spirit", "god", "demon", "angel", "ghost", "idea", whatever permutation it has gone by through the years, called Death which motivates people to -- reliably -- form predictable reactions to certain stimulus -- and follow the whole "Good vs Evil" dichotomy which ruins this world. Not like nannyism and fear justifies the loss of your freedoms AGAINST your controllers. Its not like its robbing you of your precious internet. Its not like they are labeling and medicating behavior they don't like. Its not like its forcing you to go into debt to get educated to get a job. Its not like they are controlling the internet so you have no CHANCE of educating yourself. Its not like they caused the economic collapse and blamed you for it. Don't confuse your Government for the enemy -- the enemy is how all of you think. You are doing this to yourselves VIA group think.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:25:31 2010 No.1820098

>>1820088
I never claimed I did know it. I clearly stated that it is a theory. Exsistance could just as well have always exsisted.
As far as exsistance goes, there are two options for it's origins, it always exsisted or it had been created. Each as logical and unknown as the other.

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 03:28:31 2010 No.1820106 >>1820098 In other words, your making stuff up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:31:31 2010 No.1820113 >>1820106 I do believe the correct term for it is a 'hypothesis'.

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 03:32:31 2010 No.1820116 >>1820113 Cute. Still baseless either way though. So do you like blueberry muffins? If so, what kind of topping?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:36:31 2010 No.1820127 >>1820116 The original argument was that pixies can't be compared to the theory of god, and I think I made my point.

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 03:40:31 2010 No.1820143 >>1820127 Not really, but I simply ignored it. Since you only insist that it doesn't apply due to arbitrary constraints; which you made up on the spot, to attach to your definition-less proposal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:45:31 2010 No.1820151 >>1820143 I gave you my definition, 'god' is a subjective term based on the idea of the creation of exsistance. You obviously ignored that. Normally I don't consider Atheists to be arrogant, but I certainly feel that way about you.

GodofCider Wed Sep 29 03:52:31 2010 No.1820165

>>1820151
>I gave you my definition, 'god' is a subjective term based on the idea of the creation of existence.

If I read that right, then you're proposing an existence, that existed, before existence; which created existence.

>...to be arrogant, but I certainly feel that way about you.

Arrogant~exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner.

Ya that makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 03:57:31 2010 No.1820175 >>1820165 You know what, you're right. You have opened my eyes. God is a pixie and exsistance obviously always exsisted. I just can't beleive I didn't see all of the evidence before. Looks like you win at science.

GodofCider Wed Sep 29 04:07:31 2010 No.1820209
File: 70 KB, 500x513, 1285744829965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1820175
Lol. ^_^

Well, it's not like we're going to resolve this now. By the way: "'god' is a subjective term based on the idea of the creation of existence." has given me something to chew over; thanks.

(Side note: I just found this picture, it's awesome.)

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:10:31 2010 No.1820222

>>1819874
You are incorrect.

>>we can come to quite a few very specific >>conclusions about what god can't be.
Ok, shoot.

>>if he is all knowing and all loving, then he cannot be >>all powerful, otherwise he would intervene with >>man's suffering.

Your first premise is illogical. Intervention, as an action, requires nothing from love or knowing in order to operate. To know of intervention or to love someone doesn't lead to intervention in suffering. Suffering is required for the development of your soul and character. PAIN is the signal for THERES SOMETHING TO BE LEARNED HERE -- PAY ATTENTION. Suffering is necessary so that you know what paradise is because, quite frankly, you could have everything but Absolute Godhood and still want to kick the old man off his chair because you are ungrateful.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:10:31 2010 No.1820224

But guys, if you can't disprove the invisible ninja sneaking up on you, surely you should buy a suit of plate armour (pascal's wager). That's the agnostic way!

Or you could just dismiss it as bullshit and call me an insanely sexy god of trolling (Russel's teapot).

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:14:31 2010 No.1820235 >>1820222 "It's for your own good" said the priest, as he led the heretic to the Inquisition. Face it, what you are talking about is sick, revolting, depraved and what you'd expect of a cosmic dictator, not a hero.

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 04:15:31 2010 No.1820241

>>if he is all powerful and all knowing, then he cannot >>be all loving. and so forth.

You can experience emotions at the same time because they function as colors using superalgebra logic. You can love someone while hating, you just tend to see whatever 'color' is most prominent.

>>if he is merely loosely some abstract intelligence >>that is presently unknowable, then there is no >>reason to believe in what we do not know.

He is not abstract if he is everything and nothing. He is physical, imaginary, and the combination. He is the 0 where X and Y meet on the axis.
The irony is that you are contradictory in your justification.
You don't know anything of death, yet you have reason to fear and believe in it arbitrarily because it "looks" that way. Don't bother claiming you aren't unless you have no problems losing your most loved ones and can look Death in the eye and tell him he isn't real. Most people believe objects are solid, when they are mostly space. The sky is the end of the universe and the sun revolves around the Earth. All of these things you have discovered, and still, because you were born with it and take it for granted, you cannot apply those lessons to Death -- which is why you are a poser.

This is why you don't start in paradise -- a place different from heaven -- because paradise will become the worst hell if you aren't ready for it. Heaven is the idea of paradise in your head. Paradise is the idea of Heaven outside your head. Order always matters.

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 04:16:31 2010 No.1820245

>>as a person acts, so that person believes, meaning >>if a person acts as if there is no god, then they >>must lack belief in god, and that is the definition of >>an atheist.

He/She can either exist or not exist in your eyes. If there was no creator, then the Universe would not be made, since it is, there is a creator, and since no one can create the creator, the Universe IS the creator and we live through him as Avatars. People do not have to act the way they believe -- they are called liars. I know what you meant though, you were referring to the intentions and actions together as one -- the action of a lie, not the appearance of a lie.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:17:31 2010 No.1820248

>>1820222

Suffering is required for the development of your soul and character. PAIN is the signal for THERES SOMETHING TO BE LEARNED HERE -- PAY ATTENTION to Dr. Goebbels. Suffering is necessary so that you know what the aryan paradise is because, quite frankly, you could have everything but Absolute Godhood and still want to kick der Fuhrer off his chair because you are ungrateful for all the people he had killed for you.

Ooooh. Doesn't feel so good now, does it? Apply common human morality to god and he's just another mass murderer. If you incite (or singlehandedly commit) genocide, you're a monster. NO. Fucking. EXCEPTIONS.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:19:31 2010 No.1820256 >>1820245 "If there was no creator, then the Universe would not be made" [ ] citation needed [x]CITATION FUCKING NEEDED.

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 04:20:31 2010 No.1820257

>>1820235
A situation you get into because of your own stupidity -- listening to lies. The pain you lead yourself to is yours to own and experience. If you ignore the lesson to be learned, it will plague you, and you can either avoid it and allow it to grow... or you can displace it with temporary objects that will inevitably force you to realize won't be going where your going at the end of life. It will surface as regret and become a cloud over your head.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:24:31 2010 No.1820264

>>1820257
>>A situation you get into because of your own stupidity -- listening to lies.

What you are attempting to justify is the suppression of free thought, one of the most basic human rights. You would have us live under a system where we could be convicted of thoughtcrime. And this is somehow justified because your imaginary friend told you to do it.

It will not turn out like that. There is too much intelligence, too many kind-hearted people and too many lovers of freedom to see fascists take power again.

Hope, not pain, will be the way of the future. The will of billions is set against you.

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 04:26:31 2010 No.1820268

.>>1820256
Ok, look around you. Notice how many things have origin that you completely understand. Ok, look at things you don't fully understand but you see origin.

There see to be some constants. Your video games, 4chan, humans, Earth, stars, universe have origin.
Why? All things inside of time have origin. All things outside of time, including time itself, have no origin. If you need to know what else is above time, look at fundamental forces of nature that aren't dependent on time -- such as knowledge, which is required before creation, which is required in order to make -> time.

Proof is in the pudding -- all the time. If you can't see it now, then you are no where near done on your journey.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:28:31 2010 No.1820272 >>1820268 >Implying the concept of 'outside of time' is even coherent.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:29:31 2010 No.1820274

>>1820268

Demonstrate that knowledge is needed before creation. You are asserting a load of asinine crap that has no evidence and can be dismissed with no evidence.

If you can't prove your god exists, why should we give you anymore consideration than for the invisible pink unicorn?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:29:31 2010 No.1820276 >>1820272 I know right? How can an event happen outside of time - when time is needed for an event to occur by definition.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:31:31 2010 No.1820279 >>1820268 So... Going to admit that convicting people of thoughtcrime is fucking evil?

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 04:39:31 2010 No.1820308

>>1820264
You convict yourself through consequence. You form your own jails to put away criminals you create because of your 'free will'. Your 'freewill' is what imprisons you. What you don't realize is that you don't have free will in the first place because you operate on false premises.

Do you honestly believe you have freewill when you live not to die? Kill yourself anytime you want you say? Then do it with a smile while you experience joy throughout your body.

Do you have freewill when your forced into a single form as a human, bound by physical law, forced on this JAIL we call Mother Earth? No.

Do you have freewill not to consume others? No.

Please. You already live in a thought police era. Your media is largely manipulated, along with your economy, and along with your morality, to serve others who don't give a shit about you or your life. Do you care about anyone you don't know exist?

I propose no real fixes because no one has asked me to.

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 04:43:31 2010 No.1820316

>>1820274
So, you are saying you can create things without knowing how? How could you make creation possible without knowing how?

Creation doesn't come before knowledge. "Accidents" require knowledge in order to move and operate your body, and knowledge is required for an attempt.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:44:31 2010 No.1820319

>>1820308

Really? Cause for a second there I thought I was living in the western world, where we have a little thing called freedom of conscience. We do not lock people up for what they believe. You might be from Saudi Arabia or Alabama, I don't know. But we do things differently here.

Dammit, I wish George Orwell was still alive so he could tell you how wrong you are. And how wrong your religion is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:46:31 2010 No.1820328 >>1820316 Laws of physics don't need knowledge. Gravity is not going to ask politely before it drops you down a well. Life evolves without the need for humans to guide it (natural selection), though in recent times we have done this as well.

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 04:50:31 2010 No.1820350

>>1820279
Thought crimes are 'evil' in essence because of Control, which is the opposite of Freewill, one of the very fundamental forces of all forces.

Your essence is not your own, an infinitely small amount that is your very experience, but in exchange you get to control vast amounts and make it your own. It isn't fair for who you are taking it from, but he loves you anyway.

It is that small part of you that you cannot control, or control of others because it is not truly yours, that led you to wish to live without God... and here you are, with everyone that thinks like you.

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 04:52:31 2010 No.1820358 >>1820279 You're being trolled.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:56:31 2010 No.1820369

>>1820350

Forces:

Strong Nuclear Force
Weak Nuclear Force
Electromagnetism
Gravitation

Nope, don't see new age bullshit anywhere.

Also, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that I was created by some sort of god. You see, I have it on very good authority that when a mummy and a daddy fuck a series of well-documented biochemical reactions takes place, resulting in a jumbled up set of genes and a rapidly-changing ball of stem cells, that eventually gets born in an incredibly painful process. Unless of course, you believe Intelligent Gestation and say the stork brought it.

So, in conclusion, stringing a bunch of deep-sounding words together in no way guarantees a coherent sentence.

Hippy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 04:57:31 2010 No.1820373 >>1820358 CURSE YOU POE!

>>	GodofCider Wed Sep 29 04:58:31 2010 No.1820374 >>1820373 Personally, I hate trolls.

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 05:00:31 2010 No.1820379

>>1820319
You will wake up some day and realize you have no freewill so long as you live with fear. Your culture is ENTIRELY made of fear... look at your damn news. The government swings in and acts like they are saving you, when they cause the problems, so that you will become happy little marching extensions of their will. You do not know what free will is. That is another lesson you learn here.

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 05:22:31 2010 No.1820437

>>1820369
Particles have things like sex and war all the time . But how did particles get there? The only newage "bullshit" I see here are new names for things that have been around nearly forever.

Explain how different languages, and symbols, and brain structures, can relate and point to the same objects in spacetime can exist as a mathematical formula. I wont expect you to have the formula since its not invented yet.

Hint: The easiest way is to use superlinear algebra and ring theory so that you can set up a hyper commutative "infinitezero" matrix by combining the two major types of rings. You don't have to provide details -- just how its possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:24:31 2010 No.1820442 I used to have those gut feelings when I was younger, then I learned how the world works inside and out. Fun fact: religious people are total klutz cuz they don't understand how the world works.

>>	The Oracle Wed Sep 29 05:24:31 2010 No.1820443 >>1820328 I didn't say the laws of physics need to own knowledge. I'm very careful with my meaning.

>>	The Oracle Wed Sep 29 05:26:31 2010 No.1820448 >>1820442 Scientific people are the same. You have yet to scratch the surface of knowledge. Little do you know, what is possible changes where you go in the Universe.

The Oracle Wed Sep 29 05:33:31 2010 No.1820459

>>>>1820165
1820165
Hey, you just created the definition of superexistence. Pat yourself on the back.

Its not like we give existence to cars, who exist and move by our minds' tools, through a common medium.

Its not like sub-atomic particles existed before Atoms right? You gain control of certain parts of the Universe as you earn them and show that you can. Its an analogy for something.... I'll let you work it out.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:39:31 2010 No.1820470 >>1819865 This just suggests we create the deities with our collective imaginations. Imagine, somewhere, Zeus is still ready to rape you when Yahweh and Allah are done with you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:48:31 2010 No.1820492 >>1820448 I knew this and accept it, I would simply learn how things work elsewhere, next problem?

>>	The Oracle Wed Sep 29 05:52:31 2010 No.1820508 >>1820470 Which is why this Reality is the combination of all Realities, and we are Gods discovering old, becoming new and rediscovering ourselves. The first one to get there... is the original.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:53:31 2010 No.1820512 >>1820508 Cool theory.

>>	The Oracle Wed Sep 29 05:57:31 2010 No.1820524 >>1820512 Thanks man. I made it up and its not true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:59:31 2010 No.1820535 >>1820524 We're just exercising our imaginations here, none of this is true.

>>	The Oracle Wed Sep 29 06:06:31 2010 No.1820548 HAHAHAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS!

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 ]