/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2214127]

For there to be good, there must be evil.
For there to be light, there must be darkness.
For there to be reality, there must be unreality.
For there to be science, there must be god

[Anonymous No.2214133]

subjective false dichotomy much?

[Anonymous No.2214139]

>>2214133
admit it your mind was blown
man this shit that ive been smoking is amazing

[Anonymous No.2214145]

I'm actually dumber for having read your thoughts.

Please contain yourself before someone gets hurt.

[Anonymous No.2214148]

I think you were going for
> For there to be science there must be un-science.

[Anonymous No.2214154]

>>2214148
but isn't un-science god? pure faith. nothing scientific about it at all

[Anonymous No.2214172]

For there to be dicks, there must be pizza.

your mind is blown

[Anonymous No.2214180]

>>2214172
pizza isn't the opposite of dicks, learn some fucking logic

[Anonymous No.2214189]

>>2214154
No. There are all kinds of things that are neither science nor god. For example, pornography. Unless you're saying pornography is god, you need to rethink your logic.

[Anonymous No.2214191]

>>2214180
Somebody's mad.

Remember, serious business

[Anonymous No.2214196]

>>2214189
ok, correction -> for science to exist there must be faith

faith leads to faith in multiple things, which obviously includes god

[Anonymous No.2214198]

OP is a faggot, from the very start. He's saying that good only matters because people also do evil.

You're shitting me. You mean if we eliminated suffering, you'd think that would get rid of good?

Go fucking die.

[Anonymous No.2214200]

>>2214154
So, the opposite of science is insanity.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

[Anonymous No.2214203]

>>2214196
But does the existence of faith in a thing say anything about the existence of that thing?

[Anonymous No.2214207]

For there to be a possible answer to this question, there must an an unpossible answer to this question?

[Anonymous No.2214211]

>>2214200
Combined with Einstein's skepticism about the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, that quote is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.2214218]

For there to have been a theist Aquinas, there must have been an atheist Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.2214221]

>>2214211
Yes, but hopefully you understand what he's getting at. He's just saying that one should believe in evidence. If that evidence says that the outcome is random - such as for flipping a coin, then it's insane to expect that it'll always be heads.

[Anonymous No.2214232]

Congrats on completing your first philosophy class op.

Too bad they didn't teach you what false dichotomy was.

[Anonymous No.2214274]

You can sort of replace science with knowledge and god with ignorance?

[Anonymous No.2214306]

>>2214221
Thank you captain obvious.

[GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg No.2214315]

For there need to be a useless Philosophy Major, there must be a Poli sci/Econ.

/thread

[Anonymous No.2214341]

Well, even ignoring that science and God are not opposites, whence comes the notion that everything must have an opposite? What is the opposite of regular dodecahedron? What is the opposite of the planet Jupiter?

I believe in God, but your argument is stupid.

[Anonymous No.2214363]

OP,
>For there to be good, there must be evil.
>For there to be light, there must be darkness.
>For there to be reality, there must be unreality.
>For there to be science, there must be satan
Fixed for you

[Anonymous No.2214366]

>>2214341
For every polyhedron with a vertices, b faces, and c edges, there exists its "dual", a polyhedron with b vertices, a faces, and c edges. The dual of the dodecahedron is the icosahedron.

[Anonymous No.2214378]

>>2214366
Clever, but it's not intuitively obvious that fits the definition of opposite. After all, it's still a polyhedron. Furthermore, some polyhedra (like the tetrahedron) are self-dual. Adopting that to be the opposite would therefore actually *defeat* his argument.

[Anonymous No.2214387]

>>2214378
No argument here. OP is full of bull crap. I just thought it would be fun to bring up the mathematical concept of duality.

[Anonymous No.2214391]

>For there to exist the concept of good, there must exist the concept of evil.
>For there to exist the concept of light, there must exist the concept of darkness.
>For there exist the concept of reality, there must exist the concept of unreality.
>For there to exist the concept of science, there must exist the concept of god

The concept of a thing automatically necessitates the existence of the opposite concept, yet in a closed system, nothing requires both to actual exist. The world could contain pure evil and only evil. And while the concept of good would exist (as one of the only ways to understand what evil really is), evil could keep on trucking and not give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.2214389]

>>2214341
<span class="math">dodecahedron^{-1}[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.2214394]

>>2214341
Also,
<span class="math">Jupiter^{-1}[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.2214396]

>>2214341
The point being that one could argue that the "opposite" of such things is the set composed of elements that are *not* of each set you mention, i.e., not-dodecahedron and not-Jupiter.

[GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg No.2214398]

For there to be a concept of an easily recognizable pattern of duality there must beioh]tpofa,,iqhtphiathpathghaggrh[ahgat[th30wt93r902r1r190rfahaf,m,afaa.

[Anonymous No.2214403]

>>2214394

Don't you mean -Jupiter?

[Anonymous No.2214409]

>>2214398
pure genius you adulterated idiot

[Anonymous No.2214414]

>>2214403
On that point, what is the difference between inverse and negative? I never quite got that.

[Anonymous No.2214419]

nigs be so mad up in this thread lol

[Anonymous No.2214420]

>>2214414

A number cancels to zero (additive identity) when added to its negative

A number cancels to one (multiplicative identity) when multiplied by its inverse

[Anonymous No.2214423]

>>2214414
Negative is just one kind of inverse, the additive kind.

<span class="math"> a^{-1} = \frac{1}{x} [\math] is the multiplicative inveerse of <span class="math"> a [\math]. It is by analogy with this kind of inverse that we use exponent -1 to mean any other kind of inverse, such as functions or matrices.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.2214429]

>>2214414
Negative is just one kind of inverse, the additive kind.

<span class="math"> a^{-1} = \frac{1}{x} [/spoiler] is the multiplicative inveerse of <span class="math"> a [/spoiler]. It is by analogy with this kind of inverse that we use exponent -1 to mean any other kind of inverse, such as functions or matrices.

[Anonymous No.2214442]

>>2214396
Well, then the statement becomes a trivial tautology. There is no restriction in logic onstatements to which negation can be applied. Furthermore, it's not in line with what OP actually said.

>For there to be good, there must be evil.
is not the same as "For there to be good, there must be ~good."

If we consider objects and events that have the property of being good or evil, clearly there are some members of the complement of the union.

Neither "tossing a ball" nor "potato" are good, but they aren't evil either. They're moral non-entities.

[Anonymous No.2214447]

>>2214429
that should be [math\ a^-1 = \frac{1}{a} [/math]. But you all probably figured that out.

[Anonymous No.2214673]

>>2214429
See, that's what I thought!!!

<span class="math">dodecahedron^{-1}[\math]
<span class="math">Jupiter^{-1}[\math]

YOU LOSE[/spoiler][/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.2214704]

There has to Spock AND Evil Spock

[Anonymous No.2215257]

>>2214704
Well, maybe science exists in this dimension and God exists in another.

Problem solved.

[Naggarothian No.2215273]

[sage No.2215278]

opposite of good is "not good", not evil.
darkness is only the absence of light, not the "opposite" of it
reality/unreality is semantic metaphysical nonsense
religion troll thread hurr sage

[Anonymous No.2215370]

>>2214127
You fail at logic. Hard. (Just like any good Christian I guess)
Here's the thing, some things are mutually opposed and therefore are defined as being the opposite of one to the other. And some things are not. For this argument to work there must only be 2 of those things. Your two first line were correct, the two last however, not. Because there is no such thing as unreality and the concept of God is not opposed to Science.

[Anonymous No.2215402]

let me fix it for you OP

>For there to be good, there must be evil.
>For there to be light, there must be darkness.
>For there to be reality, there must be unreality.
For there to be science, there must be theory.
For theory there must be believe.
For a believe there must be some kind of evidence.

yeah i fixed it ^_^

[Anonymous No.2215409]

>>2214196
Faith =/= a god exists

Wow, just wow.

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2215431]

for there to be clocks, there must be a invisible time dimension

[Anonymous No.2215438]

>>2214127

>implying science and God are opposites.

[Anonymous No.2215469]

>>2214196

Without faith scientific advancement would stop, ever scientist trying to reinvent the wheel. And since we are way past the Age of Generalists such is not feasible.

[Naggarothian No.2215488]

>>2215469
>Without faith scientific advancement would stop

[Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU No.2215597]

>For there to be reality, there must be unreality.

nope.avi

Reality exists whether or not we think about that which is not reality.

[Anonymous No.2215603]

No.

I hate dualistic people like you.

If the universe was created by a supreme being who made it dualistic.
It's a retard.

[sage No.2215624]

>>2214127