/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7505164]

Why do people think there is not a God just because there's a scientific explanation for everything ?

[Anonymous No.7505168]

I think it's because the term "God" is so heavily associated with the bible, which is clearly a work of fiction. But if you're a scientist, or think like one, you obviously can't make the claim of a Universal creator's existence one way or another. Not until we gather more data about our Universe before inception, Quantum Theory, etc.

[Anonymous No.7505175]

>>7505168
>bible is clearly a work of fiction

You are so fucking ignorant it hurts. I bet you've never even read the bible. It's a collection of texts, not just one thing.

Next time, think before you post so we don't have to waste time replying to your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.7505180]

>>7505175
>we

[Anonymous No.7505181]

>>7505164
Claiming there is no god means that you have all the knowledge of the universe.

[Anonymous No.7505183]

How come people think there is no Santa Claus just because their parents were the ones putting the gifts under the tree?

[Anonymous No.7505184]

>>7505168
Fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.7505185]

>>7505164
>because there's a scientific explanation for everything

There isn't, scientism is absurd.

[Muh Fractals No.7505187]

>>7505175
>It's a collection of texts, not just one thing.
A collection is "one thing", and this has nothing to do with it being a work of fiction, which it is.

Your question is like asking "Why do people think there is no Santa Claus just because there's a scientific explanation for presents under the tree?

[Anonymous No.7505189]

>>7505185
>>7505184
>>7505183
>>7505181
>>7505180
>>7505175
>>7505168

>responding to shit tier b8

sage pls

[Anonymous No.7505190]

>>7505168
>the bible, which is clearly a work of fiction

Nice confirmation basis you've got there.

[Anonymous No.7505192]

>this has nothing to do with it being a work of fiction, which it is
Nice circular logic faggot

[Anonymous No.7505193]

>>7505190
If a research paper came out, and more than one of its key points turned out to be blatantly false, would you be ready to accept everything else as fact?

[Anonymous No.7505194]

>>7505187
>this has nothing to do with it being a work of fiction, which it is
Nice circular logic faggot

[Anonymous No.7505196]

>>7505193
>taking the stories of the bible literally

[Anonymous No.7505200]

>>7505196
so its not literal? like a work of fiction?

[Anonymous No.7505207]

>>7505194
How is pointing out that your reply is an irrelevancy "circular logic"?

[Anonymous No.7505208]

>>7505200

http://www.gradesaver.com/the-most-dangerous-game/q-and-a/what-is-the-difference-between-literary-and-literally--126925

[Anonymous No.7505209]

>>7505200

There are no spherical cows in a perfect vacuum, therefore physics is a work of fiction.

[Anonymous No.7505213]

>>7505208
So if the bible is not literal in its description of events, it's a work of fiction. Yes or no?

[Anonymous No.7505216]

>>7505209
So the bible is speculative, like a physical model? I'm very confused.

[Anonymous No.7505217]

>>7505164
That's not a good question. People who are skeptical or disbelieving of god's existence aren't that way simply because they think everything can be explained through science.

Personally, the reason which I don't is because I believe each man ought to uphold a religion of his own design. Do your own thinking. Every time someone talks Christ with me, I can see ways to conveniently interpret things as metaphor or whatever so that christianity just so happens to line up with what I personally believe in. However, the more and more I notice that, the more and more it feels like I'm getting sold a used car. It seems to me that the underlying trick is that once I say "yes, these christian beliefs are mine" they'll be moved around by someone else in hopes of getting me to do things I ordinarily wouldn't.

Regardless, even if you could say "Nothing in the bible is unreasonable" with a straight face (I can't) it's in no way evidence. For example, if I've got a king on a chess board and I need to guess how his current position came to be without observing the previous moves, I could come up with infinite equally "logical" and "not provably false" lists of moves which result in him being where he currently stands. However, since only one set of moves happened, I'd really only have a chance of one out of infinity to be right, which is essentially zero. This becomes more and more obvious when you step up to a world with more pieces and variables and potentials than chess; you can't figure things out just by pacing around and "thinking deep thoughts on 4chan" trying to logic your way to the answer. Sorry about that, philosophy posters.

>>7505168
>work of fiction
work containing fiction and/or metaphor mistakenly interpreted as nonfiction, among other things

>>7505168
>we
stop

>>7505184
>tips tiara

>>7505194
Saying "this is besides the point, albeit true" isn't circular.

[Anonymous No.7505222]

>>7505187

The overwhelming historical evidence is that St. Nikolaos of Myra existed.

>>7505193
>and more than one of its key points turned out to be blatantly false, would you be ready to accept everything else as fact

This happens all the time in historical works. Just because points are off doesn't mean you can discard the whole as a fabrication.

Journalists constantly fuck up facts but people still listen to them regardless.

[Anonymous No.7505243]

>>7505164
People don't realize we live in a simulation. Things like gravity and energy is just coding to keep the program running correctly.

[Anonymous No.7505248]

>>7505243
but if we were running in a program we wouldn't have inequivelancies like 0.999=1

[Anonymous No.7505254]

>>7505248
It's just a way to make people think they aren't in a simulation.

[Anonymous No.7505264]

>>7505164
A true objective scientist will not deny the existence of god simply because there's a scientific explanation for everything. They may have an opinion or belief that there is no god. This is mainly because there is no evidence of his existence. Also the existence of a god is not in contradiction of science. However, the roll of a god in reality can be debated (e.g. god created all the laws of reality and caused the big bang to occur, the rest follows).

[Anonymous No.7505271]

>>7505216
sorta, the bible is a spiritual guide of texts up for your interpretation.

you can find it useful even if you're not of that religion

[Anonymous No.7505272]

>>7505175
>>7505184
>>7505190

so is this some intense samefagging or what?

[Anonymous No.7505276]

>>7505217
>even if you could say "Nothing in the bible is unreasonable" with a straight face (I can't) it's in no way evidence. For example, if I've got a king on a chess board and I need to guess how his current position came to be without observing the previous moves, I could come up with infinite equally "logical" and "not provably false" lists of moves which result in him being where he currently stands. However, since only one set of moves happened, I'd really only have a chance of one out of infinity to be right, which is essentially zero. This becomes more and more obvious when you step up to a world with more pieces and variables and potentials than chess; you can't figure things out just by pacing around and "thinking deep thoughts on 4chan" trying to logic your way to the answer. Sorry about that, philosophy posters.

/x/ btfo

[Anonymous No.7505278]

Devils proof.

[Anonymous No.7505289]

>>7505175
>we
just stop

[Anonymous No.7505290]

>>7505272

[Anonymous No.7505292]

>>7505213
>So if the bible is not literal in its description of events, it's a work of fiction. Yes or no?
No.
Genesis, for instance is full of metaphors.
"Eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except for this one: the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
Obviously, the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is a METAPHOR, in this case a metaphor for the state of mankind's spiritual development, NOT an actual tree.
This doesn't make the tree fiction, but it certainly isn't a literal tree.

[Anonymous No.7505312]

>>7505290
I may not share your beliefs, but I too

>ktfw accused of samefagging.

[Anonymous No.7505326]

>>7505164
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGQ-nWOZrok

[Anonymous No.7505359]

>>7505164
read the rules, no religion vs science

[Anonymous No.7505363]

>>7505213
haha God damn I feel sorry for anybody who has to argue this shit with you or people even remotely like you.

> I cannot even conceive of the use of literary devices or allegorical presentations of complex issues regarding the nature of all contingent reality
What was God to do, just beam all of the scientific knowledge needed into moses' head so he could make a scientifically accurate version?
For one, that is asking God to break the laws of physics; to make a square circle, which would demonstrate an extreme ignorance of very very basic Christian thought on the nature of God.
Secondly, it would prove nothing, if you come to faith by reason then you're either a fucking liar or you don't know what faith even is.

So my advice to you.
Stop being a fucking faggot.
Go try that shit on meister eckhart or john of the cross.
Origen explained this shit in like 300AD, not because Christians didn't know about genesis being allegorical, but because it took people 300 years to become stupid enough to think that this was even an issue.

[Anonymous No.7505371]

>>7505168

[Anonymous No.7505376]

>>7505371

[Anonymous No.7505377]

>>7505363
Anon, don't you know people simplify other beliefs, arguments, cultures, etc. to understand at a base level and then reject based on their own perspectives? They only take it seriously when they're interested in incorporating it in some way to their own understanding.

[Anonymous No.7505381]

>I-I don't believe in it! It's just a metaphor!
>I was only pretending to be retarded!

[Anonymous No.7505387]

>>7505292
>>7505363
>This doesn't make the tree fiction, but it certainly isn't a literal tree.
It makes the tree fiction. Either the tree exists as described or it doesn't. If the latter is true then this is a fictional account. I don't understand the issue people have with this, especially when they vehemently argue that the things described in the Bible are metaphorical. A metaphorical parable is still fictional. If I tell you a story about a talking rabbit and turtle, but the rabbit and turtle represent real concepts, the story is still fictional.

[Anonymous No.7505389]

Because there is no evidence for the existence of any diety.

[Anonymous No.7505391]

The universe doesn't care about what humans hope for, and we don't assume that something is real. We prove it, otherwise it is not real.

science 101. go back to your 6th grade biology class.

[Anonymous No.7505392]

>>7505363
>What was God to do
But don't you understand that "God" is just a metaphor? I hate you people who don't understand the Bible...

[Anonymous No.7505393]

>>7505326
https://youtu.be/kYN0UCUkXQE?t=10m50s

[Anonymous No.7505394]

>>7505387
God damn you are a retard.

[Anonymous No.7505395]

>>7505394
>Says the guy who takes fairy tales seriously

[Anonymous No.7505397]

>>7505387
imagine if I told people evangelion was a real story because it symbolized things

boy oh boy

[Anonymous No.7505398]

>>7505395

[Anonymous No.7505400]

>>7505398
>[memeing intensifies]

[Anonymous No.7505402]

>The claim that the world has been around for a mere 6000 years is JUST A METAPHOR

[Anonymous No.7505404]

>>7505392
It is full of contradictions, so there's nothing to understand.
http://bibviz.com/

[Anonymous No.7505405]

>>7505404
Can't detect sarcasm?

[Anonymous No.7505408]

>>7505404
>http://bibviz.com/
A few of those seem kinda reachy, but that is a nice link friend

[Anonymous No.7505411]

>>7505404
>those last three categories
>implying violence, misogyny, or being against homosexuality is bad

[Anonymous No.7505413]

>>7505402
Nowhere in the bible is that claim ever made. Get your facts straight.

[Anonymous No.7505415]

>>7505413
The biblical timeline does implicitly state the world is only 6000 years old. The book itself banks off of that notion even if it isn't directly stated. Get your facts straight.

[Anonymous No.7505416]

>>7505415
>implicitly state the world is only 6000 years old

Show me the passage where this is stated

[Anonymous No.7505421]

>>7505416
http://creation.com/6000-years

the sum of the events, through implication, says the world has to be 6000 years old for the bible to work.

[Anonymous No.7505424]

>>7505415
>does implicitly state
>it isn't directly stated
>Get your facts straight
into the retard bin

[Anonymous No.7505427]

>>7505424
>implicitly
>literally means "not directly"

[Anonymous No.7505429]

>>7505424
>Hey guys, the answer to the next question is one less than two
>So it's one?
>He didn't DIRECTLY SAY THAT ANON

[Anonymous No.7505433]

>>7505429
Fallacious

[Anonymous No.7505435]

>>7505433
Memeological

[Anonymous No.7505440]

>>7505164
https://youtu.be/TFp5PPSTiDc?t=45m25s

[Anonymous No.7505441]

>>7505413
The bible contains specific accounts of the lifespans of individuals and the years between continuous events. Are the massive amounts of detailed chronologies supposed to be taken literally or metaphorically? If the former, then the bible is literally saying the world is about 6000 years old. If the latter, what could these possibly be a metaphor for?

[Anonymous No.7505442]

>>7505421
>through implication

Yeah so you are full of shit. The claim is never made, it's never implied nor stated.

[Anonymous No.7505444]

>11 And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth [. . . .] and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.

>16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night [. . . .] and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day fourth.

Please don't do this, guys

[Anonymous No.7505445]

>>7505411
ty for your contribution, speaks volmes

[Anonymous No.7505446]

>>7505442
See >>7505429 or >>7505441

[Anonymous No.7505447]

I can't disprove god but I don't see any reasons to believe in him. Also the very concept is barely coherent. He's been called timeless, spaceless, immaterial, all powerful, all knownibg and all good. But what does it mean to be no existing anywhere, any whend and not made of anything?

[Anonymous No.7505448]

>>7505392
1st off, as people have said in this very fucking thread, the bible is a collection of texts, some are allegorical, some are not, some are a mix of both.
Second, the bible never uses God's name metaphorically or allegorically, it's as if you don't know what a metaphor is.

And third (Congratulations, you have been wrong three different ways in only two sentences), it is not possible to comprehend God, the closest we have come is the cloud of unknowing.

[Anonymous No.7505449]

>>7505175
What makes your bible some much more relevant and accurate than other ancient bullshit fairy tales

[Anonymous No.7505451]

>>7505427
Why did you copy the image and then flip it but save it as a larger png file

[Anonymous No.7505452]

>>7505435
It's still a false comparison whether fallacy is overused or not here

[Anonymous No.7505454]

>>7505449
>muh fairy tales

[Anonymous No.7505456]

>>7505442
The bible gives a continuous family tree with lifespans and births from Adam to Jacob spanning 2100 years. It then tells us the history, with timespans, from slavery in Egypt to the destruction of the Temple, spanning an additional 1400 years. So yes, the bible categorically tells us that the first man was only 6000 years ago. Why would the Bible give specific amounts of time and specific family trees full of details if this is metaphorical?

[Anonymous No.7505457]

>>7505452
It's not. The fact is if you add up the numbers relative to real world dates, the bible says the world has to be 6000 years old, even if it isn't directly stated. It's comparing basic math to basic math. Sorry if you have trouble with that.

[Anonymous No.7505459]

>>7505451
Because I was going to delete it immediately afterwards regardless?

[Anonymous No.7505460]

>>7505447
https://youtu.be/9zdmqV2iDN8?t=50s

[Anonymous No.7505461]

>>7505248

You think programs don't have inequivelancies?

[Anonymous No.7505463]

>>7505427
>it's stated, but not directly
>I make an inference based on some peoples ages, that means its stated
>but it isn't directly stated
back into the retard bin

[Anonymous No.7505466]

>>7505457
>but math
>implying a proven mathematical constant is the same as an unproven fictional story

You know you're wrong. You can prove math you can't prove your story

[Anonymous No.7505468]

>>7505463
>What is math
I'm sure your face is turning as warped and purple as that image, anon.

[Anonymous No.7505471]

>>7505457
>the bible says the world has to be 6000 years old
>even if it isn't directly stated

[Anonymous No.7505472]

>>7505448
>1st off, as people have said in this very fucking thread, the bible is a collection of texts, some are allegorical, some are not, some are a mix of both.
Yes, I agree completely.

>Second, the bible never uses God's name metaphorically or allegorically, it's as if you don't know what a metaphor is.
Clearly you don't understand what a metaphor is if you think a magic sky man who gets angry and talks to people is not a metaphor. I mean, how retarded do you have to be? If that is not a metaphor, what gives you the right to say less ridiculous things, like a fruit containing the knowledge of good and evil, is metaphorical? YOU'RE the one who doesn't understand the Bible.

>And third (Congratulations, you have been wrong three different ways in only two sentences), it is not possible to comprehend God, the closest we have come is the cloud of unknowing.
Then how can you comprehend that God isn't metaphorical? You shouldn't be arguing anything about God if you actually believe you can't comprehend him, including that he "exists" or isn't "metaphorical". The truth is that you do believe God is comprehensible because you have specific comprehensions of God, you just want to shut down any ideas which diverge from your beliefs. But that sword cuts both ways, retard.

[Anonymous No.7505473]

>>7505466
It's not my story, it's God's :^)

[Anonymous No.7505474]

>>7505413
On the other hand, the bible does state that plants existed before the sun. What's that a metaphor for?

[Anonymous No.7505475]

>>7505473
But for the purposes of this conversation it is your story anon. It's certainly not mine or humanitys

[Anonymous No.7505477]

>THE BIBLE DOSENT SAY THE WORLD IS 6000 YEARS OLD

>IT JUST SAYS ITS 2100 PLUS 1400 PLUS 2500 YEARS OLD

>TOTALLY DIFFERENT

[Anonymous No.7505483]

>>7505474
yet another contradiction

http://bibviz.com/were-plants-created-before-or-after-humans-sab.html

[Anonymous No.7505484]

>>7505477
God gave you dubs, and this is how you use them?

[Anonymous No.7505486]

>>7505477
>IT JUST SAYS ITS 2100 PLUS 1400 PLUS 2500 YEARS OLD

Take a break from throwing your little tantrum and show me where it says this

[Anonymous No.7505495]

>>7505486
Right here >>7505421

[Anonymous No.7505498]

>>7505387
It's simply explaining the wisdom and rules of the spiritual realm through physical metaphors.

It may not be real in a physical sense but it is real in a spiritual sense.

[Anonymous No.7505504]

>>7505498
spoken as a true pothead would

[Anonymous No.7505506]

>>7505498
Yes, but if you read the conversation, the argument is over whether the Bible is fictional. The parable of Goldilocks and the Three Bears represents wisdom and rules, but it's still obviously fictional.

[Anonymous No.7505523]

>>7505495
As the person you're directing him to, I think you can do better

This anon is the sort of person who likely can't interpret the information on that page, and as such he'll probably blow off reading through it on account of the fact that "it's just an article talking about the bible, not the bible itself"

What we need are cold hard citations to scholarly works which reffer to the bible, like this;

"A grammatico-historical exegesis (Stallard 2000) and the influence of narrative genre (Boyd 2012) in Genesis 1–11 leads young-earth creationist scholars to conclude that the earth is around 6,000 to 12,000 years old. With Adam only six days removed from this event, he can be safely dated as having lived approximately 6,000 to 12,000 years ago (Chaffey and Lisle 2008, p. 23; Moreland et al. 1999, p. 49; Morris 1976, p. 45; Mortenson 2009, p. 176; Mortenson and Ury 2008, p. 455; Whitcomb and Morris 1961, p. 489; Wise 2002, p. 71). Within the young-earth creationist group a majority of scholars affirm an age closer to 6,000 years based upon their understanding of closed gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (Chaffey and Lisle 2008, p. 23; Freeman 2008, p. 308; Wise 2002, p. 71). "

Bear in mind the upward estimate is also incredibly small

[Anonymous No.7505530]

>>7505523
But that page gives direct citations to the bible and it shut him up.

[Anonymous No.7505532]

Why do people think there is not a green intelligent sofa just because there's a scientific explanation for everything?

[Anonymous No.7505536]

>>7505460
Seriously though god is an incoherent mess. What exactly id's god. Labeling him the prime mover, necessary being, greatest being, etc do nothing to change the fact that he is undefined mess of supposed characteristics that don't make sense on thier own.

[Anonymous No.7505538]

>autists arguing that the bible is fiction, then going out of their way to provide biblical proof of the age of Earth

[Anonymous No.7505545]

>>7505506
I think you're missing the point but I'm also not a very good rhetorician.
I believe god is real, his teachings and everything he's trying to convey to me is real, thus the bible is real since it's message is real.

It seems the same as a normal wisdom story/parable but it's fundamentally different because God is an actual entity while goldilocks is indeed fiction. I understand to you it doesn't seem this way because believing in God does require a leap of faith.

The historical events may or may not be true, I honestly don't know the answer to that question. But if part of it is wrong that doesn't disprove everything. History isn't a hard science where one discrepancy can put an entire theory in jeopardy. The bible is still the works of humans which implies a certain degree of error, especially since Christians believe all humans and human works fall short of perfection.

[Anonymous No.7505547]

>>7505504
teehee I am stoned.

[Anonymous No.7505567]

>>7505472
What happened to "I am that I am."
God is meant to mean God, you would be right if "God" was simply a metaphor for some strange phenomenon that created the universe, but the Christian God has an isness, he is himself without need to be defined by anything else, he's prime.

Just so you know, the antediluvian timeline is much more allegorical than the following books.
And just because God doesn't literally talk to people doesn't mean God himself is a metaphor for something else.

Now, God is incomprehensible -because- his nature can only be known in unknowing.
Making this claim clearly does not mean that I am understanding the nature of God, and neither does discussing the literal nuances of scripture.
You are absolutely correct in saying that I want to shut down any ideas which diverge from my beliefs.
But you say this with the connotation that I am doing it out of some worrisome mental instability, when in reality atheists are all just terrifyingly wrong.
It really is frustrating coming up on the same arguments over and over again and having people treat my responses as something to be defended against rather than think honestly about the subject.
But you know, after many many discussions on the subject with atheists who make you look like an idiot, I found that the problem is not in a lack of understanding but a lack of love and of respect for beauty, justice, charity and goodness in general (the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom after all).
There are always definitions for these things, but to feel that fervor for good in the inner sanctum of the soul requires, well, awareness of the soul.
Being an atheist, living as a conscious individual, you infer upwards to conscience, you have yourself in your grasp and yet you work tirelessly to relinquish everything.
You have put the cart before the horse on the grandest scale.
You must cleave unto the things that your reasoning cannot adequately adjudicate.
Go to the light.

[Anonymous No.7505588]

>>7505567
>God is meant to mean God, you would be right if "God" was simply a metaphor for some strange phenomenon that created the universe, but the Christian God has an isness, he is himself without need to be defined by anything else, he's prime.
Obviously the Christian conception of God contains more than just an incomprehensible thing behind God. The point is that if you are going to argue that things which do not make sense in the bible should not be taken literally, the first thing we should not take literally is anything the bible says about God. This is the classic Christian concundrum. On the one hand we have this infallible biblical text full of detail about God. On the other we have the idea that God is beyond human comprehension. So when you try to talk about God, all I see is a massive contradiction. What does it mean to say that atheism is wrong, that God exists, when you can't even begin to discuss what "God" means or what his existence means? Again, this is simply a flawed defense mechanism. You believe in a certain idea of God, and you are diverting rational discussion by saying reason cannot be used to elucidate anything about God. I am trying to discuss something rationally, and you are trying to evangelize your feelings. It's cross-talk and off-topic posting.