/sci/ - Science & Math

[OP No.4010188]

sup b, an atheist asked a christian why there are no proof of God.

the christian answered

God is a metaphysical hypothesis not a scientific one. God is being posited as a metaphysical explanation for the existence of physical reality not a scientific explanation. This is because science deals exclusively with the physical realm and non other. What science can do is support a premise in a metaphysical argument for the existence of God. Observe:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. (A metaphysical principle)
2. The universe began to exist. (Supported by two philosophical arguments and two scientific ones)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

[OP No.4010189]

the atheist then replied

1) Define 'metaphysical' and prove it exists.
2) 'God' is not an explanation as it has no explanatory power.
3) The physical realm is the only one proven to exist.
4) There is no proof of the first assertion.
5) There is no proof of the second assertion.
6) There is no proof of the conclusion.
7) Even if the universe is proven to have a cause, there is no logical progression from that to the existence of any kind of god.

[OP No.4010190]

the christian's reply is

1. Say what now? Prove metaphysics? LOL.
2. Wrong. God has explanatory power in that if God exists, then we have a probable cause for the existence of the universe (as opposed to nothing).
3. Nope. The most that can be said is that the physical realm is the only realm that is open to physical (and thus scientific) inquiry. The nature of consciousness, ethics, ontology et al, remain the domain of philosophy, not science.

4. There are loads of proof for the first premise. It is, in fact, the foundation of all modern science. That effects do not arise without causes is, as Kanitscheider puts it, "the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius", namely, that out of nothing, nothing comes (ex nihilo, nihil fit) and a, "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin".

5. There is proof of the second assertion (read: the Big Bang). To quote Stephen Hawking:

"The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe shattered the old picture of an ever existing and ever lasting universe. Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, would begin in the big bang. It also predicted that time would come to an end in black holes. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and observations of black holes support these conclusions. This is a profound change in our picture of the universe and of reality itself."
- Stephen Hawking, The Origin of the Universe

6. The proof of the conclusion is the truth of the two premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion follows logically from those two premises.

7. We'll get to this once we've hashed out the premises.


DID ATHEIST LOSE?

[Anonymous No.4010191]

idk lol

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4010194]

>science deals exclusively with the physical realm and non other.
yes, the 'physical realm' being that which is real, with everything else being imagined, dreamed, or hallucinated.

if god is not in the physical realm, he does not exist.
(also, wtf? supposedly in fucking biblical texts etc he fucks around loads in the physical realm, doing fantastic miracles, pillars of fire and whatnot. curiously stops as soon as mankind gains the ability to accurately record events.)

[Anonymous No.4010196]

best religion post of the year.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4010197]

>>4010194

[Anonymous No.4010201]

>>4010194

>implying you can know what is real with absolute certainty
>implying you can prove that what we perceive is real
>implying perception is not subjective

by your logic complex numbers should be trashed away because they are not observable

[Anonymous No.4010208]

>cause
>? ? ?
>god

[Anonymous No.4010209]

>>4010201
>implying math is science

[Anonymous No.4010210]

>>4010188
why does it have to be a "god" ?

[Anonymous No.4010211]

>>4010201

They are able to be investigated, though.

If everyone who used the term 'complex numbers' meant something different by it, and if they all had different traits and implications based on how they were meant, and it was impossible to reconcile any disputes between those who say they know what 'complex numbers' are; then we'd be part way to how dilute and absurd the concept of god is.

[Anonymous No.4010212]

>>4010201
>2011
>solipsism
laughingTarski.jpg

[Anonymous No.4010215]

>>4010209

Math is not derived by emprircal methods yet it is Truth. Explain

[Anonymous No.4010216]

>>4010215
axioms

[Anonymous No.4010217]

>>4010215

Because it is not revealed truth. It can be investigated independently, and have the same results that make sense according to the axioms.

[Anonymous No.4010218]

>Christian: If I say "metaphysical" often enough you can't argue with me LOL.

These threads are getting stupider and stupider.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4010220]

>>4010201
>strawmen
>strawmen, fucking everywhere

math is a process, it isnt a fucking solid thing, and certainly isnt an conscious/alive thing. I cant destroy the number 4, i cant build shit with the number 4.

when im talking about real things in the physical sense, i mean solid things, made of atoms, in the real world. and dont be all aspie on me and be like 'hurr durr, sub atomic particles as well' because yes they are real as well, and yes you fucking know what i mean you aspie fucktard!

god is real as an idea, as imagination, same as math, but neither are material things.

[Anonymous No.4010221]

The problem is whether it is intellectually honest to deny existence of something just because it is not observable

[Anonymous No.4010224]

>>4010221

Of course, heathen.

[Anonymous No.4010232]

>>4010190
>We'll get to this once we've hashed out the premises.

dodging the question because there's no logical progression you can come up with . hahahahaha

[Anonymous No.4010233]

>>4010190
>>4010190
>BIG BANG

>PROOF

pick one

[Anonymous No.4010236]

>>4010190
so you dont know what metaphysics even is and somehow you think it pertains to physical reality? yes?

[Anonymous No.4010240]

Why do atheists think they know everything? I'm not talking about knowing more than others, Im talking about denying legitimate causes to reality based on the fact that they were raped by a priest as a kiddy.

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4010241]

>2011
>Believing in Yahweh instead of Anu
ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.4010244]

>>4010240
Dat image.
Oh how you annoy me atheists.png

[Anonymous No.4010243]

I am an atheist - your argument is invalid. No exceptions.

[Anonymous No.4010246]

>>4010190
>Say what now? Prove metaphysics? LOL.

not what he said . metaphysics deals in abstract concepts. proving something metaphysically only shows it exists in the mind, its an idea. ideas can dangerous. thats whay we need another set of rules - the scientific method.

>God has explanatory power in that if God exists, then we have a probable cause for the existence of the universe (as opposed to nothing).

but the meaning is ultimate subjecive. you can't prove an absolute purpose. we are left exactly where we were.

>The nature of consciousness, ethics, ontology et al

every we witness about all tose things corresponds with physics of the brain. they are intertwined. only a fool would attempt to say science can't uncover consciousness

Big bang is still basically a hypothesis by the way.

there is no logical progression from the kalam to a specific deity other than a long line of nonsequiturs

[Anonymous No.4010248]

>>4010246
obviously you don't know what metaphysics means.

[Anonymous No.4010250]

>>4010248
please offer an actual counter argument next time

stupid lazy motherfucker

[Anonymous No.4010253]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkExxkrMyU4&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt9x3CnxApo&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwjAX_r2kIU&feature=relmfu


inb4 you dont watch the videos because you hate your comforting beliefs being threatened

[OP No.4010257]

okay guys, here is my reply

The metaphysical realm is also another human construct. It has no tangible evidence to exist, only theoretical. And its theoretical stance is loosing ground in the face of discoveries like "E=MC^2" and the related "Einstein Drift", the Higgs-Boeson, The Haedron Helix and Dark Matter; all of these things take metaphysical explanations and ground them in the physical world.
Also #1. there is not a statute of metaphysics (a weak branch of philosiphy, btw)...its the base principal of Physics. Ya know that stuff you learned in grade school about cause and effect?
And just because the universe began in no way insinuates that a sentient being created it.

The flying spaghetti monster is a metaphysical hypothesis not a scientific one. The flying spaghetti monster is being posited as a metaphysical explanation for the existence of physical reality not a scientific explanation. This is because science deals exclusively with the physical realm and non other. What science can do is support a premise in a metaphysical argument for the existence of The flying spaghetti monster.


I think I just proved that the flying spaghetti monster exists.
waiting for the christian's reply now..

did i do bad?

[Anonymous No.4010261]

>>4010190
>1
dodging the problem.
>2
true. however it doesn't explain how God itself came into existence. (inb4 lawl god exists "outside of this realm")
>3
true
>4
christian is assuming determinism/causality. the development of quantum mechanics and realization of the random nature of our universe more or less disproved it.
>5
I'm not very familiar with the details of the cyclic universe theory. Quoting Stephen Hawking is nothing but a (fallacious) argument from authority. Stephen Hawking does not represent the mainstream opinion.
>6
true. However in this case the premises are NOT true. Hence the argument is not sound.
>7
hahahahahahahahhaahahahalololol11
completely avoiding the question.

[Anonymous No.4010267]

>>4010221

>The problem is whether it is intellectually honest to deny existence of something just because it is not observable

Deny? No. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Ignore? Yes. Given the lack of evidence or motivation to believe something to be a possibility, you have no reason to put 'faith' into it. God and the flying spaghetti monster are both equally valid possibilities. We have no reason to believe either.

Agnosticism is the only stance. It doesn't mean i am straddling the fence between atheism and Christianity, it means i am straddling the fence between all possible answers that have an equal lack of proof.

[Anonymous No.4010274]

>>4010261
>however it doesn't explain how God itself came into existence.
to add on: the kalam cosmological argument (as this is called) fails to tell us which god we're supposed to have faith in. The Christian one? Islamic? Hindu?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

[Anonymous No.4010283]

>>4010250
you're right, I am being lazy but that picture is bullshit and you're still wrong.

Metaphysics is a group of postulates and axioms about physics, not concepts and especially not theories. Ardent atheists would tend to not like metaphysical argumentation or statements for many reasons:
1.) There is no system which governs metaphysical statements as it is even outside of logic and reason.
2.) There is no proof, there is only induction.
3.) Metaphysics need not be about nor should it especially be limited physical (observable) objects as is the cause with causes and effects where "all the matter of the universe" is subject to a cause at some point (as is pointed out in the extended OP).
4.) it only consists of generalizations
5.) There are no widely recognized (living) authorities on the subject. This is probably the biggest reason of them all, it is like there being math but no mathematicians which would lead contemporary minds with a tendency of unquestionably believing in natural selection of all sorts to conclude that there is a "good" reason for this.

To help you not get lost in some new ager's babble just remember that the definition is all in the name: the physics of physics. However it is typical that people do not understand what 'the' metaphysics are but continue on with their own incorrect assumption or worse someone else's. If it is still not one or a few DEFINITIVE things which you can criticize or dismiss comfortably yet then it is just simply this: a placeholder for all things of an infinite and static nature.

[Anonymous No.4010289]

>God is a metaphysical hypothesis not a scientific one.
Take him off the science board, then. Go to /x/, if you want to talk meta-babble.

[Anonymous No.4010292]

I was interested in this thread until
>1. Say what now? Prove metaphysics? LOL.

then I was like, here we go again

[Anonymous No.4010296]

I was interested in this thread until
>sup b

[Anonymous No.4010311]

>>4010283
>disputing dictionary definitions

well this discussion's gone to shit

[Anonymous No.4010336]

>>4010289
WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE A "GOD"
an allmighty being seems to me like a todlers imagination

[Anonymous No.4010348]

>>4010188
>Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Says fucking who?

[Anonymous No.4010363]

>>4010336

call it Primer cause, prime motor or whatever. Why does it bother you? you should abandon the concept of god being a white bearded man sitting on a cloud

[Anonymous No.4010415]

>>4010363
The notion of a "first cause" makes no sense. It's inherently contradictory, and obviously so. If everything has a cause then this naturally applies to the "first" cause as well... which means it's not the first. This goes on indefinitely; you cannot believe both that everything has a cause, and that there was a first cause (or prime mover, or whatever you'd like to call it).

[Anonymous No.4010430]

HI SCI JUST STEPPING IN TO DELIVAR MY OPINON ON THE MATTER.
SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT MAGIC GOD HURR DURR SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT FIRST CAUSELESS CAUSE HURR DURR SHIT SHIT SHIT REPLYING TO THIS THREAD WITHOUT SAGING.

[Anonymous No.4010442]

[Anonymous No.4011282]

>>4010283
>outside of logic and reason.
>it only consists of generalizations
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHA

>There are no widely recognized (living) authorities on the subject.
i wonder why