/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6902265]

What is it about Quantum Mechanics that lets people believe in god?

[Anonymous No.6902274]

OP here, don't get me wrong, I don't intend an atheist vs theist discussion, just wondering, as a layman, what's so special and extramundane about quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.6902276]

>>6902265
Nothing in quantum mechanics lets people "believe in god".

Werner Heisenberg is just making an argument from ignorance. He discovered some "strange" quantum shit, and confused his ignorance of it with the existence of an imaginary friend. It is basically why 99.999% of why people believe in gods. Pure stupidity.

[Anonymous No.6902281]

>>6902276
\thread

[Anonymous No.6902282]

I thought Max Planck was the father of Quantum physics

[Anonymous No.6902283]

>>6902276
>Werner Heisenberg is just making an argument from ignorance.
How do you know it is that, and not "all of this is so incredible and beautiful, therefore god?"

[Anonymous No.6902285]

>>6902283
>all of this is so incredible and beautiful, therefore god
Which is an argument from ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6902289]

>>6902283
You just rephrasing the argument from ignorance.

You observe "beautiful things", and have no explanation for their supposed "beauty", so it must be god. ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE!

[Anonymous No.6902290]

I don't think that's a real quote.

[Anonymous No.6902292]

>>6902265
esoteric enlightenment, which will happen if you dig deep enough in quantum mechanics.
most Quantum mechanic teachers are wizards.

[Anonymous No.6902295]

>>6902265
Nothing. All physicists are required to take Quantum Mechanics in undergrad. It is a core part of physics. Yet, the overwhelm majority of physicists don't believe in god.

Heisenberg is just straight using the argument from ignorance to invoke "god", aka his reasoning is in error.

[Anonymous No.6902296]

>>6902292
2/10

I keked

[Anonymous No.6902299]

>>6902276
Your problem is assuming Heisenberg is making an argument. He's not. He's not a retarded faggot trying to "prove" or "disprove" God over the internetz, he's simply expressing a feeling of near-mystical amazement at the wonders of the Universe.

I'm assuming that quote is well-attributed of course.

[Anonymous No.6902303]

>>6902296
really?
Visit the your professor in his house, and I'll bet he has esoteric books in his home office.

[Anonymous No.6902305]

>>6902285
>>6902289
I guess it would be more what Wikipedia calls "Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination," but anyway, it's probably more what >>6902299 said in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6902310]

>>6902303
One of my professor has a differential variety in his office. Spooky shit.

[Anonymous No.6902317]

>>6902265

I'm no religious person, and stand at an entirely neutral standpoint on the matter, but through my own as well as formal education in the sciences, I've run into things that have just amazed me in how complex, perfect and humbling they are, and they've made me have the inkling of a thought suggesting that this all can't be coincidence and that it was some sort of intelligent design. Things like the complexity of biological life or quantum mechanics or even the enormity of the universe and our miniscule role in it are some examples of things that make me feel that way. I hope that makes sense, like Heisenberg was working on such a beautiful new theory that left him feeling like there's gotta be more to it than "it's just how it is".

But still, I sit in a neutral position on the whole matter as there really isn't any good argument for or against.

[Anonymous No.6902319]

>>6902265
I took QM long ago. While researching independently, we found out that Heisenberg believed in magic (aka god). It was a huge shock to us students!

How could someone so smart, fall for such obvious bullshit? We asked the professor about it. He ended up doing a 30minute lecture on the tragedies of indoctrination and religion. He made it explicitly clear that even the smartest person could be brainwashed into bullshit if they stopped thinking critically or became dogmatic.

He also went over the argument from ignorance, and exactly how/why Heisenberg (+ a few other prominent scientists of the past) became trapped in objectively fallacious reasoning. It was very enlightening.

We went into that class thinking Heisenberg was a dumbass, but left feeling very sorry for him and religious people in general. Religion is like fucking disease, it rots your brain and destroys you reasoning ability. Every time I see religious people now, I feel great pitty. Poor guys.

[Anonymous No.6902324]

>>6902319
[Fedora reaching critical mass]

[Anonymous No.6902328]

>>6902317
>describing the argument from ignorance

Yes, Heisenberg committed it. You felt it griping you, but you didn't go down that path (good for you). It is still objectively fallacious reasoning though. It is still shit.

>isn't a good argument against magic/god

Null hypothesis would like a word with you

[Anonymous No.6902337]

>>6902328
"Magic was seen as the ability to make things happen by indirect means. With this definition, many things become technically magic, including all electronics, or mechanical devices. However, the concept ultimately begins with language."

sauce: http://www.queenannemasoniclodge.com/mystery-traditions/egyptian-mysticism/#

[Anonymous No.6902339]

>>6902324
>implying that isn't a typical physicist story

The overwhelming majority of physicists are atheist/agnostic. The numbers are so high, that it is odd when one is not an atheist/agnostic. And typically, they don't even give a shit about religion or religious debate. Magical beliefs just seem childish to them.

[Anonymous No.6902340]

>>6902337
>gives some obscure ancient definition of magic

HUH? Are you okay? Who gives a shit how ancient Egyptians defined magic? It has no relevance to anything here.

[Anonymous No.6902341]

>>6902337
Did you post in the wrong thread?

[Anonymous No.6902343]

>>6902319
>physics class where they scientifically and logically go over the nonsense of religion

Are you me?

[Anonymous No.6902344]

>>6902340
Freemasons do, and they are still in control, so who are you again?

[Anonymous No.6902345]

>>6902265
AFAIK most quantum people don't believe in god.

Everyone is free to believe whatever he likes, I doubt Heisenberg went to Church though.

[Anonymous No.6902351]

>>6902319
>nailed it bro

[Anonymous No.6902354]

>>6902344
>some small and semi-powerful sect of society uses ancient definitions of words

Again, who gives a shit? Are you mentally retarded? Slow? Honestly, are you?

[Anonymous No.6902356]

>>6902319
\thread

[Anonymous No.6902367]

>>6902305
The argument from incredulity is a type argument from ignorance. So is what >>6902299 is talking about. "Unexplainable near-mystical amazement at the wonders of the Universe, implies god", is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

>>6902299
>Heisenberg didn't make an argument
>Heisenberg made the argument from ignorance

Nice contradiction son

[Anonymous No.6902373]

>Heisenberg in every fucking thread

How do I the breaking bad images emergin in my mind whenever I hear this name ?

[Anonymous No.6902376]

>>6902373
*stop

[Anonymous No.6902402]

>>6902276
>if only people were as smart as me then they would see the light, or rather the lack of light, and be atheists like me

>DONT CALL ME EDGY YOU STUPID CHRISTFAGS
>LEARN TO SCIANCE

[Anonymous No.6902414]

http://godfatherpolitics.com/17487/10-highest-iqs-least-8-theists-least-6-christians/

[Anonymous No.6902422]

>>6902354
>://www.queenannemasoniclodge.com/mystery-traditions/egyptian-mysticism/#

that small sect houses 90 % of the worlds royalty, 85 % of the worlds stockholders and 95 % of the worlds mayor universities.
who gives a fuck?
all those that want a career with a high profile.

[Anonymous No.6902429]

I don't know. Quantum mechanics more than anything has shaken my faith in logic. Not full on Christfaggotry that would be stupid of course but QM is just too bizarre to explain in a coherent, rational way.

[Anonymous No.6902430]

>>6902265
It's like every other reason people believe in god: they don't understand it.
I wonder if maybe it's on purpose that everybody supports the most mystical explanations of QM. As an excuse to believe whacky shit.

[Anonymous No.6902433]

>>6902422
Get the fuck out of /sci/, retard.

[Anonymous No.6902435]

I was sitting on the couch drinking a beer and I thought fuck her right in the pussy.

[Anonymous No.6902446]

>>6902402
>implying I ever mentioned atheism
>implying I wasn't just objecting to fallacious reasoning

The argument form ignorance is objectively shit. This isn't a controversial statement. It is fucking fact. I am sorry if this hurts your feelings or goes against your shitty belief in magic. But reality isn't based on your fucking "feels", so grow up.

>Seriously

Yes, he is serious in the quote. And yes, religion generally discourages critical thought. That is also not a controversial statement. Religion by definition is dogmatic. It is in the fucking definition! Generally, people who question their religion or try to use critical thinking concerning it, leave their religion. That is why most religious people actually don't know jack shit about their religion and refuse to learn.

[Anonymous No.6902447]

>>6902433

>What is it about Quantum Mechanics that lets people believe in god?

so I gave an answer, and you just can stand that.

[Anonymous No.6902450]

>>6902422
You are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.6902453]

>>6902429
>QM is just too bizarre to explain in a coherent, rational way

Except for the fact that is has been explained in a coherent and rational way for over 50 fucking years! You should pick up a QM textbook.

[Anonymous No.6902459]

>>6902265
Dude, anyone with half a brain understands that science can make no arguments for or against the existence of anything "beyond the material plane".

[Anonymous No.6902465]

>>6902450
an what makes you an expert on that?

you can't even seem to use language well enough to backup you claim about me, hell, you don't even know who or what I am.

[Anonymous No.6902468]

>>6902265
>What is it about Quantum Mechanics that lets people believe in god?

That's the wrong question to ask:

>What is it about the beginnings of Quantum Mechanics studies that tricks people in believing atheism?

Because the initial mathematics appears so <span class="math">ugly[/spoiler] that there couldn't be intelligence architecting it. After you learn enough material, you discover quantum mechanics is actually quite natural.

Blame the Copenhagen and "shut up and calculate" crowd for refusing to cover QM in a more logically beautiful manner.

[Anonymous No.6902474]

>>6902468
Way too much mathematical bullshit in modern physics.

>muuh vectors and planes
>muh math

get fucking rekt, faggots. I can explain shit without stupid as fuck logic bending deductions.

[Anonymous No.6902476]

>>6902468
This.
Once you see how classical and quantum field theories are related (the key word here is factorization algebras) it is super natural.

[Anonymous No.6902478]

>>6902422
>some small and semi-powerful sect of society uses ancient definitions of words

Again, for the third time, who gives a shit? You are you mentally retarded? Right? The weird shit you say (even it it were true) has no fucking relevance to anything in this thread.

[Anonymous No.6902484]

>>6902459
Lack of evidence is evidence of absence, despite what Denzel will have you believe. The simple fact that we can't measure something speaks to it's incoherence as an existent thing.

[Anonymous No.6902486]

>>6902478
sweet dreams, dumbo

[Anonymous No.6902487]

>>6902476
>>6902468
>>6902474

>MUU Math is supernatural

Nice argument from ignorance bros. Also, it is clear you know nothing of quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.6902488]

>>6902474
>their is too much math in physics

[Anonymous No.6902489]

>>6902487
>it's complicated
>therefore no god

Nice argument from ignorance bro. Also, it is clear you know nothing of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.6902490]

>>6902276
>arguing shit about heisenberg you can't possibly know without knowing heisenberg yourself
You're making your own argument from ignorance you spastic.

[Anonymous No.6902491]

>>6902468
>vectors and planes in modern physics

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Where you getting your modern physics from? 1660?

[Anonymous No.6902494]

>>6902476
>"factorization algebras" are super natural

[Anonymous No.6902499]

>>6902490
>implying Heisenberg religious views (and bullshit reasoning for them) are not well recorded and often used in class discussion

see >>6902319

[Anonymous No.6902503]

>>6902474
>too much mathematical bullshit in modern physics.
You're a fucking idiot. Physics is mathematical models for real life systems, backed up with experimental evidence from those systems. What did you think it was?

[Anonymous No.6902507]

>>6902484
>The simple fact that we can't measure something speaks to it's incoherence as an existent thing.
Yeah, dark matter and dark energy are certainly nonexistant.

[Anonymous No.6902511]

>>6902319
You're so cool I wish I was you. Your lecturer sounds like a great guy.

[Anonymous No.6902514]

>>6902446
>And yes, religion generally discourages critical thought
>That is also not a controversial statement

That's a straw man and incorrect. The only "religions" that discourage critical thought are cults.

>people who question their religion or try to use critical thinking concerning it, leave their religion

... and join Catholicism.

>That is why most religious people actually don't know jack shit about their religion and refuse to learn

I agree that is a major problem and inexcusable in this day and age. And it also applies to atheists.

[Anonymous No.6902517]

>>6902489
>laughably not understanding the argument from ignorance

Saying A->B is false, doesn't mean A->~B .
You are reaching critical POE.

[Anonymous No.6902518]

>>6902507
The reason we know dark matter and dark energy exist is ONLY because we measured them you fucking ignorant twat. Get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.6902520]

>>6902518
>is ONLY because we measured them
Wow, you actually think this? Pick up a book once in a while. You cannot measure dark energy or dark matter, that's the fucking point. There's just the process of observing an effect, say gravitational lensing, and not seeing the cause (in this case an invisible mass). Now, we attribute that lensing to dark matter. We have not observed dark matter, just introduced it so the evidence fits the model.

[Anonymous No.6902522]

>>6902514
Catholicism is a cult. It's just big.

[Anonymous No.6902524]

>>6902491

>mechanics are not just derivations and concepts using descartes' analytical geometry and other math fields methods.

>>6902503

>1 second interval AKA muuh planck time model can actually describe what happens in nature when time passes
>torque, acceleration, rest velocity and other parts of physics actually describe the natural phenomena and arent just made up concepts using the axiomatic solutions of vector calculus.

Come at me again when you know what you're talking about, underage babby.

[Anonymous No.6902525]

>>6902468
>>6902474
>>6902476
>Wondrous math implies magic

Changing from "wondrous nature" to "wondrous math" is still the argument from ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6902528]

Is it really that common that people study QM and become theists? It's not in my degree but I'll have an option to study it as an elective next year. Still not sure if I'll do it or mechatronics.

[Anonymous No.6902531]

>>6902524
cont.

>quantum mechanics, gr and sr are not just abstract extensions to explain problems created by alredy erroneous concepts.

[Anonymous No.6902532]

>>6902520
>You cannot measure dark energy or dark matter, that's the fucking point. There's just the process of observing an effect, say gravitational lensing, and not seeing the cause (in this case an invisible mass).
OBSERVING AN EFFECT IS MEASUREMENT YOU FUCKING RETARD. This is like saying we don't measure mass, we just observe it's gravitational effects. Dark energy/matter is measured through gravitational effects. Not being able to see dark matter doesn't mean we can't measure it. Dark matter/energy is simply defined as the cause of this effect.

[Anonymous No.6902533]

>>6902503
>Physics is mathematical models for real life systems, backed up with experimental evidence from those systems

No shit! That is exactly what modern physics is RIGHT FUCKING NOW with all that fucking math! Their isn't "extra math" for "math sake"

Do you even know what modern physics is?

[Anonymous No.6902534]

>>6902532
Sorry, my bad. I didn't realise seeing something happen and introducing a magical, unobservable entity to explain something was totally measuring it and totally not religion.

[Anonymous No.6902535]

>>6902517
>not knowing logic
>still claiming intellectual superiority

god -> it's beautiful
and
it's ugly -> no god

are the same statement

[Anonymous No.6902539]

>>6902534
>air is "unobservable" therefore it's magic and like god
Holy shit, thank you for once again showing how stupid religious people are

[Anonymous No.6902541]

>>6902276
Here we have a father of quantum physics saying this and then a random troll in 4 chan talking about ignorance and stupidity and explains 99.99% of religion in one sentence, okay

[Anonymous No.6902544]

>>6902524
>>6902531

>incoherent gibberish

You aren't saying anything. You are just throwing out physics buzzwords in random order. Badly. Fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.6902547]

>>6902539
>implying I said that
Nigger I know what fucking observation is, its you who obviously doesn't. I'm not some retard saying "I can't see it with my eyes" but god damn, dark matter does nothing except "gravity". To you that's acceptable, because for some reason introducing a new thing to the universe with a single purpose to explain why your observations don't fit your model is fine and totally not like religion.

[Anonymous No.6902549]

>>6902541
>appeal to authority fallacy

Nice fallacy faggot.

[Anonymous No.6902550]

>>6902547
>I'm not some retard saying "I can't see it with my eyes" but god damn, dark matter does nothing except "gravity".
So?

>To you that's acceptable, because for some reason introducing a new thing to the universe with a single purpose to explain why your observations don't fit your model is fine and totally not like religion.
Oh my god, they changed the model to account for new data! This is obviously sham science and analogous to religion!

Kill yourself please. This is the science board. You have a creationist's view of science.

[Anonymous No.6902558]

>>6902550
>Oh my god, they changed the model to account for new data!
They didn't change the model though did they? They simply said "here must be an invisible force doing the work".

It's like me saying the planets are being pulled on invisible chariots because I can't see any other forces pulling them. So it must be an invisible chariot. Obviously. In the same way there's invisible clouds making gravity.

Changing the model is saying gravity is wrong, not saying "there's a new thing that makes the gravity where our model says there is none."

[Anonymous No.6902563]

>>6902535
>no grasp of basic logic

Your cute

[Anonymous No.6902564]

>>6902544
It makes perfect sense. I guess you just don't have enough understanding of the way current physics are.

[Anonymous No.6902569]

The argument is basically God is powerful enough to create the universe we're beginning to understand.

there is no way you can invalidate eachother, get over it.

[Anonymous No.6902577]

>>6902319
>dat bait

[Anonymous No.6902586]

>>6902339
>The overwhelming majority of physicists are atheist/agnostic. The numbers are so high, that it is odd when one is not an atheist/agnostic

Look at me mom, I pulled statistics out of my ass!

[Anonymous No.6902587]

>>6902265
severe autism

[Anonymous No.6902597]

>>6902520
That's what measurement is...

[Anonymous No.6902604]

>>6902534
>Straw manning so hard
Where did the guy you responded to say anything about a magical unobservable etc?

[Anonymous No.6902610]

nothing

[Anonymous No.6902613]

>>6902586
Larson and Witham, Leading Scientists Still Reject God, Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998)

[Anonymous No.6902615]

>>6902558
>they didn't change the model did they

You just confirmed you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Of course they changed the models! They got new data, and they change the models based on that. That is how science works.

Changing the model doesn't mean gravity is wrong. It means that model is incomplete. Gravity is the observed phenomena, it exists, how we model it is what changes. Gravity isn't the model. Going from Newtonian to GR models, didn't change "gravity". The cosmology constant in the Einstein Field equations incorporates the dark energy and cold dark matter. While the hot dark matter (aka neutrinos) were incorporated into the standard model of particle physics. We have fully incorporated all this shit. And all this shit happened many many decades ago.

So, fuck off with your religious ignorance. You are the reason people thing religious people are fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.6902622]

>>6902520
>we cannot measure dark matter

Neutrinos would like a word with you. Where do you get your science from? 1600?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector

[Anonymous No.6902628]

>>6902339
That's because the majority are technicians, not pioneers. They're tinkering with established ideas, they barely grasp the bigger scope much less contemplate it, unlike Heisenberg and Planck.

[Anonymous No.6902629]

>>6902265
It's been said many many time already, but no, nothing in quantum mechanics lets people "believe in god".

Heisenberg's belief in god was based on the argument from ignorance (aka bad reasoning), not science, not logic, not quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.6902630]

>>>6902484
>The simple fact that we can't measure something speaks to it's incoherence as an existent thing
>>6902532
>OBSERVING AN EFFECT IS MEASUREMENT YOU FUCKING RETARD

And by your own logic you must admit there IS evidence for god as there have been millions who have observed apparitions that recorded them on film.

[Anonymous No.6902641]

>>6902534
Nothing particularly magical about dark matter. Judging by its apparent properties, it is far more boring than regular matter. Believe it or not, sometimes introducing a simple substance is actually the more parsimonious way to explain observations.

[dish !!G4mNjBWYYji No.6902646]

>>6902265
Handwaving.

[Anonymous No.6902647]

>>6902628
>grasping at the "bigger scopes" turns objectivity shitty logic in good logic

WUT? I know your trolling, but at least try kid. The argument from ignorance isn't a "science" thing. It is a basic logic thing.

[Anonymous No.6902654]

>>6902630
>there IS evidence for god as there have been millions who have observed apparitions that recorded them on film

1) /x/------------->
2) Even "if" we did have all that footage, it would only be evidence of that apparitions exist, not god

You have made yet another.....ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE Unexplained apparitions, don't imply god exist.

Jesus Fucking Christ, it's true, all you religious people do is use the Argument from ignorance. Just like Heisenberg did. Shitty.

[Anonymous No.6902661]

>>6902622
>unironically posting Neil 'SmokeLeGrasse' Tyson
Back to leddit

[Anonymous No.6902664]

>>6902514
>and join Catholicism
agenda much

[Anonymous No.6902674]

>>6902654
>contradictory evidence
>pretend it doesn't exist

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false"

If anyone is making an argument from ignorance, it is you.

[Anonymous No.6902683]

>>6902514
>only cults discourage critical thinking

Do the Jews, Christans, and Muslims, know their religions are cults?

I'll just going to leave this here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

[Anonymous No.6902692]

>>6902265
>Pic Related

"Science makes you think a man was carried around from city to city in the belly of a big fish."

"Science makes you believe that a man was nailed to a cross, dead for three days, then rose from the dead again"

Or do you suspect, perhaps, he meant something different?

[Anonymous No.6902696]

>>6902683
Science flourished under all three of those religions

[Anonymous No.6902707]

>>6902647
>objectivity shitty logic in good logic
Let's hear your reasoning, genius

[Anonymous No.6902709]

>>6902696
oh, you seem to have mistyped "in spite of"

[Anonymous No.6902711]

>>6902535

Let "G" be the existence of a deity
Let "B" be the existence of beauty

The original claim: <span class="math">"B" \Rightarrow "G"[/spoiler]

This post:
>>6902487
Is this claim: <span class="math">"B" \not \Rightarrow "G"[/spoiler]

To which these posts:
>>6902489
>>6902535

Claim that

<span class="math">"B" \not \Rightarrow "G"[/spoiler]

means the same as

<span class="math">\not "B" \Rightarrow \not"G"[/spoiler]

Which means they are posts written by retards.

[Anonymous No.6902713]

>>6902265

God has always existed beyond the point where our understanding stops. Special relativity is relatable to common sense, and quite limited in scope. Whereas the most popular and well known examples of the seemingly quirky nature of QM is ideal for the religious.

You don't really have to go any further than the basic well-known double slit experiment, and the famous discovery of what observation does to the behavior of electrons, to find an easy target for the religious mind. To the public masses, QM represents knowledge that is forbidden from us, and we can actually see and perceive how forbidden it is, by observing it.

I know several religious friends who are convinced that's among the most blatantly obvious examples of God's presence. That's not to say that I agree with them in the least, but in a way I suppose I can understand why the people who are easily fooled into believing in immortal and omnipotent white bearded men watching you masturbate, would find themselves in awe by something like that.

[Anonymous No.6902721]

>>6902683
>implying Galileo affair had anything to do with stopping the theory
>implying Galileo didn't get permission to study heliocentrism from the pope
>implying Galileo could prove heliocentrism over geoheliocentrism/tychonic system
>implying declaring something a heresy prevents one from studying and evaluating it

[Anonymous No.6902737]

>>6902711
>The original claim is B->G

No, it's B <- G as a God would create the world in a beautiful manner but beautiful world may be a coincidence.

>>6902487's claim is "I see no evidence that the world is beautiful, therefore it isn't" by an argument from ignorance and then implies the nonexistence of god.

[Anonymous No.6902738]

>>6902737
>assuming god for no reason
>a God would create the world in a beautiful manner
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6902748]

>>6902683
Have you ever actually studied the history of science or are you just parroting New Atheism talking points?

The relationship between religion and science isn't so black and white. If you think Galileo's trial and the heliocentrism debate was strictly about science and theology, you've got a very naive grasp of history. Educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.6902750]

>>6902737
>No, it's B <- G as a God would create the world in a beautiful manner but beautiful world may be a coincidence.

>Sees beautiful world
>Concludes God
>"No, no, it totally goes God->Beauty, not the other way!

You're not fooling anybody. Also, "Depends on the God." Is this the one who made people, and then made a rule they had to cut the tip of their D off?

>>>6902487's
>claim is "I see no evidence that the world is beautiful, therefore it isn't" by an argument from ignorance and then implies the nonexistence of god.

No. He is saying that there is an argument from ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6902751]

>>6902674
>implying I didn't say "recorded evidence of ghosts, would be evidence for ghosts"

Evidence for ghosts, is evidence for ghosts! DUHH! Not for gods, not for vampires, not for leprechauns, not for aliens, only for ghosts.

The reason you are making the argument from ignorance (argument from incredulity), is because you are jumping from "I can't explain ghosts" to "It must be magic/god". That isn't valid kid. There is nothing that inherently connects the "ghosts existing" to your "god". A "god exists" and "only ghost exits if that god exists", are two separate claims that you need to justify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

Maybe the ghosts came from aliens or are aliens, maybe from vampires, maybe from time travelers, maybe they are another weird species we never discovered, maybe from whatever! There are a million fucking explanations we could think of! You don't fucking get to just assume which one is correct. You have to prove or demonstrate the cause! You have to prove the connection!

Your fallacy; the argument from ignorance (incredulity) is the fundamental problem here. It is what most religious people do to justify their bullshit and what Heisenberg did as well. It is objectively shit and demonstrably bad reasoning.

[Anonymous No.6902753]

>>6902738
>>assuming god for no reason

Proofs go "Assume P, therefore Q" but they do not assert that P is necessarily true.

>>a God would create the world in a beautiful manner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

[Anonymous No.6902759]

>>6902753
Except that your P has literally nothing to do with your Q.

Omniscience has jackshit to do with whether or not a deity would create a "beautiful world."

[Anonymous No.6902767]

>>6902751
>ghost

Stop pulling shit out of your ass. No one brought up ghosts.

[Anonymous No.6902777]

>>6902711
Yes, >>6902489 and >>6902535 are posts written by literal retards.

[Anonymous No.6902786]

>>6902767
>implying ghost and apparition aren't synonyms

So you don't understand words?
You are really dumb. Replace ghost with apparition if it gets your panties out of a bunch. The post stands either way.

[Anonymous No.6902799]

>>6902751
>There is nothing that inherently connects the "ghosts existing" to your "god"

The Virgin Mary appearing upon a church to a million eye witnesses including muhammadans, atheists, and even President Nasser followed by numerous healing is not the same as just seeing a ghost with no connection to god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVU8bhbQInw

[Anonymous No.6902815]

>>6902737
>>6902753
1) That isn't how proofs go. That is how a conditional goes! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

2) It still needs to be proved dip-shit! You need to prove that P is true (else you are just talking about hypothetical).
And you need to prove that P->Q, aka
That is you need to demonstrate:
(P=true, Q=true) is a true statement
(P=true, Q=false) is false statement
(P=false, Q=true) is true statement
(P=false, Q=true) is true statement

3) That isn't what you are doing anyhow.

>a God would create the world in a beautiful manner
Your P = god (or some aspect of god)
Your Q = a beautiful world
What you are doing is saying Q is true so then P is true! That is Q->P. It is nonsensical!

4) You're a fucking idiot!!!! Read a goddam book.

[Anonymous No.6902828]

>>6902815
>else you are just talking about hypothetical

Welcome to mathematics

[Anonymous No.6902831]

>>6902815
Fuck you bitch

[Anonymous No.6902837]

>>6902815
>truth table
>CS majors trying to describe math

top kek

[Anonymous No.6902853]

Realize that there are no differences in the universe; that we are all truely one thing and whatever makes quantum physics project itself in the way that I get to experience it, I call it god. There are so many other possible realities that the quantum level can depict, but it randomly gave me this one where I can eat sweet fruit and bang tight boosie every night- it's awesome! So shut the fuck up, athiest bitches! You don't even know the bottom of the glass like me bitch.

[Anonymous No.6902857]

>>6902815
>What you are doing is saying Q is true so then P is true! That is Q->P. It is nonsensical!

That's not the argument. You're just forcing that straw-man over and over again since you can't do anything with the actual argument.

The argument is:
>After you learn enough material, you discover quantum mechanics is actually quite natural
>Once you see how classical and quantum field theories are related it is super natural.

Which is just a statement that world is consistent with creation by god. Which goes back to OP which paraphrased is "at first you'll find it inconsistent with creation by god (make you an atheist) but at the end you will find that it was consistent all along"

[Anonymous No.6902859]

>>6902799
>More shit logic
>video for gullible morons

Even if (it didn't happen) a ghost looking like the supposed "virgin Mary" appeared. That isn't proof that that ghost is the virgin mary or that god exists. You are still using the argument from ignorance to leap to conclusions.

There are still a million ways we could explain that phenomena without god. Actually, there are infinite way to explain that shit, since we get to invoke magic or whatever nonsense we want without justification. That is what you are doing with god, you are just assuming god is the only answer! You don't get to assume that! Me saying it is the work of magic unicorns, would be just as valid (that is not valid as all), as your claim that god did it! You need to prove the unicorn or god exists, and that they are connection to the event! We can't just assume all that shit is true! You are still making the same mistake, over an over again.

ARGUMENT FORM IGNORANCE!

And the fact that you believe such stupid videos means you gullible as fuck. Please take your retardation back to /x/-------------->

[Anonymous No.6902867]

>>6902753
Did you learn logic from a monkey with down syndrome? I mean what the hold fuck are you doing? It's gibberish.

[Anonymous No.6902878]

>>6902859
>Even if (it didn't happen)

1,000,000+ witnesses, photos, and television recordings never happened because "reasons". Clearly...

>>There are still a million ways we could explain that phenomena
>You can't disprove all of them in your lifetime
>therefore it's wrong without proving a single one of those other explanations

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE!

[Anonymous No.6902885]

In pantheism, God is the universe itself.

[Anonymous No.6902896]

Atheist isn't even spelled correctly in the picture..

inb4 written by religious derp

[Anonymous No.6902921]

>>6902402
Posting the exception not the rule
>people actually think this was

[Anonymous No.6902924]

>>6902885
Okay pantheist jim,
what happened before god and before godgodgod's gods, god

[Anonymous No.6902925]

>>6902867
It's the standard formula of writing proofs:

Statement: If G is a group of order greater than 1, then it has a proper subgroup.
Proof: Assume G is a group of order greater than 1, then the group formed by the identity element of G is a subgroup with order 1. QED.

P = G is a group of order greater than 1
Q = G has a proper subgroup
"P->Q" is the statement
"Assume P, . . . . . , therefore Q." is the proof

G could be the empty set for all we know but if it was indeed a group of order(G)>1, then it has a proper subgroup.

[Anonymous No.6902928]

>>6902878
Not that guy but an argument from ignorance would be that flashes of light are the Virgin Mary because there is no other explanation or evidence against it being the Virgin Mary. Skepticism cannot by definition be an argument from ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6902960]

I always wanted to post this

[Anonymous No.6902968]

>>6902928
>Skepticism cannot by definition be an argument from ignorance

No, he's going farther and saying it isn't true.

>"Argument from ignorance
>It asserts that a proposition is true (not Mary) because it has not yet been proven false (proven not anything else isn't the cause)

He's asserting that because you haven't shown it "beyond the shadow of a doubt", it's false which is a form of argument from ignorance.

Nearly everything is only proved to beyond reasonable doubt and never beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[Anonymous No.6902977]

Instead of making my own thread and shitting up the board, I'll ask here

>want to understand quantum mechanics
>ultimately don't want to do a physics undergrad
>deep, deep down know I love math and want to do math undergrad
>want to be a career student, willing to spend 10+ years studying math before I even have a career

is this unreasonable to want to do this, /sci/ ? I don't objectively consider myself an intelligent person. My life so far is the product of cumulative, incredibly stupid mistakes and time wasting. However, I'm capable of understanding the math I'm teaching myself and I don't logically see a point where I am patently incapable of getting to next step so why not try to get as any steps as possible ?

My doubt comes from browsing /sci/ and trying to understand the general ideas of advanced mathematical concepts far down the road. The complexity of it intimidates me but also motivates me. I don't care if I achieve anything more with 10+ years of math than simply getting beyond peon, wage slave-tier stuff as long as I can revel in my potential understanding.

[Anonymous No.6902978]

>>6902968
>He's asserting that because you haven't shown it "beyond the shadow of a doubt", it's false which is a form of argument from ignorance.
Where did he argue that? And it has nothing to do with an argument from ignorance anyway. All I saw was an argument against believing extraordinary claims with alternative explanations. That's skepticism.

[Anonymous No.6902989]

>>6902857
>Which is just a statement that the world is consistent with creation by god.

"A" being consistent with "B", doesn't imply "B" or "A" is true (or even sensical). Your two statements are "consistent" with creation of our universe by aliens, or magic unicorns, or super impressive vampires, or __insert fantasy here__. They are also consistent with just certain aspects of the universe being created by super-powerful time traveling cat monsters manually producing quantum mechanics to mess with with us! In fact, we can go forever with consistent explanations that are just as valid as your silly god. Consistency don't make them true, or provide a good reason to believe them.

Plus, you don't actually know that your statements are consistent with actual gods existing. We don't have observations of gods creating worlds and we don't have observations of worlds appearing without gods. No data! So we don't know the difference or what each case would look like. All you have are your blind assertions, which also assume certain aspect of god, without any justification. Gods could exist, but cannot create worlds, right? Yet, another possibility, that is just as valid as your unjustified "gods create worlds" assertion. And if you blindly assert that "all worlds must come from god", or "things can't exist without god", you are assuming what you are trying to imply, the logical fallacy of circular logic.

There are no good argument for gods or magic. None. Try as hard as you want, but all you are going to do is run into dead ends and logical fallacies. That is why they invented the term "faith", because they knew that magic worship was not logically, reasonably, or scientifically valid. Hence, they just believe off "feels" like a retarded prepubescent child.

[Anonymous No.6902991]

>>6902978
>Where did he argue that

>(it didn't happen)
>the fact that you believe such stupid videos means you gullible as fuck. Please take your retardation back to /x/

I'd say that's far stronger than skepticism.

[Anonymous No.6902994]

>>6902991
>(it didn't happen)
That's not an argument, it's a claim. Surely you understand the difference? Surely you weren't just making up his argument to go with the claim?

[Anonymous No.6903000]

>>6902878
>still no idea what the argument from ignorance is

Are you even trying? Do you like being retarded?

[Anonymous No.6903006]

>>6902989
>"A" being consistent with "B", doesn't imply "B" or "A" is true

More phony straw-man arguments. That was never implied.

>worship was not logically, reasonably, or scientifically valid

There are no good argument for atheism. None. Try as hard as you want, but all you are going to do is run into dead ends and logical fallacies. Philosophy has shown that both the existence or nonexistence of god is independent of logic and science.

[Anonymous No.6903010]

>>6902683
>mfw Galileo is one paragraph on one page in one book in the library that is the Catholic Church's long and supportive history with science
>mfw atheists can't shut the fuck up about him

[Anonymous No.6903012]

>>6903006
Scientific skepticism and Occam's Razor.

[Anonymous No.6903016]

>>6903010
>long and supportive history with science

I think "usually deciding not to kill me" is not the same thing as "supporting" me.

[Anonymous No.6903022]

>>6902968
>implying I said it isn't true

I said, "it is false, that the "sighting" implies god exists".

I didn't say, "the sighting implies god doesn't exist".

Why don't religious people understand basic logic? Stop being retarded! You are the reason people think religion people are morons. ~(P->Q) is not the same as (P->~Q). Religion has fucked up your brain.

[Anonymous No.6903028]

>>6903010
Imagine what all those Christian scientists could have achieved if they weren't wasting all that time in church sucking the Pope's wrinkled cock.

[Anonymous No.6903029]

>>6902977

you're already too stupid to try math. Maybe spend those ten years on mechanical engineering instead

[Anonymous No.6903031]

>>6903006
>no good argument for atheism

The null hypothesis would like a word with you

[Anonymous No.6903033]

>>6902994
I'm not proving the existence of god. He's saying the evidence is wrong because of his skepticism which no longer is skepticism. I'm calling him out on that for rejecting it by appeal to ignorance. I am in no way implying that lack of disproof of the evidence fully proves god.

[Anonymous No.6903041]

>>6903031
>In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena
>statistical inference between two measured phenomena

irrelevant

[Anonymous No.6903043]

>>6902924
strange question.

Before nature..?
Nature just is and was and will always be, maybe in a form we are familiar with, and maybe in a form we will never understand, but the good part is, you don't need to know to be happy, you should just enjoy it.

Whatever you quest is, you asking questions that will not help you.
Why don't you just focus and your own life? How to become happy,
how to enjoy life with millions of cash to spend, like all other animals?

You humans fight over who is right, such a waist of energy and time.
Learn to accept each other. There in lies true riches.

But if you don't need others, by all means, sign in for a trip to Mars and stay there. Maybe you could bring back some rock that will help us do...?
Or find life to do what... ... make us sick.

[Anonymous No.6903044]

>>6903041
Oh my god, he can google. I'm so proud of you anon, you actually learned something today!

[Anonymous No.6903049]

>>6903016
>le unsubstantiated accusations meme
Ebin

[Anonymous No.6903059]

>>6903044

Hanging out in your secret internet club again?

[Anonymous No.6903062]

>>6903006
>no good argument for atheism

Hi, let me introduce myself! My name is reality! You probably heard of me! I am literally everywhere!

But you know what isn't anywhere? Magic! In fact, it has never been observed, experienced, recorded, or anything! Could it exist? Maybe? But a lot of things "could" exist. A lot of contradictory things, so we can't believe them all. Which ones do we believe? How do we decide?

I know! How about we believe something only when we have evidence and reason to believe it! Reasoning! Evidence! Yeah! I know, sound like a great plan! Welcome home! Glad you finally came back to reality!

[Anonymous No.6903067]

>>6903062
>something came from nothing guies I swear

>n-n-no you believe in magic stupid christfags

[Anonymous No.6903070]

>>6902989
>not logically, reasonably, or scientifically valid

[citation needed]

>but muh opinion can't be wrong

[Anonymous No.6903079]

>>6903067
>something came from nothing
This Christfag gem never gets old

[Anonymous No.6903080]

>>6903062
You won't recognize magick if pulled down your pence and started to jurk you off.
Do you even know the origin or the meaning of magick?

[Anonymous No.6903081]

>>6903062
>A lot of contradictory things, so we can't believe them all. Which ones do we believe? How do we decide?
A false ghost disproves the reality of ghosts just as a forged banknote disproves the reality of the Federal Reserve.

>I know! How about we believe something only when we have evidence and reason to believe it
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[Anonymous No.6903083]

>>6903062
>In fact, it has never been observed, experienced, recorded, or anything

100% False.

[Anonymous No.6903086]

>>6903079
>I have no argument

[Anonymous No.6903098]

>>6903086
Yes we already know you have no argument. You've obviously been reading too much Ken Ham if you think atheists believe "the universe came from nothing."

[Anonymous No.6903110]

>science board
>bunch of teenagers posting "fullretard.jpg" memes and brainlessly insulting each other

[Anonymous No.6903117]

>>6903041
>unable to understand the null hypothesis
>thinks it is irreverent
>doesn't understand that atheism is the null hypothesis, aka the default position the doesn't require proof

That is too cute kid. If god interacts with the universe, then it is a "phenomena" by definition. If god doesn't interact with the universe, then that god concept doesn't matter. And "statistical" could be anything. One observation could be statical if defined properly. You should not try to get hung up on the words, and actually try to understand the point. The wiki article is obviously to complicated for you.

Here is a one for children. You might understand it better. It still may be too complicated though, so look around. I am not sure if you are in high school or middle school or what. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Let me know if you have questions!

[Anonymous No.6903133]

>>6903067
>implying he ever said that

How do you get "something came from nothing" from someone saying "we shouldn't believe things without reason or evidence"? Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.6903157]

>>6903133
>not understanding my point

[Anonymous No.6903173]

>mfw fedoratards on /sci/ think they can shake my faith in a Creator deity
>mfw fedoratards on /sci/ think they are superior to the easy targets they pick on and the strawmans they argue against in any way
>mfw fedoratards on /sci/

[Anonymous No.6903214]

>>6903157
Is your point to look like an ignorant retard

[Anonymous No.6903223]

>>6903081

That analogy is retarded and you know it the fuck is a false ghost? How do you even define a false ghost? Why are you being intellectually dishonest? If you insist on being pointlessly pedantic how about the claim that only one ghost exists wouldn't that be in direct contradiction of the idea that multiple ghosts exist?

[Anonymous No.6903230]

>>6903223
>he focused on the ghost part instead of actually acknowledging his point

Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6903236]

>>6903214

Learn a new word.

[Anonymous No.6903238]

>>6903117
>If god interacts with the universe, then it is a "phenomena" by definition. If god doesn't interact with the universe, then that god concept doesn't matter. And "statistical" could be anything. One observation could be statical if defined properly

And there is countless observation of his work, ergo God exist.

[Anonymous No.6903239]

>>6903230

If you're going to use a faulty analogy to support your argument then it degrades the validity of your argument, if you want to make a point then make it coherently or not at all.

[Anonymous No.6903243]

>>6903070
You want to know why "believing in magic" is not logically, reasonably, or scientifically valid?

Are you serious? Trolling?

1) Logic
It is not logically valid, because it is nothing but logical fallacies! You can't logic yourself from reality (you and your interactions/observations) "into" magic. Reality -> magic is invalid. There is no inherit connection. Hence, you have to prove magic actually exists first, then prove the connection.

2) Reason
But lets say we don't demonstrate magic, is the belief in it still reasonable? Hell no! Asserting "reality->x" without justification means, you can assert "reality->y" without justification. Aka the reason you have to assume god exists applies equally to Magic unicorn universe creating vampires. Such a system, where you just blindly assert the existence of things, isn't reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

3) Science
It is not scientifically valid because there is no proof or evidence that magic exist or ever existed. We no magic to observe or interact with!

This shit is really trivial guys. You are literally asking me "why shouldn't I believe in magic unicorn pixies". This isn't rocket science! You already know the fucking answer! Use your goddam brain!

[Anonymous No.6903258]

>>6903238

>If reality is real then god is real.

[Anonymous No.6903265]

ITT So much mad.

[Anonymous No.6903279]

Its mystical and impossible to explain to the layman, therefore "magic"

[Anonymous No.6903285]

>>6903238
>there is countless observations of his work

Nice argument from ignorance! That is the claim, not the proof! The claim is that god created shit. Now prove it.

And the proof isn't "nature" or "whatever" in nature. That is an blind assertion. You need to prove that that whatever actually came from your god! Not just that "whatever" exist. We already know "whatever" exists.

What you are doing is akin to saying: A beautiful stream is evidence of Thor. It isn't fucking proof of Thor! The beautiful steam is only proof of a beautiful stream. It isn't proof of magic or gods.

Do you understand how stupid you actually sound?

[Anonymous No.6903290]

>>6903243
Nice post

[Anonymous No.6903300]

>>6903238
>yet another argument from ignorance

WOW! How many objectively shit arguments have the magic worshipers made in this thread? More than 30?

[Anonymous No.6903304]

>>6903239
>he focused on one of the examples he gave as being faulty and ignored the other
>he pretends this makes him win the argument

Science and Mathematics

[Anonymous No.6903308]

>>6903258
>I reality is real then Zeus is real

Religious people are usually dumb enough to believe such laughable bad arguments.

[Anonymous No.6903337]

>>6903304
>he pretends I give a shit about his shitty argument
>he pretends I'm even the same guy he was arguing with in the first place

Step up your analogy game faggot.

[Anonymous No.6903348]

>>6903337
>he pretends I'm even the same the guy that made the analogy in the first place

Step up your reading comprehension game faggot.

[Anonymous No.6903351]

>>6903348

>he pretends he isn't the same guy that made the analogy in the first place

Step up your writing comprehension game faggot.

[Anonymous No.6903365]

They mock religion because they don't have anything to say. They claim to be for progress and free thinking but only talk about suppressing those who disagree with them. They are the atheists, long-dormant cancer to society in the bloom in the form of autistic suburban white Eurofags. Atheism is a fad cult whose followers worship Richard Dawkins instead of God. It is most notably the only religion that is self-deluded enough to claim to be backed up by science. Its followers are even more ignorant, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim Muslims, Christians, Hindoos or Jews to be. They use science as their excuse for said dogmatism, and, unfortunately, some of them truly believe their own bullshit in this regard. Ironically, atheism is the most fundamentalist religion known to man. Atheists are hypocritical enough to think that killing 5 billion theists equates to world peace, or, more precisely that as long as people don't agree with them humans still possess the ability to hurt each other.

However, there is a key difference. People who convert to Christianity do so because they want to have a more fulfilling life, or because they had a genuine religious experience. People who become atheists do so because they got picked on in high school. Rummage through an atheist's emotional baggage and you will find a pile of leftover teenage angst, a few cases of repressed rage at mommy and daddy, and an overpowering urge to feel superior wrapped around a stupendous amount of self-loathing.

[Anonymous No.6903372]

>>6902274

You could have looked it up. there are lots of videos like this:

http://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM
http://youtu.be/qB7d5V71vUE

This guy also talks with people in the comments about it.

[Anonymous No.6903378]

>>6903285
>That is the claim, not the proof

Never tried to prove, just refute "no evidence". Aren't you running out of straw?

[Anonymous No.6903380]

>>6903304
>implying he wasn't deliberately focusing on the "method"

All religions, all over the world, use the same bad arguments. They just recycle them, and change the subject matter. That guy did the "argument from ignorance" with ghosts. Other here have used the same bad argument with gods, others magic. People use that argument to believe in monsters, UFOs, and whatever crazy bullshit they want. They all making the same exact fucking mistake, but are too dumb to fucking realize it, and they each think they have a "unique special argument".

The method of how you arrive at your conclusions is the most important part. It is where people usually fuck up the most. It is the actual cause of the problem. That guys main problem wasn't that he believes in ghosts, it was that his method of reasoning was so fucked up, that he was gullible enough to believe in ghosts. Sure, we could convince him that ghost doesn't exist, but his reasoning would still be fucked up! And he might just go from idiot belief to another, with the same argument from ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6903384]

Atheists suffer from a rare, aggressive form of unwarranted self-importance, which causes them to invariably and vastly overestimate their own intelligence, in stark contrast to their more temperate peers. That is mandatory for atheists, because if they are not the omniscient geniuses of Earth, they are forced into admitting that they're not always right and they don't know everything, which would mean that they are, in fact, basing their assertions on belief, which is something no atheist can bear to admit.

Atheists have a mental commitment to let everyone know how much people shove religion down their throats. They are, of course, oblivious to the fact that if they can call themselves atheists, no religion has been forced upon them so far, thus they fail to realize that by following atheism in such a militant fashion, they are shoving their beliefs down everyone's throats far more than they accuse others of doing.

In fact, atheists are so fanatical that they go around foaming at the mouth for 'rational' debates. Upon watching an atheist in an argument, it becomes clear that their points consist entirely of condescension, lofty moralizing, over-generalizations, and 'clever' quips about their opponents' intelligence - in other words, atheists think that poorly assembled sarcasm and ad hominem attacks amount to a valid argument. They will begin by stating they only want food for thought to 'improve their position'; five minutes later, they'll state that talking to their opponent is like arguing with a brick wall. The irony of this statement is consistently lost on the atheist.

[Anonymous No.6903394]

Essentially, these are just faggots who displace their rage at their church-going parents onto God. This is really not surprising. After all, how can an atheist believe in a loving God when they hate themselves? What they persistently fail to realize is that hating God means you believe in him, meaning you are, in fact, not an atheist at all, but instead a whiny faggot.

More likely than not, these are the people you will see in everywhere who cry and scream on the Internet with either THE FUCKING FURY or Exclamation points, so you have to have the pleasure of reading it all over again.

An example of such stupidity:

>God is a myth made up by sheep trying to control more sheep.

>It doesn't matter that I'm 13. I'm still smarter than you.

>I haven't told my parents yet, because I'm still 27 and don't want to move out for being a genius.

[Anonymous No.6903403]

>>6903378
But you didn't refute "no evidence".

The way you refute "no evidence" is by providing EVIDENCE! Which you didn't. Your mom should have aborted you.

Let me guess, your next post is again; THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE...

[Anonymous No.6903407]

Even Catholic priests get more than the typical atheist. This results in the atheist having to take an alternate sociological path to survive, as no normal woman wants to find themselves naked in the same room as a neckbearded Yeti who thinks it knows everything.

Not that the 'forced abstinence' of atheists should come as any surprise. Hell, their whole philosophy comes down to 'BUT IF THERE WAS A GOD THEN I'D GET LAID SOMETIMES!!11'

[Anonymous No.6903420]

>>6903380
>again ignoring everything else he said in favor of attacking a straw man

Scientia et Matematica

[Anonymous No.6903421]

>>6902265
misinterperetation

[Anonymous No.6903426]

>>6903365
>>6903380
>>6903384
>>6903394
>>6903407

Why does every single thread even vaguely relating to Atheism/Religion invariable spiral into this shit? No one even falls for it anymore it's just endless copypasta and shitposting that no one even reacts to.

[Anonymous No.6903429]

>>6903384
>>6903394
>Straw-men and ad-hominem

Let me get this straight. You all powerful god is so fucking weak, that he can't defend himself from basic logic or reason? In fact, even the most elementary arguments on /sci/ are too much for him? Why would you worship such a faggot?

[Anonymous No.6903436]

ITT: entropy and how people don't get it

[Anonymous No.6903437]

>>6903426
>it's just endless copypasta
there's a reason for that
>/pol/39192272

[Anonymous No.6903440]

>>6903437
fug
>>/pol/39192272

[Anonymous No.6903444]

>>6903426
>Atheism/Religion invariable spiral into this shit?

You want the actual reason? Because religious people are insecure that their god doesn't actually exist. They confuse their image of self, with that of their imaginary friend. And perceive attacks or criticism about their imagery friend, as attacks against them.

[Anonymous No.6903447]

>>6903440

Almost.

[Anonymous No.6903448]

>>6903426

FYI: >>6903380 isn't copypasta

[Anonymous No.6903452]

>>6903444
Wow you sure are smart dude! I bet you have a high paying job and lots of friends!

[Anonymous No.6903460]

>>6903440

Let me get that for you:
>>>/pol/39197734

[Anonymous No.6903478]

>>6903460

Fuck it, right thread, it'll do.

[Anonymous No.6903480]

>>6903365
>They are the atheists, long-dormant cancer to society

They were pretty active throughout the 20th century

[Anonymous No.6903536]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.6903540]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.6903569]

>>6902422
How does one join said secret society?

Can you fake it?

[Anonymous No.6903572]

>this thread

Fuck you OP muh sides

[Anonymous No.6903577]

>>6902960

2edgy4me

[Anonymous No.6903585]

>>6902265

[Anonymous No.6903586]

It's because quantum mechanics renders the concept of logic meaningless. If something can be true and not true at the same time, then every statement is as valid as anything else. It could be God or materialism or pretty much anything you could imagine. God plays dice and it's loaded.

[Anonymous No.6903588]

>>6903586
Hello Yang

[Anonymous No.6903595]

>>6903028
Imagine what all those modern scientis could have achieve if they weren't wasting all that time in -inser place here- sucking the president,capitalist, burocracy, political correctness wrinkled cock.

[Anonymous No.6903622]

>>6903380
You're so enlightened. Enlighten me pl0x

[Anonymous No.6903633]

>>6903243
You don't know anything about philosophy

[Anonymous No.6903635]

no one in this thread has actually stated any of the arguments for God fro quantum physics and then either attempted to refute them or not

here are some arguments >>6903372 pick holes in these rather than each other's posts, which are all tangential to the topic at best

[Anonymous No.6903639]

>>6903586
>no idea what QM is
>no idea what logic is

Probabilistic systems do not imply randomness, chaos, or equality between outcomes. Logic exits the same way in QM as it does in all physics. stop talking out your ass

[Anonymous No.6903646]

>>6902265

>AS YOU GET DRUNKER YOU GET STUPIDER

Sounds about right.

[Anonymous No.6903650]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

[Anonymous No.6903652]

>>6903635
>Ass vs. Meth threads
>having legit discussions

I know its you OP.

[Anonymous No.6903653]

>>6903452
>All of Western Civilisation is built of morality
hahahaaha hahaha
captcha: hahahahaahahah

[Anonymous No.6903654]

>>6903639
>Probabilistic systems do not imply randomness

But that's wrong. And the concept of superposition alone makes logical inference impossible.

[Anonymous No.6903656]

>>6903635
>impliiying the argument from ignorance was not what religioufags in this thread or in your link

>implying it wasn't refuted like 40 times in this thread

Read the thread dude

[Anonymous No.6903664]

>>6903067
>something came from something
>and that something is the Christian God because reasons

[Anonymous No.6903706]

>>6903654
Nope. Stop taking bullshit dude. We have logically constructed rules to describe superposition. Have for decades.

Logical doesn't mean classical. We tons on nonclassical system with rules that follow logic.

Logic is an actual formal branch of math dumbass. Logic doesn't mean what makes "sense" to the dumb people. Hell, I bet Logic in classical systems wouldn't make sense to you

[Anonymous No.6903727]

>>6903664
>implying they have reasons and not just blind assertions

The only argument for God in this thread is the argument from ignorance

>beautiful mountains exist, so Oden exists

It is an argument made by the mentally Ill or someone not actually thinking.

[Anonymous No.6903770]

>>6903635
>no arguments that refuted god

Did you miss thread? All the shit about null hypotheses and oceans razor? Arguments to refute "hey just believe in magic without demonstrable proof or valid reasoning" are trivial dude. Read the thread.

[Anonymous No.6903780]

QM has rules for describing superposition but the reality of superposition is what makes all logic meaningless. Without exclusivity, a rational view of the world cannot exist. Hell, even the most "logically" consistent interpretation of QM posits the existence of all possibilities happening simultaneously at once. Rationality, materialism, and determinism all destroyed with one swoop. Atheism cannot survive QM.

[Anonymous No.6903795]

>>6903780
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6903802]

Hey, queers! I ended up here by accident; I usually shitpost on /sp/ and I'll be leaving momentarily. Anyway, all of you are virgins and fag retards who argue about pointless gay fag shit. That's why you will never enjoy quality pussy.

[Anonymous No.6903827]

Why would you even need a proof of existence of God? The whole point is there is no definitive and rational answer and despite that you have faith there is one. God is more a matter of faith than anything.
Science can strengthen you faith, or weaken it but it will never prove or disprove the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.6903832]

>>6903827
B-b-but I wanna feel superior to theists

Please let me have this

[Anonymous No.6903844]

>>6903802

I have more important things to do than chase after "hot chicks".

[Anonymous No.6903861]

>>6903844
Like shitpost all day about God on a Chinese cartoon forum :^)

[Anonymous No.6903867]

>>6903861
Damn right.

[Anonymous No.6903890]

physics doesnt fully explain what happened before the creation of itself

[Anonymous No.6903917]

>>6903890
That's the domain of mathematics. On day minus one God said: Let there be Lie Algebra, and there was Lie Algebra. God saw that Lie Algebra was good. Amen.

[Anonymous No.6903949]

The Father = Space-Time
The Son = Matter
The Holy Spirit = Energy

Checkmate, atheists.

[Anonymous No.6903978]

>>6903949
father- mind
holy spirit- quantum field
son- matter

[Anonymous No.6903987]

>>6903949
>>6903978
If God is any of those things, praying to him is stupid, as he can't understand you.
Checkmate, theists.

[Anonymous No.6903992]

>>6903987
I'm pretty sure the universe can understand you.
It's a matter of faith.

[Anonymous No.6904001]

>>6903949
Doesn't your picture break the transitive property?

[Anonymous No.6904004]

>>6903987
>if god is mind it can't understand you and trying to communicate is futile
>highest dimensional mind not able to understand one of the lowest dimensional minds.

[Anonymous No.6904029]

>>6903949

''...he is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.''
Acts 17:28

''...Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.''
John 14:6

''I will put my Spirit in you. I will enable you to live by my laws, and you will obey my rules.''
Ezekiel 36:27

This actually makes sense, not even joking.

[Anonymous No.6904045]

>heisenberg
>heisen berg
>berg

[Anonymous No.6904072]

>>6902265
To answer your question OP, I believe that what Heisenberg meant was that the material realm at the quantum level is not as solid as most physicists would have you believe, but behaves more in the manner of a thought. Given that matter exists, ostensibly, throughout the universe it was possibly considered that God was the generator of this thought. He got the thing rolling in other words.

Now that you know this you also know that all of those faggots going on about >muh argument from ingorancts" where ignorant of the origins of the argument themselves. This is always the way when dealing with atheists 14 years and older.