[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 362 KB, 500x376, temp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4182790 No.4182790 [Reply] [Original]

I realize that this is a science and math board, but because there is no philosophy board, I am therefore forced to post here because you guys seem to be the most educated and rational.

Let's discuss the plausibility of a god. I am not talking about a personal god, or Allah, or Jesus, or Zeus, or any other specific god, but the logical possibility of a god (whether or not the god is omnipotent, omniscient, anthropomorphic, etc. does not matter).

For the record, I am an agnostic atheist.

>> No.4182794

Science has for the most part proven that there is no place for God in this universe or its creation of. Universe was created from quantum fluctuation. Life came about from abiogenesis. So there really is nothing left for God's existence other than the existence of quantum fluctuation

>> No.4182796

well if you are agnostic, you are already unsure that you don't really know, so what's the point

unicorns lol

>> No.4182798 [DELETED] 

>>4182790
>Let's discuss the plausibility of a god
No.

>>4182794
>Science has for the most part proven that there is no place for God
No.

>> No.4182802

>yfw stupid religion threads will persist even in the glorious 2012

fuck you, OP. Fuck you and your entire class of 2016.

>> No.4182805

COME ON YOU GUYS. stop posting these threads here.

There can be no reproducible, physical, predictable evidence found either confirming or denying the existence of a nonphysical entity. Thus, the question is unfalsifable. Any argument made hereafter in this thread can be freely accepted or rejected because there is no proof pointing in any direction.

>> No.4182807

>>4182790 omnipotent, omniscient, anthropomorphic, etc. does not matter

Except it does. How is someone supposed to contemplate the possibility of something existing when they don't even have an adequate description of it?

>> No.4182808

>>4182790
>Let's discuss the plausibility of a god
No.

>>4182794
>Science has for the most part proven that there is no place for God
No.

>> No.4182811

>ask to discuss a concept
>sugget that we don't define said concept

wat

>> No.4182816

>>4182811
Well, he's auti--- I mean, agnostic, so he suspects (but isn't sure) that well-formed definitions are actually impossible. He doesn't really have a stand on it, but if you would be so kind as to avoid discussions involving definitions, that'd be nice and reasonable.

Thanks!

>> No.4182817

>>4182790

>agnostic atheist wat

>> No.4182821

>>I am an agnostic atheist.
>implying anyone is actually gnostic

>> No.4182826

>implying atheism and theism arent a retarded term

>> No.4182828

>you guys seem to be the most educated and rational

Reported for trolling

>>4182796

>Implying unicorns don't exist and aren't easy to make

>> No.4182837

>agnostic atheist
>implying that's not a contradiction

>> No.4182840

>agnostic
>atheist

pick one

>> No.4182841

> Let's discuss the plausibility of a god.

Lets not. Just because you have a fetish for absurdity doesn't mean the rest of us do. Go to a church or synagogue and you'll find plenty of bros

>> No.4182849

>>4182837

>2011
>Doesn't know the meaning of gnostic/agnostic and theism/atheism

They are not contradictory faggot.
One is a statement about knowledge and the other is a statement about belief.

>> No.4182857

>>4182817
>>4182837
>>4182840

see

>>4182849

>> No.4182858 [DELETED] 

>>>/b/370113648

>> No.4182861

>>>/b/370113648

>> No.4182863
File: 282 KB, 1536x1037, 1323995438494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4182863

>>4182840
Actually it's pick two. Gnostic/agnostic describe if the claim is knowable and theist/atheist describes if they believe the claim.

>> No.4182865

as more reasonable question would be: If there exists a god, why does that hold any value to our lives?

Regardless of wether or not he exists, we decide what we find valuable, and there is no law or reason that says that he has to mean anything to our lives.

>> No.4182867

>>4182863
But how do you actually KNOW that's what it means?

>> No.4182869

>>4182867

Maybe he's a gnostic linguist.

>> No.4182871

>>4182849
>>4182857
Oh look, more adolescent atheist internet missionaries!

-if we define atheism as a belief in a lack of deity, (as most impartial sources do¹ ² ³ ⁴) then this idea does not cover all possibilities. It is possible not to know whether or not one believes in a deity, and therefore one cannot be said to believe that there is no deity; nor can one be said to believe that there is deity. This, of course, can be remedied by modifying the definition of atheism to the lack of belief in deity, rather than belief in a lack of deity. Changing the definition of a word for no real reason does not seem very appropriate, however, and it is important to note that this would be changing the definition: until recently, atheism was almost universally accepted to mean the belief or doctrine that there is no deity.

-the term "agnosticism" <span class="math">\mathbf{was}[/spoiler] coined by Thomas Huxley in 1869 and he <span class="math">\mathbf{did}[/spoiler] intend it to mean fencesetting; an option aside from theism and atheism: not a subset thereof.


cont.

>> No.4182874

>>4182869
I have prematurely discounted this possibility. Thank you, friend!

>> No.4182873

>>4182871 cont.

-although the etymological roots of agnosticism do refer to knowledge and not belief, this is largely irrelevant as conventional definition is not reliant upon etymology! It is not a very wise practice to go around understanding and redefining words in terms of their etymology rather than their conventional definition: one would find communication very difficult. For example, "anaemia" would just mean a lack of blood rather than a medical condition, "paedophilia" would mean a (non-romantic and non-sexual) attraction to children and not a psychological sexuality disorder and we would have to stop referring to atoms as atoms, because the word means "indivisible". Words are defined far more by their usage than by the "science" of their language. Applying one standard of definition to some words and another to others is an illogical process.

¹http://www.dictionary.com
²http://www.thefreedictionary.com
³http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
⁴http://www.infidels.org

>> No.4182891
File: 100 KB, 700x434, 881431_700b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4182891

You're stupid OP, let's talk about something more important. How do you /sci/encists make decisions? I guess you know that life has no meaning, free will is an illusion, we are just machines and every action of ours is determined by physics. Conscious decisions require a basic principle, a final goal or whatever. Are you utilitarists or something? Serious question. I just try to avoid pain and maximalize pleasure.

>> No.4182892

>>4182869
there is no such thing as a gnostic anything. To know one thing is to know everything, and no one knows everything

>> No.4182900

>>4182871
tr;dr

>> No.4182903

>>4182900
Have fun being ignorant if you're one of these gridfags. If not, then you already know everything there anyway.

>> No.4182908

>>4182891

free will is an illusion when we can see the future

until then, it exists.

>> No.4182914

>>4182908
if free will is an illusion and we're not responsible for our actions, then why do we persecute each other for wrong doings?

>> No.4182923

>>4182914
You're so fucking stupid. really? Is that your greatest problem if free will is an illusion?

>> No.4182926

>>4182923
>resorting to ad hominen
you "rationalist" atheists sure are rational

>> No.4182927

>>4182914
Because our lack of free will renders us unable to choose not to hold others responsible for the decisions that they were unable not to make due to their lack of free will.
>trollface.jpg

>> No.4182925

There is a god, the 3 logical characteristics that we all agree that defines a god is he/it/she is:

-Omnipresent
-Omnipotent
-Omnicient

This defines God, and there is one creature that objectively has those 3 characteristics, and that is
the universe itself. So what do you think about this atheists?.

>> No.4182931

>>4182926
Just insulting someone isn't <span class="math">ad\ hominem[/spoiler], dickhead.

>> No.4182941

>whether or not the god is omnipotent, omniscient, anthropomorphic, etc. does not matter
Here is the problem with the question, "god" is so undefined that no logical proof can be discovered.

Its like asking "can you prove the existance of britain, whether or not britain is a collection of islands off the west coast of Europe?"

>> No.4182940

>>4182927
But seriously. What do you consider when you make a decision? Do you have a goal?

>> No.4182951
File: 27 KB, 553x397, 1322292170743.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4182951

>>4182914

tl;dr

Because emotion often overwhelms reason, and generally, we believe that others are in fact responsible for their actions. Why? Because we didnt assume they were going to do what pissed us off, and therefore, free will exists. As long as we can´t determine the future actions of a person accurately, then we can´t say that theres no free will.

When people say that there is no free will, they are speaking from the view of a some sort of timescale of the universe, as if they are the observers of the future, they are thinking from the perspective that every reaction that ever occurs will inevitably result in what will happen in the future, and that may be true, But the fact that we can´t observe and determine the future with accuracy, means that for us, we have free will. We dont know where our actions will lead us, and thats what matters when we are thinking about the concept of free will.

>> No.4182964

>>4182951
tl;dr there i a free will

>> No.4182968

>>4182951
This totally makes sense actually, now answer my question >>4182940. I'm curious.

>> No.4182972

>>4182951
I'd take it a step further and say that even if we did have access to an oracle that could tell us everything about the future, we would still have free will.

>> No.4182976

>>4182968

When i make a decision? I can´t see how thats relevant to this discussion, but when i make a decision, i try my best to see things from realistic of a perspective as possible. I hold no beliefs dearly because i know that stuckup ideas are the results of a dull, outdated mind.

My goal is to achieve happiness by any means possible.

>> No.4182978

>>4182964
You actually said there is a free will because it exists as an illusion.

>> No.4182983

>>4182978
It's not entirely an illusion. The underlying assumption of dualism in the classical sense of free will is the illusion. Strip that away, and you find that you still have the capacity to make decisions.