[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 246 KB, 1440x1540, planetearth1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549549 No.2549549 [Reply] [Original]

Atheist fag here. I was wondering what it would take for the people of /sci to believe in a creator god/intelligent design. Obviously faith is not enough, and neither is some kind of hallucination on the verge of death, but what kind of physical evidence and/or cosmic event would have to occur for you to "believe" (whatever that means) ?

I often hear creationist fags say that their faith is unshakable and would never stop believing. This is not the case for true scientists, they go wherever the evidence leads. For me personally, I would believe in a god if the only things present in the universe were just the sun and the earth, with no fossils present in the ground.

If you answer nothing would convert you, you are no better than the religious fucktards.

>> No.2549558

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1vd_pSQcU_s#t=54s

>> No.2549557

religion threads go on >>>/b/

>> No.2549565

Anything from direct physical intervention that's otherwise unexplainable or evidence of design present in the universe that trumps anything else. Obviously being ambiguous since there's crucially no previous experience to base an answer on.

>> No.2549571

Shut the fuck up. There are 10000 religion threads per day. Stop.

>> No.2549572
File: 70 KB, 1597x251, [sci] i don't feel like typing it again.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549572

"Tangible evidence of an 'intelligent' force influencing events' essentially, an obvious 'I exist'"

...whatever that means. The thing is, god is by the very nature of his description not provable. You can use unexplained phenomenon as evidence for god, but you can also remove every element attributed to god from the bible until everything has been disproved or attributed to some aspect of science, and you still couldn't disprove god. It's a no win situation. Therefore, the argument is moot. (see pic for better description I wrote a WHILE ago; also sage for off topic).

>> No.2549582
File: 256 KB, 402x261, underbite.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549582

>>2549572
Damn, I just reread that pic.
It's sloppy as hell.
Huge grain of salt, guys.
Like, salt lick huge.

>> No.2549584
File: 20 KB, 384x288, bad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549584

>>2549558

That video is bad and you should feel bad!

>> No.2549590

>>2549571
not really a religion thread, this is a physical evidence thread.

>> No.2549598

Evidence.

>> No.2549606

Interfering god who is mad at someone eating apples, smites towers but not skyscrapers, helps you win an oscar but let's children in africa rot, placed fossils under the earth made them look older for the sole purpose of testing our fatih,rips motherfucking oceans apart to save his people but lets them rot in concentration camps thousand years later kind of god? Well i would obviously start believing in his existence if he gave me undeniable prove but i would immediately join lucifer in his rebellion against such a Tyrant. I'm however perfectly willing to accept that the cause of the big bang was created by some sort of higher intelligence but i don't think he would need some sort of worship.

>> No.2549607

intelligent design does not necessarily entail a "god" it could also mean a super advanced alien civilization or virtual simulation by a fuckhuge computer. in each of those scenarios evidence could be present.

>> No.2549639
File: 483 KB, 1044x1371, 1288402598064.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549639

>>2549607
Doesn't explain where the alien civilization or supercomputers came from. Evolution could have eventually produced those alien civilizations that developed those massive supercomputers.
But ID by itself doesn't explain anything, it's just a neat thing to think about, but has no explanatory power.

>> No.2549674

I'd be convinced if god actually appeared in front of thousands of eyewitnesses to cure the world of war, inequality and disease with magic.

I mean, is there any thing less we'd expect a loving all powerful being to do?

>> No.2549703

>>2549606
>>2549674
think this thread is about the bible

>> No.2549709

so the consensus thus far has been to close your eyes and sage, or the very obvious "he has to come down and perform magic".

how about some of these:

-no fossil record
-100 supernovas going off simultaneously within our own galaxy
-priests have an average lifespan much longer than most humans
-prayers shown to be effective in double blind studies
-everyone on the planet collectively has the same dream one night
-andromeda galaxy disappears overnight
-corpses of deceased atheists start falling out of the sky

your lack of imagination disappoints me /sci

>> No.2549725

>>2549639
right but maybe if we somehow figured out they were the cause they might come down and present themselves, and perhaps give us a bunch of answer to questions we've always had. kind of like a prize for beating the "game"

I know its far fetched and full retard but you never know...

>> No.2549728

>>2549709

Most of these don't implicate supernatural causes necessarily. Try some evidence that doesn't require bias.

>> No.2549731

>implying Christianity is the only religion that has ever existed

/sci/ should be just merged back with /b/

>> No.2549735

if a bunch of 18 yr old virgins appeared in my bedroom

>> No.2549764

>>2549728
first of all supernatural is not a real term. secondly I'm atheist myself so its not biased. thirdly if you think some of those don't require a super intelligence to be involved then you are fucking blind.

>> No.2549767

take this shit back to /b/

>> No.2549770

>>2549728
how about trying some yourself?

>> No.2549785

OP, IT seems you have only heard the idiodic side of belief in God: Literal Interpretation. Clearly the creation story in the Christian bible is a parable/metaphor/symbol for the truth that God created everything. REAL Christians (who are not idiots) know this.

Science is the answer to how. Religion is the answer to why.

I can only justify existence of everything as a whole by accepting that everything comes from some outside, eternal, powerful source and many people (such as myself) choose to believe that this source is God.

>> No.2549783

>>2549764

I didn't say all.

>secondly I'm atheist myself so its not biased.

What fucking illogical universe do you live in?

>first of all supernatural is not a real term.

Not well defined maybe but perfectly obvious i'm referring to a creator God of the Judeo-Christian variety.

>> No.2549799

>>2549767
this is not a religious debate you fucktard

>> No.2549816
File: 83 KB, 750x600, Atheist_motivational_poster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549816

>> No.2549825

>>2549785

If only god had thought to tell us it was allegorical. By the way, how do we decide what parts to take literally?
To finish, how is it you know you're a True Chistian(tm)?

>> No.2549827

>>2549785

That's an ad-hoc hypothesis. You're taking the same route that the greeks did when they couldn't explain lighting: I don't know, therefore magic.

This is PRECISELY why science doesn't use magic for an explanation. You can literally make any magical explanation consistent with the universe, and history tells us that it will still be complete bullshit.

>> No.2549840

>>2549825

Well obviously that shit about original sin was bullshit, and the stuff about becoming a holy zombie, and all that bullshit about a global flood, and an exodus from egypt...

But some of those are quite precious to christard dogma: without adam and eve they can't blame humanity for anything and they can't guilt trip people into paying tithes.

I don't know about others, but the popefags at least actually think adam and eve were real people. If they didn't their entire religion is without foundation.

>> No.2549872

>>2549825
Take figuratively the things that scientists have disproved. Like the creation story. The book of revelations is also EXTREMELY figurative.

Anyone even half versed in Judeo-Christian symbols would recognize all links to events which already happened. The book merely describes the impending fall of the roman empire and is written in a code of Judeo-Christian symbols so the writer and readers would not get burned alive.

>> No.2549891

>>2549840
I think Adam and Eve were just symbols for the entire human race falling into sins of all kinds. The apple thing was obviously allegory.

>> No.2549903
File: 74 KB, 685x517, rage.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549903

>>2549549
So let me get this straight, you're an atheist because of FOSSILS?

Great, another ignorant "atheist" that doesn't understand the teleological and naturalistic problems with the supernatural and only lacks belief because of derpy dawkins evolutionary biology.

Yeah, I mad.

>> No.2549910

>>2549785
>>2549825
>>2549827
>>2549840
god fucking damnit, I try to make a thread where ppl discuss what physical evidence they would need to believe ID, and it turns into a religious debate. It seems that for most of you its about the argument rather than the real issue at hand (evidence).

>> No.2549925

>>2549549
>If you answer nothing would convert you, you are no better than the religious fucktards.
if you had evidence for the supernatural, it wouldn't be supernatural, so how to propose to prove god?

>> No.2549937

>>2549903
You sir are truth speaking!
I'm fine with people being atheists if they have reasonable explanations, but fossil records (or biology at all) are not good reasons.

>> No.2549942

>>2549903
>the only things present in the universe were just the sun and the earth

this denotes a universe created just for us, the lack of fossils would be a side note. I can also tell you plenty about biology/chemistry and evolution, and the problems with infinite regress involving a god.

so no, its not "just fossils"

>> No.2549948

>>2549910
>>2549785

Hey now, I answered your question! the evidence that convinces me to believe in a god is existence itself.

>> No.2549951

>>2549925
I think you have a fucked up idea of what natural means. inb4 I prove recursive triangles.

>> No.2549954

>>2549925

I'm looking for something like this post >>2549709


and I totally agree on "supernatural" being a completely useless word

>> No.2549968

I don't know that there was/is "a creator god/intelligent design" but I believe the possibility is there until evidence proves otherwise. Every true scientific thinker should have a similar stance, otherwise they are biased.

>> No.2549976

>>2549942
That's surface stuff, and most of it insanely weak when given a second look.

Biology and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of God. It only relevance is tangential, as it could provide someone struggling with the need to have explanations propose an alternative to god, but that's simply because we're a fucking arrogant species that can't accept "we don't know (yet)" for an answer.

And infinite regression works both for and against theism, and is probably irrelevant since time would have been created at the big bang, meaning the big bang itself wouldn't necessarily have had a causal "prime mover", and if it did there's no way we'd ever be able to know what it is.

>> No.2549986

>>2549948
existence proves that there is an existence.

to prove something like a god you would need extraordinary evidence, something like a billion galaxies forming a prefect tetrahedron around the milky way over night. that would be convincing IMHO.

>> No.2550012

>>2549976
you strike me as an agnostic. would I be wrong in making that assumption? if I am please provide the reason you are not

>> No.2550033

>>2550012
Nope, I'm an atheist. I don't believe there's a God, but I don't assert with some twisted form of Cartesian certainty that God cannot exist. I'm simply a naturalist that denies acausal or supernatural explanations for observable phenomena.

Basically, a kid of a surgeon and a chemical engineer studying to be a biochemist.

>> No.2550097

come at me bro

Prem 1) Intelligence can only be demonstrated by solving and overcoming problems

Prem 2) Problems can only exist if there is some sort of limitation between the current state and desired end state

Prem 3) Limitations do not exist for something that is omnipotent

Conclusion: A being can not be both omnipotent and have demonstroable intelligence at the same time

>> No.2550126

>>2550097
Premise 1, Intelligence is simply an organism's ability to understand environment in some degree without any reference to problem solving.

Premise 3, As omnipotence doesn't necessarily mean omniscience, it is possible an omnipotent being would encounter things it doesn't understand, thus causing problems. Pedantic, since the monotheistic god is also omniscient, but still.

>> No.2550147

>>2550097
Also, omnipotence doesn't preclude the possibility of problems, it simply means the being has the power to solve all problems. Running out of milk is a problem. You wouldn't say "it's not a problem, because we have the ability to go to the grocery store". Same deal for omnipotence.

>> No.2550153

>>2550126
>ability to understand environment
how would you know that it has this ability without demonstration?

>> No.2550166

>>2550153
Who says a being has to demonstrate its intelligence to be intelligent?

>> No.2550180

>>2550147
>omnipotence doesn't preclude the possibility of problems, it simply means the being has the power to solve all problems
then the existence of a problem that requires solving is a limit by design imposed by an external source

>> No.2550191

if god appears right in fuck of front and me and shows me that he's god summoning a 1km chocolate bar. and it tastes good.

/thread

>> No.2550200

>>2550166
>Who says a being has to demonstrate its intelligence to be intelligent?
The person making the claim that there is intelligent design, I could pick up a rock off the ground and say it is intelligent

>> No.2550206

>>2550180
Let's put this in more tangible terms.

Omnipotent being = God.
While God could do anything, that doesn't mean he physically controls everything. That's a separate dimension of power. He could if he wanted, but he isn't forced (that would deny his omnipotence).

So say God makes the universe, as the christfags say he did. He decides on some rules called the laws of physics, and as an irrational supernatural being is excluded from these rules, or alternatively simply has the power to break them.

It's like he's in a video game where he controls everything that happens, even if there is a video game at all. However, since he has created an external construct (the video game) it is possible for him to encounter a challenge of some kind.


Get what I'm saying? Omnipotence does not mean a being is all-present, it doesn't mean the being is all-knowing, it doesn't mean anything but unlimited power.

>> No.2550214

>>2549549
Unfortunately, it would be incredibly hard to distinguish between sufficiently advanced aliens and a creator god.

>> No.2550218

>>2550206
lrn2dictionaryinsteadofmakingupowndefinitions

>> No.2550224

A deistic creator? Never. I will always seek a naturalistic cause to the universe.

Omnipotent being? Omnipotence is impossible, it contradicts itself.

Religious deity? All are testable, have a christian do a miracle in front of me, I'll convert.

>> No.2550234

This is an interesting article for those interested in interesting articles.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/from-cosmism-to-deism

>> No.2550260

>>2550224
>naturalistic cause to the universe.
That's a contradiction
>Omnipotent being? Omnipotence is impossible, it contradicts itself.
Omnipotence is not a contradiction
>Religious deity? All are testable, have a christian do a miracle in front of me, I'll convert.
A "religious deity" doesn't imply Christians can do miracles.

>> No.2550261

>what kind of physical evidence and/or cosmic event would have to occur for you to "believe" (whatever that means) ?
Beliefs have always been and should always be based on subjective divination of the nature of the supernatural.

Science is by definition the study of natural phenomenon through objective observation and reproducible experimentation to create predictive models. Any supernatural phenomenon which may or may not exist cannot be assessed by the scientific method. Moreover even if supernatural phenomena could be observed objectively they could not be reproduced or used to create a predictive model, thereby making the attempted observation entirely pointless. When a scientist is utilizing the scientific method they do not spare a thought to the existence or nonexistence of supernatural phenomenon, because neither possibility has any impact on his observations. Science is not a worldview, it is not a philosophy. It has taken us too long to remove all philosophical and subjective content from the original Natural Philosophy to jeopardize the extremely effective tool that science has become. I have no opinion of your religiosity or lack thereof, however I will not standby as anyone attempts to turn science into the tenet of any worldview. To function properly science must remain completely detached from any philosophical, religious, moral, or emotional tenets.


Atheists: there is no objective argument that disproves the existence of supernatural phenomenon. Just be atheists and STFU.
Believers: there is no objective argument that proves the existence of supernatural phenomenon. Just be religious and STFU.

>> No.2550266

>>2549549
> I was wondering what it would take for the people of /sci to believe in a creator god/intelligent design.
It would take a creator god/intelligent designer existing. And then if it tells me to sacrifice my firstborn son to it, it can go fuck right the hell back off.

>> No.2550271

To be quite honest, I'm not sure I could be. Demonstrating something like faster than light travel does not work within our theoretical models but a super advanced species could have discovered a way to do it.

~ "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-Arthur C. Clark

I suppose breaking entropy might convince me. Its difficult to say. But that doesn't make me like a person who refuses to look at evidence objectively, like a religious person.

>> No.2550287

To give religion a generalized handicap, I'll convert to a theist when it has been discovered that this vast universe is anthrocentric and that somehow we were orchestrated to evolve. Because as of now, we look like one big accident. Had it not been for 5 random mass extinctions, we would not be here.

>> No.2550303

>>2550271
>I suppose breaking entropy might convince me.
Ah, but LaPlace's Demon's counter-argument: the demon (god) would gain in entropy when it decreased entropy externally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

>> No.2550307

I would need him to come up to me, say "Hey, I'm God" and give a convincing display of power/knowledge/whatever.

And then, I would consider but not accept it entirely. It could still be my own insanity, or aliens fucking with me.

>> No.2550308

>>2550214
indeed, which is why I am asking what evidence would be needed to prove either of those scenarios to be true, preferably involving a cosmic events, or physical evidence on earth/lack thereof. this is the point of the thread which everyone seems to have missed. Saying he/it/them have to show up and perform magic may not be realistic.

>> No.2550314

He'd have to introduce himself and give a convincing display of knowledge or power, and an experiential, empirical explanation of how it is that (whatever religion/ set of rules it likes) are in fact true.

And then I would consider but not necessarily accept it, since it could still be aliens fucking with me, that I've gone insane, or whatever.

>> No.2550317 [DELETED] 

>>2550271
Ah, but read up on the counter replies to LaPlace's Demon. Specifically the one where it says the demon (god) would have its own internal entropy increased when decreasing external entropy.

>> No.2550332

>>2550271
Instead of Entropy, I'd be more curious if it could transmit a message FTL generated from a quantum-measuring random number generator on the fly. That's pretty good evidence that it either has enough power to
- FTL
- Understand quantum mechanics
- Hack human brains
- Manipulate the quantum random number generator.

>> No.2550340

Nothing If something unexplainable happens, people won't believe a fairy did it. They will continue endlessly to search for an explanation, instead.

>> No.2550341

>>2550303

If the omnipotent and all powerful creator couldn't find a way to avoid or overpower this demon I would not be convinced. He IS supposed to be all powerful. And if he is trying to convince people about his existence, why would he create such an entity in the first place?

there's also the notion of having to say what would convince me. If an omnipotent being so chose to reveal itself as the creator of all, he would already know what would be sufficient to prove that he exists. In fact, he could simply alter the molecules in our brains to make the ideas true.

>> No.2550355

Nothing. If something unexplainable happens, people won't believe a fairy did it. They will continue endlessly to search for an explanation, instead.

>> No.2550360

>>2550341
You really ought to read the wiki page if you don't know what it is. It just makes you look like an arrogant, ignorant fucker. I await a reply which shows you've actually read the wiki page.

>> No.2550395

you guys realize a god may not have the ability to shapeshift into a human and come down here to give demonstrations right? stop anthropomorphizing the guy and expand your puny brains a little to try and think wtf could happen in the WHOLE UNIVERSE that would make you think "ok thats not fucking natural, that a super-intelligence at work"

your atheism is pretty fucking weak if you can't even think of what would make you lose it.

the only two on-topic attempts made thus far in a 60 post thread are:
>>2549709
>>2549735

>> No.2550424

God already revealed himself. People still don't believe.

>> No.2550427

>>2550395
>your atheism is pretty fucking weak if you can't even think of what would make you lose it.
Not really, because it's really damn hard to distinguish between sufficiently advanced aliens and gods.

See the entire Stargate SG-1 show as a demonstration, especially the last two (shittier) seasons.

"What is the measure of a god?" - Teal'c, when referring to incredibly powerful ageless beings that existed as pure energy not in our physical 3d space. Are those gods? They have power like gods, but they still arose as a result of Darwinian evolution, just like us. (Also, he was trying to point out that pure power ought to be insufficient for worship. How that being uses its power matters too.)

PS: I still like my "send a quantum-randomly generated message FTL" as a good example, though still not absolute, as I mentioned in my post. Reminder: in science nothing is known absolutely, just matters of degree based on the available evidence.

>> No.2550433

>>2550360

So basically your definition of God is one who maintains causality and is completely imperceivable. The point of this thread though is to prove its existence. I don't see how making something unable to be perceived proves that. And I mean prove it indisputable. Maybe there's something that is calculating causality. But maybe proves nothing.

>> No.2550448

>>2550395
>you guys realize a god may not have the ability to shapeshift into a human and come down here to give demonstrations right?

If hes not all powerful, is he really even a god ?

>> No.2550449

>>2550332

this is a good one, if people's brains started getting rewired, or computers started spitting out numbers unattainable by random fluctuations, that might be convincing

>> No.2550454

>>2550427
>I still like my "send a quantum-randomly generated message FTL" as a good example
However, I also have to give good props to:
>>2549709
especially when he said:
>-100 supernovas going off simultaneously within our own galaxy

>> No.2550467

>>2550449
I do have to give props to the guy who said 100 supernovas instantly in our galaxy. That could also be really damn hard for sufficiently advanced aliens, possibly harder than mind raping everyone on the planet, which is one possible explanation for my FTL message.

>> No.2550468

Only if something paranormal which cannot be explained by any physical means, whether we find it now or find it in the future can explain.

Then I will believe in something other than facts.

>> No.2550480

this guy gets to the heart of the matter, its not cosmological teleological or ontological...unfortunately its semantics, but he makes some important about what precisely intelligence and design actually are

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbMcHExf6X4

>> No.2550504

>>2550448
compared to an ant we are all powerful, but if we stood on top of their ant bed and used an iphone they would have no fucking clue whats going on.

>> No.2550536

if we looked out into the cosmic horizon and several million galaxy superclusters formed the shape of a smiley face with no discernible rough edges.

check fucking mate.

>> No.2550538

>>2550504
No.

Powerful? Hell yes. All powerful? Nope.

Can we for example, touch an ant that was stepped on and MIRACLE ITS HEALED?. can we make them live forever? can we shrink ourselves down so we can chill with them? no. even to fucking ants, we still have limitations.

If we were omnipotent, we could do all of the above no problem.

>> No.2550600

>>2550538
you're playing semantics, besides, I doubt a creator god would come over for tea and a magic show. any evidence, if any, would be an event of cosmic proportions as to alert not only us, but also whatever alien civilization is out there.