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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 798 KB, 499x250, tumblr_nv8ukl5v241qzx1pxo1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9238420 No.9238420[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Do you believe in God /sci/ ?

>> No.9238443

That's a complicated question, it depends on what you mean by god. you see, it helps no one to be reductive. I believe that that we are here implies to some degree that there are forces larger than us. Now we can get into the semanticalities, the very notion of belief can be rhetorically whittled down to the bare knob of its meaning. I'd like to talk to you a lot more about this, would you be interested in reading some of my literature?

>> No.9238447

god is everything

>> No.9238493

>>9238443
is this copypasta?

>> No.9238527

There is absolutely nothing at all in my experience of reality that even remotely indicates that an anthropomorphic sort of God(s) exists.
Some religions try to reduce God to a vague notion like :'god is everything, god is simply the supreme reality, god is the sense of I AM', and so on. That I don't believe either, and on top of that it's such a vague definition of 'God' that there's no sense in ascribing any value to such a belief in my opinion.
You might subscribe to some kind of immaterial notion that all of reality is made of 'one thing', but to then call that thing God is a useless abstraction.

>> No.9238532

>>9238493
I'm the conundrummer in a band called lifepuzzler

>> No.9238554

If I'm ever going to believe in a bearded bodybuilder god, I'd probably choose Zeus over the Christian God. They're basically the same thing, but Zeus throws those badass lighting bolts which makes him cooler.

But no, I don't believe in deities.

>> No.9238561

>>9238443
It's not fucking complicated at all. Do you believe in fucking God or not? Sheesh. Kids these days.

>> No.9238574

>>9238561
Please, I'm just a simple seeker on a spirit quest to discover... What doth life?

>> No.9238630

>>9238574
We don’t cotton to freaks round these parts! And we definitely don’t cotton to folks what open up unquenchable cans of philospohical thirst-worms.

But for real, if you difine God as the sum of all matter and physical laws, then of course God exists. People in the Abrahamic tradition seem to get into trouble when they try to reconcile the true Cosmos with their invisible shirtless Santa.

>> No.9238633

I think if there is a god, it would be an impersonal energy forceas opposed to a cosmic grandpappy.

>> No.9238645

>>9238527
Age guess 20

>> No.9238655

>>9238420
Maybe there is one, maybe not. If there is one, I am very sure that he doesn't care about individual humans, or categorizing them according to their deeds and transferring them to some afterlife. Therefore, I don't think that the answer to this question is in any way as life deciding as a lot of people make it out to be.

>> No.9238659

>>9238633
then it wouldn't be a god

>> No.9238670

>>9238659
You can be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent and still don't give a shit about humans.

>> No.9238674

>>9238670
but you can't be a god without sapience. god by definition is not just a natural force.

>> No.9238675

>>9238674
God would be unnatural?
Sounds like fuckery to me.

>> No.9238676

>>9238675
god would be sapient

>> No.9238679

>>9238645
>hurr durr if you don't believe in God you're underage

>> No.9238685

>>9238676
>sa·pi·ent
>/ˈsāpēənt/
>adjective
>1.formal
>wise, or attempting to appear wise.

>2.
>relating to the human species (Homo sapiens).

>noun

>1.
>a human of the speciesHomo sapiens.


Sounds like fuckery. What about aliens?

>> No.9238686

>>9238674
>god by definition
We all form our own personal definition of "God".
You grok?

>> No.9238690

>>9238686
Only if we want the term to lose all meaning. there is a good, because I define god as this post I just send
>>9238685
sapient means to have sapience

>> No.9238692

>>9238574
What's the opposite of salt?

>> No.9238693

>>9238686
I am but an egg.

>> No.9238695

>>9238690
>Sapienceis the quality of being wise, or wisdom.
What if god were retarded?

>> No.9238698

Yes, in a deistic way. Without a God, the universe must have come from nothing, which is completely inconsistent with how the universe operates as we see it. The reason God is exempt from this rule is because we don't know a thing about him. He is infinite and incomprehensible. To believe that the universe has a supernatural cause without a supernatural creator is to forget everything we know about the universe.

>> No.9238701

>>9238698
And would that deity be similar to any of the existent or past religions or only on core principles?

>> No.9238706

>>9238701
Why is religion relevant to the belief in God?

>> No.9238707

>>9238695
sapience doesn't mean wisdom, it means self-awareness. the ability to I Think Therefore I am

>> No.9238710

>>9238707
Say what you mean then, god damn.

God could be self aware and not give a fuck. I'm self aware and there are over 7 billion people I don't give a fuck about.

I'm only a monkey brain in a meat robot, I bet God could care way less.

>> No.9238712

>>9238710
sapience is what I meant, it's not my fault you don't know what this incredibly common word means.

>> No.9238715
File: 39 KB, 500x500, smug_anime_face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9238715

>>9238712
I posted definitions, ya fucko

>> No.9238716

Reverse diction sentience. Super in supernatural means superficial

>> No.9238717

>>9238715
>>>9238710
archaic definitions that no one uses. sapience means self-awareness, you fag. it's the word people mean when they incorrectly say sentience

>> No.9238720

>>9238717
God could still be an uncaring asshole.
Even if he cared, he's objectively an asshole.

>> No.9238724

>>9238720
yeah, but it wouldn't be "an impersonal energy force". the impersonal part

>> No.9238726

no

>> No.9238731

>>9238720
maybe he just doesn't like you and everyone else is cool with him

>> No.9238770

>>9238720
If God didn't permit something, there would be no free will. Without free will there is no possibility that the existence of existence has a meaning as opposed to no meaning.

Furthermore, God is as evil for letting evil exists as your parents are evil for letting yourself find out on your own that falling off a bike hurts.

>> No.9238785

>>9238770
>this is the philosophy of a saucefag

>> No.9238797

>>9238770
I'm pretty sure free will might not exist anyway.
If there is a God, and it gives a shit, it's an asshole.
If there is a God, and it doesn't give a shit, what does it even do?
If there isn't a God, where did this infinite holographic fractal come from?

>> No.9238800

>>9238720
unless non of this matters and its all a game

>> No.9238801

>>9238420
Of course I do. Our current understanding of physics implies that there MUST be a God, though most physicists are autistic and try to claim there's a "multiverse" instead.

>> No.9238813

I don't know, I don't think you can properly explain the motives of a God or justify general religious revelation due to the human error factor. But I suppose you could also prove God or a first cause through logic. But that's sort of like proving the existence of circles, I mean you can 'prove' them but it doesn't necessarily mean they actually exist in nature. Just that a relationship between objects can be defined.

It's not enough to ask people whether they believe in God - it's probably more worthwhile to ask: What do you think God means to you?

>> No.9238814

>>9238801
Do these physicists really think that multiverse disprove god somehow?

>> No.9238820

>>9238814
If there are infinite realities then a god must exist in some of'em

>> No.9238822

Yes

>> No.9238824

>>9238820
> Limiting a god to an universe.
> Uses "must" instead of high probability

>> No.9238825

>>9238814
Well modern physics tells us our universe is highly unnatural. There are lots of constants that are too finely tuned for no apparent reason. The chances of a universe like ours being the way it is are infinitesimal, meaning that there has to be something tuning it to be the way it is. Now the way around this is just saying "Well there are infinite universes in a multiverse so it doesn't matter how unlikely our universe is, at least one universe has to have this set of properties" which is a total cop out because a multiverse is just as unprovable as God and it's shifting the goalposts because they're uncomfortable with the implications of what their own science is telling them.

Here's an article about the issue:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/complications-in-physics-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis-20130524/

>> No.9238826

>>9238420
No, but I find some comfort in that conscience does not make any sense at all, so either I'm just an automaton thinking I'm conscious, which makes it not matter, or there's something more. I can't really formulate why without sounding like a total pseud, which might be a hint...

>> No.9238828

>>9238797
Of course it might not, but it may also exist. If you couldn't doubt God's existence, you would have no freedom of thought. Same principle with being able to act as you want.

Now killing someone might seems bad. Killing a million might be worse. But if every mind/soul/consciousness will come to live again, in another plane of existence, or live again infinite times, in infinite realities in infinite universes, what sense does it make to say that God is evil if every wrong is irrelevant in an eternal existence?

The problem of evil is fundamentally flawed because it assumes not only that there is evil, it defines evil and quantifies it. Being murdered is awful by a human perspective. So yes, there is suffering. Does that mean that the entirety of existence (that which may exist beyond comprehension) is immersed in in suffering?