/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3456830]

>Arguing with religious zealot
>"Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift"
>Yes, and that argument is flawed because God can defy logic, because he created it.

So essentially, everything we know about the universe is a bunch of bullshit that can be changed on a whim. Lolwut.

So basically, religious people are pants-on-head-retarded. End of discussion? End of discussion.

[Anonymous No.3456857]

Cool discussion thread, OP.

[Anonymous No.3456875]

OP is butthurt because he got told

christfags - 1
OP - 0

[Anonymous No.3456883]

>>3456875

>Implying that Christians aren't butthurt all the time after they were repeatedly ass raped as a child by their priest.

>Implying you aren't gay

[Anonymous No.3456898]

Asking if god can create a rock so heavy that he can not lift it is like asking:

Can infinity be so large that it's more than infinity?

"So heavy he cannot lift it" would be placing a quantitative restriction on unquantifiable values. However, he pretty much rocked you with that comment anyway so it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.3456902]

>>3456830
Wrong, logic is how God thinks, it is His nature. No, He can only act in accord with His nature. Asking if, "God can create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift", is equivalent to asking water if it can be something other then wet.

[Anonymous No.3456903]

Think of this
Were he not be able to overpower logic, is not omnipotent, since there is one thing that he cannot do: defeat logic. Then logic would be greater than god.
God is also benevolent no matter how much of a fucking bastard he is, since if he isn't above morals, he isn't omnipotent either.

[Anonymous No.3456905]

>>3456830
You have no objective proof that logic and reason is superior to anything else.

[Anonymous No.3456918]

>>3456902
>He can only act in accord with his nature

Doesn't seem omnipotent to me.

[Anonymous No.3456923]

>>3456830
>So basically, religious people are pants-on-head-retarded.
Indeed. But so are you.
>One people affiliated to a group say a retarded thing, thus they are all retarded.

[Anonymous No.3456933]

Phew, glad this thread is still semi-short so I can respond without being lost in all of the other posts.

Anyway, if God moves a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, that rock cannot be a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, therefore it makes no sense.

God exists, the Bible proves it.

[Anonymous No.3456937]

>>3456903
Wrong, omnipotent means all-powerful, not extra-logical. It does not mean extra-moral either... Think of something that can be done with power (roughly equal to quantum energy, where matter can be formed from this infinite sea of energy), God can do it, hence all-powerful.

God's attribute morality, power etc. are not above God, or created by God. They are part of God, they are His nature. There was never a time when the moral nature of God did not exist, it was never arbitrary decided upon or external to the being of God which God is subject to. God is subject to Himself and that is why He is moral.

[Anonymous No.3456949]

>>3456933
No... face it. Christians: 9001

this is why you people get so upset

[Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U No.3456955]

John Locke claimed that ideas are produced by matter. Our perceptions and ideas originate by us experiencing objects.

However George Berkeley came up with an objection and tried to prove that God was the source of ideas and knowledge.

1: Locke’s notion of substance entails a contradiction: Locke claims that ideas are produced by matter. But, ideas are produced only by mental beings. Now, matter is nonliving and so cannot produce ideas. Therefore, Locke’s concept of “matter” is contradictory.

[Anonymous No.3456967]

>>3456905
There cannot be proof without logic and reason, therefore my proof is: wednesday icecream under empty.

[Anonymous No.3456973]

>>3456933

Also, not to mention that I'm pretty sure it was proven that the Bible says he can do anything he wants. Big difference between can and want to do.

>>3456949
You know you're right when anyone that tries to make an refute against you can only come up with ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.3456979]

>>3456918
>Redefining omnipotence, SEE GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT.
>/facepalm

[Anonymous No.3456990]

God can either necessarily exist, or necessarily not exist. If God is an all-powerful being, and he exists, he necessarily exists in all possible worlds. If he doesn't exist, he necessarily doesn't exist in any possible worlds. It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world. No matter how slim the chance is, God might exist. That means that God can't necessarily not exist. Since the choices are either God necessarily does exist, or necessarily doesn't, and we have eliminated the possibility that he necessarily doesn't, the only possibility left is that he necessarily does.

[Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U No.3456993]

> Argument for the superior mind.
1. Ideas are productions of mind and are similar only to other ideas.
2. The only true source of ideas is a mind.
3. So, the ideas of sensation must come from a mind.
4. And, in virtue of the complexity of ideas of sensation this mind must be superior to any human mind.
5. Therefore, we must admit the existence of a superior mind to which we give the name "God."

[Anonymous No.3457021]

>>3456967
>implying you just left the realm of logic and reason
>>proof

[Anonymous No.3457064]

>mfw when no one is this thread has even defined God.

ITT: Christian Apologetics

sage for non-science

[Anonymous No.3457066]

>>3457021
The proof is that you cannot prove anything without logic and reason. You can call this argument the transcendental proof for logic. It is proof by impossibility of the contrary. Without using logic you couldn't recognize proof even if it was given.

[Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U No.3457083]

Thomas Aquinas emphasized that nothing could cause its own existence (The Universe), because it would already need to exist (as cause) before it existed (as effect), which is a contradiction. So anything that begins to exist is caused to exist by something already existing and, ultimately, by an Uncaused Cause of Existence, God.

[Anonymous No.3457784]

>>3457083
if you can say god is uncaused, why not just say the universe is and save yourself a step?

[Anonymous No.3457868]

>>3456830
agreed. They've essentially just taken (P and (notP)) as an axiom, by stating that there exists a being capable of actually executing a logical contradiction, and from there anything is derivable. Though it's admittedly still logically consistent on a technical level, it gives absurd results.

[Anonymous No.3457876]

This is a poor question and one that's easily answered like your friend did OP. A better question is 'can God create a man that is both married and a bachelor?' because the terms are mutually exclusive. A man cannot both be married and a bachelor at the same time.

The problem isn't whether God can or can't do those things that make no sense the problem is how you're defining 'omnipotence'.

If you believe the word omnipotence means unlimited power to redefine logic itself than you believe he can create a man both married and a bachelor. That's just plain retarded and most Christians don't believe it. God has NEVER claimed to posses such power. YOU are assigning him an attribute he has never claimed to hold.

A better way to define omnipotence is God can do anything logically possible. Which means God cannot create a man both married and a bachelor because it makes no goddamn fucking sense! This is the way most theologists believe is the true definition of omnipotence. I read a couple books in a class I took about Theodicy (I went to a religious university where some amount of religious classes were required for graduation) concerning the very question you raised and nobody honestly believes it, only pants on head retards as you already pointed out.

This also explains the question most atheists get hung up on, 'why does evil exist if God is good and omnipotent' the answer is, deleting evil is logically impossible, everything must have an opposite. Up/down, left/right, good/evil.

Does this limit God's power? If you want to think of it that way knock yourself out. Does it disprove God in any way? Only to someone who never believed in God in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3457895]

>>3456955
I'm made up of matter, but I am living. Also, not all matter makes ideas. Locke is not being contradicting here.

[Anonymous No.3457928]

>>3457083
>Thomas Aquinas emphasized that nothing could cause its own existence (God), because it would already need to exist (as cause) before it existed (as effect), which is a contradiction.
OOPS

[Anonymous No.3457976]

The one thing that makes me more upset than religious zealots are those who try and piece science and religion together.

[Anonymous No.3458004]

>>3457876
But God is bound by logic then, which means that God is not truly all-powerful if there is a greater power than Him (logic) which restrains His actions, such as His inability to eliminate evil. (Not everything has an opposite. Cereal for example, does not have an opposite.)

[Anonymous No.3458035]

>>3458004
The opposite of cereal is bacon and eggs.

[Anonymous No.3458044]

>>3457976

It's a desperate final move by religion to be accepted in today's society.

[Anonymous No.3458144]

>>3456830

Please stop using ZP lingo outside of a ZP video. It's so annoying.

[Anonymous No.3458164]

>Arguing with a scientific zealot
>"Are electrons waves or particles"
>Yes because they're both

So essentially, everything we know about the universe is a bunch of bullshit that can be changed on a whim. Lolwut.

So basically, scientific people are pants-on-head-retarded. End of discussion? End of discussion.

[Anonymous No.3458249]

>>3458164
I like this.

Both science and religion work via axioms. Religion calls its axioms God, and science calls its axioms properties of matter.

Until you can fully explain, down to the tiniest detail, everything in the universe, the possibility of God exists.

[Anonymous No.3458263]

>>3456830
Pretty much. As soon as you dismiss logic, you by necessity dismiss human understanding. Don't expect me to buy into an argument which explicitly says logic does not apply.

[Anonymous No.3458269]

>>3458249
>Until you can fully explain, down to the tiniest detail, everything in the universe, the possibility of God exists.

True. So does the possibility for a dragon to exist in my garage.

The Dragon In My Garage, by Carl Sagan
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

[Anonymous No.3458289]

Dear OP,

I think you may like Christopher Hitchens here: http://www.youtube.com/user/PrestonwoodCowards

Sincerely,

An Anon.

[Anonymous No.3458482]

>>3458249

god of the gaps argument also works for zeus, thor, etc, etc, etc

[Anonymous No.3458503]

>>3456830
>>Yes, and that argument is flawed because God can defy logic, because he created it.

If this is the case then it is also the case that God doesn't exist and never created logic at the same time (since contradictions are allowed, anything goes).

You auto win by default.

[Anonymous No.3458525]

>>3458269
How many eyewitnesses are there for a dragon in your garage? I have thousands of eyewitnesses to angels, miracles, and God.

I win.

[Anonymous No.3458533]

>>3458525

I witness that I am God.


Ipso facto, I am god via witness powers.

[Anonymous No.3458548]

>>3458525

All my neighbors complain of loud noises coming from my garage at night and they hear second hand stories of people who have gone into the garage at night never to be seen again, so that must be convincing evidence of the dragon in my garage.

[Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U No.3458549]

We do not have empirical experience of fundamental substance (Matter or God) and thus should not make empirical claims about its nature.
In other words we can not see matter with our eyes, therefore ideas about how they work are only at best theories and at worst opinions.

[Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U No.3458560]

What Ideas are,
Impressions of the External world is experience.
Ideas: are faint copies of impressions.

Any claim that cannot be reduced to "a relations of ideas" or "a matter of fact" is to be regarded as empirically meaningless, nonsense.

[Anonymous No.3458566]

>>3458525
Doesn't matter. He could just get people to say they saw the dragon in his garage and you would never know the difference. Same thing with your example. How do you know the people who claimed to see god weren't just lying?

[Anonymous No.3458574]

>>3458525
I saw a dragon in his garage.

[Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U No.3458579]

Thus using this method David Hume doubts whether there is,
A. Matter
B. God
C. Causation

Arguement against causation,
When you perseive a cause and effect relationship, for example a red ball hitting a blue ball, and the blue ball moving, You can not knowingly state anything about what has occured other than you saw a red ball hit a blue ball and the blue ball moved.
To say that the red ball Caused the blue ball to move would be to say that "The future will resemble the Past."

[Anonymous No.3458586]

>>3458566

because its not a lie if they actually believe their own bullshit

[Anonymous No.3458588]

>>3458586
What if we believe he has a dragon in his garage?

[Red !Shiftx2qe6 No.3458593]

>>3458574
My cousin's entire extended family and I also saw said dragon. 'Twas quite majestic.

[Anonymous No.3458595]

>>3458588

I would have to assume you were using your godless atheist slang word dragon for heroin and his garage is where you go to get high and rape minors.

[Red !Shiftx2qe6 No.3458598]

>>3458595
I assume the exact same thing for everyone claiming to witness "miracles".

[Anonymous No.3458599]

>>3458595
We're not. I saw this thing in his garage.

[Anonymous No.3458603]

>>3458599

did you puff this magic dragon by chance greg?

[Red !Shiftx2qe6 No.3458606]

>>3458603
Nope, just some burning bush I found outside.

[Anonymous No.3458605]

>>3458598

miracles is meth l2streetslang

[Anonymous No.3458604]

>>3458595
I started to rape some minors

...but then I got high.

[Anonymous No.3458608]

>>3458605
Fuckin' miracles, how do they work?

[Anonymous No.3458615]

>>3458608

best with a dope pipe and torch

[Anonymous No.3458629]

>>3458525
Do you now? And not one of them smart enough to have a video tape, huh?

[Anonymous No.3458698]

>>3458629
As if you would believe a video tape.

Look, the truth of the matter is I see the problem of God like this (sorry for my shit drawing).

Where people have been writing down their personal witnesses to miracles, angels, God, etc for millenia. Not all of them are true but not all of them need to be. Even if only 1 is true God exists. Eyewitness testimony, however minor, tips the balance in my favor.

[Anonymous No.3458705]

>>3458698
Ergo, you believe in all the other gods, ghosts, unicorns, midget green people, and aliens as well? How does that fucking work?

[Anonymous No.3458707]

While you see the problem of God like this. No matter what is put on the scale on the other side you can't accept it, NOTHING would balance it in favor of the existence of God. You would believe people lie to their own journals, you would believe entire communities of people are altogether insane, you would believe ANYTHING as an explanation that God does not exist. No amount of evidence, even videotape, would convince you.

There is literally no point in arguing, you have a personal philosophy that this is a Godless universe and nothing anyone says or does will change that.

[Anonymous No.3458709]

>>3458698
> Where people have been writing down their personal witnesses to miracles, angels, God, etc for millenia. Not all of them are true but not all of them need to be. Even if only 1 is true God exists. Eyewitness testimony, however minor, tips the balance in my favor.

Nope. No dragons in anyone's garage. The evidence is clearly against such a proposition.

[Anonymous No.3458712]

>>3458705
So in your opinion EVERYTHING exists or NOTHING does. That is literally absurd.

[Anonymous No.3458714]

>>3458707
Jesus coming down and rezzing an obviously dead dude on national public live TV would be a good start. Or a bunch of supernova in the sky spelling out "I am here". Simple things like that.

Even a burning bush, if it was on display.

The Dragon In My Garage, by Carl Sagan
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

>Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

[Anonymous No.3458719]

>>3458712
The argument is that there is just as much as, or more, eye witness testimony for aliens than there is for jesus god shit. At least, that was the argument.

Thus, if you accept jesus god shit based on this flimsy evidence, then you must also accept aliens abducting farmers and anally probing them as fact.

[Anonymous No.3458729]

Ask yourself this, how many miracles did Jesus perform? Did they believe? Miracles do nothing to convince people to live good lives so there is no point in handing them out like candy to faithless people. Miracles come AFTER you prove yourself.

What have you done to deserve seeing them? eh?

Other people have seen them, people have reported miracles for millenia. Because YOU haven't you decided that they're all liars and it all goes back to this
>>3458707

[Anonymous No.3458736]

>>3458719
But of course he won't accept those accounts as valid because he has "a personal philosophy...and nothing anyone says or does will change that."

[Anonymous No.3458744]

Religion on /sci/. How ironic.

[Anonymous No.3458745]

>>3458729
>Because YOU haven't you decided that they're all liars and it all goes back to this
Different anon here. Pretty much.

In rationality, this is how you decide if something is true.

Let's take an example. Suppose that a thousands of people, during a prayer ceremony, all saw the Sun come crashing down into the Earth. Nearly everyone there swears up and down that they each individually saw the Sun crash into them on the Earth. Now, it would be amazingly improbable if each and every one had the same hallucination at the same time. Equivalently, it would be stupendously unlikely if they all were in on it, for no reason, and not a single one broke the lie.

However, you have to ask yourself - what is more implausible? That a thousand people all had the same hallucination at the same time, or the Sun actually did come crashing down into the Earth. I think someone else in the next /country/ over might have noticed that.

So, while it is amazingly unlikely for such a thing to happen without the Sun coming crashing down into the Earth, it is even more unlikely for it to have actually happened.

PS: This is not a hypothetical. This is a real event.

[Anonymous No.3458770]

>>3458729

And of all the reported miracles, hundred of thousands come from Benny Hinn and evangelical types whose accounts can be inspected and almost immediately discarded, yet some of the people who believe in his powers can not be convinced of his fraud even on their deathbed of the disease he cured with his "miracle"

[Anonymous No.3458777]

Also, the fact that there is a bunch of different religions which make wildly different claims, but yet have a similar structure to their beliefs. This is evidence only that humans are amazingly adept at creating a fiction and strongly adhering to it. This is amazing evidence that humans can and do indeed believe such outrageous falsehoods on such a massive and "coordinated" scale without coordination.

If there was, like, only one majority religion, then this argue would not hold. However, there's at least a few dozen (?) massively practiced religions in the world, and at most one can be right.

Thus, we can begin to formulate a reason why all but one must be wrong. We can explain how these people all came to believe these falsehoods. However, the cool thing about this explanation is that it works equally well for the last religion.

I claim that you understand exactly why I reject your god. It is the same reason that you reject Zeus, and Thor.