[ 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: 93 KB, 1000x536, 731.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9944134 No.9944134[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What if the religions are right? What if there really is a god who created us? I only think...

>> No.9944143

God’s existence has been proven numerous times, and he manifests Himself to us daily.

>> No.9944146

>>9944134
theist religions are dumb. The folk religious beliefs described under the umbrella term of animism are close to the matter of fact.

>> No.9944291

ITT: meaningless opinions and the pontification of brainlets. So really, just like every other thread on /sci/. ACTUALLY, just like every board on 4chan. except /diy/.

>> No.9944309
File: 1.24 MB, 1198x2331, tier.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9944309

>>9944134
God exists and Jesus is His only begotten Son.

Also, why is this on /sci/? >>>/church/

>> No.9944319

>>9944146
>theist religions are dumb
Translation from brainlet語: "my parents'/communities' religion was dumb and I overgeneralize that to every religion ever"
>The folk religious beliefs described under the umbrella term of animism are close to the matter of fact
Translation from brainlet語: "lol, dude weed lmao"

>> No.9944320

>>9944309
did god eat jesus' foreskin?

>> No.9944324

If we create a super AI computer and it starts to believe in God, will all the atheists convert?

>> No.9944332
File: 64 KB, 600x750, 1282771684576.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9944332

>>9944324
No, their intellectual self worth is too closely tied to their atheism. That's why they put "atheist" into all their usernames like if it was a Dr title.

>> No.9944333

>>9944134
Well, what if I'm wrong, I mean... anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the w:Flying Spaghetti Monster and the w:Pink Unicorn and the flying teapot. Uhm, you happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the Christian faith. You know what it's like to not believe in a particular faith because you're not a Muslim. You're not a Hindu. Why aren't you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not in India. If you had of been brought up in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in... in uh.. Denmark in the time of the Vikings you'd be believing in w:Wotan and w:Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece you'd be believing in, in w:Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa you'd be believing in the great w:Juju up the mountain. There's no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian god, in which by the sheerest accident you happen to have been brought up and, and ask me the question, "What if I'm wrong?" What if you're wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?

>> No.9944336

>>9944134
I don't see how that would change anything.

>> No.9944342

>>9944134
Oh but He is...

>> No.9944348

I don't think there's a "personal" god, but an impersonal force of creation sounds more plausible

>> No.9944352

>>9944333

Digits confirm Dawkins is fukken based

>> No.9944360

>>9944134
Of course God EXIST, I mean as long as the religion has one follower, God exists in the mind of that follower.
https://github.com/Pella86/Schrodinger-religion/blob/master/README.md

>> No.9944362

>>9944309
where in the Bible (or outside of it for that matter) does it say the church must have a structure with the pope at the top? or that the pope is the mouthpiece of God, and every Catholic has to abide by what he sees fit? it's so easily corruptible, as demonstrated numerous times that it seems to be against what Jesus stood for. you aren't just supposed to blindly accept what the pope says, because he's human, and fallible. If you are christian and believe that the Bible and it's teachings are the word of God, and what the pope says is against that, he should be reprimanded, yet he isn't.

>> No.9944363

>>9944324

Convert to what? mp3?

>> No.9944370
File: 51 KB, 400x608, b19d6fdaf8825b7cf32c9f942ea60e96.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9944370

>>9944134
DMT and NDE's are the only sources I trust when it comes to spirituality, and I dont even trust what they present fully. Whatever the case is, it seems to manifest to you based on personal experience, so each instance of it is unique to whatever beliefs you hold.In a roundabout way, theyre all kind of right.

>> No.9944373

>>9944362
>where in the Bible does it say
you're assuming a protestant perspective, the bible doesn't play the same role in catholicism
catholic ecclesiology was developed in a different way, referring much more to the "apostolic tradition" which makes something like papal succession close to inevitable
the early part of this lecture series explains it pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F-L46Yqrs

>> No.9944392

>>9944333
>le epic strawman in the sky
Do English Catholics and French Catholics worship a different god? The English say 'god' and the French say 'dieu'. They can't both be right! Religion BTFO!

>> No.9944398

>>9944134

If they're right then which God is it? If all religions is born from the same God then everyone has pretty much been trolled since a lot of wars have been started due to it's products.

>>9944324

No because the first thing the super A.I. is going to have to do is prove God. Only then will atheists convert since their entire reasoning for not being religious is the lack of proof.

>> No.9944411

>>9944392
>religions don't contradict each other
What a retard you are

>> No.9944413

>>9944398
>Only then will atheists convert since their entire reasoning for not being religious is the lack of proof.
There are plenty of proofs of God, it's just that atheists find them unsatisfactory. The ontological one is a doozy. Not relevant to the thought experiment anyway. If the AI starts to believe in God, it has faith etc will atheists just consider it mistaken?

>> No.9944415

>>9944411
>the existence of human error means God can't exist
The retard is you. Where did you learn logic? Retard school?

>> No.9944417

>>9944415
No one claimed God can't exist. Learn to read, illiterate hick.

>> No.9944418

>>9944417
Then why bring up religions contradicting each other? Utterly irrelevant to any discussion about God, other than to score reddit upvotes

>> No.9944428

>>9944418
OP asked "what if the religions are right?", implying that only atheists would be wrong if some God existed. He could have also asked similar questions to any believer of any religion, but instead he asked /sci/, which is why that Dawkins quote was relevant.

>> No.9944431

>>9944143
Prove it.

>> No.9944433

Free will and omnisciences are mutually exclusive, since even knowing what will happen helps change the outcome, as observed on a quantum scale. So I choose the route that gives me free will.

If you want a real ideology invest yourself in the idea of 'spirits' or polytheism, because certain complex systems manifest themselves in ways that can be manipulated simply by recognition and trust ('faith').

>> No.9944437

>>9944433
>free will and omnisciences are mutually exclusive,
Read Aquinas. Literally every tedious 'clever' argument you see on the Internet about why God can't really was BTFO by based St Tom centuries ago

>> No.9944443

It is almost 100% guaranteed that there is a god. If the universe must have been created there must be some uncreated entity that started everything. If you've got a better theory I'd like to hear it

>> No.9944444

>>9944428
>implying that only atheists would be wrong if some God existed
Only atheists would be wrong. If Odin is real, the only error other religions have made is his name and being led astray by liars. Apart from maybe some religion that claims perfect understanding of the divine, which is very few of them. Only atheists deny the divine entirely.

>> No.9944445

>>9944444
>them digits
>how can atheists possibly recover

>> No.9944458

>>9944444
No, if the Muslim God existed, the Hindus, who number 1 billion, would be wrong because they believe in polytheism. That would not be a trivial error of Hinduism. Most religions have rituals and customs which contradict each other, to ignore those practices and say that they are equivalent just because they believe in God is dishonest, which of course wouldn't be unexpected, coming from a troll like you.

>> No.9944468

>>9944413

They will argue the A.I. flawed since it is still a human construction. Only when the A.I. can provide solid evidence will the atheist believe. Then you still have to deal with which religion's God is true or if it's all the same why did God allow wars under false pretense.

>> No.9944474

>>9944458
>No, if the Muslim God existed, the Hindus, who number 1 billion, would be wrong because they believe in polytheism
Firstly Hindus believe in one Spinoza style unified god-spirit of which the other gods are manifestations. Let's ignore that and assume Allah is god. Therefore the Hindus have been slightly mistaken about the nature of God. I don't think that's a big issue. However, they are much less mistaken than the atheists who claimed there was no god at all.
If we are guessing the weight of a fruitcake, and some say it's 500 grams and some say 600 grams etc. Many of these guesses will be wrong of course. But all of them will be more accurate than the person who claims there is no cake at all.
You are confusing errors of quantity with those of quality or category

>> No.9944476

>waaah, if god was real, which god is it out of the gorillion gods invented by mankind?
All the proper arguments for god point to the god being the Christian god.

>> No.9944480

>>9944474
>If we are guessing the weight of a fruitcake, and some say it's 500 grams and some say 600 grams etc. Many of these guesses will be wrong of course. But all of them will be more accurate than the person who claims there is no cake at all.
Not really. The guesses other theists would be more analogous to "that's actually a dog, not a cake".

>> No.9944494

>>9944134
Religions are at their core a way of controlling people, seriously tho. None of that greasy fedorian shit argument. Ignore for a moment all the sacred texts, just look at the history of the catholic church for one example and you'll see no God just people rambling over some land and power; this is the case for all religions ever existed.

If simply history won't cut then, why a being so powerful and great would send such ambiguous messages than there're three countless factions arguing what he said? The major three (catholic, hebraism and islam) have literally the same God but don't agree on who was the true "son" of him, son inherently human, which implies a lot.

>> No.9944500

>>9944134
Hinduism comes quite close to our current understanding of the universe.

>> No.9944501

>>9944437
Free will is indeed mutually exclusive with omniscience. What you're pointing at is a book written in an era when thinking outside the box could even mean death.
There are countless "philosophers" who have claimed that "no matter how you look at it following the cult of jesus is the natural religion of the man".

>> No.9944503

>>9944458
>Muslim God
you realize that the Muslim, Cristian and Hebrew God are the same one, right?

>> No.9944509

>>9944503
I realize that all the three fairy tales have some similarities, if that's what you're asking.

>> No.9944515

>>9944509
Literally, at the core there's the same god, the hebrew one.
They all just argue about who was the true messiah: jews say none, christians say jesus and muslim say mohammed.

>> No.9944516

>>9944324

No, because blindly believing just because some other person blindly believes is not logical.

We literally can not know whether God exists or not, because the catalyst for the creation of the universe is unknowable, and any theory unverifiable...

The only logical conclusion is to be an agnostic atheist, meaning we don't believe in God, but we don't claim we understand why the universe was created.

>> No.9944517

>>9944480
>Not really. The guesses other theists would be more analogous to "that's actually a dog, not a cake".
And those guesses are still more accurate than the person who says there is no creature there at all. Trying to get around Pascal's wager in his way doesn't really work.

>> No.9944522

>>9944517
How you determine the accuracy of each guess is subjective. I could even say that you're only disagreeing with me on a quantitative level and not a qualitative one, to use your own logic.

>> No.9944525

>>9944517
Pascal'w wager is another example of what deep indocrination can produce. At Pascal's time if you didn't believe in God very nasty things would happen to you, so the consensus was to accept it.

>> No.9944527

>>9944522
We can lay it out logically.
Position 1: x does not exist
Position 2: x exists and has quality n
Positions 3 to infinity: x exists but has quality n+1 or n+2 and so on
Now if x exists, than positions 2 to infinity are at least half vindicated and one of them is wholly vindicated. Only position one is totally wrong