/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5143195]

Hey /sci/,

I don't want an in-depth religious debate even though it's inevitable.

I'm currently an Atheist purely based on the fact I think there is no legitimate proof or anything to suggest you should believe in the existence of a god. Now, I'm not ignorant but I've been searching for a long time now just 1 scientific argument that isn't majorly flawed which can stand up to logic.

Are there any?

[Anonymous No.5143205]

gb2/reddit/ they love edgy atheist kids

[Anonymous No.5143206]

There might be. It's 50%, either there is or there isn't.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143212]

>>5143195
we cant disprove it, just like we cant disprove invisible unicorns, and all that shit
it doesnt matter, burden of proof its on the person who positively claims the bullshit that has no evidence, not the sceptic.
<<<

[Anonymous No.5143213]

>>5143206
Not sure, they're the 2 absolute possibilities but that doesn't mean at all that its a 50% chance.

I could believe in my invisible friend. The two absolute outcomes are he exits, or he doesn't but the odds of my invisible friend turning out to be real despite be having knowledge of making him up is so incredibly low it's untrue.

[Anonymous No.5143221]

>>5143212
But, like you said, we can't prove something where the properties of it are beyond comprehension.

But if God is outside of reality and has no physical or detectable properties, how can we tell the difference between that and a non-existent god.

[Anonymous No.5143229]

bump.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.5143236]

>>5143195
>Are there any?
Not really, no. I dismiss purported interfering gods for the same reason I dismiss invisible garage dragons. I dismiss other gods as irrelevant just like ethereal ham sandwiches.

[Anonymous No.5143239]

>>5143221
>outside of reality
What does that even mean?

>how can we tell the difference between that and a non-existent god.
If you can't tell a difference between something and its non-existence, it's a pretty safe bet to say that something does in fact not exist.

[Anonymous No.5143242]

> doesnt want a religious debate
> starts a religious debate

[Anonymous No.5143243]

>>5143221
It makes no difference. If something has no evidence and is not physically detecable, we have no reason to believe in it. The same logic is applicable to ghosts, demons, qualia, souls, consciousness, tulpas and other /x/ nonsense.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143245]

>>5143239
"outside of reality"
>What does that even mean?

'imaginary'
yep, works for god.
=p

[Anonymous No.5143248]

>>5143213
>Not sure, they're the 2 absolute possibilities but that doesn't mean at all that its a 50% chance.
Yes it does. Learn high school probability.

[Anonymous No.5143249]

>>5143239
>What does that even mean?

Many theists make the argument of, God is beyond comprehension and outside of space and time. Well if this is the case, there's nothing to distinguish between this and a non-existent god.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.5143255]

>>5143248
Lol

[Anonymous No.5143257]

>>5143249
>outside of space and time
That would be my definition of non-existence.
Since space and time (and matter) is all of existence, anything "outside" that would not in fact exist.

[Anonymous No.5143258]

>>5143248
You're a massive tool.

If there was an equal chance and a coin was flipped fairly then it's a 50% chance (theoretically) of getting either side.

But if you take a fat guy and take too possibilities.

A) He's going to break a running world record time.
B He's not going to break a running world record time.

It's not 50% because him breaking the world record is extremely unlikely.

[Anonymous No.5143262]

>>5143257
Agreed, but let's assume there is an 'outside' of space and time. This still doesn't bring us any closer to god being real.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143265]

>>5143258
you best be counter trolling, nigger
eitehr that or you are the most fucking stupid trollbait i've seen in a long time

[Anonymous No.5143273]

>>5143258
But what if the fat guy is an esper?

[Anonymous No.5143278]

>>5143273
Increases the chances, still doesn't make it inevitable.

[Anonymous No.5143287]

lol

[Anonymous No.5143299]

bamp

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143308]

>>5143299
all that needed to be said, has
so dont bump this shit

[Nurkle No.5143314]

>>5143308

bunp?

[Anonymous No.5143316]

>>5143195
There's no proof that there isn't a God? Both arguments are invalid as God is a superposition, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.5143326]

>>5143316
Yeah but the burden of proof is on the people who claim that there is a super natural being that created everything.

[Anonymous No.5143343]

>>5143308
Faggot.

[Anonymous No.5143381]

I think a better question is if we are even equipped to perceive a god. To the naked eye the night sky seems dark but if viewed through something like Infrared it might be a different story.

[Anonymous No.5143441]

Interested armchair kabbalist here, just to tell you /sci/entists of the mystical stance of Judaism and Christianity on the form of God:

God is in its deepest essence actually the non-existence from which existence spawned. All of his manifestations (Elohim, YHVH, El, Yah, Adonai, Agla, Ehih) are simply forces and patterns/systems in nature/life/existence that are portrayed allegorically.

An experience of God is actually equated with experiencing nothingness and the bliss it brings, putting away the ego to realize the fullness of the subconsciousness and the beauty of the Self.

So that pretty much lines up with what you guys say.

Kthxbai

[Anonymous No.5143472]

Simple test

>Do you deny creation?

If the answer is no you can't deny God either.
If the answer is Yes, congratulations, You're a Nihilist!

[Anonymous No.5143497]

>>5143381
Not sure if troll, but that implies that God is perceivable.

[Anonymous No.5143600]

Agnostic Masterrace Repoting in.
(Since someone came up with the idea, it is not so easily done away with. Just because a foolish man came up with an idea doesn't mean the idea itself is foolish, that would be foolish to believe that.)
I mean, I'm more Atheist, but that doesn't automatically mean I hate Religion/Think all people who believe in religion are stupid.

With all that being said, I am technically just believing it possible because of no actual evidence, but past Renee Descartes, no one has attempt to logically prove that what we perceive actually exists. Also, what we believe about Science now is likely to change greatly within 50 years, as it has been doing.
>>5143472
My parents created me. Are my parents... God?

[Anonymous No.5143602]

>>5143600
Whoops, forgot to take off sage.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143609]

>>5143600
>Agnostic Masterrace Repoting in.
retard
<<<

[Anonymous No.5143614]

>>5143600
Agnostic is another word for religiontard. If you don't see how deities are logically impossible, you are mentally retarded. Every 14 year old should have figured it out.

[Anonymous No.5143618]

>>5143609
Not a faggot anymore.
First time you didn't shitpost today, you are free!

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143619]

>>5143618
actually, me calling another poster a retard kinda IS shitposting, even if they are an agnostitard

[Anonymous No.5143624]

>>5143609
>>5143614
>>5143618

The proper way to use the word Agnostic or Gnostic is in relation to being either an Atheist or Theist. Although most of EK's image is somewhat relevant.

>Agnostic Theist
>Gnostic Theist
>Agnostic Atheist
>Gnostic Theist

These are your choices people. Pick one.

[Anonymous No.5143629]

>>5143609
Yes, we lack knowledge of the possibility of the existence of God, and claim it is impossible to know for sure.

Do you know for sure that a Multiverse does/does not exist?

Other than String theory, there is nothing to prove this exists, but Quantum Physics think this is enough. There is no real promise that a Multi-verse exists, only that it is possible.

Einstein had this same approach, that everything can be predicted, and everything is absolute. Quantum Physics, which is very opposite of this, has given us the majority of the technologies we use today, including that little computer you're using.

You cannot know a theory is absolute. Gravity itself, can be refuted with the Higgs-Boson, as its existence implies that it is only more likely that a large group of matter has more mass.

[Anonymous No.5143631]

>>5143619
But it's worth.

[Anonymous No.5143641]

>>5143624
Gnostic atheist is the only logical choice. Everything else can be summarized as RETARD.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143642]

>>5143624
obviously number 3: Agnostic Atheist

you cant really get gnostic atheists because we cant KNOW for certain that god aint real, as theres no way to disprove it, just like we dont know for certain that invisible unicorns or the FSM arnt real.

shouldnt be able to get gnostic theists either....
except people like adam and eve, and jonah and noah and shit, people who have actually talked to god
(if the stories were true...which they arnt)

[Anonymous No.5143643]

>>5143609
>>5143624
Quite sure I said I was more a Non-Theist than a Theist.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143647]

>>5143641
>Gnostic atheist is the only logical choice.
>Gnostic

erm...typo?

[Anonymous No.5143650]

>>5143643
What are you? Atheist or theist? Logical thinker or retard? There is no other choice.

[Anonymous No.5143659]

>>5143647
No typo. If you're older than 14 and not 100% sure that deities are logically impossible, then you failed at life and should instantly kill yourself for you are fucking mentally impaired.

[Anonymous No.5143653]

>>5143641
That's a closed mind right there!.
Number 3 I'm in. Agnostic Atheist.
Why? I don't even fucking care whether God (or ods) exist or not.

[Anonymous No.5143660]

>>5143624
>Agnostic Theist
>Gnostic Theist
>Agnostic Atheist
>Gnostic Theist
This little clasification is a 4chan meme and has no basis in litterature.
"Gnostic" already means something completely different.
"Agnosticism" is also a specific school of philosphy, but you faggots pull out the old genetic fallacy and assume a word's etymology gives its meaning.

Continue using that shit because it fits into a table and you are fascinated by tables.
Ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.5143661]

Déjà vu - can't explain it for shit.

[Anonymous No.5143662]

>>5143653
Read Dawkins, you closet religionfag.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143664]

>>5143659
troll?
if they make the deity in such a way, so its just an invisible life-form that doesnt interact with the world in any logically impossible way, then how can you possibly know for certain?

[Anonymous No.5143671]

>>5143661

Heuristics, and subconscious sensing of your surroundings.

[Anonymous No.5143672]

>>5143664
It doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Now go cry to your non-existant sky daddy.

[Mostacho No.5143678]

>>5143653
Fe de Erratas: "(or Gods)"

And furthermore, I don't care about it's existance, and I think it doesn't exist.

>>5143662
I've read a lot of books, and If you are wrong on something, it's that I am certainly not a closet religionfag. You just want trouble.

I chose not to care, because I chose. That means, that whether there is or not a god or gods, I'm free to think and to act as I please.

That means that I'm free to think that it doesn't exist, and to try to prove it (that's why I chose science as a profession, in order to know about the universe that we live in (or to get closer to know actually)).

If you call me a closet religionfag it's only because you want to, not because you have actual proof.

PD: getting a name because I don't have another way to know which are my posts.

[Anonymous No.5143674]

>implying "proof" even exists

stick to science, philosophy is too hard for you

[Anonymous No.5143682]

>>5143650
>lol what is deductive reasoning
*ahem*
AGNOSTIC ATHEIST
>>5143659
>"lel ur les 14 y/rs old ore ur rtrd"
>Only able to think on a concrete level
Lol I like how you called someone a troll, so funneh.
>>5143674
People forget that before science was called science, it was called philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5143684]

>>5143671
>intuition and perception
>Déjà vu

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143686]

>>5143662
dawkins is a 6/7 on his sliding scale
same as me
agnostic atheist, but as sure that god aint real as fairys at the bottom of his garden.

[Anonymous No.5143688]

>>5143659
Atheists come to the realization that God doesn't exist in their teen years.

The teen years is the same period teenagers go through their angst/rebellious phase.

If you can't see the correlation you are you are nothing more than a manchild.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143689]

>>5143672
confirmed for troll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pele5vptVgc

[Mostacho No.5143692]

>>5143672
>/sci/
>not using a valid reasoning method.
GTFO

[Anonymous No.5143694]

>>5143682
Spoken like truly retarded christfag. Why aren't you praying to your fairy right now?

>>5143686
Dawkins is a god tier scientist (pun intended). He logically disproved the magical beardy man.

[Mostacho No.5143697]

>>5143692
And by that I am certainly NOT defending religion (as it is an invalid reasoning method itself)

[Anonymous No.5143698]

>>5143682
>AGNOSTIC ATHEIST
>I can't prove God doesn't exist but I'll say he doesn't anyway based on 0 evidence
That's the worst stance you could take

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5143700]

>>5143692
>one guy on /sci/
>trolling
"GTFO"

>FTFY

[Mostacho No.5143702]

>>5143694
>Don't believe in God
>god tier

Use proper words. And most of all, never, never, believe in ONE scientist.

[Anonymous No.5143704]

>>5143674
Proof does exist within our perception of reality. I can prove 1+1=2.

[Anonymous No.5143706]

>>5143688
The teen years are the time period where you acquire the most knowledge and start to think rationally. You missed out on learning logic. Better kill yourself, religiontard.

>>5143689
>christfag calling an atheist a troll
0/10

[Anonymous No.5143710]

>>5143686
>basing your belief on a logical fallacy
is that all you've got? how sad

[Anonymous No.5143713]

>>5143702
He's a fucking scientist. He uses LOGIC and FACTS. You know, bitch, that's what you christfags don't have. Your ancient sheepherder book is crap.

[Anonymous No.5143715]

>>5143688
Or maybe, it's when they start to think for themselves and stop believing bull shit lies they are fed as children?

[Anonymous No.5143723]

>>5143497
Correct, you'd have to assume this in order to verify that God exists. Theories and hypothesis exist in science because proving and observing them may be difficult or impossible with our technology today. You could look at proving the existence of "God" as something like this as well.

[Anonymous No.5143732]

>>5143694
>>5143713
samefag

[Anonymous No.5143733]

>>5143706
>The teen years are the time period where you acquire the most knowledge and start to think rationally.

[Mostacho No.5143735]

>>5143706
You are assuming the anon is a christianfag, when he openly admitted not believing in any god.
That does confirm you a troll, or wrong in the best-case scenario.

>>5143713
I am not a christianfag. You are a troll, and you believe in only one scientist.

Get back here when you think for yourself.
Yes, God is more likely to not exist. That's why I chose science as a profession because of that.
And because of my profession I know that one scientist may be wrong.
Never heard of the Paradigm theory?

Never read some epistemology book?

And you are here though?

I think you are closer to be a christianfag than I am.

[Anonymous No.5143743]

>>5143706
>>5143706
>>5143706
>The teen years are the time period where you acquire the most knowledge and start to think rationally.

[Anonymous No.5143744]

>>5143732
I'm the same person in the same conversation, answering to religitard pseudo-arguments. Of course I made both of these posts. How retarded can you be? Oh wait, I see. You believe in a wizard in the sky. Nevermind, just kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.5143746]

Fatima is a good start. thousands of people witnessing a supernatural occurence?
If you care just google Fatima

[Mostacho No.5143747]

>>5143706
Furthermore,
>The teen years are the time period where you acquire the most knowledge and start to think rationally.
Is wrong. that proves you being a teenager

[Anonymous No.5143749]

>>5143694
>>5143698
We do not live in a universe of absolutes.
QUANTUM-MOTHERFUCKING-PHYSICS dictates that. We live in a world of possibilities. Saying something is possible is much more feasible and logical than promising something you cannot be sure of will happen.

However, since I feel that the probability of his existence is rather low, I say to myself, "I cannot know something like this for sure, anything I make up will be a theory, and an untestable one at that." Just because we cannot test something doesn't mean it is false, it means, it is unlikely, and we cannot *yet know if it is false.

Hence, the Atheist part of Agnostic Atheist.

lrn2philosophy
>inb4 Pseudo Science
What was Science called before it was Science?
And since people have been arguing about roots of words, what does "Philo" and "Sophia" mean in greek?

>>5143733
lel

[Anonymous No.5143750]

>>5143735
He is a fucking christfag and so are you. A real atheist is 100% sure that there is no almighty wizard.

[Anonymous No.5143752]

>>5143749
Fuck off Carl

[Anonymous No.5143754]

>>5143752
>implying I even like Carl

[Anonymous No.5143755]

>>5143749
The probability of a magical fairy to exist is exactly 0%.

lrn2science

[Anonymous No.5143757]

>>5143754
Nice try. Now we know it's you.

[Anonymous No.5143759]

[Anonymous No.5143762]

there is a logical disproof of an infinite god (the only kind that counts IMO). there could be evidence for various finite gods (e.g. sysadmin of our simulated universe, or an alien post-singularity Bayesian superintelligence that created and seeded life on earth), but I haven't seen any.

[Anonymous No.5143773]

>>5143757
You're right, I'm Carl.
>>5143755
Based on what logic and calculations?
>inb4 "lol because it doesn't"
That's worse than when a religious person defends their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.5143776]

Quantum mechanics proves god

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh5GCwt9PDs

[Anonymous No.5143778]

If God made the universe, where did God come from?

[sage No.5143785]

>>5143776
>wigner's friend implies god
this guy is such a fucking troll

[Mostacho No.5143788]

>>5143750
> A real atheist is 100% sure that there is no almighty wizard.
>mfw I said there was a God somewhere in my posts.
>mfw I didn't
>mfw I have no face.

You are putting words in my mouth, why? Because you are a troll, nothing more.

I say I don't know because I don't even bother to check it out. Why? Because I am free whether there is or not. I believe there isn't one.

>>5143755
>lrn2science
Try reading any epistemology book, a newer one.

>mfw edgy gnostic atheist calls me a christianfag for not caring about the fact that god doesn't exist.
>mfw the gnostic atheist takes atheism like a religion, saying "there isn't a god because there isn't one and because this one scientist, prophet of the science, says so"
>mfw he calls himself a scientist and claims to follow any sort of valid reasoning
>mfw i have no face.

>>5143778
God doesn't exist. At least not how religions portray it. Most likely, there isn't a god at all.

[Anonymous No.5143789]

>>5143776
>>5143776
>>5143776
>>5143776
>"Interpretations"
>"Interpretations"
>"Interpretations"
>"Interpretations"
What is Pre-Scientific Evidence?
"And 4000 goes to anon!"

[Anonymous No.5143802]

>>5143789
>>5143785
>he thinks he's smarter than a Nobel prize winning physicist

[Anonymous No.5143803]

>>5143788
>>5143788
>God doesn't exist. At least not how religions portray it. Most likely, there isn't a god at all.
>Most likely, there isn't a god at all.

How sure are you? What percentage?

[Anonymous No.5143804]

>>5143788
Here good man, use this one.

[Mostacho No.5143810]

>>5143803
Percentage?
I'd say, 99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent

Why? Because one day, noone knows if we were created by some alien race or some shit like that, which I currently not believe in.

But I am still 100% percent sure there isn't a god like religions portray it.

Are you happy now?

[Anonymous No.5143818]

>>5143810
Why not 98%? Or 97%?

Your previous answer isn't sufficient as it's not based on science at all and this is a science board.

[Anonymous No.5143827]

>>5143802
I'm quite sure Michio Kaku didn't just say that was absolute evidence.

A man like him knows the difference between Personal "Interpretations" and Scientific "Interpretations."

If you pay close attention to where it says "Interpretations," it is implied that I am responding to Anon and not a renown physicist.

[Anonymous No.5143832]

>>5143827
"Personal 'Interpretations'" being speculation, btw.

[Anonymous No.5143849]

>>5143827
That doesn't explain why he ALWAYS pick the most quantum-mystic friendly explanations while he knows full well it's going to be misinterpreted to hell and back.

[Mostacho No.5143866]

>>5143818
Which one?
The one I called you a troll?
I think that doesn't need a scientific law or theory, as the proof is here and I am not generalizing.

The only things I've said are that you are a troll, that I'm not a christianfag, and that I am free, whether god exists or not. And I chose to believe that it doesn't.

This is a science board, but this thread doesn't talk about science at all. Yet you are claiming to be a scientist, denying something that cannot be proved (for any way, can't be proved that it exists and cannot be proved that it doesn't), and calling all other's opinions retarded.

[Mostacho No.5143870]

>>5143866
Must I add, based on one scientist theory, and takiing it as a religion itself (by defending it to death, "hurr durr i'm fighting for science").

[Anonymous No.5143875]

>>5143849
Fair enough.
Even still, like I've said numerous times before,Quantum Physics is dicatated by Probability, not what is Absolute. Sure I believe in the multi-verse, but this does not mean that someone should use what is clearly intended as a sort of jumpstart of your brain, i.e. "something to think about," and claim it as proven or unproven.

Being that multi-verse is likely to exist, this does not prove the existence of God, like the poster speculated (There are no IDs, nor is he a tripfag, so I don't know if I'm talking to him or someone defending him), as Michio only talked about the multiverse.

When I come to /sci/, I try to be as objective and unbiased as possible, however much that is for a human.

[Anonymous No.5143881]

>>5143866
Now you're back-sliding away from your claim.

>And I chose to believe that it doesn't.
Yes, with no scientific evidence

Why are you 99.9% sure as opposed to 98%? Or 97%? Or even 50%?

The previous answer you provided is not sufficient as it's not based on science at all and this is a science board.

I await your response.

[Anonymous No.5143896]

Sadly, logic can't prove the existence of a god. Logic needs sound premises to reach the right conclusion and those can't be obtained in this case.
To say "there is a god" is to make an untestable claim. Neither observation nor reasoning can provide anything solid (no experiment can measure god, and there are other possible explanations to events then divine intervention). A testimony can't be used either, it's subjective and therefore unreliable. The same thing holds for someone saying "there is no god", neither observation nor reason can show that.
The whole dilemma is an intellectual cul-de-sac. The topic has always been pointless to discuss since nothing can be deduced. It is just people manipulating other people. But considering how much fun everyone is having, it would be a real shame to stop.

[Anonymous No.5143905]

*sigh* Why is this discussion even taking place? All of you are an insult to scientist everywhere. You're all forgetting that strength of science is in providing knowledge and not facts. I can just easily prove "God Exists" as it can "God Doesn't Exist", it just depends which side your prefer.

[Mostacho No.5143906]

>>5143881
Because I didn't want to put it in numbers, as it's not objective, it's an opinion.
You can't put an opinion in numbers.

That's why I don't go everywhere denying shit and calling everyone retards.

You forced me to put it into numbers, and I did it in a subjective way.
For me it can be 99.99%, for you maybe 50%.
It's not scientist at all.
That's why I am an agnostic atheist in the first place.

[Mostacho No.5143909]

>>5143905
And this.
Thread should die already

[Mostacho No.5143910]

>>5143896
And this. Finally someone put it in words.

[Anonymous No.5143922]

>>5143896
I have been trying to argue this.
But yes, we are having a jolly good time.

[Anonymous No.5143923]

>>5143906
No, you hide behind agnosticism because you realize just how stupid atheism is.

Agnositc Atheist is an Oxymoron
lrn2definition

[Anonymous No.5143926]

>>5143896
Now, faggots, THIS is agnosticism, not "uguh, I dunno", but firmly believing the existence of God is an unknowable.
Thank you kind sir.

[Anonymous No.5143934]

>>5143926
Is that really why most Agnostics (Excuse me, Agnostic Atheists/Theists, for all you pedantic fucks out there) exist?

[Anonymous No.5143936]

>>5143896
>Sadly, logic can't prove the existence of a god

Creation demands a Creator.
Pretty simple logic for the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.5143946]

>>5143936
Circular Logic, if you believe in God, then this all happens because of some intelligent being. If you do not, then the entire Universe never needed anything to create anyways.

[Anonymous No.5143948]

>>5143936
But it relies on the premise that there is a god. Which is an incorrect premise since there is no way to validate it.
The logic can still be ok, even if the premise is wrong (which makes the logic reach the wrong conclusion)

[Mostacho No.5143955]

>>5143923
Are you picking a side or anything?
I don't hide behind anything.
Both closed-minded atheism and religons are illogical, because atheism cannot actually prove there isn't an entity that created the Universe, and because religions tell me that I'm free to think and do, and then that I'm a slave of god, and that god exist even when it doesn't.

Let's put it straight.

I don't care whether god exists or not.
I believe, with no scientific claims whatsoever, that god doesn't exist. Of course, there is a very tiny posibility that it does, but even there, it doesn't contol me, and I am still free to do and think.

If god doesn't exist, I continue to live my life as always.
If god exists, I continue to live my life as always.
It's not scientific reasoning, it's an opinion.

The proof for those two conditionals are:

>If god doesn't exist, nothing controls me other than myself, so I continue to live freely.

>If god does exist like religions tell us, then I'm free to do and think, just like if it didn't exist.

>If god does exist but not like religions say, maybe an alien race that genetically engineered us or some shit like that, I am still free.

>If god does exist but it's a particle and not a sentient being, then I am still free.

I am not obliged to believe that it exists, and I'm certainly not obliged to force myself to leave my current life to find for proof that it doesn't.

>>5143946
And that's why I stopped believing at the early age of 12 (a decade ago).

[Anonymous No.5143959]

>>5143936

Nope.

Reality emanates eternally from the Ground of Being.

It is not possible for nothing to exist.

[Anonymous No.5143968]

>>5143896

if god were defined as a square circle, its existence can be disproved.

if you whittle the concept of god down to its logical essence, disproofs are possible.

hint: finiteness is a necessary condition for existence

[Anonymous No.5143979]

>>5143968
>hint: finiteness is a necessary condition for existence
Oh fuck off already. I thought you intuitionists were all dead already.

[Anonymous No.5143982]

>>5143955
>I am not obliged to believe that it exists, and I'm certainly not obliged to force myself to leave my current life to find for proof that it doesn't.
Works both ways. Either way, believing or not believing does not affect my life in any way.

It is irrelevant. Scientifically untestable either way, it cannot be observed. In order to observe God's nonexistence, one would have to be sure that he does not exist. In order to observe his existence, one would have to be sure that he does exist.

Circular Logic.

Btw, I'm completely agreeing with the central point of that post, just a thought.

[Mostacho No.5143983]

>>5143955
Sometimes I think that I'm one of the few that if hypothetically god appeared, i would continue to live my life as i've always have.

>>5143923
If by hiding you mean that I don't want to debate this, then you are true, why? because simply, like an anon said, there is no way to prove that god exists or that it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.5143988]

>>5143936
>>5143946

agreed, this is circular logic of the finest degree.

if creation demands a creator, something must create the creator and so on.

it's a fucking paradox, your argument is invalid.

[Anonymous No.5143991]

>>5143946
The universe was created.
Why do you think arguments from Hume and others are obsolete now?

Because we know more about the universe than they ever could imagine.

[Anonymous No.5143997]

>>5143991
One must first believe a creator is either necessary or existent to begin to believe that.

"It is irrelevant. Scientifically untestable either way, it cannot be observed. In order to observe God's nonexistence, one would have to be sure that he does not exist. In order to observe his existence, one would have to be sure that he does exist."
-Me being a samefag

[Anonymous No.5144009]

>>5143997
>One must first believe a creator is either necessary or existent to begin to believe that.
If you want to deny the advancements and knowledge we've gained over the past century pertaining to the universe, you can.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Anonymous No.5144015]

>>5144009
>It is irrelevant. Scientifically untestable either way, it cannot be observed. In order to observe God's nonexistence, one would have to be sure that he does not exist. In order to observe his existence, one would have to be sure that he does exist
Don't mark me down as a lost cause before you've told me why that's true.

[Mostacho No.5144032]

>>5143982
I had a big text that I've just written, but I read your post again and I understood it.

You mean that my opinion is not based of any scientific theory or fact.
That's true. That's why, it is an opinion.

[Anonymous No.5144034]

Before anything 'happened' there was the mechanism for choice. It was not created, there is no such thing as it not existing, it always is. God owns that mechanism, it is part of his mind. It dictates what the truth is. It dictates which permutation is in the frame that we call existence. This is impossible to understand if you are stuck on the idea of 'something is either true or not true' There are statements that are BOTH true and false simultaneously. God exists.

"I am that I am" This is the feedback loop of God's choice. 'BUT THAT"S CIRCULAR REASONING!!!!' You need to understand that there is nothing outside of God. There is no outside set of rules upon which God is dependent. He owns the rules. Yes it is circular, but it's PERFECTLY circular. It stands on its own.

A lot of you can't see God because you don't know what to look for.

[Anonymous No.5144044]

>>5143759
9fag detected

[Mostacho No.5144048]

>>5143991
I don't think that "the universe was created" is anything more than an opinion based on no scientific theories whatsoever.

>>5144034
You are openly admitting that god doesn't exist, at least as religions portray it.

You are basing your post on religious books, that certainly didn't come by god, as they are material stuff. You can find similar circular logic in the Greek gods and the Mesopotamic gods.

Any culture that began to think got used to the idea that circular logic was true. Until, of course, the human being finally became aware of it invalidness.

Face it: circular logic is invalid.

Your post comes from the same books that tell you that you are free of will. And yet what you are saying is that god controls us all. That same sentence, is invalid and invalidates all the book/books in the religion/religions.

[Anonymous No.5144059]

>>5143968
A god don't have a logical essence. At the very deepest point it comes down to saying it exist or does not. These two starting points can then be looked at, but neither claim can be validated.
Logic can be used evaluate each case, but since the premises are always uncertain, the logic conclusion is uncertain.