/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2636960]

Something we can all agree on...

[Anonymous No.2636963]

no

[Anonymous No.2636964]

>>2636960

>god

Nice unfalsifiable hypothesis you've got there. Either prove it, set clear falsification conditions, or GTFO.

[Anonymous No.2636969]

>implying God can do maths
He's a dumbfuck jew that throws lightning bolts at people.

[Anonymous No.2636974]

>>2636969
But maybe god USED science to create the earth...that's what I'm getting at...

[Anonymous No.2636975]

>>2636964

>set clear falsification conditions

Film a monkey evolving into a human. Until then, praise Jesus or you're going to Hell!

Never a miscommunication.

[Anonymous No.2636977]

>>2636964
Are you honestly trolled this easily? Or do you just genuinely enjoy being butthurt and starting retarded shitstorms, even when we have this thread almost every day? Why do you even reply when it's so obvious you're being trolled?

[Anonymous No.2636984]

>>2636974

No, what you're doing is taking the original hypothesis of a god creating the universe and removing all falsification criteria. An unfalsifiable hypothesis with no positive evidence is an invalid hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.2636988]

>>2636984
your mom is an invalid hypothesis

[Anonymous No.2636995]

>>2636977

I'm not being trolled. I just feel this needs to be laid out clearly, in case someone took the irrational claims and unfalsifiable hypotheses seriously. A mind without reason is a sentience wasted.

[Anonymous No.2636997]

>>2636988
OH NO HE DIDNT

[Anonymous No.2637003]

>>2636995
>honestly thinks he isn't being trolled

So it turns out /sci/ is just completely autistic. So that's why everyone bitches about trolls and yet continues to reply to them.

[Anonymous No.2637004]

>>2636960
that picture is stupid. it starts with quantum of photons, then relativity, then quantum mechanics, then the same equation of relativity as before, then classical kinetic energy, then solutions to the Schrodinger equation then the Schrodinger equation for different potentials. what the hell?

[Anonymous No.2637017]

>>2636995

>Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong

[Anonymous No.2637038]

>>2637017

That is not the point I was trying to make, at all.

What I'm saying is, fine, let's have a debate on whether or not there is a god, but in order for that debate to even make sense, you (people who believe in a god) must present the following

-Definition of a god
-What you consider to be proof of said god
-Falsification criteria for your hypotheses

Without that, there is no sense in arguing, since you can win any argument by claiming divine intervention, without even clearly defining that. That is why I refuse to debate most theists.

[Anonymous No.2637040]

>>2637038
cool story bro

[Anonymous No.2637046]

>>2637038

>Everyone without a degree in philosphy and formal debating is forbidden from having beliefs

[Anonymous No.2637060]

>>2637046
>implying you need a degree in philosophy to formulate a simple hypothesis

[Anonymous No.2637073]

>>2637046

Again, you are overstating and putting words in my mouth. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but people need to distinguish between religious/irrational/mystical beliefs and scientifically provable and falsifiable hypotheses. And if you can distinguish between the two, stop trying to pass one off as the other. If you have a religious belief, why even bother to pass it off as a scientific hypothesis like the creationists are doing? It just doesn't make sense, for them it's the absolute truth, and science doesn't deal with absolute truths. Formulating it so that it resembles a scientific hypothesis waters down the religious belief and insults science directly. It doesn't benefit anyone.

[Anonymous No.2637079]

>>2637073

>The way I understand the world is correct, the way you understand the world is incorrect

How old were you when you were first diagnosed with Asperger's?

[æther !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2637088]

I like that. That's what G-d said, maybe. Why G-d said it, would be best explained as, "For G-d's love for us,".

[Anonymous No.2637101]

>>2637079

Behold the last refuge of the debater with no arguments: Arguing against his opponent rather than his opponent's views. Unlike you, I'm capable of perceiving the universe as a rational whole, with no blank areas I have to fill in with "God did this" or "A miracle happened here".

There is a way out of this nightmare. You have to realise that religions were originally started because of people's failure to explain the laws of nature, making up irrational assumptions and believing them blindly. But just because we don't know precisely how something works doesn't mean we have to attribute it to a god. In fact, the probability that that assumption is correct is no higher than the probability that any number of other possible explanations are correct. You need to make this gap in your mind, erase the "I don't know => God did it" connection. It makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.2637110]

>open op's picture, find it amusing, think it's sarcastic(due to the way creationists dismiss things like the big bang without the simplest grasp on the mathematics involved)
>oh wait, op's serious
fullretard.jpg

[Anonymous No.2637111]

>>2637101

I'm out of yoba smilies, but you're an dumbass, autistic moron incapable of telling trolls from people looking for a real argument.

Never change, /sci/. You're by far the easiest board to troll.

[Anonymous No.2637113]

>>2637073
>Formulating it so that it resembles a scientific hypothesis waters down the religious belief and insults science directly

It insults religion itself, actually. After all, they're working hard to give it the guise of a scientific hypothesis to give it back the value of truth that it's lost over the millennia. Doing this is like implying that science or something even vaguely similar is the only thing worthy of consideration and value. Shit even the mystics now resort to quantum mechanics to give more credibility to what they say. I don't know, if I were a believer, I'd feel utterly humiliated by this behaviour. It's just not the point, it's a whole different discourse. It's a sell-out.

[Anonymous No.2637149]