any sciencists present?
>>945704753I eat poop. That makes me more qualified than most sciencists.
>>945704753>any sciencists present?there's no-one who could be bothered to try and start explaining in how many ways that post is utter bullshit.
>>945705494Shalom!
>>945705597yes, Shapiro is jewish. your point?
>>945705778YOU are Jewish.
>>945704753not me
>>945705494sounds like a dodge
>>945705823I don't believe in the Jewish-made Book of Genesis.So no.
>>945706128sounds like a dodgeNTA I don't think you're Jewishbut yeah, explain how OP is wrong
>>945704753Better than believing that an extradimensional that conveniently has no origin at all created everything just by saying the words.And that he created the first man out of dirt, and cloned him to create the first woman.Then because he designed his angels to be able to breed with humans, and the angel-human hybrids were violent, he decided to flood the entire planet and forced all the animals that survived to inbreed instead of just erasing the hybrids.Also, even though this being is all-knowing, all powerful and all-good, he wants you to sexually mutilate your sons as an offering to him.
>>945704753The truth is no one knows. A pastafarian’s belief is equally valid as a Christian, Muslim or Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist.We can suggest that being made from elements produced from stars is a guess too, but its a possibility - even though no one has seen and measured the output from an exploding star, flashes in a telescope is the best we have. It’s all a guess, no one knows the truth.
>>945706461>>945708784the Catholic Church accepts the big bang and evolution.they still believe in Jesus.I want to believe in Jesus, but I am remain unconvinced. Still hopeful though.
>>945709682It's called faith for a reason. You have to take the leap.
>>945709983faith means to trust, that has nothing to do with blind belief.
>>945710208No religion is blind belief.It still requires a leap.
>>945709983I think that if knowledge can be defined as true justified belief, and if there is in fact a way to objectively justify even one belief, then every fact will one day be justifiable. I have reason to believe this, but anything can be reasoned, justification is an entirely different matter and I do not know if anything can be proven. I choose to believe some fundamental realities, but I try to limit how many assumptions I make. I am willing to consider some seemingly absurd things, like Jesus being God, but I do not believe things without sufficient evidence. I am only a semi-mitigated skeptic.
>>945710613,*No, it is not.No, it does not.I don't think beliefs can be chosen.
>>945709983>>945710641*try to believeI guess I am undecided on what I want to be true, or what I can accept to be true.
Lack of explanation for the origin of the universe does not make bronze age semitic fables real.
>>945710692>I don't think beliefs can be chosen.This is wrong.>>945710937This is an acceptable position to be in, these things are worth considering deeply, and that can take time and be complex.
>>945711022it's possible the universe has no origin and God still exists.
>>945711231>>945711231>This is wrong.Why do you think that?
>>945711022it's also possible Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
>>945711635But extremely unlikely.
>>945711470>Why do you think that?try right now to choose to believe something. You can't do it. Whether you believe something or not has to do so much more with things you can't consciously, cognitively control. "Search your feelings, you know it to be true" basically describes the process of believing things. Of course, as you observe, learn, and experience things your feelings can change but what you believe is downstream from what you feel, over which you have no control.
>>945712275upon rereading the conversation, I see I read the question backwards and have embarrassed myself. Good day, gentlemen.
>>945711470Because you can choose to put faith in an idea or concept, and faith can lead to belief.
>>945712456Faith is belief without evidence; the refuge of retards
>>945712577don't pretend everything you believe is rigorously checked against evidence. What a ridiculous and inhuman thing to think of yourself, euphoric intellect detected.
>>945712577your trying to assert your definitions of words to slander those you disagree with is lamentable.
>>945712400hahaha, thank you for explaining my point.
>>945711954why do you feel that?
>>945712456I do not feel that is true, can you argue as for why you feel you can choose what you trust?
>>945713677because the idea of "gods" is extremely unlikely. the idea that the one god you were brought up being taught was real just so happens to be the exact one that happens to be "true" and all other gods are just foolish myths of primitive cultures is even more unlikely, given every single theist thinks "their" god is the right one, almost like its indoctrinated into them at a young age while they're too young to question it critically. the very fact that there is not one single piece of empirical evidence for presence of any god, any creation mythology, any afterlives, magic virgins who give birth, magical floods that cover the entire surface of the earth and leave no evidence and magically evaporate afterwards, no evidence for a single point of origin for mankind's DNA, no evidence for a world created 6000 years ago but thousands of points of evidence for its formation 4.5 billion years ago in such subjects as geology, radioisotope decay, zircon inclusion, etc...It all adds up to the plain simple fact: Most religious people believe what they were taught regardless of its utter insanity, and are unable to question the doctrines they have been walled in by.
>>945704753our reality is a single bubble in the foam of space-time, surrounded by other bubbles, swelling and budding off into new bubbles and eventually collapsingthe big bang is when one of those bubbles emerges from the foam and differentiates into a bubble
>>945714672I disagree
>>945718375that's hardly an argument with anything to back it up, is it?but _what_ do you disagree with? the convenient fact that you grew up with your religion and were told it was the "true" one from an early age? or do you simply disagree with the facts which are so inconvenient for you - for example, do you disagree that there is not one single piece of empirical evidence for any god? If you have that, then you've managed what 3000+ years of philosophers failed. do you disagree with the fact that there is no evidence for a pan-global flood of monumental proportions which covered the entire planet? do you disagree with the fact that there is no single point of origin for our species' DNA, and the fact that DNA can be traced back through predecessor species?do you disagree that the world is vastly more than 6000 years old, and disagree that we have a vast and consistent body of evidence of geologic time tracking back 4.5 billion years?Or is your blanket "I disagree" simply a codeword for "I dont understand biology, physics, chemistry, archaeology, or any sciences, and I therefore refuse to attempt to debate the subject, but I insist on sticking my opinion in because I think my ignorance is equally valid as the expertise of those in their respective fields whose knowledge contradicts my limited understanding of the world"?
>>945705968Dodge Ram? Nigger cock in my ass?
>>945719550Proof?
>>945719651its called reality. Go start learning about it. I'm not here to spoon-feed you what you should've learnt in school as a child.
>>945719976Don't use a spoon, use your asshole
>>945708784From my background knowledge, stars are very capable of creating the elements because they are powered by nuclear fusion (ex. turning hydrogen into helium, then into heavier elements)they're literally massive hydrogen bombs in outer space lol>>945709682I'm an athiest but I grew up my whole life believing Jesus was a very real personhis miracles probably didn't happen though (and I doubt they did) but I don't think there's any reason to think he doesn't exist aside from typical skepticism.
>>945711446ah! I've read about this:circular argument: coherentismregressive argument: InfinitismAxiomatic argument: foundationalism -- DeCartes was one foundationalistOne of my favorite arguments for coherentism is the raft argument, that the individual is a raft on a sea of possible beliefs, and we pick and choose what beliefs we incorporate into our worldview & knowledge.Beliefs that fit our worldview get accepted, those that don't get rejected (though obviously, you can convince someone by making an argument that they perceive as rational, "making a chain of reason" that they trust)
>>945704753>sciencistIs that anything like a scientist?
>>945720644Not the original quotee but isnt this a non falsifiable position? I might be retarded and mistaking a philosophical position with some other view
>>945705494>>9457047531. Shit has to have come from somewhere.2. It was either brought into being by God over 7 days or it came from the 'background' and took many many billions of years.3. Which one requires less energy, and is thus easier to pull off?Thank you.
>>945720884>non falsifiable positionLike an unprovable claim?I honestly don't know. I've never seriously studied philosophy.I don't even have a clear idea of how to know if a claim is unprovable or not.
>>945720779no, scientist is a profession. I was using the term sciencist to refer to proponents of scientism.
>>945721042how much energy does it require to have an non-corporeal entity manifest into the physical universe, and create everything in it by force of will? and how exactly do you quantify that energy output? When you have that data, then you can make an educated comparison of the energy expenditure of a magical being that doesn't exist, or a singularity point.
>>945721042>>945721042>1. Shit has to have come from somewhere.does it? why?what does that imply?>>945721042>2. It was either brought into being by God over 7 days or it came from the 'background' and took many many billions of years.see>>945709682>>945721042>3. Which one requires less energy, and is thus easier to pull off?I don't know, do you?
>>945704753>Be me>Random Tuesday >Be millennial>Tweet about magic skeleton
>>945721332I am a physicist and mere deduction suggested that in order for God to manifest everything in the entire Universe in seven days would require a lot more energy. He is omnipotent after all. Therefore by energy budget that is less likely to happen.>>945721511See above. Not shaming your belief, but come on.
The universe existing and infinitely recycling is in line with thermodynamics. Invoking a creator because you think there's a gap just introduces a cause that has to be specially pled into not requiring a cause.
>>945714672You’re treating disbelief as if it’s the neutral, evidence-based default, but it isn’t. It’s a metaphysical position with its own assumptions.Yes, there’s no empirical proof of God — but there’s also no empirical proof that reality is fundamentally mindless, that laws of physics are brute facts, or that consciousness and rationality are fully reducible to non-conscious matter. Those are philosophical commitments, not scientific conclusions.Pointing out that religious traditions are culturally inherited doesn’t resolve this either. Every worldview is culturally inherited, including naturalism. The question isn’t where a belief comes from, but whether it’s reasonable given the limits of what we can know.Science explains how systems behave once they exist; it does not explain why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is intelligible, or why conscious agents capable of reasoning exist at all. Saying “we don’t know yet” is honest — but so is admitting that a foundational mind is not an obviously worse explanation than brute, unexplained physical reality.I’m not claiming God exists. I’m saying disbelief is not epistemically privileged. At best, belief and disbelief are competing metaphysical interpretations, neither of which can claim decisive empirical victory.
>>945719550Simply asserting that disbelief is more reasonable doesn’t make it so. If disbelief really is the default, you need to explain what standard of reasonableness you’re using and why belief fails it while disbelief passes.Lack of empirical evidence cuts both ways here. God, if real, would be a metaphysical reality — not a physical object — so demanding laboratory-style proof misunderstands the type of claim being made. At the same time, naturalism also lacks empirical proof; it assumes that all that exists is physical and law-governed, even though the existence and nature of those laws is unexplained.Disbelief isn’t “just withholding belief” — it’s endorsing a worldview in which:the universe has no ultimate explanation,consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter,and reason itself is a product of blind processes.That may be true, but it’s hardly self-evident or obviously more rational than the alternative.I’m not arguing for certainty, faith, or dogma. I’m arguing that belief in God is at least as reasonable as disbelief, given the shared ignorance at the deepest level of reality. Pretending otherwise is confidence without justification.
>>945722713Those two ideas aren’t mutually exclusive.An eternal or cyclic universe doesn’t rule out God any more than a finite one does. It just shifts what God would be responsible for. Instead of being a temporal “first cause,” God could be the ground of existence, the reason there is a lawful, intelligible reality at all — infinite or not.Saying “the universe has always existed” doesn’t remove the explanatory question, it just relocates it. You still have brute facts: why there is something rather than nothing, why there are stable laws, why those laws are mathematically coherent, and why conscious agents capable of reasoning exist within them.Likewise, invoking God isn’t automatically special pleading unless God is being treated as just another contingent object inside the universe. Classical theism explicitly denies that — God isn’t a thing that begins, so the “what caused God?” question is a category error, not an exemption.You can reject that framework if you want, but an infinite universe doesn’t magically dissolve metaphysical questions — it just answers one narrow version of them.
>>945726980>Why is there something rather than nothing?There may be no reason in the sense you’re asking for. “Nothing” might not be a stable or even coherent state, and existence could be the default rather than something that needs explaining. Not every fact has to have a deeper explanation — some things may be brute facts.Asking “why” here may be like asking “why do the laws of logic exist?” It presupposes that reality must justify itself to us, which may simply be false.>Why are there stable laws of physics?The laws may not be fundamental — they could be emergent regularities that arise from deeper structures, or they could vary across a larger multiverse, with only stable-law regions persisting long enough for observers to notice them.There’s no demonstrated need to posit intention or agency here. Order can arise naturally; chaos doesn’t preclude structure.>Why are the laws mathematically coherent?Mathematics may not be “imposed” on reality — it may be our language for describing patterns that necessarily exist in any consistent system.We evolved to notice regularities because doing so is advantageous. The universe appears mathematically describable because only describable universes can be described, and only describers arise in such universes.>Why does consciousness exist?Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of sufficiently complex information-processing systems. While we don’t yet have a complete explanation, gaps in understanding are not evidence of non-natural causes.History strongly suggests that phenomena once thought irreducible (life, heat, motion) eventually received natural explanations. There’s no reason to assume consciousness is different.
>>945726980>Why do conscious agents capable of reasoning exist?Because reasoning improves prediction and survival in structured environments. Evolution selects for systems that model reality accurately enough to act within it.Reason doesn’t need to be perfect or metaphysically grounded — it only needs to be good enough.>Why not God, then?Because positing God doesn’t actually solve these problems — it terminates inquiry by introducing an entity whose own nature is unexplained.Replacing “the universe just exists” with “God just exists” doesn’t reduce mystery; it relocates it, while adding:an unobserved mindintentionsagencyand causal powersFrom an atheist perspective, that’s explanatory inflation, not parsimony.>The atheist bottom lineWe don’t know everything — and that’s fine.Unexplained facts don’t automatically point to God, especially when natural explanations have a strong historical track record of success. Until a deity explains something better than naturalism — with fewer assumptions and more predictive power — disbelief remains the more cautious position.
>>945727120>On “why is there something rather than nothing?”Saying “there may be no reason” is itself a metaphysical claim, not a neutral default. It asserts that reality can be ultimately brute — that existence needs no explanation — which is a substantive philosophical commitment, not an empirical finding.The theist argues that contingent existence cries out for explanation. The universe, whether finite or infinite, appears conditional: it has properties it could have lacked, laws it could have had otherwise, and no obvious necessity forcing it to exist at all. An eternal chain of contingent states does not become necessary simply by being infinite.Appealing to God is not answering “why” with “because I said so,” but positing a necessary being whose essence includes existence — something that does not merely happen to exist, but must. That is a different kind of explanation than brute fact, not a refusal to explain.>On stable laws of physicsThe claim that laws are “emergent regularities” or multiverse artifacts doesn’t actually explain why there are any regularities to begin with — or why the meta-laws that generate multiverses exist and behave consistently.The theist position is that laws are not things; they are descriptions of how reality behaves. Descriptions require something underlying them. Saying “the universe just behaves lawfully” avoids the question of why reality is law-like at all instead of chaotic or unintelligible.God, in this framework, is not a tinkerer imposing rules, but the rational ground of order itself. Laws reflect intelligibility because reality arises from an intelligible source.
>>945727120>On mathematical coherenceSaying mathematics is “just our language” understates the problem. Mathematics routinely predicts features of reality before they’re observed, often discovered independently across cultures. That suggests we are discovering structure, not inventing it.The atheist explanation — “only describable universes can be described” — is a selection effect, not an explanation. It tells us why we observe coherence, not why coherence exists.The theist sees mathematical structure as evidence that reality is fundamentally rational, not merely regular by accident. If the universe arises from mind, its deep intelligibility is expected rather than surprising.>On consciousness as emergenceInvoking emergence explains correlation, not identity. We know brain states and conscious states are linked — that’s not in dispute. What remains unexplained is why physical processes should give rise to subjective experience at all.Past reductions (heat motion, life chemistry) worked because the phenomena were already objective and third-person. Consciousness is first-person and irreducible in that sense. No description of neural firings logically entails the existence of experience.The theist argues that mind emerging from non-mind is not analogous to complexity emerging from simplicity — it’s a category leap. A universe grounded in mind makes consciousness unsurprising; a purely material universe makes it deeply puzzling.
>>945727138>On reason as an evolutionary toolIf reason is merely a survival mechanism tuned for fitness rather than truth, then confidence in our reasoning itself is undermined — including confidence in atheism.Evolution selects for behaviors that help organisms survive, not for beliefs that are metaphysically true. In many cases, false beliefs can be adaptive. The theist argues that trusting human reason as a reliable guide to truth makes more sense if reality itself is rationally ordered and our minds participate in that order.This isn’t saying atheists can’t reason — it’s saying the grounds for trusting reason are stronger under theism than under strict naturalism.>On “why not God?”The claim that God “terminates inquiry” misunderstands the role God plays in classical theism. God is not an ad hoc placeholder for ignorance, but a metaphysical endpoint — the explanation that stops regress because it is not contingent.Saying “the universe just exists” and “God just exists” are not equivalent. One posits a contingent system with unexplained features; the other posits a necessary being whose nature explains why explanation ends there.Parsimony isn’t about counting entities; it’s about explanatory power. A single necessary ground that explains existence, order, intelligibility, consciousness, and reason may be ontologically simpler than an unexplained universe plus unexplained laws plus unexplained minds plus unexplained rationality.
>>945727138>The theist bottom lineTheism does not claim certainty, nor does it deny unanswered questions. It claims that reality looks less like an accident and more like something grounded in reason.Naturalism can be coherent, but it leaves its deepest features unexplained by design — calling them brute facts. Theism offers a unified account in which existence, order, mind, and reason are not lucky coincidences but expressions of a deeper foundation.Belief in God is not an attempt to end inquiry — it’s an attempt to explain why inquiry is possible at all.
>>945727673>Theism does not claim certainty, no, it only claims absolute certainty with "papal infallibility" or similar statemetns, while making proclamations about the specific nature of the particular god and which minorities he hates and would like you to persecute, and proclamations of the absolute nature of the creation of the universe. Totally not "claiming certainty" at all. do you actually believe the bullshit you're pontificating here?
>>945728103I hear your frustration, but I think there’s a misunderstanding about what classical theism claims versus what institutional religion sometimes does. When I said “theism does not claim certainty,” I was referring to philosophical/theological arguments for God’s existence — not specific dogmas or edicts issued by religious authorities like the Pope.Classical theism is not about asserting arbitrary proclamations about who God hates or whom to persecute. It’s about asking: Why does anything exist at all? Why does the universe follow intelligible laws? Why is mind and reason possible? The claim isn’t that we have all the answers with absolute certainty, but that positing a necessary being provides a coherent explanation for these deep features of reality.Institutional religion often mixes politics, culture, and historical context into its claims, which is very different from the metaphysical argument itself. Criticizing one is fair; conflating it with the other misrepresents the philosophical position.In short: classical theism is not “bullshit pontificating” — it’s an attempt to make sense of the most fundamental questions about existence, order, and consciousness, while acknowledging that our understanding is incomplete. It’s a search for explanation, not an assertion of arbitrary certainty.
>>945730718Ah, AI generated responses. guess all that pontificating bullshit is as much a crock of shit as your imaginary friend in the sky.
Super Bowl 60 coming up tonight. Bad Bunny performance at halftime
>>945731420ah, ad hominem guess somethings better than nothing, maybe that's not true
>>945706277OP's question is if there's any "sciencists" present. ... why would his question be a subject of adjudicating right or wrong?
>>945731904OP can also mean original picture, to which that poster was referring
>>945731904sounds like a dodge
>>945731904OP here
>>945731904>OP's question is if there's any "sciencists" present.I never heard anybody self-identify as a "Sciencist", which is typically a pejorative term referring to people who think science explains everything, which is not what scientists think...they realize science has limits.
>>945732459it's funny how many sciencist trolls there are on 4chan, whether or not they're larping is debatable
>>945732841A lot of larping goes on here regardless of the subject.
>>945709983I believe in Zeus. The Christian god is a joke compared to Zeus.
>>945733553That response actually illustrates the problem, not a counterargument.Zeus and the Christian God aren’t competing characters in the same genre. Zeus is a contingent being within the universe — born, limited, morally flawed, subject to fate and higher principles. He explains weather and power struggles, not why reality exists or is intelligible at all.Classical theism isn’t about preferring one mythological personality over another. It’s about whether there is a necessary ground of being — something that explains existence, order, reason, and mind as such, rather than being one more thing that exists.You can believe in Zeus the way you believe in Superman. That’s fine rhetorically, but it doesn’t engage the actual argument. The question isn’t “which god do you like,” it’s whether reality bottoms out in contingency or necessity.If Zeus exists, the deeper question still remains: why does Zeus exist at all?Classical theism is addressing that level of explanation.
>>945713741Trust is fundamentally a choice, if you've just been living your life without putting thought into what you trust you've been letting a hugely important part of your life run on auto-pilot unnecessarily.
>>945734523>>945734523I see what you mean about trust feeling like a choice, but I think there’s a subtle distinction between deciding to try to trust something and actually believing or trusting it.Belief or trust isn’t just a matter of conscious will — it emerges from what our minds actually accept as credible or reliable. You can make a decision to put yourself in a position to trust someone or something — for example, to observe evidence or give someone a chance — but whether trust actually forms depends on your perception, reasoning, and experience. You can’t simply declare “I trust this” and make it true if your mind doesn’t accept it.In other words, you can act as if you trust something, or create conditions that make trust possible, but the internal state of genuine trust is not directly chosen. It’s downstream from factors you don’t have full conscious control over — your judgment, your emotions, your evaluation of evidence.So while it’s valuable to consciously orient yourself toward trust, it’s different from literally choosing what you trust. That’s why I say trust can be cultivated, but it can’t be willed into existence like flipping a switch.
>>945734162in Hellenistic Greece Zues was God
>>945704753Surely scientists believing this must be part of God's ineffable plan. Why be mad at them? Is His creation not good enough for you?
>>945737074interesting point, OP here, I consider myself a bit of an amateur sciencist. I am also a de facto theist. I think most true scientists are at the very least leaning theist. although that could be untrue, maybe they are the minority, maybe it's 50/50. I would be interested how one would even qualify/quantify "true scientist". But like a previous anon said, it is doubtful many scientists are sciencists.
>>945704753how is this any different to there being no god and suddenly then a god?
tbh famalam what it comes down to is: he could do anything, but chose an option where its possible for people to suffer and go to hell. it didnt have to be that way, he just chose it to be that way. so hes kinda a dick, pure and simple. if you could, at zero effort to yourself, make the outcome of something bad, good, and you just...didnt, your an ass. same applies to god
>>945739945Nonsense, without suffering life has no meaning.
>>945739989only if god wants it to. if god decided life had meaning, even without suffering, he would just make it so. if he cant, well, then...is he really god?
>>945740165oof, grim
>>945740109Life would be boring and pointless without any challenge.
>>945740267he could make it so it was interesting, anyways. hes god, remember
>>945740541It is interesting precisely because there are challenges and constraints. Imagine if the plot of Lord of the Rings was “they stayed in the Shire and smoked their pipes” wouldn’t be quite as exciting, would it?
>>945740623and he could make it so anyways, again....hes god. seems weird people seem to forget this>>945740693oof indeed. some dude upstairs could've made me so, but...
let's examine 4 idea of how life came to be:1. god (or whatever magic) did it2. some none magic intelligent life started this shit show3. random chance - dna formed ultimately culminating into functioning cell life and then evolving4. this whole thing is an elaborate video gamesThe only one we can experiment on and replicate is 3. theres nothing wrong with saying this is the best evidence we have at the time and changing your view as more evidence becomes known.
>>945740763I feel like you’re missing the point. God created a world where humans have meaningful agency and yes that includes suffering. That suffering contributes to the sense of challenge and meaning that underlies our free will and make it meaningful.
>>945740804well yeah, because if hes real, hes a bit of a dick>>945740831annnd....he could do both that, and make it a perfect world where no one suffers. he can just...literally, make it so.if he cant. then....see above....
>>945740872No, that would be boring. Life without challenge or suffering would be pointless and wouldn’t require agency.
>>945704753>Sciencists
>>945740904he could make it exciting. hes god. or...cant he?
>>945740915wow that sucks
>>945740953i guess it depends on if you believe hes god or not
>>945740934I feel like we’re kind of talking past each other…
>>945740983oh i have two monitors, so im doing something on the other, and can just see you reply on the other instantly.
>>945741004not really. my argument or position hasnt changed. its either you or some other guy who just started talking about sucking cock or something for whatever reason
>>945741039Yeah that’s not me, ‘m the guy who insists life would be meaningless without suffering and challenge.
>>945726980>Likewise, invoking God isn’t automatically special pleading unless God is being treated as just another contingent object inside the universe. Classical theism explicitly denies that — God isn’t a thing that begins, so the “what caused God?” question is a category error, not an exemption.Just saying "The rules don't apply to god, just because" IS the special pleading. You don't get around the fallacy by literally committing the fallacy.
Join my debate server, argumentative nerdshttps://discord DOT gg/pDzy7rhj
>>945704753>cletus seething at people not worshipping his jew on a stick
>>945741135right, well, my point still stands. in a nutshell, its basically: can god make 1 + 1 = 3?>>945741054well pornhub should have ya covered there, bud
>>945726508Are you a Yank? I feel only Yanks get this fussy about mere lack of faith and the implication that believing in (a) god isn't rational or logical - Even though it isn't by very definition.
>>945741238haha, like a turkey
>>945741405yeah im getting invested in what hes trying to do here
I started this day without faithNow I have someHope I don't lose it again
>>945726523Assuming something that you cannot see, hear, feel, prove or know does nor exist makes more sense than assuming it does.. The more specific the thing in question is, the less reasonable it is to assume it exists anyway. I
>>945741212He could, but why?
>>945741480well its mostly irrelevant, the point is "he can do anything", or allegedly, can do anything. then that goes back to my comment "he could make reality such where no suffering happens", but he doesnt, which goes back toooo my original point that, if thats the case, hes kinda a dick. its pretty much exactly what i said here:>>945739945
>>945741567oh, well thats pretty easy to disprove, so, uh, here ya go
Test
>>945741639theres a ban page you can check.https://www.4chan.org/banned
>>945741478you think its "mental retardation" that the default state is to assume anything claimed exists?So if I claim that I'm a billionaire nobel physics prize-winning astrophysicist with a 4-foot penis and twelve Lamborghinis in my mansion, it would be "retarded" to assume thats a lie? or if I tell you that I personally commune with god by meditation and he tells me all white people should be killed as they're a genetic mutation without melanin, it would be "retarded" to thing that's untrue? I'm guessing you're not going to like that one, and reject it. and what if I claim you that I personally hear god in my prayers, and he tells me to kill all those gay faggots as abominations to his eyes? Is that "retarded"? I'm willing to bet if I hadn't listed the first two, you'd probably be all in on believing that one. and if I claim that there's a supernatural being who created the universe just for you, and demands you worship him, and, oh, conveniently, give your money to his priests? You'd be "retarded" not to believe that? I don't know about you, but I would think anyone who believes any of those four examples is a bit soft in the head.
>>945741630Tiny hands
>>945741478It may seem that way if you've be taught or convinced to believe in things without any evidence or indication they are real.
>>945741820my mom says im tall>>945741743yeah check it out, years of madkatz has broken my poor hands
>>945741913oh no im burning this proverbial temple to the ground. its too bad i dont have three hands to take a picture of it, but i can touch my elbows behind my back, and skiprope handcuffed. its the most worthless party trick ever
>>945741858
>>945741947seriously tho you should watch out for aortic dissection and other dangers of hypermobility
>>945741892no, the second sentence is an example. but, hey, 53% of Americans read at the level of a 12-year old or worse, so I can place a bet as to why you might not understand that, and instead default to thinking gods are real.
>>945741456Assume whatever you want, it's when you claim to know that I will put you in your place.
>>945742001>2020lel>>945742044oh yeah already gone all over that stuff, marfans and elhners danlos, or whatever the spelling is for either of them
>>945742153Yeah it's just my stock hand pic
>>945742369with one large huge coke in his hands
>>945705494Wrong again, retard. some of us are in stem for the love of the game.>>945704753the big bang is kinda forgone because we dont really have any way to prove what happened on the other side, all we know is that theres a single point in time all the universe seems to have originated from. I like to think the universe restarted rather than just came to be but thats not really founded in fact.the life thing is... fuckin dumb. what really happened was lighter elements in nebulae were able to form amino acids. without diving into the actual chemistry of why (because its hard if you dont know orgo), basically they formed by photoreactions where stellar radiation gave the boost in energy needed to begin breaking and forming bonds. We know amino acids come from space because we find them in meteorites. They attach to eachother by forming an amide between the carboxylic acid of one and the amino of another. The assumption I learned was that these chains kept getting trapped in bilayered michelle structures (cell wall, michelle structures (one layer) form under the right conditions on their own). Eventually one of those little bubbles had the stuff to do something and make another of itself and thats pretty much how life started. All the other steps that follow are mostly just anecdotes of the bubble changing its contents as it recreates itself and eventually, because of resource competition, develops into something "potent" in its environment through many iterations of trial and error (the error dies, the success propagates).Most of these things can be demonstrated to be feasible and parts of it have evidence we can use to assert that it did happen, but also a lot of science, especially archaeology, is interpretive.also this is just, like, what the context is? it hardly has much bearing on the human experience.
>>945704753>when you have loud opinions about measurements, disagree with all the explanations there are but dont provide a better explanationmany such cases
>>945704753i never really understood the argument that the universe cannot have existed forever but god can have existed foreverpre big bang universe wasnt nothing cause nothing is physically impossible, instead it had particles which phased in and out of existencethe current prevailing theory is after the heat death of the universe when the last protons decay there will still be these particles which will eventually create a second big bang and itll all happen all over again
>>945742713Yes
Trump
>>945741555I've dwelt on this for awhile. I'm not sure what purpose evil was intended to serve but I feel that whatever it was supposed to accomplish must have been done by now. I think we are seeing the world transition to a mature, healed, state, and what we are experiencing is residual growing pains.
>>945743282>The whole universe...Universal consciousness is about to peak. But Disney probably owns that already.
>>945743065>>945743137Friendly fire! The humans are elsewhere...
>>945704753>i pray to science bcuz something happened out of nothingwhat a fucking retarded statement, fundamentally false
Everyone fails to understand that the problem is mistranslationsthe word is not creator, the word is owner
>>945746895It's good to belong!
>>945746334So why do you pray to science?
>>945747117Genesis doesn't describe the creation of earth it describes the recovery after catastrophe
>>945748429Gnosticism? Neat. Tidy. Dangerously deceptive? Or truthfully safe?
>>945735139>trust can be cultivated, but it can’t be willed into existence like flipping a switch.I understand what you mean, but cultivating trust *is* willing it into existence, just not like flipping a switch.Choosing to put trust in something can be the beginning of developing that deeper sense of trust that you describe as being something other than a matter of conscious will.You choose to put yourself on a course that might lead to a deeper kind of trust. Or not, if the thing ends up being shallow, or deceptive or something like that.
>>945710692A fellow doxastic involuntarist! Good to see there's still some people with a good brain on this site. We are only a small minority in this world. Descartes has been a disaster for philosophy and has singlehandedly set back neuroscience decades.
>>945720644Descartes was a mathematical genius but that fuckface should've never gotten into philosophy.
>>945750761You can consider something without trusting it. You can care about something without knowing it. You can know about something without caring about. You can deepen knowledge without deepening caring. You can deepen caring without deepening knowledge. You can deepen knowledge and caring and still not trust.Trust has to be earned
>>945752435>Trust has to be earnedThis isn't literally true, there are plenty of people who are too trusting of things becasue they don't consider if they should.How your trust is earned is up to you, that part of trust is definitely a choice.
>>945753771the difference between earned trust and naïve trustthe difference between conditional and unconditional lovethe difference between blind belief and true justified belief
the last line
Riddle me this Batman: Who created God?
>>945759803>>945759803>>On “why not God?”>The claim that God “terminates inquiry” misunderstands the role God plays in classical theism. God is not an ad hoc placeholder for ignorance, but a metaphysical endpoint — the explanation that stops regress because it is not contingent.>Saying “the universe just exists” and “God just exists” are not equivalent. One posits a contingent system with unexplained features; the other posits a necessary being whose nature explains why explanation ends there.>Parsimony isn’t about counting entities; it’s about explanatory power. A single necessary ground that explains existence, order, intelligibility, consciousness, and reason may be ontologically simpler than an unexplained universe plus unexplained laws plus unexplained minds plus unexplained rationality.
>>945762104Well, that was a word salad that essentially says, "Because that's what I mean by god." We know the universe has a beginning, so your argument is that this guy just happened to be passing my and decided, "Hey, let's make a universe." Okay, that's good for giggles.
>>945764604You don't even know basic cosmology and you call yourself a sciencist?
>>945764604
>>945762104>is not an ad hoc placeholder for ignorance, but a metaphysical endpointliterally the same thing
>>945704753pic rel is just a retard saying stuff doesn't make sense if he doesn't personally understand it
>>945704753Test
>>945704753How's it make any more sense for a god to spawn from nothing and then make something, rather than something just being here to begin with?I never understood how theologians actually think this is an argument that makes sense
>>945764604>Well, that was a word salad its AI generated nonsense.
>>945764604>>945769095this. have you ever. EVER seen someone use "—" on 4chan. fucking ever?
>>945704753>any sciencists present?Here's the response: Fair enough, now how did God come to be?And we're done here with this nonsense.
>>945769479>Fair enough, now how did God come to be?>>And we're done here with this nonsense.Simple: You wouldn't understand anyways. And we're done here. You've been proven wrong. Good bye. Don't even try to reply back pussy. And we're done here.
>>945769634I'm fine waiting for a non-existent God to get mad at me. I hope you won't aid that non-existent thing, based on you're imaginings it would be pleased you helped it against its political enemies. Let God do its own dirty work!
>>945769694You're gonna die before me so I don't really care. Then you're gonna find out. And you're probably gonna pretend you're an edgy fag who likes a dark nothingness, but that really scares you actually and you don't want that, but that's what you're getting if you keep it up.
>>945769750you're awfully upset there. Is there something about the fact that you cant actually provide any empirical evidence, or any logical reason why the existence of god inserted into the creation of the world doesnt open up a whole series of contradictions, which causes you to be angry at people who call you out for your bullshit posturing?
>>945769896Buzz wording around like you're a fat bee. For what?Just use words you know.And I'm correct, you're just gonna die before me irl anyways so you'll find out and hopefully, regret just saying dumb shit online for reactions you don't even save or use for anything.
>>945737873What is a theist?
>>945704753I'm no scientist but I love space.Mm..There never was nothing, there always was stuff. It just compacted itself and under all its energy it exploded and shot everything it had into the void.Atoms don't fly around randomly. Every single atom and particle is attracted to all others no matter the distance. Given enough time those find themselves to create clouds that get denser and form things.. those grow and grow till they collapse under their mass creating stellar objects. Dense clouds in space are still creating new stars, it just takes horrendously long.Living things are just energy, atoms aren't alive.Fish don't breathe water, they have an organ to extract oxygen from water. When the oxygen is low like during algae blooms, fish swim to the surface and breathe through their mouth.I forgot the rest of the greentext.But eventually everything should fall together again and then explode again to refresh the universe.
>>945770295so if it was all compacted somewhere, what was around outside of it
>>945770503The thing that exists in space now. Empty pockets where particles plop into existence, smash into each other and annihilate each other. Absolute nothingness. Or maybe there was stuff like old broken planets and rocks and whatnot that didn't get compacted into the singularity before it exploded.
>>945770539space isnt empty. theres radioactivity and magnetic fields and yadda yadda that isnt impacted by any sort of gravity and shit
>>945770664That's nothing we can touch tho. The empty voids in space have the particles that form from energy and kill each other but like.. there is no real matter. Only radiation which is energy and dark energy.. usually in space there is stuff. Nebulas or star systems. Great voids don't rly have any of that
