/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 63 KB, 750x600, 1308620824086.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 05:58:07 2011 No.3409802 [Reply] [Original]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 05:59:07 2011 No.3409805 >Science >Because it is important to think for yourself rather than follow whatever is written in some journal Nice try OP.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:01:07 2011 No.3409809 its important to think for yourself therefore you should never read anything written by anyone else do this and you will totally not be an insular ignoramus.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:01:07 2011 No.3409810 >implying atheists don't follow Dawkins' 4 Pillars of Belief like blind sheep

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:01:07 2011 No.3409811 quick OP, make more of these threads!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:04:07 2011 No.3409815 >>3409810 And that insults us agnosticbros.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:05:07 2011 No.3409820 >>3409802 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEFivjk9v5Q Now what, evolutionatheistchildmurderersfags? Chekmate!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:05:07 2011 No.3409821 >>3409815 Do you believe in God?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:08:07 2011 No.3409829

>>3409810
>implying it doesn't make perfect sense.

agnostics arguments are blown straight out the water with one question : >>3409821

There's one answer: No. Therefore, they are atheists. There is no 'neither believe oor disbelieve' I have yet to encounter a sensible argument to suggest these two conflicting ideas can conincide.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:09:07 2011 No.3409833 >>3409821 I neither believe or disbelieve.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:10:07 2011 No.3409837 >>3409833 Science tells us that your can't. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.21301/abstract

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:12:07 2011 No.3409842 >>3409837 >implying bogus studies like that mean anything

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:15:07 2011 No.3409847

>>3409833
>neither believe
So you don't believe in God

> or disbelieve

And you don't not believe in God.

Either these both contradict each other ruling both out. making you not agnostic, atheist or theist, but just conflicted or confused, or apathetic (which is unlikely given your involvement in discussion)
>>3409842
Nice argument, buddy. You got anything more substantial to suggest it's bogus?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:16:07 2011 No.3409848 >>3409833 Then you disbelieve. Are you agnostic about everything, or just god?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:18:07 2011 No.3409850 "To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transport." >>3409833 This suggests agnostics are people who don't know what belief is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:22:07 2011 No.3409859 >>3409850 atheists get so buttmad when an agnostic says something as simple as "i don't know." makes me lul @ how insecure they are about their dogma

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:26:07 2011 No.3409868 >>3409859 But... atheists say they don't know about some kinds of gods. And no agnostic says they don't know about most of the gods people made up.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:28:07 2011 No.3409870

>>3409847

A petty attempt to marginalise the definition of Atheism.

Atheism is the position of being without Theism.
It does not describe how that position was arrived at or sustained.

>>3409833
is an Atheist for having no belief. This need not be sustained by active disbelief to qualify.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:30:07 2011 No.3409873 >>3409870 >dat Agnostic Atheism Welcome to the club, bro

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:30:07 2011 No.3409876 It's not that I don't believe uin God. I just don't trust religious people. They're immoral, and they hide behind their ill-earned label like it -IS- morality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:30:07 2011 No.3409877 >>3409873 >the club that contains 99% of atheists Exclusive as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:31:07 2011 No.3409879 >>3409877 you don't like that it's popular? this just confirms that agnostics are just too hipster to be atheists

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:31:07 2011 No.3409881 >>3409876 Whether you believe in god or not; it is a health suspicion to have, of those who say they know what god wants you to do. Secularfags unite.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:32:07 2011 No.3409882 What is this agnostic atheist bullshit? theos: God a-: no atheist: NO GODS agnostic atheist: NO GODS BUT I AM NOT SURE LOL Fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:33:07 2011 No.3409883 >>3409882 Nope. Agnostic - No knowledge atheist - no belief. theism described belief in god, not knowledge of god

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:35:07 2011 No.3409884 >>3409859 atheist admit they don't know about god either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:38:07 2011 No.3409891 File: 34 KB, 500x429, atheist_chart.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] There are always people so dumb they cannot understand directions, to whom you need to give a map.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:39:07 2011 No.3409892 >>3409882 Nope Agnostic - believes you can't absolutely prove or disprove the philosophy of Oops Atheist - Believes in the philosophy of Oops.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:40:07 2011 No.3409893 >>3409891 I wonder what Point 0,0 is then, hm? You cannot have coordinates without a starting point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:41:07 2011 No.3409894 >>3409882 >implying you have beliefs you are entirely sure of Get the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:43:07 2011 No.3409900 >>3409893 Babies and the mentally incompetent. It is probably literally impossible to not have an opinion on the matter once you heard at least one claim about god.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:44:07 2011 No.3409901 >>3409891 Nobody uses any of those terms except retarded kids on 4chan who post that diagram. This is what "gnostic" means to anyone outside 4chan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:46:07 2011 No.3409904 >>3409893 On that point you'll find the skelfy bum fence sitters or, failing that, treat it as a roundabout, with nobody allowed in the middle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:49:07 2011 No.3409905 >>3409901 Wrongo...that's Gnostic with a capital G. I suppose you think God and god are the same as well.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:50:07 2011 No.3409907 >>3409901 no that's what Gnosticism is. it's different from gnostic, as in from the root of the word agnostic. Also, no one outside the interent even has these conversation (besides the people who get paid to do it)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:51:07 2011 No.3409910 >>3409905 Well since neither of them exist... yes.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:53:07 2011 No.3409915

>>3409904
>nobody allowed
By whose rules?

It seems that the only people who believe undecided individuals are wrong are people who have already picked a side, and are really hoping them to pick THEIR side.

Or to pick the other side so they can be properly lectured on how wrong they are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:53:07 2011 No.3409917 >>3409893 Exactly it's a starting point. But once you engage in debate, it is impossible to stay there else you look like a retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:56:07 2011 No.3409920 >>3409915 Well that's just it. Agnostics are "undecided". But these discussions start because people think they are decided in their indecisiveness. Which obviously doesn't make any sense.

>>	Dr. Pipper !!QJwIhaWS6k/ Mon Jul 18 06:59:07 2011 No.3409926 >>3409907 So why can't there be Agnosticism? The belief that not only do you not know whether God exists or not, but that nobody else knows either.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:00:07 2011 No.3409928
File: 25 KB, 325x260, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3409915

By the rules of statistics.

Consider: along each arrow is a distribution of people, specifically the Poisson distribution. Hence we have a median value, decreasing amounts of fanatics & sceptics. And at the zero point a population of zero.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:00:07 2011 No.3409929 >>3409810 That is clearly not what the OP is implying with that demotivational. Faggot.

>>	Dr. Pipper !!QJwIhaWS6k/ Mon Jul 18 07:00:07 2011 No.3409930 >>3409926 Or maybe that's already yet another fucking term...

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:04:07 2011 No.3409938

>>3409926
There already is that term. But it goes hand in hand with theism or atheism. Because belief in god (if you accept that we don't know anything about god) is independent of knowledge of the truth of god. So you have knowledge, then you have belief. The people who say they are just 'agnostics' recognise that they don't know god, but they don't hold a belief in god either so they are by definition atheist. they try to say that they don't hold a non belief in god either but that logical contradiction since there is no such thing as a positive non belief in something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:05:07 2011 No.3409939 >>3409920 Agnostic conviction is the certainty that gods' existences cannot be known. But if you think the question of deities existence could, one day, be answered...then you're not an agnostic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:05:07 2011 No.3409940 File: 128 KB, 656x1613, 1303418208139.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Come on agnostics, you know you're a little bitch who can't let go of your fantasy. It's time to grow up and grow out of those childish things. This is how adults behave.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:07:07 2011 No.3409942 >>3409810 >Dawkins' 4 Pillars of Belief >mfw google doesn't tell me what those are Cool story bro.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:08:07 2011 No.3409946
File: 31 KB, 500x500, 1282134177510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Also, not knowing = not believing.

Therefore agnostic = atheist.

If you think otherwise then can you give me an example of believing something exists when you don't even know if it exists? I mean it's logically absurd. You're only fooling yourself agnostics.

Either become a full blown faggot theist or come to the dark side.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:10:07 2011 No.3409949 >>3409939 God >deity >first cause principle pick one

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:11:07 2011 No.3409951 >>3409940 >agnostics >can't let go of your fantasy AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA >>3409946 Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:13:07 2011 No.3409955 >>3409946 Actually, knowing=not believing. You don't have to believe that 1+1=2, since you know that's true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:14:07 2011 No.3409960 File: 145 KB, 600x700, 1310728379237.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3409833 >>3409815 Such a unique snowflake.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:16:07 2011 No.3409969 File: 6 KB, 426x304, notsure.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3409951 >>3409955 >mfw these agnostic fags will ignore all legitimate arguments in order to preserve their decided indecisiveness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:18:07 2011 No.3409973 >>3409949 I'll plump for acausal wave-packet collapse, thankee.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:19:07 2011 No.3409978 File: 46 KB, 468x351, Dinosaur-Sizes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I used to think I was agnostic, but then someone told me what agnostic meant. Now I'm a dinosaur.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:19:07 2011 No.3409979 Christopher Hitchens on agnosticism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO5l2TvBKBY Watch and learn, snowflakes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:19:07 2011 No.3409980 >>3409969 this kid has been starting this thread for 3 days in a row. he's either troll or retard. can not into logic

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:20:07 2011 No.3409981 File: 45 KB, 486x485, thefrac.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw still no one has rebuked this (>>3409837) yet the argument continues.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:21:07 2011 No.3409983 >>3409905 >>3409907 Find me an instance IN PRINT of "gnostic" being used in the sense you describe.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:21:07 2011 No.3409986

>>3409969
Alright, here's a counter to a "legitimate" argument.

>>3409946
>Also, not knowing = not believing.
>Therefore agnostic = atheist.
This argument makes no sense, as this is not an issue of knowing. It's an issue of not knowing. Strict agnostics admit they don't know, therefore they cannot make an assertion whether they believe or not.

Theists and atheists both are under the impression that they know. You can say "agnostic atheist" and "agnostic theist" all you want, but taking one of those sides implies that you believe you're right in thinking that. Otherwise you won't be placing yourself on that side of the fence in the first place.

Belief implies conviction in your knowledge. In all honesty, the only ones who have no belief are the agnostics, as they lack conviction. They are aware that it's impossible to prove or disprove God, and therefore they don't claim to know anything.

Socrates once said that the wisest man knows that he knows nothing. Both theists and atheists prove their ignorance in their assumption of knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:22:07 2011 No.3409989 >>3409986 that wasnt even the best argument itt

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:24:07 2011 No.3409991 >>3409989 Of course not. Like I said, it made no sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:25:07 2011 No.3409993 >>3409991 exactly, you're picking the easiest arguments to rebuke.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:27:07 2011 No.3410000
File: 30 KB, 340x425, ray_fucking_comfort.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3409986

I have very little reason to think there's an elephant living in my basement. Elephants don't live where I'm from, WHAT would an elephant be doing in my home, and HOW would an elephant get in my home? Even then, the elephant is far too big to be in my house.

There is absolutely no reason to think there's an elephant in my basement. BUT - I can never TRULY know if there's an elephant in my basement, he could be hiding after all.

Just because we can never be certain about anything to an absolute 110% doesn't mean we can't derive to a conclusion with the facts at hand.

God damn it /sci/, pull your shit together.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:27:07 2011 No.3410001
File: 211 KB, 489x599, Wikipedia-logo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

Most people read the beginning and think that "Gnostic" only pertains to the religious sect. Everyone else who isn't a retards SCROLLS DOWN and finds the relevant part of the article that discusses the origin of the word and why it is used the way it is in this context...

The usual meaning of gnostikos in Classical Greek texts is "learned" or "intellectual", such as used in the comparison of "practical" (praktikos) and "intellectual" (gnostikos) in Plato's dialogue between Young Socrates and the Foreigner in his The Statesman (258e).[13] Plato's use of "learned" is fairly typical of Classical texts.[14] The adjective is not used in the New Testament, but Clement of Alexandria in Book 7 of his Stromateis speaks of the "learned" (gnostikos) Christian in complimentary terms.[15] The use of gnostikos in relation to heresy originates with interpreters of Irenaeus. Some scholars, for example A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau, translators of the French edition (1974),[16] consider that Irenaeus sometimes uses gnostikos to simply mean "intellectual", as in 1.25.6, 1.11.3, 1.11.5, whereas his mention of "the intellectual sect" (Adv. haer. 1.11.1) is a specific designation. Irenaeus' comparative adjective gnostikeron "more learned", evidently cannot mean "more Gnostic" as a name.[17] Of those groups that Irenaeus identifies as "intellectual" (gnostikos), only one, the followers of Marcellina use the term gnostikos of themselves.[18] Later Hippolytus uses "learned" (gnostikos) of Cerinthus and the Ebionites, and Epiphanius applied "learned" (gnostikos) to specific sects.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:28:07 2011 No.3410002

>>3409986

That's fair enough. I'm happy enough to just say atheist or theist, and leave agnosticism out of the equation entirely.

But I'm not happy in saying that atheism is of the same quality as theism. It is a zero position in response to a positive position. They say there is, we say they have not show us there is, so either there is not, or it's as good as there is not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:29:07 2011 No.3410004 >>3409986 You have to actively believe to say that you believe. If you're undecided that makes you instantly an unbeliever. Think of it merely as not having decided to believe yet. The absence of belief is only non-belief.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:31:07 2011 No.3410007 >>3410001 Wow. Did you know that the usual meaning of the word "atom" in greek texts is "non divisible". I guess, protons, electrons and neutrons don't exist.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:33:07 2011 No.3410008

>>3409986
There is no position in which you neither believe nor disbelieve in something. It's an utterly unrealistic view.
>This argument makes no sense, as this is not an issue of knowing. It's an issue of not knowing. Strict agnostics admit they don't know, therefore they cannot make an assertion whether they believe or not.
If you cannot assert that you believe, then you are an atheist. if you are not an atheist, then you are a theist. there is no middle ground.
>Theists and atheists both are under the impression that they know. You can say "agnostic atheist" and "agnostic theist" all you want, but taking one of those sides implies that you believe you're right in thinking that. Otherwise you won't be placing yourself on that side of the fence in the first place.
Like agnostics thing they're right in thinking that they can hold a position that logically cannot exist.
>Belief implies conviction in your knowledge. In all honesty, the only ones who have no belief are the agnostics, as they lack conviction. They are aware that it's impossible to prove or disprove God, and therefore they don't claim to know anything.
Belief implies conviction in what you think. Agnosticism implies uncertainty, and a belief that you cannot know absolutely. Agnostic theists and atheists are also aware of the impossibility of proof, and therefore don't claim to be able to prove anything. To assume that a lack of certain evidence must force you to hole no position at all is a huge misunderstanding of logic and goes against the scientific method, and the legal systems of the
US-UK-CA-NZ-AU nations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:34:07 2011 No.3410010 >>3410007 >atom can be used in many contexts >therefore some things we call atoms don't exist Cretin.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:35:07 2011 No.3410013 >>3410007 Those are two completely different and unrelated scenarios and you damn well know it.

>>	Dynasticum !hkEGQsV0Xg Mon Jul 18 07:38:07 2011 No.3410017 File: 96 KB, 524x400, nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Itsthisthreadagain.jpg I really think my sister is stupid for praying to "God" before diner, considering all the shit in Africa.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:38:07 2011 No.3410018

>>3410007

What matters is the etymology of the word. Gnosticism as a concept has its origin in being learned, hence why it deals with the element of knowing. It's origin is not from the christian belief system it was eventually attributed to.

That's why agnosticism has to do with the understanding that you don't know and has nothing to do with belief.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:39:07 2011 No.3410020

>>3410013
I just wanted to say that the original meaning of the word usually have very little to do with its present meaning. Of course you can use the word "gnositc" as "intellectual", but in that case you should write in classical greek, not english. Otherwise it looks pretty stupid.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:40:07 2011 No.3410022

>>3410008

Except that most agnostic theists DO claim to have proof, they certainly have proof enough that they base their lives on it. It's only when it comes to actually proving it, and even then only when it comes to actually proving it to outsiders, that they say they need no proof, only faith.

I'm not trying to be rude here. You understand why I would consider basing your life on the revealed word of god requires more than just a good feeling about this one. Maybe people do make these kind of decisions rashly, or before they are really equipped to, and maybe they do resist change just because they resist change, but I have to believe that someone who says they are agnostic theist, in those terms, must have thought about it to some degree.

Agnostic theists, in so far as they practically deists, are fine by me. But when it is a position that is used as a fallback when questioned, I have to insist on questioning it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:42:07 2011 No.3410026 >>3410018 >What matters is the etymology of the word. That's kind of the opposite to what I'm trying to say.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:43:07 2011 No.3410027

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/15/the_curious_economic_effects_of_religion
/
Believe in hell is good for economy.(Makes it less corrupt, if you go to hell for being a corrupt asshole)
Doesn't prove "God" or something like that, but still nice to know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:47:07 2011 No.3410032 >>3410022 I agree entirely. In practice, there are far too few agnostic theists, and not everyone who claims to be. I wouldn't consider anyone who claims to have proof to be agnostic, and I'd recommend they look up the term agnostic in a dictionary.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:47:07 2011 No.3410034

>>3410022

Maybe the agnostic theist is just playing devil's advocate in debate by bringing up proof?

It might be in character for any theist to bring up proof of their beliefs, but agnostic theists aren't in it to prove beyond a doubt. An urge to seek ultimate proof betrays an agnostic's supposed apathy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:49:07 2011 No.3410039 >>3410026 When Huxley coined the phrase, its roots were in the earlier greek definition.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:56:07 2011 No.3410052

The scientific method dictates that if there is no evidence for the claim, that doesn't make the claim false - it just means there is no evidence for the claim. Evidence suggesting the opposite of said claim would properly solidify that the claim is false.

There has been no evidence for or against God. Therefore, no statement can be made for or against God. Therefore, agnosticism or not, you're all idiots for continuing this debate without proper evidence to make your case.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:59:07 2011 No.3410054

>>3410052
The scientific method also dictates that any positive claim should be substantiated. I can claim that the invisible pink unicorn exists, or the FSM exists, or that russell's teapot must exist, but that doesn't make my claims valid. If I provide no evidence, there is no reason to consider my claims as valid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:04:07 2011 No.3410063 >>3410054 Which is why I have no interest in the Higgs Boson or other areas of quantum physics which have not actually been found. Mathematics is bullshit, I want actual physical evidence.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:06:07 2011 No.3410065

>>3410054
Scientific method just doesn't say that this things don't exist, it just doesn't deal with cases like that. So you can't just say "science proves that invisible pink unicorns don't exist", only "if you say that you have scientific proof of existance of invisible pink unicorns, I'll stab you in the throat".

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:08:07 2011 No.3410072

>>3410063

Good answer. The Higgs Boson, string theory, the whole shebang is still up in the air. We have the math to tell us where to look, but we can't quite figure out how to take a peek yet.

How does this differ from the god theory? Well, for one, the only thing the Higgs Boson implores believers to do is spend money on building things to help find it. So nobody who believes in the Higg Boson actually claims that they have seen it, or that it has certain traits not indicated by the maths alone. If they did claim they had seen it for real, or they did claim arbitrary traits for it, then they would have some explaining to do when they could not publish their work, or their experiments could not be repeated.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:09:07 2011 No.3410074

>>3410063
The Higgs Boson fits into the standard model, for which we have a large quantity of evidence. It's hypothetical, and we don't claim it definitely exists or definitely doesn't exist.
Areas of quantum physics that haven't been discovered are also hypothetical, and also are concurrent with existing evidence. There are no widely accepted hypotheses that have no corroborating evidence.
>>3410065
Straw man, I never said that they don't exist. I said that the scientific method is based upon the idea that claims can never have absolute evidence, and that therefore we can only build a model of the real situation based upon experimentation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:10:07 2011 No.3410075 Atheist here I've never read a Dawkins book. OR any "atheist book" for that matter. Only Science books. I found no proof of god in there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:15:07 2011 No.3410078 >>3410075 Or proof that God doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:15:07 2011 No.3410079 >Implying I've read the God Delusion >Implying I wasn't an atheist before the book came out >Implying I didn't convert myself to being an apatheist >Implying I give a fuck

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:15:07 2011 No.3410080

>>3410074
In that case I don't fully understand why you brought this thing up. I think every rational man will agree that scientfic method and faith are mutually exclusive (not in the sense that faith is false, just that science doesn't deal with that).

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:15:07 2011 No.3410081

>>3410072
Are you suggesting theists aren't spending enough money to find God?
>>3410074
>The Higgs Boson fits into the standard model
A model which could easily be thrown out in the future, scoffed at and seen as primitive mumbo jumbo.
>>3410075
>I found no proof of god in there.
Because proper science books don't discuss it. Again, no point if there is no solid evidence either way. It's just a hypothesis until it can be set into theory.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:17:07 2011 No.3410084

Agnostic Atheism: Not knowing if there is a God but choosing to live as if there was none.
Gnostic Atheism: Knowing there is no God.
Theism: Knowing there is a God
Agnostic Theism: Not knowing if there is a God but choosing to live as if there was.

Pick one, shut up and stop arguing over the internet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:17:07 2011 No.3410085 >>3410078 I do not need one. For I was born and raised without this idea of a god. You have to prove your "knowledge" to me.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:18:07 2011 No.3410088

>>3410081
>Are you suggesting theists aren't spending enough money to find God?

I'm stating that they already claim to have found god, and have for thousands of years, they just refuse to produce either evidence or sources. That is the difference between the god theory and the string theory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:20:07 2011 No.3410091 >>3410088 They don't "refuse". They have none to exhibit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:21:07 2011 No.3410094 >>3410084 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:21:07 2011 No.3410095

>>3410080
Why should faith be carefully tip-toed around? Faith is a word for baseless belief. There's no reason it would be exempt from scrutiny. I started this because you made a claim that is incorrect, namely
>There has been no evidence for or against God. Therefore, no statement can be made for or against God.
There doesn't need to be evidence against a belief for one to be against it.
>>3410081
And it's the best we have at the moment. I don't see what your point is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:22:07 2011 No.3410097 File: 242 KB, 1100x777, 5001325_orig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3410084

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:24:07 2011 No.3410104 >>3410091 Ah, but many have had dreams and visions of God. However, none of that is good enough for atheists and so they just sit and whine like little babies that God doesn't stand in the middle of downtown Manhattan and yell "HERE I AM!"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:26:07 2011 No.3410106 >>3410104 When they all disagree on the nature of god, and there is no way to tell the real ones from the fake ones, surely nobody should believe this kind of evidence?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:27:07 2011 No.3410109 >>3410104 FSM, that was obvious. People will still reply, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:27:07 2011 No.3410111 >>3410084 This.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:28:07 2011 No.3410112

>>3410095
Hm, it was not me who said that, but OK.
I'd formulate this in a little different way:
There has been no evidence for or against God. Furthermore, at a current state of human knowledge, there can't be any evidence for or against God. Therefore, no scientific statement can be made for or against God.
Of course, you can state that God doesn't exist, and I can state that it does. And as long as you accept that your statement is as scientifically established as mine (that is, not scientifically established at all), and keep science away from the whole dispute about the existence of God, I'm fine.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:28:07 2011 No.3410114 >>3410106 Unless it's all the same and they're all bickering about pointless details. Oh look, another Wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:28:07 2011 No.3410116 File: 61 KB, 764x177, Screen shot 2011-07-18 at 5.28.04 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3410094 >>3410094 >>3410094

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:29:07 2011 No.3410117 >>3410116 So fix it, fucker.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:30:07 2011 No.3410118 >>3410114 >>3410114 >>3410114 >>3410114 >>3410114 >>3410114 >>3410114 >>3410114 /thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:30:07 2011 No.3410119 >>3410104 >dreams >visions Yup. I have dreams too. So?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:31:07 2011 No.3410123

>>3410114

But when they are contradictory? Can a person have a vision that says 'Jesus is the way' and another have a vision that says 'Jesus is a false prophet, Mohammed is the way', and they are just feeling different parts of gods elephant?

And besides, this is all irrelevant since there is still no way to tell the real visions from the fake ones, unless they are all real?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:32:07 2011 No.3410124

>>3410112
>Furthermore, at a current state of human knowledge, there can't be any evidence for or against God.
[citation needed]
>Therefore, no scientific statement can be made for or against God.
You could quite validly state that because there is no evidence for god there is no reason to think that he exists.
>Of course, you can state that God doesn't exist, and I can state that it does.
And you would be making an unsubstantiated claim and I would be making a statement that correlates with the existing evidence.
>And as long as you ... keep science away from the whole dispute about the existence of God, I'm fine.
What the fucking fuck are you on about. Why would science be kept away from theology. for what *possible* reason would that be rational?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:33:07 2011 No.3410125 >>3410123 Fake vision: Anyone who thinks God tells them to fly a plane into a skyscraper 'Nuff said.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:33:07 2011 No.3410126 >>3410117 Merely showing that the example is misleading or false. And that's saying something if it's a wikipedia article to begin with.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:34:07 2011 No.3410128

>>3410123 here

And besides, even if it was blind men feeling gods elephant, and we knew this beyond a doubt, all it would prove is that there is a god, and people can know nothing about it for sure. And we'd be back at square zero, and the best advice would still be to ignore those who say they know what god wants.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:34:07 2011 No.3410129 >>3410125 How do you know that is a fake vision? To be able to discount it you would need to already be capable of claiming special knowledge on the nature of god.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:35:07 2011 No.3410133 >>3410124 You're not allowed to use reason. Using rational thought is hitting below the belt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:35:07 2011 No.3410134 >>3410125 Come one now, gods will is based on your morality, or subject to some sort of vote on morality? Be serious, how do you really tell which is gods word and which is just some guy making it up or going mad?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:36:07 2011 No.3410136 >>3410123 >But when they are contradictory? When people start putting their faith in what other people say instead of finding out for themselves. >>3410128 Why must God want anything?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:37:07 2011 No.3410137 >>3410129 You think a just god (as we are told God is) would tell you to do that? No.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:37:07 2011 No.3410140 I like to argue for religion because I like watching atheists who have never been properly challenged fumble with words and get angry. It's even easier since the same arguments have been used over and over again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:38:07 2011 No.3410141 >>3410137 Prove it. lol

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:39:07 2011 No.3410145

>>3410136
>When people start putting their faith in what other people say instead of finding out for themselves.

If your proposing a humanistic value system where people just follow their conscience and reason to the best of their ability, I'm all over it. I don't feel that sticking gods seal of approval on every decision you make in this way helps matters, but hey, if the result is the same, what do I care?

>Why must God want anything?

It seems to be a common theme among those who say they have contact with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:40:07 2011 No.3410146 >>3410137 So how do we know god is just? How do we know the revelations about god being just are real and not fake?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:41:07 2011 No.3410148

>>3410140
Me too. That's the great thing about taking no position, and having no emotional investment in a debate. You're free to take any side and play Devil's Advocate.

And whether you win or lose, it's not really any big issue. At best, you learn something about the other side's opinion, and at worst, you learn something about the other side's personality. Still gaining knowledge either way.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:41:07 2011 No.3410149

>[citation needed]
I mean not necessarily catholic christian God, but God in broader sense, as some figure that created laws of nature, perhaps created the universe, and which we can meet after death (when there's no going back).
>a statement that correlates with the existing evidence
What evidence do you know against existance of God? Apart from lack of evidence proving existance, which is not evidence against.
>Why would science be kept away from theology
Because God is non-scientific concept, maybe?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:41:07 2011 No.3410151 >>3410146 Well, I've never heard of an evil god. I've heard of indifferent gods, but not evil ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:44:07 2011 No.3410157 >>3410149 >Because God is non-scientific concept, maybe? I was about to use intelligent design as an example, but then I realized that the theory is nowhere near scientific...

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:45:07 2011 No.3410158

>>3410151

Not relevant. Incorrect, as well, plenty of gods are shown as capricious and malevolent in mythology.

But still, how do you know that any of the revelations about god being just are real?

It's not a silly question. I just want to know how you can tell true revelation from false revelation that does not rely on the content of the revelation matching your personal opinions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:45:07 2011 No.3410159 >>3410151 Your god is more evil and my god. I think you can see where this is going...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:46:07 2011 No.3410160 >>3410158 And nobody worshiped said evil gods

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:47:07 2011 No.3410162 >>3410160 Yes they did. Okay, I'm out. Laters /sci/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:48:07 2011 No.3410165 >>3410157 Actually, as far as I know creationism is scientific theory (since there can in principle exist evidence for or against it), which gives me (or someone else) a right to say that it's totally wrong.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:49:07 2011 No.3410167

>>3410149
Humans are not machines. We don't need to always be scientific.

Even atheists can look up at the night sky and wonder at the scope of all existence, and our place in it. It doesn't need to be a depressing, lonely thought, but a surprise that you are a part of it all, star dust with the amazing ability to have developed sentience.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty spiritual thing right there. For all we know, the real God could be the Universe itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:50:07 2011 No.3410168 >>3410148 You can't take no position. It's impossible in every sense.

Deal with it Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:51:07 2011 No.3410170
File: 48 KB, 600x600, Consider-The-Following-600x600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is my argument against god.

P1. There must be an explanation for why there is something instead of nothing.
P2. If something is eternal, then there can never be an explanation for why there is something instead of nothing.
P3. Given (1) and (2), eternal things cannot exist.
P4. God is eternal.
C. God can not exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:53:07 2011 No.3410171 >>3410167 >implying we're not just very sophisticated biological machines

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:53:07 2011 No.3410173 >>3410170 Invalid -Agreed -Not agreed. Provide reasoning. -Not agreed, even if P2 holds. Provide reasoning. -Not agreed, even if P2 and P3 hold. Provide reasoning.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:54:07 2011 No.3410174

>>3410165

Unfortunately, creationists never put their theories or discussions up for peer-review. Doing so would allow for their beliefs to get shot down, for obvious reasons. So their standpoint is to teach first, ask questions about it later (never).

Not scientific.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:54:07 2011 No.3410175

>>3410170
But if something ISN'T eternal, you'll just have the same question, namely "Who made God?"

If God just came into existance AT SOME POINT it is essentially the same question as "how did the universe start to exist"

So, just by this God being there, nothing is really answered.

That's why I think a creator HAS to have "always been there". He cannot have a starting point. That starting point in itself would make everything "God" is supposed to be an answer for, useless.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:55:07 2011 No.3410177

>>3410168
What's wrong with passivity? Does it threaten your strict worldview?

Are you afraid that in a "Yes or No" debate, someone might just pipe up with a "Maybe"?

They must certainly be wishy-washy, no-good, lazy bums. Because no reasonable individual could ever be REASONABLE, willing to be open-minded and see another's way of thinking, to consider every other opinion perfectly valid and quite possibly TRUE.

Bunch of fence-sitting faggots, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:58:07 2011 No.3410181 >>3410171 >implying we are

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:58:07 2011 No.3410182 >>3410167 We are machines. There's nothing wrong in aknowledging this. We are adaptive, sentient machines. Some of our routines are called "sentiments" and they serve a purpose in our functioning.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:58:07 2011 No.3410183

>>3410149
Gah, no link to my post. I missed you.
>
I mean not necessarily catholic christian God, but God in broader sense, as some figure that created laws of nature, perhaps created the universe, and which we can meet after death (when there's no going back).
That isn't every god that could possibly exist, it's a fairly specific set of principles and I don't see why you would assume this is what god should conform to.
>What evidence do you know against existance of God? Apart from lack of evidence proving existance, which is not evidence against.
can provide evidence against the existence of specific gods based on contradictions in their description most of the time, but there's no explicit evidence against the existence of any god. I never claimed there was, and I would not support anyone who claimed there was.
>Because God is non-scientific concept, maybe?
Bullshit. Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 08:58:07 2011 No.3410184 Existence doesn't have to have a beginning or an end. Even the big bang theory can't come to the conclusion that there was nothing in existence before it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:00:07 2011 No.3410186 >>3410174 The theory itself is scientific, and wrong. Although, its creators clearly don't give a fuck about any of this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:00:07 2011 No.3410187 >>3410182 >Implying sencience and self-awareness do not contradict the very definition of "machine"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:01:07 2011 No.3410190 I think lower animals and plants are closer to biological machines than higher animals and man.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:02:07 2011 No.3410192

>>3410171
>>3410182
Machines require builders. We're organisms - we developed that way on our own.

We are a single unending string, and our direct lineage can be traced back through our ancestors to amino acids that generated in the "primordial soup."

We're living matter, but not machines.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:02:07 2011 No.3410193 >>3410187 it doesn't

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:04:07 2011 No.3410194

>>3410177

We can say maybe all day long, but the question arises "do you believe in a god?" and any answer except "yes" means you're an atheist by default. We all have varying degrees of conviction and some of us have our noses stuck to the fence because we don't care at all one way or another and we like to be near the middle, away from the crazies on the polar extremes. But nobody is on both sides of the fence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:04:07 2011 No.3410196 we are organic macromolecular multicellular genes survival machines

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:05:07 2011 No.3410197 >>3410192 >machines require builders why?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:05:07 2011 No.3410198

>>3410183
>That isn't every god that could possibly exist, it's a fairly specific set of principles and I don't see why you would assume this is what god should conform to.
I didn't mean to fully describe concept, I just made attemept to note some key features.
>Bullshit. Why?
Specifically because there are no known experiments that can prove or disprove God. That means that theory about existance of God is not scientific (at least until such an experiments arise). That means that scinece doesn't have anything to do with God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:05:07 2011 No.3410199 >>3410187 It does not. Sentience and self awareness are nothing special. It require some sensitive organs, some memory and some computational power. Free will is a myth too. We only react with whatever data we have in stock..

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:05:07 2011 No.3410200 >>3410192 Good explanation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:05:07 2011 No.3410201 >>3410192 we are self-assembled organic molecules interacting each other

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:06:07 2011 No.3410202
File: 35 KB, 633x230, 1284276285210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3410173
>Not agreed. Provide reasoning.
Because an eternal thing can never have an explanation for why it is there. It's simply just there, always, for no possible reason, ever. This is called infinite regress and is logically absurd.

>Not agreed, even if P2 holds. Provide reasoning.
Because it follows from P1 and P2.

>Not agreed, even if P2 and P3 hold. Provide reasoning.
Because god is defined as eternal.

>>3410175
>But if something ISN'T eternal, you'll just have the same question, namely "Who made God?"
Not if it came from nothing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:06:07 2011 No.3410204 self-assembled machines

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:06:07 2011 No.3410205 >>3410192 >machines require builders They don't necessarily do. Molecules are gears. They will bond and function without any conscious and motivated intervention, only time and "chaos" .

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:08:07 2011 No.3410209 File: 33 KB, 400x300, i_fucking_hate_you_guys.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >152 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. god you're fucking retarded guys

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:08:07 2011 No.3410211

>>3410198
There are no experiments that can prove or disprove anything. They can only hint at whether something is probably true or probably false.

Also, being unable to experiment doesn't mean you're unable to verify a claim. Think about astronomy, or astrophysics, or a shit ton of other observational sciences.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:09:07 2011 No.3410213 ITT: once again a proof that theists are allowed to be by ignorance maybe. Please note that being ignorant of some fact is not shameful. So, I'm not even insulting anybody here.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:09:07 2011 No.3410214

>>3410205

If random chance caused the creation of self-replicating robots that, through billions of years eventually learned to walk around and think like c-3po, I would call them organisms. I think people associate the word "organism" with the idea of it being squishy and having a soul, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:10:07 2011 No.3410219 >>3410202 >Because an eternal thing can never have an explanation for why it is there. It's simply just there, always, for no possible reason, ever. This is called infinite regress and is logically absurd. That doesn't mean you can't explain it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:10:07 2011 No.3410224 >>3410213 >once again a proof that theists are allowed to be by ignorance maybe. Please re-write that sentence.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:11:07 2011 No.3410226

>>3410197
A machine is, by definition, something created. A mindless machination developed as a tool for use to reach a certain goal.

We are not machines, and we were not built. We are a single string of genes. We were not pieced together with certain parts for certain functions. We simply grew them and they were handy for a continued existence.

We were not programmed to think a certain way. We simply developed the way we think, and passed on the opinions we made in the meantime to our progeny. Opinions that can be thrown out at any time by them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:11:07 2011 No.3410227 If God built us, are we still machines?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:11:07 2011 No.3410228

>>3410202
It cannot come from nothing. That is completely illogical.

And even if it did, the questions "Why?" "How?" and "Why at that point in time?" still apply.

See, I could use that answer for the creation of the Universe too.

"It came from nothing". Popped into existance just like that, for no apparent reason.

But I don't because it's a retarded answer.

The only reason God (not even in a religious sense), or should I call it "The Creator", is valid to me is because it's an answer that actually makes some sense.

However, such a creator would have to be an eternal or always-existing one, otherwise it serves no purpose for answering anything and is a useless concept.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:11:07 2011 No.3410229 >>3410213 ignorance is insulting, lack of knowledge is not. To be ignorant you would have to be aware of the knowledge and knowingly avoid using it sensibly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:12:07 2011 No.3410232 What flying cuntflap is the definition of machine anyway? Seems like such an empty buzzword

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:13:07 2011 No.3410235

>>3410219
>That doesn't mean you can't explain it.

Yes it does. Why is the eternal thing there? Because it was a moment ago. Why was it there a moment ago? Because it was the moment before that. And the moment before that. You can never explain how it got there. All you can do is simply state that it is there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:14:07 2011 No.3410237 >>3410228 >It cannot come from nothing. That is completely illogical. >He think nothing is nothing laughinglaurencekrauss.gif

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:14:07 2011 No.3410240

>>3410214
Given billions of years of "trial and error" (something that works will survive and breed, colonize, something that do not works will vanish) these molecules assemble, organize. Later , machines developed programation routines to enhance efficiency (thos who formed these survived and bred, and colonized, the others vanished , lack of adaptivness, ressources being exploited by more efficient machines/organisms) Trough generations, advantageous traits are self selecting and perpetuate, the other, if disadvantages lead to premature death, will vanish with their bearers.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:14:07 2011 No.3410241

>>3410226
>A machine is, by definition, something created
no. A machine is, by definition
>An apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work: a sewing machine.
or
>a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; mechanism.
Furthermore, things can be created without having a creator. Look at the universe. Look at the earth. We were assembled by the laws of physics.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:15:07 2011 No.3410243

>>3410211
>There are no experiments that can prove or disprove anything. They can only hint at whether something is probably true or probably false.
Half-right. If statement is scientific, you can disprove it with some experiment. For example "every object is attracted to Earth with a force proportional to the square of its mass". You just weigh 1 liter of water, and than 2 liters of water (which mass is two times larger). Since weigth of 2l is 2, not 4 times larger than weight of 1l, the statement is disproved.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:17:07 2011 No.3410246 >>3410226 Ok then. Let's not use the word "machine" that you do not seem to be able to strip off its hold, incomplete meaning. So, we are organisms. Organisms are mechanical assemblages.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:18:07 2011 No.3410248 >>3410243 It's not absolutely disproved, it's just probably disproved. You cannot claim absolute knowledge, regardless of the level of evidence you have in your favour.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:18:07 2011 No.3410249

>>3410228
>It cannot come from nothing. That is completely illogical.

>Doesn't know about quantum fluctuations, uncertainty principle & zero energy universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ8rd7AkMmY

"Something from nothing" is the only explanation that makes logical sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:19:07 2011 No.3410250 >>3410249 Not a theist here:: This nothing isn't, obviously, nothing. It's something we don't know how to perceive. This "vacuum" stuff is only a relocation of the problem.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:22:07 2011 No.3410255

>>3410248
How can it be "probably true", if experiment clearly contradicts it.
Granted there could be experimental error (or some bizzare quantum flip that changed the state of experimenter's brain, for that matter), so for well-established theory you need several possibly not related experiments contradicting it, but after that no one would claim that thery is "probably wrong".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:23:07 2011 No.3410257 >>3410229 Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. You're thinking of foolishness - having knowledge, but discarding it as unimportant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:24:07 2011 No.3410261 Everything boils down to blind faith. How do you know you're not a holographic simulation run by superintelligent beings from the Andromeda Galaxy?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:25:07 2011 No.3410262 >>3410249 So it's a bit of Yin and Yang? Within every something is nothing, and within every nothing is something?

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:26:07 2011 No.3410265

>>3410255
Because I could do an experiment tomorrow and find that it IS the case and that your situation was a fluke for some reason. The possibility that you could be wrong is always there, you can only reduce it by re-testing and re-testing your theories.
>>3410257
you're right, I was misinformed. My faith in the public skool system has varnished
>>3410261
we don't, there's no evidence that we are, so we don't assume that we are. We don't say that we definitely aren't, because we might be. Thus we are agnostic non-believers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:28:07 2011 No.3410269 >>3410229 >>3410257 Even then, foolishness has its reasons. In short: insulting someone over anything is wrong.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:29:07 2011 No.3410270
File: 99 KB, 796x600, 1279721207608.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3410250
Quantum fluctuation is still a proof of concept that in a vaccuum you get uncertain potential opposites popping into existence temporarily violating conservation of energy. The zero sum universe hypothesis applies this concept to the entire universe, with evidence to support. I am not stating this as fact but rather as the only logical alternative to infinite regress.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:32:07 2011 No.3410276 >>3410265 Thus you believe blindly with no evidence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:33:07 2011 No.3410278 >>3410276 Which point are you replying to?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:34:07 2011 No.3410279 File: 40 KB, 348x425, laughing_face_clip_art_20565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Implying Atheist are Atheist because they read it in Dawkin´s "The God Delusion"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:35:07 2011 No.3410280 >>3410278 >we don't, there's no evidence that we are, so we don't assume that we are. We don't say that we definitely aren't, because we might be. Thus we are agnostic non-believers. Blind belief with no evidence.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:37:07 2011 No.3410283

>>3410262
Yeah. The way I imagine it, there is nothing, but nothing being a relative arbitrary quantity requires equal opposites to cancel each other out. The opposites fluctuate due to uncertainty much like pairs of matter and anti matter in a vacuum. The fluctuation is what differs it from being infinite regress because each fluctuation can be traced back to a moment before which there was absolute nothing. So in fact something did come from absolute nothing. Overall though, you could say it's both something and nothing. On average it is nothing, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:37:07 2011 No.3410284 >>3410280 Kindly specify a more logical position to take when no evidence is available.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:38:07 2011 No.3410287 >>3410284 Simply accepting you can't know and that nonbelief is a belief.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:39:07 2011 No.3410289

>>3410265
OK then, I might agree, you can't definitely prove or disprove anything (although this statement is pointless, since there're no absolutes at all), but you can (in principle) be arbitrarily sure that theory is faulty. And usually when probability of the theory being true is very, very unlikely (say, there're 5-10 unrelated experiments, which results clearly contradict it), it is said to be worng. But the key feature of scientific theory is that it can, in principle, be disproved (or be proved to boe arbitrarily improbable, if you want). God doesn't seem to fit this category.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:40:07 2011 No.3410291 >>3410287 If you can't know and can't reach a reasonable position then it makes no sense to believe. If you do not believe then you are a non-believer. You and I are talking about the same position, you are misunderstanding what it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:44:17 2011 No.3410299 >>3410289 >God doesn't seem to fit this category. Why doesn't he? I don't see why belief in a deity is any different.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:47:01 2011 No.3410302 >>3410299 not the person you're replying to, but the definition of god seems to have been made to be untestable by any experiments

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]