2019

I have. I really, truly have. An entire group in fact.
They haven't read the Bible is the thing, and won't, and if you show them something contradictory you see their brains short circuit through their eyes as they stutter out some crazy convoluted reach of an interpretation to safeguard their beliefs.

Human bias is very very powerful.

To be fair, still no explanation as to what caused the big bang.

and what kinds of things can't be explained through rationality?

everything that exists obeys natural laws

First it's literal
Then it's interpretations
Then the concepts become so retarded and irrelevant that the retards themselves have a hard time interpreting them
>rewrite the book kek
repeat

i think they are still just saying they believe in it, i really think they dont truly believe in what they say

but they are in a corner, they can't SAY how they really feel or even confront it, because if they do it would be a negation of all of their beliefs, and even their entire lives

this true, but jesus fags want there BS taught along science

i dont think the ideas in the bible are retarded or outdated

like the story of job is timeless, it teaches a good moral, but i just dont think it actually happened

this is just scratching the surface. there's no explanation for why the standard model or its corresponding extensions hve the free parameters they do. Almost no understanding of deeper human brain processes besides empirical data, no understanding of cosmological scale stuff besides janky theories we can't test, no understanding of unification theory (again, besides 500 proposals that sometimes contradict each other). The list goes on

make no mistake, i realize that many of these things could be solved in principle, or at least empirically to a high degree. But when you get to these higher up aspects of science, it's so confused, difficult and fractured, that sometimes it really seems like hundreds of competing religions fighting each other purely on faith (because you can't test anything), which i find a rather funny prospect.

if its possible to be solved, then its not god

see this post but also, "natural laws" is too loose of a term. You can explain things through rationality, but you sometimes get to a point where it's not clear what the rational standpoint is, or what counts as natural. If the whole universe turns out to be a simulation by some higher race (god or not), does that count as natural or rational? hell if i know

regardless of whether or not its clear to US, everything that exists follows the rules and laws of nature, everything that exists is capable of being understood, otherwise it would be a contradiction, it would be unable to exist

even "simulations" run on laws, computers are just physical objects which obey laws just like any other object

sure, but this doesn't somehow disprove the existence of a divine-like entity in its own right. If the universe is a simulation, then the tired alien intern running it would be god under most definitions of the word.

Again, i don't actually want to argue for the existence of god explicitly, i'm just saying that there's plenty of leeway for his/its definition

also as an aside, the idea that you can't have contradictions is itself an assumption you make as a constituent of this world. For all you know, contradictions CAN exist, and would be a manifestation of something higher that we cannot explain or cannot see. This is pushing into the region of logic axioms, which are axioms for a reason (assumed, not proven).

in this case "laws" are simply "what occurs"

how things act over and over universally is what is a "law"

That doesn't really prove anything to the alternative though. We didn't really have an explanation for what caused lightning or any natural phenomenon for that matter, and I guarantee every default answer was god until we learned.

But at the same time, we do know some shit that gives us some good ideas to start with.
First you're working under the assumption time is and always has been consistent and linear, which is isn't, and that it has always existed, which is doesn't have to have.

We know, for example, when you get down to the quantum world, shit stops behaving rationally. We can demonstrate in experiments that the quantum world breaks all the rules as we know it, and we can reproduce it so confidently were making computers out if it. (Time travel has even been "achieved" on a loose technicality. That we're able to make a qubut reverse from a chaotic state back to simple state. That's like untoasting toast or unfrying an egg.).

Time affects all things and makes it behave in the way that we know things to behave. But what if "before" (for lack of a better word) the big bang there wasn't time?

The amount of bizarre whacky crazy unimaginable chaos that could have created could indeed have just caused the big bang, the same way unobserved photons seem to not give a fuck about rules and just exist at all places at all times carrying out all possibities which all interfere with each other until a defined outcome is "decided".

Tl;Dr

"We don't know" does not mean "god did it"
And we have actually observed, tested, reproduced and harnessed forces as strange if not stranger than the idea "it came from nothing."

We know what happened a planck second after the big bang but do not know what happened at the instance of it because maths ,physics and spacetime literally have no meaning at that moment. They do not exist at that moment ,but we already have theories as to what could have caused the big bang like the inflation theory. While 200 years ago a lightbulb was considered magic.

That is the constant circle of retardation.

>Muh you don't have an explanation for the ball of light in the sky
>After years of scientific method perfectly describes what the yellow ball in the sky is
>Muh you don't know what causes this and that
>After years of careful experimenting and and thinking shows what this and that is
>Muh only 0.0000000001 seconds after big bang
rinse and repeat

Eh sounds like you just don't get it, brother. It's alright to be wrong, nobody will hold it against you

if the alien is a physical object then he is an object which must follow all the rules of nature and causation. in other words, he is not god

>but do not know what happened at the instance of it because maths ,physics and spacetime literally have no meaning at that moment

This is precisely why people believe in the divine.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but you have to understand their position. You have a key moment in time that started everything but you can't explain it.

we can have contradictions in theory, we just naturally finish the job, we naturally bring the contradiction to either one end or the other, and end the contradiction

when we see a physical object we CANNOT think of it as contradiction, otherwise it would not be thinkable

the qualities of an object are a whole and are not opposed to each other but are seen as a harmony

if the qualities of an object were contradictions we would not see the object as a whole

Quantum fluctulations are though to have cause the big bang and it can be explained numerically because Eisenstein's equations for mass and time dilation will then have a zero in the denominator. Which means his equations are only an approximation what is happen and you can sorta see what happens as you take the limit of them as they approach zero. Basically leading to anons " 0.0000000001 seconds after big bang" statement.

even infinity statements can be fully explained thanks to mathematics and logic

So what was the cause?

>Quantum fluctuations are though to have cause the big bang and it can be explained numerically
*fluctuations are thought
* it cant be explained

sorry its 9am here and Im still waking up...and wake and baking

Not the guy you're replying to, but I totally see what you're saying but that's still more or an education problem...
People who don't realise the universe doesnt need god to be totally illogical.

I'm not one to think "religious means stupid" or even "lack of education means stupid". But the flaw is exactly as the other user says
Everything we know was at one time unexplainable, and the religious have been moving goal posts for thousands of years.
Everything at one point was obviously the work of God because you can't explain it.
But one by one so far everything we've proven has turned out to be totally explainable. Some of it even graspable by a 4 year old given the information is available.

I understand you don't agree with them and understand you're pointing out their position and applaud your sense of empathy.
But it's just so tiring and stifling to advancement. We don't know. We do have good ideas. No we are not going to stop and just say God did it, and no you don't get to proclaim you know more than me because your ancient text book club thinks it's answers are as informed and valid as my PhD..

I also don't have a PhD. You know what I mean though.

Quantum fluctuations

Yet people used to believe in the divine because there was no explanation for thunder, rainbows, the nuclear reactor in the sky etc.
With time science explains one thing and discovers more things to explain and constantly works on these explanations while religion takes the yet unexplained and poses it as an argument for the divine until the day it is explained when it was discovered by science in the first place.

i think there is room for god but it exists only has a by-way, there is no way to prove the existence of god through rationality or through the universe itself

Which you can't explain the root of. That's what religious people see. And, if anything, strange fluctuations only reinforce their belief that an incredibly powerful, unknown and unknowable force started it all.

Still, they need the very root which we don't have. Also, they can see the scientific explanation of thunder but its creator being their god. "It had to start somewhere" mentality.

Now I don't wish to beat a dead horse here but for the record, this isn't my belief system but it is theirs. And it's the reason that you will not turn them until you have a full explanation. Even then you will miss out on a few extreme radicals.

>Eisenstein

That's a fine position I cannot and would not argue with.
Most of the anger simply comes from the fact these people vote and lobby in anti science ways and actually interfere with education. That's what gets the science community rallied. Not so much there's people who believe in God, but where that actually leads and the consequences it has on progress. Social, technological, civil and otherwise

>Which you can't explain the root of
well then Id trap them in their own trap too. They think a creator designed and created everything, but not the creator. So who created the creator you ask? They prob say no one his is eternal and always was/is. So they cant describe the beginning either. No one wins

sorry for a typo on the internet. I will proof read better next time when we go to publish this information

Your first paragraph of green text proves you are a scientific illiterate, and anyone replying is just as retarded as you and your bait

You'd think that, but a divine being doesn't need to be created. It just always was. Otherwise it isn't divine.

On the other hand..
>believing everything that (((sciencists))) says even if it leads to downfall of whole civilisation and doesn't make sense

Attached: Typical atheist.png (1020x700, 37K)

while your first part is correct, i hope you doublenigger realize the ramifications of you having replied to him

Then you to explain their creators design logic. Since it is so wise. Why does our feed tube content to our breath tube? Seems like a terrible design flaw for a "designer" to make

Which proves that the concept is completely flawed if it can't be explained through rationality.

There is no basis at all to believe in the magical or the "woo". We have proved that extrasensory abilities are BS, we have proved that prophecy is BS. Basically if something doesn't follow the laws of physics = BS, garbage.

And there has been no proof to show otherwise. Why would god be an exception?

Problem with your little meme is it displays an extreme lack of understanding for how scientific method works.... One single source is not reliable. That's why we use words like "consensus" and "meta-analysis". We want to see that the evidence found across thousands of studies done by thousands of educated experts point in the same direction.

And people like Dawkins, I assure you, doesn't get his opinions and information and beliefs from his own work. He gets it from the consensus and meta data.

>It'll lead to the downfall of civilisation!!

Got a weird feeling you're talking about climate change action.... And I really hope not..

>Then you to explain their
*then you ask them to explain their
....fuck i need to wake up

>thinking all these irrelevant achievements can help even the slightest answering some of life’s most challenging questions
Stop asking “how” so much and start asking “why” and then religion might make a bit more sense to you, when you realize nothing at all makes sense

Can't question the divine.

>George Carlin
He was Ok through the mid 80's but then turned into a bitter old man. Probably from being raised catholic

if they can just say "divinity" and that is an acceptable answer and rebuttal then I can just say "science" and it has equal strength

Except yours his limits, theirs does not. You really need to change your mindset if you wish to understand the other perspective.

What exactly doesn't make sense to you? If you believe in the divine only then nothing makes sense to you.

If you actually take your time and look into science you will start seeing the answers to both "hows" and "whys".

My 3 holy texts will be a general biology book, a general chemistry book and a general physics book just point to my "divine" text. It is truth because my "bible" said so

Alright, good luck with that catching on.

Its just my way of using their logic against them. Parroting how they phrase their argument just inserting science. If they find my logic wrong then it provides a pathway to point out their logic is wrong

The other perspective that is bruteforced since childhood when the human brain is the most gullible and fallible and sucks up every bit of information like a dry sponge. It also teaches to never question or trying to rationalize with consequences of eternal suffering because religion knows that fear is the most powerful emotion an animal can experience and this emotion throws rationality out the window.

It's better to assume that the stick you just saw is a snake than trying to rationalize if it is or is not. Time and time again we come back to basic biology.

There doesn't have to be a why, though, user. That's the huge flaw here, The assumption there has to be a reason or meaning. There doesn't.
That's like asking "why is 3.1415 pi?" There's no answer, that's just the ratio of circumference to radius. Because. No one sat in an office late at night deciding how circles work. It just is.

george!!!

But it doesn't work.

Your science has limitations. Their divinity does not. This is why it doesn't cause any cognitive dissonance. You are not the first one to attempt this. Until you accept the parameters of their beliefs without trying to apply your own to theirs, you will never understand them.

Very true. Still, whether they arrived at the question by brute force or their own beliefs, there is still the problem of That's what keeps them believing what they do.

Using a blanket tern like "science" (just saying the word science) removes its limitations. In this type of argument. They dont have to provide evidence so I dont have to. Saying "because faith or divinity" has the same merit as "because science"

This is a very good answer. Humans have to understand that not everything has to have a meaning. I tend to believe that we as humans have no meaning, at all. We are a product of complex biology that jut happened to evolve to this form because it was the most beneficial way for us to reproduce.

Or perhaps if the many worlds theory is true you just HAVE to exist as every other combination of atoms HAS to exist.

Either way, we like to think that we are special and meaningful when facts tell the complete oposite like it or not.

It scares most people to think that we have no higher purpose or meaning. Religious fags can barely admit we are animals too, most wont

I agree, we do not know what caused the big bang, but that in no way rationalizes the concept of divinity.

I think we can all agree that at this point it is simply foolish and ignorant to accredit the unknown to the divine. By doing so you just limit yourself and stall the progress for others. Time and time again science puts the pieces together and eventually comes up with an answer, is there any basis to think that the big bang will be an exception?

It's not even that scary. If anything it's liberating. But not everyone is going to feel the same way I guess.

Which comes back to my point that fear is the most powerful emotion which also happens to throw rationality out of the window because in essence doing so = higher chance of reproduction.

Yes on both

He actually said that?

He was dumber than I thought.

>bioLOGical

Attached: 1525932933991.jpg (183x183, 21K)

Leave.

Attached: tenor (1).gif (320x240, 1.32M)

Well, you exist.

>Dimwit atheist garbage
Lol.
Use your electric logic gate box to send me back a message instantaneously across the globe how much you think science is useless please?

I believe everything, and nothing

all knowledge is sacred, even the knowledge you stick your nose to

Not all of it is. That's the difference between religion and science. If a scientific concept becomes flawed or a better theory comes up, the old "knowledge" get's thrown out like yesterdays newspaper with no hard feelings attached, because science in it's core is the pursuit of truth.

Religious knowledge on the other hand is a stagnant know it all concept with no rational basis to back it up which gets circlejerked until the "knowledge" becomes so irrelevant to the modern world it has to be interpreted or in some cases completely rewritten, again with no factual basis, because it is no longer relevant in any shape or form.

thats not true, classical mechanics was overtaken by general relativity, but people still use classical mechanics all the time, it didnt get thrown out at all

science isnt interested in the truth at all, its merely interested in being practical, in solving "little problems"

the problem of induction clearly shows how the strictly empirical science can never reach universal principles, it can never reach "universal truth"

science merely says its the truth and everyone follows it, because its good at creating roads and machines and what not