/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1969445]

╔ ╤ ╗
║ ─ ║┐┌┐┌┐┌┐┌─────────────┐
╬ ─ ╬╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╗
I DON'T INTEND TO CREATE SHITSTORMS ITS YOU GUYS THAT DO THAT
╬ ─ ╬╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╝
╬ ─ ╬┘└┘└┘└┘└─────────────┘
║ ─ ║alright guys this thread is about god and
║ ─ ║ science.
╚ ╧ ╝
I believe in god but not in A god. I believe that "god is change itself"---Science attempts to describe how and why things change. i see religion and science as two sides of the same coin in that they both attempt to create an understanding of that which we don't understand.

please try to refrain from namecalling although i know some of you just can't help yourselves..

[EK No.1969476]

>I DON'T INTEND TO CREATE SHITSTORMS ITS YOU GUYS THAT DO THAT
implying that anyone at all is going to reply to this shithouse troll thread.
>I believe that "god is change itself"
attempting to redefine the word god. *facepalm*

[Anonymous No.1969480]

getting...weak...need..mod...

[Anonymous No.1969481]

>god is change itself
So God = laws of conversion
/thread

[Anonymous No.1969485]

>>1969476
i didnt attempt it. i did it. and now with this new definition does anyone have anything interesting to say regarding this topic

[Anonymous No.1969492]

>>1969480
if this board is about science then i think this discussion falls under that catagory.

[EK No.1969503]

>>1969485

yes because the whims of 1 insignificant faggot changing the meaning of words, universally changes the meaning for everyone...

[Anonymous No.1969506]

Why don't you believe in X?

X is just Y, and you know Y exists.

So we agree that X exists, now.

X is not only Y, but also Z.

Oh, now you say you don't believe in Z?

I thought we had reached this point logically!

[Anonymous No.1969518]

God is synonymous with change?

God is the cause of change?

Because we already have a word for change.

[Anonymous No.1969543]

>>1969503
cant you just play along for a little bit? i think my definition can be useful

[EK No.1969554]

>>1969543

no, otherwise it isn't even god you are talking about.

>i see religion and science as two sides of the same coin in that they both attempt to create an understanding of that which we don't understand.
no. science is actually useful because it depends on evidence, so we can find out what is really true. religion is just made up, a geuss, so it doesn't help anyone.

[Anonymous No.1969557]

>>1969518
no god is synonymous with change.

[Anonymous No.1969563]

>>1969543

It can't be useful. Change is not god. You can define change in one way and declare that you want to call it god, but you've just changed the name. If you then try to attribute traits to change that are normally attributed to god, you then have to show that those traits are founded in something, not just declare that change exists, change is god, god is XYZ.

Religion and science are both trying to answer the same sort of questions. Science does this by reason, hypothesis, experimentation and theory, accumulating knowledge over successive iterations, while religion does it by making stuff up and declaring itself right because it has got the answer from something that is both always right and never around.

[Anonymous No.1969569]

>>1969554
heres what i said since you took what you wanted out of it "i see religion and science as two sides of the same coin in that they both attempt to create an understanding of that which we don't understand."
yes it is god that i am talking about because for me god is something physical.

[Anonymous No.1969570]

Saying "god did it" adds ZERO understanding of the processes that underly reality. Its just as useful as calling that which makes life live "elan vital" or calling that which makes fire burn "phlogiston".

That which doesn't contribute to the understanding isn't even scientific, so don't you fucking dare call it the other side of the science coin.

[Anonymous No.1969572]

>>1969557

>no, god is synonymous with change

or

>no god is synonymous with change


Because if the former, then why call it god, you're just making shit up.

If the latter, then what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.1969583]

>>1969563
i think you should distinguish between religious beliefs and religous feelings when saying what religion is.

and thinking that god is change is very useful to me. i think that if everybody thought that god was change then the world might be a little better off. but that's just an opinion

[Anonymous No.1969588]

>>1969570

Exactly.

You could say that gravity works just as we have observed it to work, BUT it's because invisible fairies are pushing things together. Every calculation we have is perfectly correct, then we just add some unfounded, ultimately inconsequential things to the whole understanding of the process. But it doesn't end there, the fairies will get mad if you try to pile things up too high, since you're making work for them, and after you die, they rape you.

[Anonymous No.1969593]

nigger, perhaps?

[Anonymous No.1969596]

>>1969583

I'm not certain I understand what you mean.

Will you tell me what the difference between religious belief and religious feeling is, in your opinion, so I can respond?


Also, since when did a belief or feeling being useful translate to it being factually, objectively true? In science we are in the business of figuring out what IS, not what OUGHT.

[Anonymous No.1969607]

>>1969445
>> I BELIEVE IN GOD BUT MY DEFINITION IS DIFFERENT
Deism has been in the books for hundreds of years. we know about it. now get out.

Heres a neat related essay by carl sagan read aloud by some twat.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5r103_the-god-hypothesis-by-carl-sagan_creation

[Anonymous No.1969608]

>>1969572
sorry i'm usually pretty lazy with punctuation on here... i meant the first one. i call it god because i am deeply moved when i think about change or the processes involved in change. i feel as though i am at the whim of something i can scarcely even grasp. this is what i assume others mean when they say god.

[EK No.1969611]

>>1969569
>because for me god is something physical.
>for me

either god is objectively real, or he is just in your imagination. the latter is correct.

[Anonymous No.1969619]

>>1969570
it would be incorrect to say "god did it" if you assume that god is change.

[Anonymous No.1969631]

>>1969608

I don't mean to be flippant, but,

My computer deeply moves me. It is a font of great knowledge and pleasure from all around the world. Can I therefore call it god? Or must I call all computers god? Can we all just name our own idea of what god is, despite having nothing to support anything more than the material, physical properties of the objects in question, or anything more than the conception of the concepts in question?

[EK No.1969663]

well tommorow i am going to get god'd, then i am going to god my clock to it's correct time, then go out, and probably be harrassed for god by a hobo...

do you see how much sense it makes when you god the meaning of words OP?

[Anonymous No.1969666]

>>1969596
to what you said about science and feeling i have another quote which i find useful

"emotion is the soil from which thought spurts"
you will not get anywhere in science if you are not motivated.

and religous feelings are the feelings which spur people into adopting different beliefs which in turn help them express their religous feelings. often times i feel that the feelings become lost in translation.

for me a religous feeling is one of awe and wonder

[Anonymous No.1969692]

>>1969666

And for me the sense of awe and wonder is the base. It can then be, and often is, co-opted by religious symbolism. The attribution of magical, divine or supernatural elements to the cause of this adds nothing to the feeling, it only subtracts actual knowledge from the result of the curiosity that feeling brings.

[Anonymous No.1969716]

[Anonymous No.1969732]

>>1969692
yes it is the base. it is knowledge itself which inspires the feeling. im sort of getting lost in my own web now but i'll paraphrase quote i think is pertinent.

"the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible"

[Anonymous No.1969742]

>>1969732
if you assume that god is change you could say that knowledge is the understanding of how god is expressed.

[Anonymous No.1969745]

>>1969732

That quote is utterly moot.

We are creatures of the universe. We have systems designed to parse information from the environment to ensure our survival and flourishing. We can't not comprehend the universe.

[Anonymous No.1969771]

>>1969745
it's einstein's quote. i think you're thinking about it in the wrong terms

[Sarcastro No.1969774]

>>1969445
yeah, I'd kinda agree with that, or I would more call religion as the result of trying to explain things in a time where they didn't understand very much (comparatively)

except it went too far and now we have fundamentalist religion.... sigh

where as science attempts to explain things, and discuss things, and get more and more 'right' religion was more people going the explanation is the first thing that pops into my head, kill anyone who disagrees.

[Anonymous No.1969785]

>>1969771

I think you and Einstein are thinking about it in the wrong terms.

We exist inside the universe, we are made of universe stuff, we operate according to the natural laws of the universe. If we are things that have any computational power whatsoever, and we are, that can sense and parse information from our surroundings, and we do, then we can comprehend, at least in part, the universe.

[Anonymous No.1969787]

>>1969619
Its not a question of correct or incorrect. This sort of pseudoscientific mysticism isn't even wrong.

And by "wrong", I mean "makes some statement that is contradicted empirically by reality". So correct statements agree with empirical reality. And statements that aren't even wrong don't actually say anything about empirical reality.

[Anonymous No.1969798]

>>1969774

Religions get it wrong right at the start. They always argue from an unquestionable, infallible, and luckily for the priests, utterly unknowable, and undetectable authority. The arguments are right because they come from god, not because they have any merit. Some religious arguments may in fact have some merit, but that is not the point.

[Anonymous No.1969802]

>>1969785
well obviously..i guess this is what happens when you take something out of context.... just because we operate within the laws of the universe does not mean that we comprehend them as a whole.

[Anonymous No.1969808]

>>1969798
yeah i find that subject boring

[Anonymous No.1969810]

>>1969802

But it does neatly explain why we can comprehend them at all. The actual mechanics of our comprehension may not yet be fully known, but there is no great mystery as to why we are able to understand the universe.

[Anonymous No.1969826]

>>1969810
that quote went over your head...the point of the quote was this..... according to current scientific notions of the universe we do not understand everything. as of current we do not understand everything. sooo.. the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that is it is comprehensible. its not something you argue with its just an opinion that illustrates a point

[Anonymous No.1969832]

Let's all go Study Tautology!

[Anonymous No.1969845]

>>1969832
sometimes you just gotta beat it over their heads

[Anonymous No.1969846]

>>1969826

I have no idea what you mean. I'm serious.

It is obviously not incomprehensible that the universe is comprehensible. It makes perfect sense that we, creatures made of the universes stuff, operating according to the universes natural laws, would be able to operate within the universe.

[Anonymous No.1969878]

>>1969846
okay so when you believe in something but have no evidence for it then your belief is questionable.
the belief that the universe is entirely comprehensible cannot be proven because there are things that nobody can explain.

if you are to believe that the universe is comprehensible, you believe that it is possible to comprehend that which you currently are incapable of comprehending.
so einstein said "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" his quote is saying that he understands his lack of understanding but that he believes everything can be understood none the less

[Anonymous No.1969900]

religion and science = banhammer, read the rules OP

[Anonymous No.1969904]

>>1969900
i dont care bout no rules. i make my own rules...
this falls under the category of science so i dont see why they would stop this thread from happening...its how people use the thread not the thread itself

[The Solitary Prophet, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1969912]

You're on the right track, bro, just ignore Brian and continue researching. You'll come to a conclusion near the end of your research and you'll be happy about somethings and angry about about others.

[Anonymous No.1969913]

looks like OP made his own god. congrats OP.

[Anonymous No.1969923]

>>1969913
thank you! i didnt really make god i just put language around it.

[Anonymous No.1969929]

>>1969912
who's brian?

[Anonymous No.1969934]

>>1969878

>okay so when you believe in something but have no evidence for it then your belief is questionable.
Agreed.
>the belief that the universe is entirely comprehensible cannot be proven because there are things that nobody can explain.
It can't be proven. But we do know that everything we already comprehend IS comprehensible. And more than this it makes perfect sense that it would be comprehensible.

>if you are to believe that the universe is comprehensible, you believe that it is possible to comprehend that which you currently are incapable of comprehending.
>so einstein said "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" his quote is saying that he understands his lack of understanding but that he believes everything can be understood none the less

You can hope that we will comprehend everything. This requires no belief, and I didn't even imply that I believe we will, or could, comprehend anything or everything.


The point is, that we can understand the things we can understand. And we can understand how we understand them, it requires no leap of faith. So to say that the most difficult thing to accept about the nature of the universe is that we can understand parts of the universes nature is going too far.

[The Solitary Prophet, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1969954]

How to spot Brian:

Usually suppresses what you have to say.
Trolls you or calls you a troll.
Tells your you're insane or unintelligent.
Laughs at your ideas.
Tries to force scientific unproven laws upon you.
Claims God has to be the being in another dimension.
Claims God cannot be in actuality.
Claims all holy books are fairy-tales and forces one interpretation upon you (the educated defined interpretation).
Spams Gore or CP in your threads to attempt to kill the thread.
Threatens you.

That's about it, most of /sci/ is actually a group of people from Scienceforums.net or other Science organizations that are trying desperately to keep their paychecks by making sure the truth about God never reveals itself.

Yes, it's a conspiracy.
No, they will not ever agree with what you have to say.
No, you're not right about God, yet.
No, you will never get reassurance, from others, that you're correct.
Yes, you will know when you're correct.

[Anonymous No.1969961]

>>1969934
when i said you it wasnt directed at YOU. you means anyone it was a hypothetical you idiot....you're creating something out of nothing... it just an opinion and it's not even mine ...that quote was meant to be taken lightly and was directed towards the person i was responding to because i associated it with what we were discussing. you took it out of context and put it into your own context where you interpret everything i say through a lens.

all you said was that we can understand what we understand and we can understand why we understand..that has nothing to do with understanding the universe as a whole or what im talking about.

[Anonymous No.1969965]

>>1969954
>mfw multiple people disagreeing with you for similar sound reasons is a "conspiracy"

[Anonymous No.1969975]

>>1969965
so you have no face?