[ 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: 213 KB, 445x465, michael scott 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397605 No.3397605 [Reply] [Original]

>implying general relativity is anything more than a THEORY
>implying evolution is anything more than a THEORY
>implying quantum mechanics is anything more than a THEORY
>implying the big bang is anything more than a THEORY

All of these are accepted by atheists as "facts"

Yet, when the existence of God is a theory, atheists will berate you and call you wrong all the while accepting all other theories.

>> No.3397607

0/10

>> No.3397609 [DELETED] 

0/10

>> No.3397611

Oh man, can this be a revival of "just a geuss"? It's been so long.

>> No.3397622
File: 22 KB, 440x236, desmond.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397622

>>3397607
>>3397609
>go-to response for atheists who can't come up with a rebuttal

>> No.3397626 [DELETED] 

>>3397622

0/10 

>> No.3397625

>>3397622
0/10

>> No.3397627

-6000/6000

>> No.3397629

Except all of those "theories" actually have consquences you can observe. You can use them to predict things.

3/10 made me reply

>> No.3397633

>>response of someone who knows a bad troll when he sees one

>> No.3397634

>>3397629
That's true, you did.

Anyway.
0/10

>> No.3397648
File: 15 KB, 188x229, babby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397648

still waiting for a rebuttal

>> No.3397652 [DELETED] 

>>3397648

0/10

>> No.3397654

>>3397648 rebuttal:troll

>> No.3397659

Saged, reported, called the cops, emailed moot, informed the FBI, etc

>> No.3397668

>>3397648
hahahha, you said "butt"

>> No.3397669
File: 8 KB, 188x229, babby1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397669

>>3397652
>>3397654
>>3397659

>> No.3397680

now the baby rotated, please

>> No.3397683

OP makes good point, atheism being not different form of BELIEF than christianity.
Just two religions bashing eachother.

ITT: butthurt atheists

inb4 rating

>> No.3397687

0/10

I hate this place...

>> No.3397711

Honestly don't think OP posted this thinking anyone would take him seriously.

>> No.3397714

all hail science!

>> No.3397710

This thread has arisen from depths of hell.
Go away now.

>> No.3397716

>>3397711
I certainly hope so

>> No.3397728

wat

>> No.3397737

All hail THEORY FACTS!
>santa claus is real

>> No.3397745

I spoke to Quantum Jesus, I'm confident OP is a faggot

>> No.3397757
File: 67 KB, 400x400, philosoraptor-cake.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397757

so ?

>> No.3397762

Religion isn't widely counted as a plausible throey of the beginning of the world because of its countless holes in logic (masses of evidence prove the earth is more than 6,000 years old) and also its lack of evidence.
Although religion could be said to be a philosophical concept, and science, if thought of as logic, is a part of philosophy.

>> No.3397775

>>3397757
He's chaotic evil, not lawful evil. He wants you to be miserable, not just loyal.

>> No.3397809

>>3397605

God is a hypothesis, which is weaker than a theory.

To be called a theory is the highest honor a model can get.

Oh god, i replied, 1/10

>> No.3397827

>existence of God is a theory

no, it's a hypothesis.

come back when we can test and verify, peer review, and replicate reliably.

THEN it is a theory.

>> No.3397838

>>3397827
excuse me, that is not a testable statement and therefore not a hypothesis.

therefore, the existance of god CANNOT be tested, it doesn't belong in scien...


you know what, fine. you win. you religious fucks.

lets bring jesus back into the classroom... AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT SCIENCE IS NOT.

there may be no more fitting example.

>> No.3397843

consider this:
any religion that exists or existed comes from man. there was never an omnipotent being contacting with the human race. now give me one good reason why should anyone even consider the existence of god? i prefer invisible pink unicorns on the dark side of the moon personally, why not talk about them instead?

>> No.3397849

>>3397838

> the existance of god CANNOT be tested

You wish, atheist scum.

>> No.3397853

>>3397843

That's what YOU think is true, but that does not mean it is actually true.

You will see it when one day you open your mind and god touches you. You will know it was him.

>> No.3397856

>>3397849
The same way Quantum Theory cant be tested.

>> No.3397858

>>3397856

0/10

>> No.3397863

>>3397858
It cant.

>> No.3397869

>>3397856
Yeah... expect for the fact we use quantum theory all the time.

>> No.3397874

>>3397863

It is constanty being tested you imbecile. THe fact you're sitting on a PC proves quantum theory to be accurate to the boundaries of current experiments.

God can be tested as well. Just look for him, that's the easiest approach. If you find him, you've proven his existence.
Another method is working out as many implications as possible. Look whether they apply to the real word.

>> No.3397873

>>3397869
>implying we dont use religion more

>> No.3397875

>>3397869
>expect for
Sure isnt helping you right now.

>> No.3397880

>>3397874
I dont think you understand what quantum theory is. Its mathematical models of how the world COULD work. It cant be proven incorrect or correct because its mathematically sound.
Science CANNOT test math.

>> No.3397879

>>3397873
I always remember my anatomy teacher who said the spirit make our muscles move...

>> No.3397892

>>3397880

Oh god you're even more stupid than i thought you were.

Physicist here. Gtfo of /sci/ quickly, before it's too late.

>> No.3397900

>>3397892
Just so you know im a Mathfag. If you honestly believe science can prove anything about math please kill yourself now.

>> No.3397901

>>3397875
That's the best you've got, really? Giving me shit because I made a typo and mixed the c and p up? Wow , what a complete faggot

>>3397873
I'm not implying we don't use religion more you fucking retard. I'm implying quantum theory can be tested because we use its applications all the time in fields like photonics and semiconductor physics

>> No.3397908

>>3397901
Implying i cant demonstrate the impact of religion.

>> No.3397907

>>3397900

> implying i said that

/sci/ - full of high school fags these days.

>> No.3397904

>>3397629
Works for God, too. Not for you perhaps, but for smart people.

>> No.3397914

>>3397907
Would you care to elaborate. It was hard determining the point of your post as its brimming with buttfrustration.

>> No.3397915

>>3397900

Nice how you subtly changed the subject completely away from your initial retardation.

1/10

>> No.3397917

You are using the word theory as a standard: the opposite of fact. Your problem is semantics - theory explains something; something may be fact and theory.

>> No.3397920

>>3397908
Are you being fucking stupid on purpose?! Not ONCE have I mentioned religion, I stated and ONLY stated that quantum theory can and is tested on a daily basis

>> No.3397923

>>3397914

> implying i'm butthurt

Why would i waste my time to point out where you were wrong and why... _again_?

>> No.3397926

>>3397920
You really are missing my point. Testing quantum theory is like testing religion. The results dont verify the theory.

>> No.3397930

>>3397923
You believe theres something wrong with what I said. Then you truly have no idea what quantum theory is.

>> No.3397938

>>3397930

As said, look for god - find him - verified the hypothesis that there is a god.

> can't be done

Sure is weekend in here.

>> No.3397931

>>3397930

Look up the last posts. See you fail. Feel embarassed.

>> No.3397943

>>3397926
Except they do. How the hell do you test religion? Which religion and against what criteria? Quantum theory is testable, it works, it can be replicated, it can be used to make predictions, if the theory was wrong how could we have extracted so much from it?

>> No.3397956

>>3397943
Do you understand how theories work.
The information extracted is from the test, not the theory.
Take evolution. If some ground breaking information were revealed today proving it wrong it doesnt discredit the information about natural selection and adaptation we have.

>> No.3397963
File: 60 KB, 200x182, 1307648437585.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397963

>>3397605

>> No.3397971

>>3397943
>How the hell do you test religion? Which religion and against what criteria?

Do the implications of the doctrine match what happens in reality? No? Maybe it's wrong, or I misunderstood it. Yes? Maybe it's right and I understand it correctly.

>> No.3397975
File: 6 KB, 252x248, TheGoallol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397975

Without relativity our GPSes would be TERRIBLY inaccurate. Without god we have less touching of small boys.

Any of these theories OP listed helps us progress towards the future, and they will probebly be evolved or replaced with even better ones because science actually welcomes improvement.

Religion though will be doing it's best to make us return to the middle-ages everlong and once more stone women(read the actual bible and you will be shocked of all kinds of terrible teachings it has)

Op why don't you go play the banjo with your sister(wife) and never enter /sci/ again

>> No.3397986

>>3397956
But that's never gonna happen, the information we've gained on natural selection and adaptation was brought about because we have a solid theory of evolution. Likewise we've made massive breakthroughs in semiconductor physics (to name one field) because we've gained knowledge thanks to us having a pretty robust theory of quantum mechanics

>> No.3397996

>>3397992
Worth is subjective. Dont claim your own priorities as absolute.

>> No.3397992

>>3397971
And what exactly have you tested and gained by doing that?

>> No.3397993

>>3397986
That is not the case. Until we observe a species evolve on a level of what evolution projects it can crumble at anytime.

>> No.3398003

>>3397992
Knowledge and understanding, tentative and subject to future revision as it generally is.

>> No.3398010

>>3397943
> How the hell do you test religion?
The same way you test anything else.
> Which religion and against what criteria?
Well, I live in the US, so I'll start with Christianity, and I'll test it according to its claims, the same way I test anything else.
Oh look, it failed in the first chapter of the first book by getting the timeline wrong.
> In before 'it's metaphorical' or 'days aren't the same'. Apologetics is the art of trolling.

>> No.3398016

>>3397993
Nope.avi

Fossil rabbits in the precambrian, motherfucker. Go find some.

>> No.3398017

>>3397996
Dont fucking avoid the question

>> No.3398018

>>3398010
>he doesnt understand that the holy books are ALL about interpretation.

>> No.3398026

>>3398010
>> In before 'it's metaphorical'
Ah, the cry of the debunker. Well done disproving strawmen. No one cares.

>> No.3398029

>>3398016
have you seen any Dodo birds lately. Fuck they must have evolve without me looking. Guess i'll just go find that missing link...

>> No.3398031

>>3398010
That's my point! You cant test religion as a whole because religion is subjective to which religion you practice. Want to test Christianity, and try disprove god? Great, try that with Buddhism and you wont get anywhere! Where as testing quantum mechanics is testing quantum mechanics, no need to move the goal posts

>> No.3398033

>>3398029
so stupid it must be a troll