/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4194516]

How does the new particle that LHC discovered fit in the standard model?

[Anonymous No.4194523]

Your picture tells me you won't understand any explanation.

[Anonymous No.4194535]

>>4194523
aaa... a typical answer of the arrogant sci.
Makes me lol all the time. thanks

[Anonymous No.4194542]

>>4194523
Your post tells me you don't understand jokes or know anything about the topic.

[Anonymous No.4194549]

What new particle? The Figgin's Gellar Plasmoidicon Spectra Neutrino-Fino Pulsar Boson?

Stupid scientists and their need to forever search for answers.

[Anonymous No.4194556]

>>4194549
chi b(3P)

[Anonymous No.4194557]

>>4194523
>sci
>not /sci/
>mfw

>>4194516

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111222102947.htm

[Anonymous No.4194561]

>>4194557
I read that, thats why i came here.
It doesnt say anything about the standard model.

[Anonymous No.4194564]

>>4194523
FUCKIN THIS

Richard Darwins' anti-religious propaganda is the reason why no one takes science serious in our government.
Science and religion are not contradictions, they go hand in hand.
With strong faith you can engage even more active in discovering deeper truths in the beauty of God's creation.

[Anonymous No.4194566]

>>4194561
>The particle, the chi b(3P), is a new way of combining a beauty quark and its antiquark so that they bind together. Like the more famous Higgs particle, the chi b(3P) is a boson. However, whereas the Higgs is not made up of smaller particles, the chi b(3P) combines two very heavy objects via the same 'strong force' which holds the atomic nucleus together.

Why would you, obviously being a layman, need more information that?

[OP No.4194567]

>>4194566
So, sincei ts not an elementary particle it doesnt go into the stnadard model, amirite?

[OP No.4194569]

>>4194564
>>4194535
Please get out.

[Anonymous No.4194571]

>>4194564
>Darwins
>Science and religion are not contradictions, they go hand in hand.
>they go hand in hand.
>With strong faith you can engage even more active in discovering deeper truths in the beauty of God's creation.

If it weren't for retards like you we wouldn't need people like Richard Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.4194573]

>>4194571
You're the retard, for you didn't understand what I posted.

[Anonymous No.4194590]

>>4194573
I'm not him, I'm someone else. But I hate you too. Just wanted to let you know.

[Anonymous No.4194594]

>>4194590
It's okay. I love you and Jesus loves you too.

[Anonymous No.4194596]

Theists on /sci/?
What's next, black people on /b/?

[Anonymous No.4194598]

>>4194594
Have you accepted Jesus into your mouth?

[Anonymous No.4194601]

>>4194571
>>4194573

> Child 1: You're a retard.
> Child 2: No....YOU'RE the retard.

Browsing /sci/ is like being the most negligent babysitter in existence.

[Anonymous No.4194607]

>>4194573
No YOU, sir, failed to understand science.

>FUCKIN THIS
The person you were quoting was most likely agnostic and I doubt he shares any of your idiotic views.

>Richard Darwins' anti-religious propaganda is the reason why no one takes science serious in our government.
Not that I'm a fan of him myself, but it's Dawkins, if you're going to criticize someone who you know nothing about you could at least get his fucking name right.

>Science and religion are not contradictions, they go hand in hand.
False, religion clearly contradicts scientific principles, as does dualistic beliefs. Do don't "go hand in hand" they're completely different things.

>With strong faith you can engage even more active in discovering deeper truths in the beauty of God's creation.
Science is grounded in empiricism, not faith, faith is and always will be detrimental to the scientific endeavor. Keep your silly superstitious beliefs to yourself and away from science.

[Anonymous No.4194618]

>>4194607
>retard detected

Faith in God in the strongest incentive for scientific research.
Only in the total blindness of your fanatic hate against religion you are not able to see that there is absolutely NO contradiction.
The goal of science is to enrich our knowledge and not to disprove God.
Alos you failed at basic debating skills, for you were not able to provide any arguments for your fallacious claims.

[Anonymous No.4194622]

>>4194535
stop acting so fucking childish and get the fuck out

if you know /sci/ is arrogant why do you even come here, and why do you pretend to enjoy it

[Anonymous No.4194630]

>>4194618
>Faith in God in the strongest incentive for scientific research.
This is what people who don't understand statistics actually believe.

[Anonymous No.4194634]

>>4194630
>he thinks statistics can explain individual spiritual experiences

Cool misunderstanding of science, bro.

[Anonymous No.4194640]

[Anonymous No.4194643]

>>4194618
>Faith in God in the strongest incentive for scientific research.
Wrong, if this is true then why is the scientific community almost exclusively Atheist/Agnostic?

>Only in the total blindness of your fanatic hate against religion you are not able to see that there is absolutely NO contradiction.
Making unfalsifiable claims IS a contradiction to the scientific method.

>The goal of science is to enrich our knowledge and not to disprove God.
Secularists: 1+1=2
Theists/dualists:1(1+1)=2

>Alos you failed at basic debating skills, for you were not able to provide any arguments for your fallacious claims.

Dear child.

Nothing in this thread constitutes a formal debate. Stop trying to feel special, this an image board that we browse in our leisure time, I know you and your idiot friends think people arguing on facebook is a debate, but really it's not.

Please leave /sci/ forever, irrational dualists are not welcome here.

[Anonymous No.4194646]

>>4194634
"Faith leads to stronger science!"
"Atheists are strongly disproportionately representative in science, not religious people."
"Well, that's your opinion, it's all just personal belief anyway!"

You win. Your ignorant bullshit has successfully annoyed me into defeat.

[Anonymous No.4194651]

>>4194643
>why is the scientific community almost exclusively Atheist/Agnostic
Because you're making up statistics on the fly.

>Making unfalsifiable claims IS a contradiction to the scientific method.
No, it's not. As long as you keep them separate from your scientific research it is totally okay to have your beliefs.

>Secularists: 1+1=2
>Theists/dualists:1(1+1)=2
What the fuck is this? I don't even ...

>Nothing in this thread constitutes a formal debate
Ah, you're trolling.

>Please leave /sci/ forever
No, you please get out here and leave /sci/ to people who are willing to have a serious discussion.

[Anonymous No.4194657]

>>4194646
Nothing ignorant on my part. You obviously lacked the reading comprehension to understand my posts.

[Anonymous No.4194660]

religion does not go hand-in-hand with science. it never has, and never will. get that through your thick theist skull and gtfo /sci/. Good day sir!

[Anonymous No.4194662]

>>4194660
Sorry, I couldn't find any argument in your post.

[Anonymous No.4194666]

>>4194651
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

[Anonymous No.4194668]

>>4194666
>biological scientists

This is now an oxymoron thread.

[Anonymous No.4194669]

>Modern physics
>Science

I don't think so Tim.

[Anonymous No.4194674]

>>4194646
>"Atheists are strongly disproportionately representative in science, not religious people."

[Anonymous No.4194677]

>>4194666
So many atheists in science?
Well at least that explains why science hasn't achieved anything in the last years.

[Anonymous No.4194678]

>>4194674
Correct, they are.

[Anonymous No.4194679]

>>4194622
Because I said that it makes me lol. And I learn things from this board. I see nothing childish about that.

Your posts tells me you are a difficult person to talk to.
But hey let's hope I'm wrong!

[Anonymous No.4194682]

While the man boys complain about shit.
Real engineers and /sci acutally do regardless of what drives them.
4chan/sci probably too weak to even flip a switch.

That being said. LHC with each new discovery goes higher on the target list for JIHAD.
You will laugh but I know !

Also straight line collider at a Lagrange point before I give a shit...

[Anonymous No.4194686]

>>4194679
You're more arrogant than the poster you replied to.
Just sayin.

[Anonymous No.4194688]

>>4194678
Have you thought that there's such a thing as peer pressure? That it may be considered expedient to hide one's religious beliefs to not get Dawkins & friends riding your ass?

[Anonymous No.4194690]

>>4194651
>Because you're making up statistics on the fly.
>>4194666

>No, it's not. As long as you keep them separate from your scientific research it is totally okay to have your beliefs.
>As long as you keep them separate from your scientific research it is totally okay to have your beliefs.
>keep them separate
Do us a favor and keep them separate from a Science & Math board too.

>What the fuck is this? I don't even ...
Yes we'd like to know that too, what the fuck is it with you retarded religious idiots who think your beliefs are relevant to the natural world at all?

>Ah, you're trolling.
No, irrational fuckwits like you don't even know what a debate is.

>No, you please get out here and leave /sci/ to people who are willing to have a serious discussion.
>serious discussion
>discussion illogical beliefs
*facepalm

I'm curious, what country and institution are you from?
...and what is your major?

[Anonymous No.4194694]

>>4194686
No problem with you saying that.
Why do think that? I'd like to know.

[Anonymous No.4194695]

>>4194688
>people getting peer-pressured on anonymous surveys
Oh god, just stop posting. You are such a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.4194697]

>>4194690
>Do us a favor and keep them separate from a Science & Math board too.
You don't like the topic? Then ignore the thread.

>what the fuck is it with you retarded religious idiots who think your beliefs are relevant to the natural world at all
Please repeat this without the attitude and without insults.

>No, irrational fuckwits like you don't even know what a debate is.
If in your eyes a debate is throwing aroud wild defamations, then we won't agree on what a debate is.

>I'm curious, what country and institution are you from?
>...and what is your major?
This is an anonymous board and I'd like to stay anonymous. My person is not the subject of this discussion.

[Anonymous No.4194700]

THREAD
Lets talk quantum
4chan sci filter:
COMPUTING... .... ....
still computing.... .... ...
RESULT:
A BULL SHIT FEST ABOUT RELIGION

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194701]

>>4194700
It's OP's fault. He started with a religious picture.

[Anonymous No.4194705]

>>4194660
Partial credit. Science deals with this world, religion deals with the next.

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194711]

>>4194705
Fixed:
Science deals with the "how".
Religion deals with the "why".

[Anonymous No.4194716]

>>4194705
>"next world" without a sense of irony
I think I'm starting to hate my own country.

[Anonymous No.4194721]

>>4194716
>typical arrogant american
>doesn't know of any other countries

[Anonymous No.4194723]

>>4194711
real man o genius

[sage No.4194726]

>>4194721
Who said I was American?

[Anonymous No.4194727]

>>4194716
you in my country, bro? the country founded by christian fundamentalists?

[Anonymous No.4194731]

>>4194651
>No, it's not. As long as you keep them separate from your scientific research it is totally okay to have your beliefs.

How can you keep your belief separeted from science? The purpose of science is to try to give an explanation for everything that happens in this world. Knowing that, either religion never affects your life and it's pointless or it affects your life and therefore science will try to figure out how. In the first scenario, you obviously don't need religion. In the last scenario, it's clearly impossible to maintain your belief separated from science.

[Anonymous No.4194733]

>>4194660
it did up to the point when science declared itself a competing theology based on men's "rationality"

search /sci/ history. you know this to be true.

[Anonymous No.4194737]

>>4194731
>The purpose of science is to try to give an explanation for everything that happens in this world.
A real scientist knows that science is limited and that it will never be able to explain everything.

[Anonymous No.4194739]

>>4194737
and yet, proponents of those "real scientists" will categorically deny that anything is outside of their purview

ponderous

[Anonymous No.4194740]

>>4194697
>You don't like the topic? Then ignore the thread.
This thread was about a newly discovered particle before you fucked it up.

>Please repeat this without the attitude and without insults.
Fine. Why do constantly waste our time with irrelevant nonsense that you freely admit isn't grounded in science? Why don't you keep it in the places we have designated for religious (i.e. churches)?

>If in your eyes a debate is throwing aroud wild defamations, then we won't agree on what a debate is.
Again, this isn't a debate, this is me calling you an idiot. You haven't made any unfalsifiable claims except "Faith in God in the strongest incentive for scientific research." ...which I falsified with hard facts.

>This is an anonymous board and I'd like to stay anonymous.
Give us your country and major at least, it's impossible to track you down with so little information.
What are you afraid of anyway? Not pious enough to defend your beliefs in public?

>My person is not the subject of this discussion.
Oh, but you are. You see, it's important to gather data on people with this neurological defect, so that we have something to study once it dies out. While a single person isn't much to go on, you're a rather interesting case you see, it will useful to know what conditions produce a human capable of convincing himself he can pick-and-choose what Scientific principles he can follow and what he can disregard.

[Anonymous No.4194742]

>>4194740
u mad, bro?

yeah, u mad

[Anonymous No.4194745]

>>4194740
so, now religious people suffer from a neurological deficit, which, you might imagine, science could at least demonstrate prior to your asserting it as a fact....

[Anonymous No.4194755]

>>4194739
That is the immature view of a highschooler.

>>4194740
>This thread was about a newly discovered particle before you fucked it up.
OP fucked it up by posting a provocative image.

>Why do constantly waste our time with irrelevant nonsense that you freely admit isn't grounded in science? Why don't you keep it in the places we have designated for religious (i.e. churches)?
If you read my posts, you'd see that faith is not irrelevant to science.

>Again, this isn't a debate, this is me calling you an idiot
Why are you so self-destructive to disqualify your own post?

>You haven't made any unfalsifiable claims except "Faith in God in the strongest incentive for scientific research." ...which I falsified with hard facts.
You didn't post any facts, nor did you falsify my statement.

>What are you afraid of anyway? Not pious enough to defend your beliefs in public?
Again: The debate is not about my person. I can understand that you want to shift the topic due to your lack of arguments, but I'd like to remind you that it's not embarrassing to admit your defeat. You are still anonymous.

>it's important to gather data on people with this neurological defect
Ad hominem is not an argument. You're glad I invest the patience to point this out in a friendly manner. And I'm gonna do so again.

>a human capable of convincing himself he can pick-and-choose what Scientific principles he can follow and what he can disregard
Any individual can choose what he wants to believe in. Please do not turn this in a debate about free will.

[Anonymous No.4194758]

OP the chi b(3P) meson was a theoretically expected part of the standard model. Although it took until now to observe it, its existence isn't a signal of new physics.

In particle physics we divide the hadrons (composite particles made up of quarks) into mesons (quark-antiquark pairs) and baryons (3 quarks). The existence of different types of hadrons can be predicted using the representation theory of SU(3), the QCD gauge group.

However, some of these particles are rather difficult to observe, for various reasons, which is why we haven't seen this particular meson until now.

[Anonymous No.4194762]

>>4194755
>OP fucked it up by posting a provocative image
Dawkins is a scientist and this is a science board
>If you read my posts, you'd see that faith is not irrelevant to science
Religion asserts things which are outside of and not testable by science

[Anonymous No.4194765]

>>4194737
I strongly disagree. Why would science be limited? The only case I can see where science would be limited is if the universe had only a finite set of "rules" to describe its evolution. In that case, sure science is limited but can however explain everything in the universe

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194767]

>>4194758
>troll detected
>tries to derail a religion thread with science

And now for the serious part: Thanks for the info.

[Anonymous No.4194768]

>>4194755
if highschooler = average /sci/ poster, then yes

they think science has all the answers, and if not currently, then soon

their faith in science is quite destructive

[Anonymous No.4194770]

>>4194643

Religion actually inspired thought. Your argument is therefore pretty invalid if you think that religion is a detriment to science, seeing as (as mentioned previously) one was the causation of another.

[Anonymous No.4194772]

Religious people should be BEGGING to not have science commingled with their religion. I mean, they believe in magic monsters, and demons, and that reading a book written by ignorant cavemen will make you immortal and happy forever. Science has shit on beliefs less silly than those held by the typical religious fag. There's a reason they have to jam that shit into your brain when there's still a soft-spot in your skull.

[Anonymous No.4194776]

>>4194762
>Dawkins is a scientist and this is a science board
Dawkins is not know for being a scientist but for propagating anti-religious ideas.

>Religion asserts things which are outside of and not testable by science
That's why you have to keep your beliefs separate from science. Nonetheless faith can function as a motor to make you enjoy science with more enthusiasm.

>>4194765
Science can only describe and explain the physical world, but never anything that goes beyond.

>>4194768
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.4194779]

>>4194772
>I mean, they believe in magic monsters, and demons
Strawman
>reading a book written by ignorant cavemen will make you immortal and happy forever
Strawman
>Science has shit on beliefs less silly than those held by the typical religious fag
All beliefs once held up as truth by previous scientists.

[Anonymous No.4194782]

>>4194772
>this is the average /sci/ poster i referred to above

[Anonymous No.4194785]

>>4194772
Please refrain from posting if you don't know anything about religion.

[Anonymous No.4194786]

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194787]

>>4194772
>so edgy

[Anonymous No.4194793]

You guys have apparently never heard of Satan. I have bad news for you. Most of America believes in this magic monster.

[Anonymous No.4194796]

>>4194776
>Dawkins is not know for being a scientist but for propagating anti-religious ideas.

To who?

[Anonymous No.4194798]

>>4194768
Science doesn't have all the answers, and probably won't ever have answers to unfalsifiable claims like what existed before the universe or the existence of gods. This just means we will never know because there are no other systems capable of providing quality answers to such questions.

[Anonymous No.4194801]

>>4194793
I was raised a Christian and am now somewhat between that and agnosticism. I rarely think about Hell or Satan.

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194802]

>>4194793
>Most of America believes

[OP No.4194805]

Thnx for destroying my thread.
I dont really see how you find the energy to argue about religion.
You either accept Santa dosnt exist or you dont.
If you're a grown man and you refuse to listen to reason and evidence that Santa is imaginary then you have big issues, issues that can't be solved by 'arguing on the internet'.

Anyway.
I also hear they are actually getting closer to higgs boson after all.

[Anonymous No.4194809]

>>4194786
awesome!

[Anonymous No.4194810]

>>4194768
How being enthusiast about science is destructive?

>>4194776
Once again, if it exists another world containing your soul or wathever that is god's domain, if it doesn't interact with our universe, why would you care? If it does then you have just found a way to study it.

[Anonymous No.4194811]

>>4194779
The Bible literally talks about magic monsters and demons. Satan is the embodiment of that. God is too when he gets all cunty about people not believing in him enough.

The Christian belief is predicated on reading the Bible written by bronze age shepherds which can unlock eternal happiness and paradise.

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is. We are talking about Christian faith because the majority of people in the developed world actually believe ridiculous shit like that.

[Anonymous No.4194812]

>>4194802
Why are tripfags allowed on 4chan? They're so fucking annoying.

>>4194801
So you're an agnostic Christian? Do you think that's actually representative of religious America?

[Anonymous No.4194814]

>>4194793
how odd, when most of satan's handiwork can be found outside of america

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194815]

>>4194805
>closer to higgs boson after all.

Is being closer relevant in any way?
They still haven't found it.

>>4194812
Nice to see you being more annoyed by me than by the religious troll.
I recommend a big dose of DEAL WITH IT.

[Anonymous No.4194816]

>>4194798
why would you exclude revealed truth from that model? on what basis do you deny that a higher intelligence could reveal something to mankind that mankind on its own would never find out?

[Anonymous No.4194817]

>>4194802
Many Christians today (esp. in the more liberal churches) don't even believe in Hell.

[Anonymous No.4194819]

>>4194810
h bomb
n bomb
a bomb
emp

shall i go on?

[Anonymous No.4194821]

>>4194810
um, maybe because it does interact with "our" universe, and it does matter?

[Anonymous No.4194824]

>>4194816
What is "revealed truth"? The Bible? Its claims are contradictory to what has been observed about the universe. If we cannot prove a revealed truth independently through experiment then it is just a baseless claim.

[Anonymous No.4194828]

>>4194810
>why would you care?
Well why would you care about me caring?

>>4194811
religion =/= bible
religion =/= christianity
religion =/= whatever edgy american teenagers believe it to be

[Anonymous No.4194831]

>>4194811
christianity is a religion founded on the resurrection of Jesus Christ

it may be easier for a shepherd to become part of the Good Shepherd's flock than a "scientist", but i would hardly discount the entire religion based on the social status of those who believe

especially when that social status produces such strife and misery

[Anonymous No.4194834]

>>4194812
Why are you allowed out of /b/? you're so fucking annoying.

Go back, there's no tripfags there to annoy you.

[Anonymous No.4194835]

>>4194812
>So you're an agnostic Christian? Do you think that's actually representative of religious America?
I actually think my beliefs are more typical of most people than the fundies, but of course the most vocal always get the most attention.

[Anonymous No.4194836]

>>4194828
Christianity = religion.
Bible = source of that religion.

Stop being a pedantic troll.

[Anonymous No.4194838]

>>4194817
that's more a condemnation of liberal churches than proof positive of the existence of satan, wouldn't you agree?

[Anonymous No.4194839]

>>4194742
Not at all, currently listening to some classical music whilst explaining calculus principles to high-schoolers over the internet (on another form, of course).

>>4194745
>so, now religious people suffer from a neurological deficit...
>now
No Jon, it's always been like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia
>paraphrenia is characterized by the preoccupation with one or more semisystematized delusions.

delusion [di l'n]
(plural delusions)
noun
1. false belief: a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition
2. mistaken notion: a false or mistaken belief or idea about something

>>4194755
>faith is not irrelevant to science.
Exactly, now explain to me why you felt the childish need to reaffirm your beliefs by posting >>4194564.
>statement
and what exactly is your "statement"
As for the rest of your post...I told you from the beginning this discussion doesn't even begin to represent anything even close to a debate, there is no formal argument here and never made any claims -quite casually- that weren't backed up by statistics and facts
Also look up what Ad Hominem means, it's not "Insult! That means I win!", people can call you idiot as long as they also refute your central points - of which you never had any.

[Anonymous No.4194841]

>>4194824
so, you cling to an axiom that all truth is revealed only through experimentation

tell me, how are you going to create a universe similar to the one we live in, in order to prove that the universe exists?

[Anonymous No.4194842]

>>4194836
Stop being illiterate and uneducated. Or at least don't talk about things you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.4194844]

>>4194836
so, christianity is the only religion on earth, and it's based exclusively on the bible?

sweet!

[Anonymous No.4194847]

>>4194839
>false belief: a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition
Strawman.

[Anonymous No.4194848]

>>4194841
>prove

What are you doing on this board?

[Anonymous No.4194851]

>>4194839
yeah, "false" belief

show me one peer reviewed publication that classifies belief in God as a "false" belief

oh, and yes, u were mad

real mad

[Anonymous No.4194852]

>>4194831
I discount their writing because they lived in a time mired in ignorance. Even philosophers and scientists back then would only have a tenuous grasp of truth. For example, they didn't know that life evolved from earlier forms, or that infectious diseases were from microbes, or that the Earth revolved around the Sun, or that the universe is billions of years old. Yet they pretended to know the ultimate truth about reality, while contradicting what has been proven since the Enlightenment.

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194853]

>>4194839
>a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence
>strong contradictory evidence

Where is your superior evidence to disprove all religious beliefs?

[Anonymous No.4194854]

>>4194848
posting. you?

[Anonymous No.4194856]

>>4194852
so, our current philosophers are greater than plato, socrates, and aristotle

lulz

paint yourself into a bigger corner, why don't you

[Anonymous No.4194859]

>>4194839
>I told you from the beginning this discussion doesn't even begin to represent anything even close to a debate
Why do you keep posting while openly admitting that you're a bad troll?
I don't get it. Please GTFO my science board.

[Anonymous No.4194860]

>>4194853
laws of physics.

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194862]

>>4194860
Name one law of physics that is incompatible with religion.

[Anonymous No.4194866]

>>4194852
You have to understand that in ancient Greece, science as we know it today didn't exist. Men of learning were merely thinkers who didn't do any hands-on experimentation. In fact, they would have found the idea beneath their dignity due to the social hierarchy of Greece.

[Anonymous No.4194864]

You can't prove anything. Therefore, all beliefs are equally valid.

[Anonymous No.4194867]

>>4194864
>hello non sequitur

[Anonymous No.4194870]

>>4194862
Thermodynamics is incompatible with an afterlife (just for one specific), Not to mention all the miraculous claims that I'm not even going to begin listing it's pointless you're just a terrible troll and intellectually dishonest if you can't see that religion is anti scientific.

[Anonymous No.4194872]

>>4194841
Practical truths are arrived at through empirical means. If you touch a hot stove you will get burned. Repeating the experiment proves the observation is consistent.

How can one be sure "revealed truth" any more true than my revealed truth about the flying spaghetti monster? If such "truths" are indistinguishable from bullshit then its better to disregard them all and only focus on what can be consistently proven.

[Anonymous No.4194875]

>>4194870
>Thermodynamics is incompatible with an afterlife
Explain.

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194876]

>>4194870
>Thermodynamics is incompatible with an afterlife
No, it's not.
Science hasn't yet discovered what constitutes "consciousness" or "soul", we can't even say if they depend on physical properties.

[Anonymous No.4194878]

>>4194819
trying to understand nuclear physics and the laws that rules nuclear decay is science, trying to use this knowledge to kill people isnt.

>>4194821
Well if it interacts then you have a way to observe the effects of this other universe and it's not out of reach of science anymore.

[Anonymous No.4194879]

>>4194516
The chi b(3P) boson particle is amazing, as it combines a bottom quark with its antiquark. This differs from the Higgs Boson, which is not made up of any smaller particles.

The head guy of ATLAS, Rodger Jones said, ‘While people are rightly interested in the Higgs boson, which we believe gives particles their mass and may have started to reveal itself, a lot of the mass of everyday objects comes from the strong interaction we are investigating using the chi b.’

Just another step to finding the HB, sooooo exciting.

*Enjoy your religious debate.

[Anonymous No.4194880]

>>4194870
thermodynamics is incompatible with abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, and macroevolution

it is not incompatible with religion at all; you can't apply earth's laws to heaven, and why would you want to?

[Anonymous No.4194881]

>>4194866
I know that. Men like Plato abhorred experiment and thought ideas were more real than the physical world. They believed silly things such as metaphysics and the classical elements. Which is why I said even the greatest minds back then had a severely limited understanding of reality.

[Anonymous No.4194885]

>>4194872
so your plan is to ignore the truth and rut about in the physical realm, completely ignoring even the possibility that there is more to life than being a higher order primate

good luck, i guess

if you want to be smart about it, ask the Revealer to show you His truth, and prove Himself to you. that would be smart.

[Anonymous No.4194887]

>>4194880
No it isn't. The Earth is not a closed system. Energy from the Sun allowed for amino acids to develop into replicating molecules and eventually life.

[Anonymous No.4194888]

>>4194878
yeah, wouldn't want all those messy effects caused by science to be pinned on science

HERP DERP CRUSADES! INQUISIITON! HITLER!

[Anonymous No.4194891]

>>4194885
There could be more to life, but it is unknowable. Christianity's revealed truth is indistinguishable from Scientology's.

[Anonymous No.4194892]

>>4194875
Everything succumbs to entropy.
>>4194876
Dualist Faggot confirmed for troll 0/10
>>4194880
If you believe in a soul then the soul is in the human so it is in the universe in which the laws of thermodynamics are applied.
The earth isn't a closed system we take in energy from the sun so no your baseless assertions are wrong and you should feel bad about being the worst person alive.

[Anonymous No.4194895]

>>4194879
wormsworth! *shakes fist*

[Anonymous No.4194899]

>>4194887
nice try. want to tell me the universe is not a closed system?

and did i posit that the earth was?

you must think you're real tough, killing all these strawmen so quickly

[Anonymous No.4194897]

>>4194881
yeah, plato, socrates, and aristotle were idiots compared to you

lulz

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194900]

>>4194892
You can disprove dualism?
Do it ITT. I wanna see.

[Anonymous No.4194901]

>>4194897
No, just ignorant.

"I know now that I know nothing"
-Socrates

[H+ No.4194902]

>>4194755

First, I'm going to establish that I'm an idiot for getting involved in this, I am however, very bored. So, I'm just going to jump right in.

>If you read my posts, you'd see that faith is not irrelevant to science.

As none of your posts had any external links, and have more than once talked about the importance of personal spiritual experience, I'd think you'd understand that personal experience is the lowest level of validity in the rules of scientific evidence.

Your own personal reasons for doing anything could have no relation to the rules of any other person, and you certainly can't extrapolate for the entire group of scientists merely from your own experience without any supporting evidence. That's pretty much the height of hubris.

>>Again: The debate is not about my person.

Actually, the debate is in part about your person. You see, it's much easier to indoctrinate people to certain beliefs at a young age, and the area in which you grew up can be connected with statistical representations of that area to construct a possible image of you which would explain why you believe what you believe. Similarly, depending on what you have chosen to do with your life, ie. what program or university you are studying at, could help to illustrate any biases you may be operating under, which would aid in understanding your arguments.

>>Any individual can choose what he wants to believe in. Please do not turn this in a debate about free will.

That was never in argument, and you are attempting to construct a red herring. The actual argument was that you cannot claim to support Science, unless you support all of the necessary rules that allow science to function. You can't multiply 3 x 4 if you refuse to accept what the word "multiply" means.

I understand that in theology "truth" and "literal interpretations" of scripture are relative, but in Science the basic rules are absolute.

[Anonymous No.4194905]

>>4194859
>Why do you keep posting while openly admitting that you're a bad troll?
>I don't get it. Please GTFO my science board.

Why do you keep pretending you know anything about the real world when I've had to hold hand this entire thread?
Like for example your misuse of the word "troll",
...*sigh* I guess I have to let this one go, it's lost all it's meaning nowadays.

OP just delete your shit thread.
Dualists: grow up already, until then go post about your beliefs on >>>/x/ not on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.4194906]

>>4194891
to a fool, perhaps

maybe you should spend more time learning to discern the truth for yourself, instead of running headlong towards the cliff with all the other lemmings

inb4 disney faked lemming suicides

[Anonymous No.4194908]

>>4194899
It has been theorized that the universe has a net energy of zero. All the matter and energy is offset by an equal amount of negative energy through spacetime curvature. So a universe of zero net energy could come from nothing.

[Anonymous No.4194910]

>>4194892
God
souls real
feelsgoodman

[Anonymous No.4194913]

>>4194901
wow, you don't even understand what you quote

learn some humility from socrates; maybe then your useless contributions to this thread will have some meaning

[Anonymous No.4194914]

>>4194881
From H.G. Wells's "Outline of History" (one of my favorite books)

"A person wanting to perform scientific experiments in 5th century BC Athens would have found himself under some extremely severe limitations. No decent system of weights and measures, no really good method of counting numbers. The Greeks had coloured glass for decoration, but nothing clear. And finally scholars would never have contemplated hands-on activities. A snobbish aloofness kept the philosopher from the artisan. Our aspiring experimenter would have to rig up the simplest apparatus under the most difficult conditions while Socrates calls out to him that it's foolishness to seek Truth with bits of wood and string such as a small boy would use for fishing."

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194915]

>>4194902
/sci/ - discussing opinions as if they were facts

[Anonymous No.4194916]

>>4194906
You still haven't provided any compelling reason why any revealed truth is different from the ramblings of the insane. All while resorting to ad hominems and non sequiturs.

I'll take that as my victory.

[Anonymous No.4194918]

>>4194900
I get brain damaged the "me" self aware concious part becomes something different I'm not still perfectly in tact trapped in a cage wondering how to communicate I am a literal dribbling retard.
Nevermind experiments proving the left and right brain communicate with each other and when separated act separately meaning there are 2 you's inside you and possibly alot more because it is more than likely multiple specialists communicating with each other inwardly creating the perception of a single "ME".

[Anonymous No.4194919]

>>4194876
>Science hasn't yet discovered what constitutes "consciousness" or "soul", we can't even say if they depend on physical properties.

>Science hasn't yet discovered what constitutes "unicorns" or "cyclops", we can't even say if they depend on physical properties.

[Anonymous No.4194924]

>>4194902
there are no basic rules that are absolute in science; you fail, and fail hard

in fact, only faith in an unchangeable, stable God who created a knowable universe is a valid platform for conducting science

otherwise, how could you be sure yesterday's results are valid today?

no, you crib from God's nature, and God's universe, and God's patience, but be sure of this: one day, you will face Him, and it will either be as His child, or His enemy

[Anonymous No.4194925]

>>4194914
Not to mention Plato and Socrates thought that knowledge could only come from within that we already knew things and that we just recall them from a previous life which he tried to prove by asking a boy simple questions and getting him to come to conclusions on his own, the senses were not to be trusted because they were wrong and material.

[Anonymous No.4194926]

>>4194902
Of course it is my personal experience. You don't need to feel the same, but you cannot dismiss everything I say while arrogantly pretending your view is "more" scientific.

>>4194905
Again: You mock other posters in a derisive manner and don't provide any evidence for your wild claims. You are the one who doesn't belong here.

[Anonymous No.4194931]

>>4194908
if you can't see the sophistry involved in this statement, i can't help you. you're lost without a compass.

the existence of something from nothing, offset by nothing, equals nothing, so nothing and something can happen?

what fools men are, to believe their own imaginings

[Anonymous No.4194938]

>>4194914
Aristotle did much groundbreaking research on biology not too long after the 5th century BC. The Greeks were learning an impressive amount about engineering, which the Romans later developed on. Significant advances in mathematics and geometry were being made too.

Besides, such limitations would always have existed before rigorous scientific enterprise. I think it was the rationalists like Plato who discouraged empiricism that did more damage than anything.

[Anonymous No.4194939]

>>4194931
Implying you have any understand of quantum fluctuations nevermind even basic physics.
The term "nothing" doesn't mean absolute nothing.

[Anonymous No.4194940]

>>4194916
taking God at His word is self evident; if it is not to you, good luck in your rebellion against an omnipotent deity

i told you to ask God to prove God to you; asking me, a man, is foolish; if you can be talked into believing in God, you can be talked out of believing in God

open your heart, and don't sear your soul; seek truth, and you will find Him

He's really close to you right now; like, within arm's reach

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194943]

>>4194918
These results suggest a connection between body and consciousness, yet the exact mechanisms are not revealed.

>>4194919
I interpret this greentext to mean that you don't have any form of consciousness.
This is sad.

[Anonymous No.4194944]

>>4194888
>yeah, wouldn't want all those messy effects caused by science to be pinned on science
No because it's not science and those enthusiatic about science don't look out how to build weapons. The one who do look how to build a weapon is the army and is not interrested about science but about how science could help to destroy other.
Moreover, considering every side effect of science, longer life, better living conditions and exponential growth of human population seem to greatly compensate for nuclear weapons.

HERP DERP CRUSADES! INQUISIITON! HITLER!
I have trouble grasping the intention you had writting this sentence.

[Anonymous No.4194946]

>>4194918
so, because the brain is wonderfully complicated, and self adjusting to trauma, you are not you afterwards?

are you brain damaged yourself?

[Anonymous No.4194949]

>>4194924

Belief in God is not necessary to observe and quantify natural phenomena. All that's necessary are the proper tools to do such.

>maximumtrolling.jpg

[Anonymous No.4194959]

>post a pic of RD
>144 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

I love /sci/

[Anonymous No.4194964]

>>4194939
i know. your "nothing" has way to much "not nothing" if you believe, as the crippled pants crapper believes, that the "law" of gravity pre-existed all matter, all space, and all time

you make fun of me for worshipping the One True God, and you worship "gravity", a concept still not clearly understood by anybody

remember when it used to be "an inherent quality of mass"?

yeah....and if you do know somebody that fully understands QM and can explain it to dolts like me, please feel free to make the introduction

QM did it!!! that's scientific!!! not like "God did it!!!" that's not scientific!!!

[Anonymous No.4194968]

>>4194938
Indeed he did. Continued...

"The Greeks were labouring under a want of knowledge that would astonish the modern mind. They had no idea at all of the origins of the Earth or the universe; at best they had only a few clever guesses. That they guessed at molecular theory is amazing. Aristagores (4th century BC), greatly daring, suggested that the Moon and Sun were vast spheres, the latter 'probably as big as all of the Pelloponessus'."

[Anonymous No.4194972]

For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible.

>Galileo

[Anonymous No.4194974]

peanut butter theory.

it made sense to me.

[Anonymous No.4194979]

>>4194964
It is probably unknowable where the laws of the universe originated from. They could have just always been there.

However, the same problem afflicts your explanation as well. Where did God originate from? If you say he always existed, why didn't the universe always exist? Seems rather silly to invoke the supernatural while explaining nothing.

[Anonymous No.4194980]

>>4194943
You do realize your postulating a magic soul as a mechanism?
The results of the a multitude of experiments STRONGLY suggest brain consciousness as one, Differing from investigating the cognitive awareness and ability of animals evolutionarily close to us to different effects of damage to different area's of the brain.
You're asking for a god of the gaps here a special niche for an in falsifiable magic soul that can never be tested or experimented and would be there even if we could fully map the brain it's functions etc.. etc.. even if everything worked and was understood without dualist consciousness you would still posit dualist consciousness as a "well it hasn't been disproven" and that makes you intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.4194984]

>>4194979

>why didn't the universe always exist?

*sigh* you just can't say that anymore bro. We have damn good evidence pointing to the finitude nature of the universe.

Typically, in the pasts this was the classical atheist response to the theist. It's invalid now.

[Anonymous No.4194986]

>>4194944
no you don't

pretending science is altruistic and charitable falls apart when you look at the scramble for rocket scientists after WWII, and the race to build, and use, the big one

most science is used to kill people; that's why they give out the Nobel Peace Prize. the guy that invented dynamite as a mining tool was horrified by how many people were being blown to kingdom come, and set up a blood money award to stop it

as to the final sentence, it is maddening to hear people go on and on and on about the excesses and sins of the catholic church, as though they were committed by christians. kind of like how peaceful muslims get tired of hearing about suicide bombers.

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4194989]

>>4194980
As long as the gaps aren't explained, a "god of the gaps" is totally viable.

[Anonymous No.4194992]

>>4194949
aye, tools given to you by God, with the knowledge of how to use them given to you by God, in a universe created by God

[Anonymous No.4194995]

>>4194946
I am still me but it's a different me then before there's no ever persisting immortal intangible me there is only the me that is the perception of the brain and that's my point you damage my brain you damage "me" and change "me" to a different "me".

[Anonymous No.4195001]

>>4194989
No not at all, wishful thinking and very unscientific, and as I stated intellectually dishonest because in that place you can attach any kind of woo or mysticism you feel inclined to and that is... BULL SHIT!
Thanks for playing though try harder next time tripfagcancer

[Anonymous No.4195004]

"Finally, our aspiring scientist would find himself in constant danger of prosecution for heresy. The theories of Darwin would not have gone over any better in the Athens of 400 BC than the Tennessee of c. 1925 (Welles was referencing the Scopes Monkey Trial)"

[Anonymous No.4195008]

>>4194979
okay, then, i'll explain it to you. whether or not you understand the explanation is on you.

there are currently one earth and three heavens. the earth you live on; the first heaven you breathe; the second heaven is outer space beyond our atmosphere.

all of those were created in the beginning: In the beginning, God created the heavenS and the earth.

God, however, is in the third heaven, which is His realm. this is where He abides, and where He created angels to serve and worship Him in eternal bliss. then the highest angel thought to promote himself, and iniquity was born.

this earth, and our heavens, are broken, and will not last much longer. they are slated for demolition 1000 years after Christ returns to Jerusalem, which could be within the next 7 years, the next 10 years, the next 20 years; but likely soon, and very soon.

so no, God needs no creator, as He is eternal; He never diminishes, as He is infinite. His heaven overlaps ours, and our earth, and is timeless. this is where His house is, and where He has invited you to stay with Him forever

[Anonymous No.4195009]

>>4194984
What evidence? We have no evidence of what existed before the big bang, so we cannot know how long it goes back. We also know that the universe will continue to expand for eternity until a googol years from now when everything will be so dispersed that time will be unobservable. Maybe new big bangs naturally occur in this weird maximum entropy state.

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4195010]

>>4195001
I wasn't saying the god of the gaps has to be kept up or research had to be stopped.
Maybe we will have a better theory some day, until then we can't make a statement, even if this is emotionally distressing for you.
On a side note I'd like to remind you that insults do not belong in a serious conversation.

[Anonymous No.4195012]

>>4194984
>*sigh* you just can't say that anymore bro. We have damn good evidence pointing to the finitude nature of the universe.
If god created the Universe, then who created god? Why not skip a step and say the Universe created itself?

>Typically, in the pasts this was the classical atheist response to the theist. It's invalid now.
>It's invalid now.
Guess again.

[Anonymous No.4195018]

>>4195009

So you believe our universe is eternal?

[Anonymous No.4195014]

>>4195008
>there are currently one earth and three heavens.

Lol stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.4195016]

>>4194995
nope, you're just different from what you used to be

you're still you

hell, every cell in your body is different from the ones you had seven years ago; are you still "you"?

[Anonymous No.4195022]

>>4195004
as an aside, the scopes monkey trial, based on the existence of "nebraska man", was modeled entirely on one pig's tooth

that's your missing link in the scopes monkey trial. a pig's tooth.

now tell me scientists aren't idiots

[Anonymous No.4195023]

>>4195012

maybe there was only god.

you cant imagine an infinite god?

mental.

[Anonymous No.4195025]

>>4195012
because the universe did not become a man, born of a virgin, leading a sinless life, performing miracles, and walking out of its grave on the third day following its public execution

however, Jesus did all that, proving that He is God, and the Son of God, and the Son of Man

[Anonymous No.4195027]

>>4195014
it's on me to tell the truth; what you do with the truth is up to you

way to keep yourself ignorant, i guess. your blood is not on my hands.

[Anonymous No.4195028]

>>4195022
AKA Piltdown Man, a famous fraud. H.G. Welles mentions PM in OOH, but he died two years before it was found to be a fake and never knew.

[Anonymous No.4195029]

>>4194986
>no you don't
I don't what?

>pretending science is altruistic and charitable
I never pretended that. I said the exact opposite, science don't give a fuck about what is altruistic or charitable. Don't mix science and morality.

>most science is used to kill people
In my country and probably in your country to otherwise you would be on 4chan, science is mainly use to save life.

>as to the final sentence, it is maddening...
Well I could object that it's maddening to hear people characterize science as destructive because some military used it to kill people. Kind of how peacefull christian get tired of hearing about excessed of catholic church.

[Anonymous No.4195036]

>>4195028
that was another fraud, like "lucy" and that lemur and that other ape and that chimp

this evolutionary fraud should be worrying to darwinists, as it was worrying to darwin himself, but they seem to skip right over the fraud and deceit and concentrate on the complete lack of proper evidence

[Anonymous No.4195037]

I hate science.

[Anonymous No.4195039]

>>4195016
That's my point I'm not the me I was 5 minutes ago nevermind the me 20 - 30 years agos, the "you" changes with every bit of new information to the point where defining a "you" becomes hard, Though I'm much more different than the you I was 20 - 30 Years ago then I am different from the me I was 5 minutes ago.

"YOU" is not eternal or intangible it is moulded by the real world biologically and psychologically and is subject to laws of the universe it 's a biological.

[Anonymous No.4195041]

>>4195029
so, you repeat what i already told you, in a way that makes me think you're from....

the future!

[Anonymous No.4195042]

>>4195023
>maybe there was only god.
>or maybe there were Titans first?

>you cant imagine an infinite god?

I can, I just don't have a desperate need to.

>>4195025
>because the universe did not become a man, born of a virgin, leading a sinless life, performing miracles, and walking out of its grave on the third day following its public execution

>however, Jesus did all that, proving that He is God, and the Son of God, and the Son of Man

Neat trick, even though it's probably a myth, however it's unfortunately not nearly as impressive as modern medicine.

[Anonymous No.4195049]

>>4195041
what?

[Anonymous No.4195054]

>>4195039
let's start with the basics

you are you

you are not a static being in any way; you eat or you die, you drink or you die, you seek shelter or you die, you breathe or you die. you are constantly doing things to survive.

and yet, you are not the same you as when you were a fetus, or an infant, or a child

but is there a part of you that existed when you were a fetus, and a child, and an infant, and a teenager, that has not changed? that comprises the essence of "you" and is not bound by your meat body, or changes to your meat body?

[Anonymous No.4195060]

>>4195042
Jesus did many things that "modern medicine" still cannot do, but as you pointed out, He did not do them right in front of you with huge neon signs saying LOOK AT ME!

He's a little more subtle than that, but again, He is approachable, and wishes to seek and save all who are lost, even you

[Anonymous No.4195062]

>>4195049
you totally knew i was going to post that!!!

[Anonymous No.4195071]

Socrates...

"In those days, there was a very great wanting for knowledge. One must understand that the Greeks developed no substantiative religious beliefs of their own and their gods were little more than glorified humans who were treated without much fear or awe. Into this void stepped Socrates. He wrote nothing, but it was his custom to talk in public places, and this shabby, barefooted figure began gathering a swarm of followers around him. His method was profoundly skeptical; true knowledge was all that mattered. He would tolerate nothing, no belief that could not pass that acid test. For himself, this meant enlightenment and release, but for many of his weaker followers, it mean the loss of certain habits that might have restrained their worst excesses. As a consequence, many of Socrates's followers became self-indulgent scoundrels. He finally ran afoul of a certain Aristophes who's son had become a hopeless alcoholic. Socrates was thus brought to trial by the city of Athens and charged with corrupting the youth. He was then ordered to commit suicide, which he did quite willingly by drinking hemlock. His death is described beautifully by Plato in his 'Phaedo'."

[Anonymous No.4195076]

>>4195060
>He is approachable, and wishes to seek and save all who are lost, even you
Really? He is? Well I'd just be delighted to meet him. I want to help him you see, he has a bit of a god-complex and is in dire need of a clinical psychologist. Unfortunately it seem that only his writings survived.

[Anonymous No.4195085]

>>4195054
No there isn't, There are past experiences that mould me but there is no part of me that hasn't changed no essence of me I have changed completely between all those stages of existing.

[Anonymous No.4195092]

>>4195076
He wrote not a word; He left not a scrap of clothing, not a building, not an implement; nothing

and yet, He changed everything

you mock Him at your own peril

[Anonymous No.4195094]

For fuck's sake, stop feeding the fucking troll.

[Anonymous No.4195095]

>>4195085
do you remember those changes?

[H+ No.4195097]

>>4195060

>Jesus did many things that "modern medicine" still cannot do,

Yet.

And the list gets smaller all the time. Cure the blind and the lame?

http://gizmodo.com/5277456/stem-cell-contact-lenses-cure-blindness-in-less-than-a-month

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter8.asp

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4195098]

>>4195094
>>4195094
>>4195094
>>4195094

[Anonymous No.4195105]

>>4195097
1. He can forgive sin
2. He can raise the dead 4 days later
3. He can create eyeballs out of mud and spit
4. He can heal lepers
5. He can cause the deaf to hear, and the blind to see

with only His voice, His touch, His spit, and a little of the mud He used to make Adam in the first place

[Anonymous No.4195110]

>>4195095
Not most of them and even the memories I have I can't be sure that they really were the way I remember them my mind is fallible and open to misrepresentation to being wrong and to false memory.
The fact I don't remember them now doesn't mean they didn't change me when it was happening and effected me then which effected me slightly after in a chain of events that have led to now.

[Anonymous No.4195113]

>implying there's any real Christians in this thread
>implying not just atheists trolling other atheists

[Anonymous No.4195118]

>>4195110
so, some part of you has kept track of who you were, even through all of those changes

[H+ No.4195120]

>>4195105

As he's a transcendant being, it's entirely possible his spit contains nanotechnological construction engines, with which, and a little programming (Voice) it would be fairly simple to make eyes out of mud. Eyes are mostly water anyway afterall, and when you can modify things at the subatomic level, it's all really just potential energy.

It's funny, the more I think about it, the more I think that the Biblical accounts of divine power could be explained by nanotechnogy and a 'sufficiently advanced' theoretical Alien race.

I'd write a book about it, but I suspect it's been done.

[Anonymous No.4195124]

>>4195113
a house divided against itself cannot stand; if i troll you in the name of religion, how can you troll others in the name of science?

[Anonymous No.4195126]

>>4195092
>He wrote not a word; He left not a scrap of clothing, not a building, not an implement; nothing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
...jus' sayin

>and yet, He changed everything
Granted, he influenced the world tremendously and was responsible for a new period in our history that lasted for centuries, it's what we call the Dark Ages today.

>you mock Him at your own peril
Why do you mock the other countless Messiahs that have claimed to be the sons of God, why do you mock Muslims, why do you mock anyone not adhering to your dogmatic beliefs?

My intention is not to hurt anyone's feelings, I'm here to help you see the real truth [the kind that shows consistent experimental results].

[Anonymous No.4195129]

>>4195120
they have, but they have not gone far enough; when you give your main character omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc., it is hard to stage a proper conflict

for instance, thinking that it's God v. satan is laughable; satan is not God's opposite, but a creation gone horribly wrong. michael or gabriel are lucifer's opposite; good angels fighting on God's side in an eternal struggle of good v. evil

[Anonymous No.4195138]

>>4195126
the shroud of turin is an old hoax; God does not need any physical props--He's given you enough evidence to believe in Him, or not, at your discretion.

now Jesus caused the dark ages? lulz, the light of the world, being blamed for mankind's darkness. that's rich.

that's the game. there are two sides. Jesus and not-Jesus. if you are for Jesus, you win. if you are for non-Jesus, you lose.

in the end, this infinitely complicated universe is quite simple

[Anonymous No.4195141]

>>4195138
>the shroud of turin is an old hoax
The RCC says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.4195143]

>>4195118
No, Not unless I wrote down in an external source such as a journal. I may have vague recollections of past events but as I said they could be hugely wrong and I'd be none the wiser.

[Anonymous No.4195148]

>>4195141
the day i listen to the whore of babylon is the day i throw my lot in with you people

[Anonymous No.4195152]

>>4195143
so, let me see if i have this straight. you think you may have changed who you are from who you were, but you can't be sure

did i get that right? because i think there's medication for that...unless you're trying to deny a dodgy past....

[Anonymous No.4195166]

>He's given you enough evidence to believe in Him, or not, at your discretion.
Assuming God exists and is, as the Bible stated, omnipotent, omniscient etc. then why did he make me at all if he already knows exactly what's going to happen?

>now Jesus caused the dark ages? lulz, the light of the world, being blamed for mankind's darkness. that's rich.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
Educate yourself, it's the only period in History where the rules of the Bible are completely followed.

>that's the game. there are two sides. Jesus and not-Jesus. if you are for Jesus, you win. if you are for non-Jesus, you lose.
We'll if there is a "higher-being" we can conclude that he is neither omnipotent or omniscient and in fact a tyrant who wants to force his will on poor defenseless creatures. I'd prefer to take the hard road and stand up for my species and for what is good.
TOGETHER /sci/ WE CAN DEFEAT THE TYRANNICAL SKY JESUS, FOR WE ARE FREE MEN AND WE DEMAND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND TRUE SOVEREIGNTY. NEVER GIVE UP! NEVER SURRENDER! DEATH TO THOSE WHO OPPOSE US!


>in the end, this infinitely complicated universe is quite simple
What hubris.

[Anonymous No.4195170]

>>4195152
No I know I've changed from my 5 year old self I may or may not know how because I don't have perfect recollection for example I know my 5 year old self didn't know trigonometry so I can conclude that change has happened because now I understand trig and I know that my 5 year old self did not know trig.
I don't see what any of this has to do with what I was originally saying but I can assume you're basically trying to say there is an essence of self that is constantly you and you're wrong because what makes "you" you is your neural plasticity and your genetics and something that hasn't happened yet can't effect you before it happens so 5 year old me is different from "undisclosed age" me.

[Anonymous No.4195177]

>>4195166
it's simple because He made it simple, so that His children can choose to be with Him.

it's not hubris to parrot what God told me to you

[H+ No.4195178]

>>4195129

Yeah, yeah. But It'd be easy to just include the omnipotence thing as propaganda y'know?

It's easy to assume, being farmers and shepards who have no idea what orbital surveillance or cameras are, that one incident of "knowing more than you should" could lead to a declaration of omniscience, the same way a display of power could lead to omnipotence.

Basically, ignorant assumptions rather than rational examination. It's like that episode of Star Trek TNG where a bunch of proto-vulcans started worshipping Picard as a diety because of a few oopsies with the Prime Directive.

You could have Yahweh and Satan as actual rivals, maybe they were part of a team who was sent out to seed life on Earth-like planets throughout the galaxy. The rest of the named angels were the crew on their ship or what have you. Transhumans would easily appear to Bronze age people as Godlike.

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.4195179]

>>4195170
aye, different, but the same

don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp; life changes, or dies.

you're you, whether you know trig or not, and if the 5 year ago you had been killed, you would be dead right now

[Anonymous No.4195183]

>>4195178
SEPHIROTH!!!!

[Anonymous No.4195188]

>>4195178
you're just at the cusp of what i like to refer to as "what if God and angels are really aliens.......HORY SHIT!!!"

alien to us, but not little green men. but most definitely alien to us.

[Anonymous No.4195193]

>>4195179
You're making an intrinsic you though an essence of me and there really isn't.
Of course if I died 5 years ago I'd be dead now that goes without saying, but the fact that we are something constantly changing is because we are constantly given new information processed by the brain, brain dies we die.

[Anonymous No.4195196]

>>4195193
so why are you so resistant to the idea that you are you are you of 5 years ago are you of 10 years ago are you of 15 years ago, etc.?

what's the hangup? that you've changed?

wouldn't it be more odd if you hadn't changed in 15 years?

[Anonymous No.4195203]

Why are people posting about the bible?

[Anonymous No.4195205]

>>4195203
because of the God particle and the tension between revealed knowledge and empirical knowledge

oh, and to be salt and light in a world of darkness. can't forget that.

[H+ No.4195206]

>>4195188

Well, yeah probably not green. Hell for all we know they could be some crazy tentacled monstrosit....


Oh. My God.

[Anonymous No.4195208]

>>4195196
Because I'm not me of 5 years ago there's so much different to me now then 5 years ago, I'm different atomically, I'm different biologically/anatomically, I'm different psychologically/personality wise. There are vestigial traits still in me of course but this is just where our need to categorize becomes a hinderance to understand because the "I" part of me is different in almost all aspects to the "I" part of me 5 years ago to call me the same me constantly is to assume there is something static.

[Anonymous No.4195210]

>>4195206
oh boy is my face gonna be red standing in front of the FSM

>facetious eepitl

[Anonymous No.4195211]

There is absolutely no way to know if God, angels, demons, Satan, Heaven, Hell, or souls exist or not. Thus agnosticism is the only reasonable choice.

[Anonymous No.4195214]

>>4195208
...or perhaps something eternal?

[Anonymous No.4195219]

>>4195211
my least reasonable choice at least has an upside; in fact, every choice i make has an upside

you need moar upside

[H+ No.4195221]

>>4195210

Tentacle fetish?

[Anonymous No.4195226]

>>4195214
Exactly and that's why it's wrong because there isn't anything static or eternal which brings us full circle to the point consciousness isn't eternal It is constant change to environment due to our neural plasticity and our genetics.

[Anonymous No.4195243]

>>4195221
ordered an octopus salad at a restaurant; turns out, they just take a live octopus and set it on a ball of ice, with lemons.

i'm so toast

[REPORT No.4195245]

>>4194516

higgs boson is thought to be responsible for froce of gravity, the four main physical force.

The existence of Higgs is almost validated. Bosons generated monopolar forces, which could be rearrenged as manifolds. Higgs manifold is thought to generate universal gravity manifold at large.

PS: troll is grown large, nice job...

[Anonymous No.4195253]

>>4195226
you do realize, don't you, that you made up your decision prior to analyzing the data? in other words, you "know" there is no eternal soul, so it must follow that there is nothing eternal about you? that you are just a meat puppet at the whim of nature and chance?

it all balances on your assumption that there is no soul, no eternal spirit, and that you are not special in the eyes of the Lord.

really, really, really bad assumption

[Anonymous No.4195254]

>>4195245
This isn't about the Higgs...refer to:
>>4194556
>>4194557

[Anonymous No.4195256]

>>4195245
i just tell the truth, and they think it's trolling

[Anonymous No.4195264]

btw, who the fuck is richard darwins?

[Anonymous No.4195263]

>>4195245

>higgs boson is thought to be responsible for froce of gravity, the four main physical force.
>froce of gravity

Ugh, can't believe I didn't catch that.
9.83/10.00

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4195265]

>>4195264
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
evolutionary biologist, but is better known for being a massive atheist who speaks out against religion, and really pisses religious people off.
...good times!
:D

[Anonymous No.4195274]

>>4195265
good job, you managed to show up in the only thread that isn't currently about you.
>:D

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.4195329]

>>4195274
seems to be quite a few of those at the moment.
i suppose i should feel honoured =p