Why do Christians believe in fate, destiny, and "it was

>>1929819

God's omniscience contradicts free will, but if you don't believe that people have free will, then you can't accept God burning people forever for "freely choosing" the wrong thing.

If God knew before he created us which if us he would burn forever and which he wouldn't (which of course he did, since he's omniscient), then you're left with a deity who creates humans with the explicit intention of burning them forever, which runs contrary to the whole "omnibenevolent" thing.

>>1929819
We are God's creation but God isn't directly involved in every facet of our lives.

I know there are books on the problem of evil that explain the whole concept of this in greater detail.

>>1929830

LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
LALALA MYSTERIOUS WAYS LALALA

>>1929830
>>1929830
But I can change my fate by praying and repenting my sins and doing good to others.

>>1929830
He knows of our fate before he created us but it never says he determines it.

>>1929830
God creates man, leaves him to his devices, but also knows what choices man will make beforehand. There is no contradiction here, God does not control your fate, he only knows of it and allows you to fall into error if you so desire.

>>1929854
I was going to say god doesn't create people destined for hell. He creates all people in his image and for heaven but humans have free will and can change that. But this is more accurate.

>>1929852

Great segue into the problem of evil

>>1929845

No you can't. Can you change God's will? Can you surprise God, do soemthing he didn't think you would?

>>1929852

Except he isn't just omniscient, he also created us. So yes, he DID determine our fates, before he even created the Universe.

>>1929854

It's not a contradiction but most Christians shy away from admitting that God is a psychopathic sadist who creates humans explicitly to burn them in fire forever.

>>1929854
>>1929852
I think creating something you know is doomed to eternal suffering is worse than not giving it free will in the first place, or creating it at all.

File: lolgod.png (354KB, 500x499px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 500x499px

>it's a "/his/ is just another spiritual ideology debate board after all" episode
apparently we didn't learn from what befell /sci/ after all...

>>1929854
He can always not create someone he knows is doomed to go to hell

Allah knows your fate and you can change his decree by giving duaa. Submitting to Allah and only allah, praying, giving to the poor, etc.

Apparently that makes god ever so merciful. If god was ever so merciful then why would he create people destined for hell to begin with or even create hell? And why would somebody who wants everybody to worship him create non believers?

I can find no history on this or anything in the Qur'an or hadith and when I asked a scholar he looked at me like he was going to kill me then just said Allah knows what we don't know.

>>1929819
God is above good and evil. If He causes suffering, then it matters little, because all suffering is ultimately transient. God exists as the only truth, being the creator of all that was or will be, and so it is that we might be described as little more than His fleeting dreams. God transcends time and existence, and so He knows all futures and possibilities; in a sense, it is logical to consider that they must all occur simultaneously from His perspective. God is a perfect being, surpassing all human attempts at understanding, and any contradiction we may observe is due to our limitations and lower forms.

We cannot comprehend any hypothetical sufficiently higher-dimensional entity, or any alternate universe operating under entirely different physical laws, or even the fundamental phenomena that lie behind the absolute smallest components of existence and the reasons as to why the most basic relationships between these units occur. All of these things illustrate the limitations of our understanding, and the nature of God goes even further in its infinite and transcendent totality.

>>1929854
>God creates man, leaves him to his devices, but also knows what choices man will make beforehand.
If he knows what choices you make before hand, and chooses to create you in that way anyway as opposed to another way, then he is controlling your fate.

>>1929819
It's called cognitive dissonance, religion's best friend.

>>1929819
Because they are filthy Calvinists

Pretty sure humans use the whole "God/Elohim made it happen" because they cower from responsibility.
Though, when i think of good and evil it's more like the cartoon conscious thing.
If you don't believe in good or evil, you won't have one~~~~~!

i mean god/devil*

>>1929854

>God creates man, leaves him to his devices, but also knows what choices man will make beforehand

The end result of this hypothesis is that god, from the get-go, knew exactly where we as a society would end up, who would get to heaven and hell and that it was already set in stone. There can't be a free will under these circumstances because your path is already determined.

I'm not saying there is any free will, only that it's incompatible with an omniscient god.

>God does not control your fate, he only knows of it and allows you to fall into error if you so desire.

Since time began, god has known exactly which amongst us would end up in hell and heaven. Thus any illusion of sin or free will is pointless, since it will all just be according to his plan anyway. And furthermore, his EXACT plan since he is omniscient.

Where does the Bible mention free will?

>>1931032
>Where does the Bible mention free will?
Nowhere. It is a later christian concept that have to contradic others concepts otherwise the whole "God loves you" thing don't really work.

>>1929819
Dont argue with christians they are mentally retarded.

>>1929933
>you can change his decree

Nope. The Koran makes it very clear, Allah hardens the hearts of the unbelievers so that they reject Mohammed, he actively keeps people from accepting the truth in order to burn them.

>>1930047
>because all suffering is ultimately transient.

Except for that eternal torture he's set up to burn those of us he created without the capacity to believe in him. Because he LOVES us....

>>1930753
>>God does not control your fate, he only knows of it and allows you to fall into error if you so desire.
>Since time began, god has known exactly which amongst us would end up in hell and heaven.

It's actually even worse than that, because God created us and the Universe in such a way that some (most?) humans would end up burning in the fires. It's not like he "had" to create the Universe the way he did, he chose to do so, to create a mechanism that would condemn some (most?) of his creation to hellfire.

>>1931616
The eternal torture of lower entities is both meaningless and false next to the perfection of God, for in truth, there is nothing defined but for God. God is the only truth, and His love for His creations must be understood as the love we perceive through the cracked and distorted lens of human comprehension. That any form of suffering exists at all is the will of God, just as all other forms of seeming imperfection within Creation are. God is the only eternal entity, and your perception of the damnation is a view borne of ignorance fed to the masses; peasants and the small-minded perceive a bath in unending hellfire to be damnation, but the only true damnation is separation from God: Damnation is solely a state of deprivation, there is no Hell but the hell of not joining God's perfection and infinity.

"You" -- that is to say, your "soul", what may be considered the distillation of all that you are -- can only join God if it desires to join God, and if it does not, then it will both be and not be "you" that enters damnation, for you cannot truly exist in your unmaking without transcendence borne of God. Some might call this tyranny, but how can a false world be tyrannised, how can any simulation be respected next to the truth of its creator?

>>1931598
did my IQ suddenly jump the moment I stopped being a christian?

>>1929819
God exists outside logic, see Christians and their whole God is actually a third of God.

>>1931730
>The eternal torture of lower entities is both meaningless and false next to the perfection of God

That's nice for God but it hardly helps me, does it?

>peasants and the small-minded

By which you mean, "people who have read the Bible"?

>Damnation is solely a state of deprivation

God is omnipresent, so this is a nonsensical claim. There is no deprivation of God, not on Earth and not in Hell.

>he thinks free will exists
give it a year and you'll see the source

>>1931765
>That's nice for God but it hardly helps me, does it?

You are a creature in God's creation, a figment within His dream. What does and doesn't help you is irrelevant; you can only aspire to transcend this state of being and become joined to God's perfection. And as I said, there is no true eternal torture, for you cannot exist when you are unmade without God. Your damnation is the state of being deprived from God.

>By which you mean, "people who have read the Bible"?
It is stated canon by many Christian sects, including the Catholic church (and for that matter, most other monist religions besides Christianity that theologically and philosophically analyse the transcendent Being that is perfect and indivisible), that Hell is not a bath in fire and brimstone that manifests in some human-imagined temporal existence. Hell, damnation, is the state of being of deprivation from God and his transcendence.

>God is omnipresent, so this is a nonsensical claim. There is no deprivation of God, not on Earth and not in Hell.
God permeates all of His creation, yes. But what is meant by deprivation from God is any degree of separation between Him and yourself, with damnation being the most extreme state of deprivation. When you join God, you are literally transcending all degrees of separation from yourself and Him, and all the others that have also joined God. It is a state of completion. And again; Hell is not a place, Earth is a temporal figment of God's will, and paradise is transcending human suffering and pleasure, entering a state of perfect bliss and completion.

>>1931801
>But what is meant by deprivation from God is any degree of separation between Him and yourself, with damnation being the most extreme state of deprivation

If God is omnipresent there cannot be ANY degree of separation, period.

>It is stated canon by many Christian sects

So I should ignore what the Bible clearly says on the topic?

>You are a creature in God's creation, a figment within His dream.

Please cite the chapter and verse where this is spelled out. I think you may have mistaken Hinduism for Christianity, an easy mistake to make I'm sure.

>>1931821
>If God is omnipresent there cannot be ANY degree of separation, period.
The creator and controller of a simulation can be considered to be omnipresent, and his will essentially permeates the entirety of the simulation. That does not mean that there exists no degrees of separation between the actors within a simulation and the creator-controller itself.

>So I should ignore what the Bible clearly says on the topic?
Do you take everything in the Bible literally? Jesus stated that damnation was an "unquenchable fire", and he was right. To be deprived of God in its extreme is to be thrown into a state of perpetual, consuming want.

>Please cite the chapter and verse where this is spelled out. I think you may have mistaken Hinduism for Christianity, an easy mistake to make I'm sure.
I am not alluding to anything in the Bible when I state that. I am only attempting to understand and share my understanding of a small facet of God's nature and existence. If God is the only perfect being and creation is borne solely from His will and imagining, and if creation is wholly transient and conceived, then how is creation not effectively to Him what our dreams and imaginings are to us? Again, I cannot claim that any aspect of my understanding is perfect and unassailable. I can only make attempts at understanding in limited ways what God must truly be like and His relationship with the universe and existence.

>>1931855
>The creator and controller of a simulation

Okay. Irrelevant unless you claim the Bible describes reality as a simulation.

>That does not mean that there exists no degrees of separation between the actors within a simulation and the creator-controller itself.

It does if one of those actors has the property of being omnipresent!

>Do you take everything in the Bible literally?

I'm not a Christian so no. However, if you're arguing a Christian perspective and you DON'T take the Bible literally, then you have no argument because I can just say "well that bit about god, that's just a metaphor :^)"

>if creation is wholly transient and conceived,

There's nothing in the Bible to support such a claim, on the contrary the Bible is pretty clear about the realness of reality.

>Again, I cannot claim that any aspect of my understanding is perfect and unassailable.

My friend, your "understanding" is completely incoherent even from a Christian perspective.

>>1931865
I'm not a Christian, either. I'm an agnostic atheist acting as a devil's advocate. Almost everything in your arguments is essentially an argument against taking the Bible literally, though.

I adapted a lot of what I was saying from some discussions I've had with a couple of acquaintances that are theology students. They don't think that everything in the Bible should be taken literally -- for that matter, not even the Pope thinks that everything in the Bible should be taken literally. It's enjoyable to analyse, though.

>>1929819

Being outside of time, God knows whole history, that's true. It's also true that the particular events, although known beforehand by God, weren't true choices freely made by men. There is no contradiction here.

What's more, it's not even contradictory with God's omnibenevolence - God was still providing means for sinner's salvation when they were sinning, which they freely rejected - that's what divine love is (for more on its nature, see the difference between affective and effective love - God's is called effective).

File: comeonnow.jpg (26KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x375px

>>1929830
>Omniscience contradicts free will
I want the modal fallacy meme to die

>>1930474
he creates you with no predisposition either way
the entire point is that YOU CHOOSE whether you want to burn in hell or not
it is an explicit choice on your part
you have only yourself to blame

There is no "free will"

You can make choices but what you choose will be based on circumstances that you have no control over. So your choice is already predetermined. There are verses in the Bible to support this (lots in both epistles to the Romans I think)

TLDR Calvinist predestination nigger.

>>1931961
Post proofs, Biblical or otherwise.

>>1931927
>HURR

That's nice, idiot.

>>1929819
Free will isn't biblical

>>1932120

This. The Bible supports strict determinism, as Calvin and Luther both realized.

>>1931930
>he creates you with no predisposition either way

Obviously not true, human nature exists and people have different predilections, interests and experiences.

>the entire point is that YOU CHOOSE whether you want to burn in hell or no

No, you don't. I don't believe in God. This isn't because I hate God, or because I want to suffer, it's just that I was raised by non religious parents and have never found any of the arguments for God to be remotely convincing. What would I have to do in order to avoid Hell? I can't believe in something if I don't believe in it! And God knew this, knew that I wouldn't believe, knew that as a result I would burn forever, and like the "loving" parent he is, he created me like this anyway! What could this mean, other than that he creates people simply for the pleasure of burning them?

>>1931930
>he creates you with no predisposition either way
Even if tabula rasa were true, which it demonstrably is not, then the environment everyone is born into would determine their inclinations through conditioning by life experience and interactions with others, which would themselves be determined by their own life experiences and interactions with others, etc. Before the first instant of creation, the omniscient mind would be aware of every possible set of inclinations that would eventually lead to heaven or hell that could possibly exist, and choosing to create the universe one way as opposed to another would be done with full knowledge of the inclinations that would occur as a direct result. And given the fact that people do not exist tabula rasa and have behaviour affected by genetics and so on, the effect is even more pronounced.

Who cares what Christians think.

>>1932172

so does science

>>1929819
Why don't atheists believe in Compatibalism? Are they unable to keep up with mainstream academia?

>>1931801

are you a catholic?

>>1929854
>god fails to create something correctly
>oops now you burn forever
why doesnt he just let us have no afterlife like the other imperfect animals?

>>1931801
>Hell, damnation, is the state of being of deprivation from God and his transcendence.

Gee, that's not what Jesus says. I wonder who's right, you or Jesus.

Revelation 19:20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

The bible.

Catholic kryptonite.

Clearly God is a dick.

>>1931611
Just like Calvinism

Determinism is in itself a fallacy that can be generalized to its own religion. It all comes down to how you draw the line. Some draw it at causality of major events such as decisions and outcome. But when it comes to galaxy-scale or microscopic events, they're prudent enough to say "Nah, the universe is chaotic on these levels!" So is there some order from chaos? Or does order come only once chaos has slowed down to an arbitrary degree?

The Book of Genesis, from "And God said let there be light" to God's making of man in "Our" image, conveys an order in which the Christian God is omnipresent. However, the fact that He made perfect man to be a laborer with Him, in the garden eschews a metaphorical companionship that goes beyond the scope of determinism. Later, during Jesus' life, it's brought up various times that He had to do this or that so that the prophecies would be fulfilled. This was surely not lost on the Jews who used every ounce of ammo they had to deny that He could be the Messiah come. Notice though, that Jesus never answers questions directly when asked who He is. As He asks an apostle at one point, 29“But who do you say I am?” He asked. Peter answered, “You are the Christ.” 30 "And Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about Him."

In short, it's always up to the individual to decide where he stands in relation to God. The fundamental tenet of Christianity is a personal relationship with Him; being virtuous is only a means to an end. Same thing can be said for determinism. You are as much enslaved to fate and the idea that the past controls you, as you believe you are. Neither of these ideals, a walk with God or a deterministic outlook, can be changed for someone outside of their control and still be within the design of free will. This is what Jesus' parabolic teachings mean.

If you can't decide small matters in life without a myopic preconception of right or wrong, then there is nothing you can be taught that will change your doubting heart.

>>1932778
And that last bit isn't by any means a condescending notion or quip. It's because we as humans are creatures of habit that we can't help it. We are the habits we keep.

No matter what amount of personal will we think we can muster on to overcome an obstacle in our path, we will only ever get over the hurdle if we approach it from a single digit view.

In this sense, there is some truth on a spiritual level to determinism. It's by climbing a mountain one foothold at a time that we can ever improve or evolve in any measure. And whilst in that journey of life, you are cosigned to a sense of causality. Like a painter you can only learn by your mistakes and learn to have the confidence to keep painting despite them if you are ever to get better.

>>1932653

I don't think Calvin's God actively causes people to doubt him for the pleasure of burning them, as he very clearly does in the Koran.

>>1932778

What nonsense. We don't have free will because we are deterministic creatures of a deterministic universe, if you "believe" you have free will then you're simply wrong. This isn't a matter of perspective, it's simple logic.

>>1932894
Tell me how you came to that conclusion. Tell me how my being a sentient pattern in the Universe's matrix correlates to the inertia of its sudden expanse, deceleration and rearrangement against all odds, for us to be having this conversation. Show me the supposed connection between this event and the unseen psychic tendrils you posit are governing my response to you right now, in the present day, at the present second.

It -is- a matter of perspective whether you want to ride the road of least resistance or not. Nobody is making you get on that boat. You're doing it because you've already accepted that you have, basically idolizing a solipsistic outlook of the world. A perception issue you don't want to remedy because it requires hard introspection as to how you came to that conclusion and the shaky fabric of ideals by deciding that's what you were. Which going off your laconic comment, is something you already know.

>>1933155

The Universe is deterministic. We are part of the Universe. Ergo, we are deterministic. This isn't hard to grasp.

>>1933161
If everything in the Universe was binary, yeah. It wouldn't be. Too bad it's not, and we're not automatons unless we believe are because we're governed by instinct/intuition. Which given any knowledge of the future, probabilistic or otherwise, contradicts you because there's no future for a choice not yet made.

You may think there is, because you've not tapped into your higher realms of consciousness but as much as we are able to sometimes make our own fabrications reality, you can't make that one true.

>>1929819
not all christians believe this, some christians believe in predestination and some believe in arminianism

the only thing that really binds christians are the stuff that's contained in the apostles and nicene, and somewhat the athanasian creed

>>1929830
>omnibenevolent

Yes, which is why that's known as an atheist strawman, and not something in the bible, or about God, at all.

>>1929819

Even that crippled little cunt Stephen Hawking said that if everything is determined, we don't know what that determination is, so we might as well act as though it doesn't exist.

Anyone who argues for determinism is a fool; you could literally not change anyone's mind if you're right.

>>1933161
No, it's just stupid and wrong and self-defeating.

>>1929830
>a deity who creates humans with the explicit intention of burning them forever, which runs contrary to the whole "omnibenevolent" thing.

i don't think god creates anyone for the purpose of burning them, but im also not sure omni-benevolence is an attribute of god.

>>1929923
"... & Humanities" was a mistake

>>1933331
>Anyone who argues for determinism is a fool; you could literally not change anyone's mind if you're right.

But that's stupid. Your arguments would just be deterministic factors applying to their causally determined reasoning.

>>1933326

That's funny you should tell all those theologians who have spent literally centuries trying to square the circle of theodicy that they're just atheists strawmaning :^)

>>1933340
>i don't think god creates anyone for the purpose of burning them

If he knows before he creates us that we will burn, and then creates us anyway, for what possible reason has he created us, but to burn us?

>>1933267
>If everything in the Universe was binary, yeah.

What? You think only binary systems can be deterministic?

>and we're not automatons

I didn't say we were, that's not what determinism even >implies.

>Which given any knowledge of the future, probabilistic or otherwise, contradicts you because there's no future for a choice not yet made.

This is only true for God. We don't have perfect knowledge of the future so it's perfectly sensible for us to make choices and those choices to sometimes be the wrong ones.

>higher realms of consciousness

Self delusion and wishful thinking.

File: 7ab9d1065843c220175b59b936eb955b.jpg (36KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 900x675px

>>1933429
You believe that the Universe is in a constant state of this-or-that. This is binary thinking, and like the anon above me said is self-defeating. Your entire argument is predicated off this, and the notion that just because we are self-aware and "fallible" to some arbitrary degree dictated by no measure, that we must therefore be subject to this humanist construct of determinism. It's an elementary font for cogito ergo sum. "We cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt … ."

Like I said before. Solipsism. Like attracts like in this Universe, and so the more you create idols out of delusions you can't see or feel, that you think support you, the more real they become, just because you live within your own convictions. It's a selfish, nihilistic religiosity.

In essence, determinism to you is a cop-out for those things you lack in a spiritual baseline as to why the world is, or your purpose.

>>1933545
Buuuuurnnnn.

>>1933545
>You believe that the Universe is in a constant state of this-or-that.

What?

>>1933556

That's a funny way to spell "incoherent gibberish"

>>1933572
>Big words hurt me

>>1933581

Oh you're a moron. Carry on then.

One thing I don't understand is how God loves us, but sentences people to eternal damnation if they disobey him. You don't see (sane) parents murdering their kids for not listening.

>>1933593
>I never read Watchmen.

>>1933562
Hit or miss. 1 or 2. Determined to happen or not to happen. This or that.

File: [visible confusion].jpg (62KB, 428x410px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 428x410px

>>1933600

>>1933616

Okay, then my answer is simple.

"No, I don't"

>>1933627
>my answer to addressing the holes in my argument is "No u!"

Am I supposed to say touche, now? Cause that was equivalent of your response to all of >>1933545

>>1933633

You see this is the problem when you base your argument on telepathy. You don't know what I think, and your guess was wrong. There's literally nothing else for me to say but "you're wrong".

File: Rorschachquote.jpg (14KB, 236x157px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x157px

>>1933626

>>1933638
>telepathy
Condescension. The last refuge of the weak-minded. The better man would have admitted he was at his limits and moved on.

>>1933649

You literally tried to tell me what I think.

>>1933545
>Like attracts like in this Universe
Alike charges repel, actually.
The rest of your post is such a mess nothing more can be taken from it to even refute.

>>1933700
Do you know why they repel? Because when they try to connect, their polarities change to face the same direction which causes them to repel each other. They don't repel, so much as push against each other because they can't connect.

>>1933748
>they don't repel so much as repel

>Because when they try to connect, their polarities change to face the same direction which causes them to repel each other.

Nonsense.

>>1933748
>>1933760
Additionally, electrons repel each other, which is outside the context of whatever your explanation was supposed to be.

>>1933760
>>1933767
It's all the same. They all have an axis. They all subscribe to some form of the electromagnetic force. Those axis in turn switch when they meet, so that they can become one. This results in the opposite poles facing, which in turn cause a push.

>>1932374
what part of science supports strict determinism?

>>1933803
Quantum science

>>1933813
ok
wait no

>>1933790

Yeah, no. Your grasp of physics is, if anything, even weaker than your grasp on logic.

>>1933819
>>1933803

Not that faggot but "all of it". Yes, quantum mechanics is deterministic, NOT stochastic as some claim.

>>1933822
go ahead and model it

>>1933822
If you could show this conclusively you would be the recipient of several Nobel Prizes.

>>1929841
How are the SJWs, feminists, traps, and Muslim terrorists doing? Would be a shame if there were a religion whose teachings would literally prevent all of these from happening

>>1933828

Sure, but it's the kind of thing that's easy to grok but nigh impossible to mathematically prove.

>>1933833
>I subscribe to a faith solely because it lets me hate people different than me!
The religion of love, everyone.

>>1933833

What kind of an argument is this? Even if I accept that dead kike worship would prevent those things (protip: America is deeply religious and that hasn't prevented any of those things), it's still a pascal's wager tier of "argument" to champion kikeianity purely for it's supposed benefits to society.

>>1933836
If there isn't proof, a statement like "it's X not Y as is claimed" is not meaningful.

>>1933842

Meaning doesn't require rigorous proofs, the deterministic nature of QM is presumed by most scientists because the equations don't work if QM isn't deterministic, but actually proving that, mathematically, would be a monumental chore.

>>1933853
Indeed, considering it would be in vain.

>>1933856

If you could prove that, you'd win a dozen nobel prizes. AND, you'd have out-thought the top minds in physics, who all /assume/ the deterministic nature of QM.

>>1933865
A convenient assumption made for practical purposes is very different from a definitive statement on the actual "under the hood" mechanics. Again, until there is proof, you cannot actually say it is one way or another.

>That pantheistic, mystical “Thou art God!” chorus that runs through the book is not offered as a creed, but as an existentialist assumption of personal responsibility, devoid of all godding. It says, “Don’t appeal for mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he’s not at home and never was at home, and couldn’t care less. What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy–live or die–is strictly your business and the universe doesn’t care. In fact, you may be be the universe and the only cause for your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you are. So quit sniveling and face up to it — “Thou art God!”

>>1933871
Not him, but quantum entanglement proves determinism

>>1933871

If QM is non-deterministic then none of the equations that rely on this notion would work. They do work, to an extraordinary degree of precision. So we would have to assume that a non-deterministic QM would somehow present itself in all ways as deterministic, despite not being so. This is /possible/ in the strictest sense of the word, but so unlikely as to be almost absurd. It would suggest that reality is playing a trick on us, pretending to be deterministic when it actually isn't.

File: death-note-kira-yagami-light-4-480x320.jpg (13KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x320px

>>1933865
Einstein would have said something like "Bullshit. I'm not a product of the Univese, but myself am a part of the Universe." And Shrodinger, FATHER of Quantum Mechanics, would have challenged that when someone could prove his principle wrong, that he'll agree.

>>1933877
MUH OTHER TRANSDIMENSIONAL SCIENCE CONFIRMS FROM MUH THREE-DIMENSIONAL ONE THAT WE'RE SUBJECT TO DETERMINISM.

lol. Best laugh I've had all day.

>>1933887
Let's cut the bullshit shall we and start posting facts or at least no more hyperbolic evidence. Nobody is buying your rabbithole fantasy here except you. Watch on mute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veqkUUOlLLE

>>1933887
We haven't even harmonized quantum mechanics with general relativity yet. There is quite a bit we don't understand yet, (not to minimize what we do know or to open the door to spooky anti-science types). I'm not saying that whatever replaces or harmonizes them "won't" be identified as deterministic, or the assumption is unfounded. I'm saying that we need to be careful about what can be assumed in a provisional sense to do useful work and what has been confirmed, to whatever extent such a thing is possible.

>>1933924
>"Bullshit. I'm not a product of the Univese, but myself am a part of the Universe."

I doubt that, because Einstein was smart.

>And Shrodinger, FATHER of Quantum Mechanics, would have challenged that when someone could prove his principle wrong, that he'll agree.

What principle do you think Schrodinger would have disagreed with? Also, LOL at the notion that he was the "father of QM".

>>1933924
>Let's cut the bullshit shall we and start posting facts or at least no more hyperbolic evidence.

What facts do you want? The fact that scientists assume the deterministic nature of QM?

>>1933925
>We haven't even harmonized quantum mechanics with general relativity yet.

Completely irrelevant.

>I'm saying that we need to be careful about what can be assumed in a provisional sense to do useful work and what has been confirmed, to whatever extent such a thing is possible.

Sure, but QM is deterministic OR everything we think we know about physics is wrong.

>>1933938
Does being wrong terrify you so much, as to make you laugh off the notion that we could be wrong about everything we think we know?

>>1934466

I'm quite certain I'm wrong about everything I know, I'm just a finite ape with incomplete and uncertain knowledge filtered thru the lens of my consciousness.

>>1936182
Such culture... From an ape.

I'll give you a hint my primitive friend. You individual intellect does not matter, it's all about the collective knowledge of your fellow species.

>>1936404
>You individual intellect does not matter, it's all about the collective knowledge of your fellow species.

Why do you think this is news to me? Or for that matter, why do you think this is relevant to the question of certainty? If a million people claim a certain fact as TRUE, that doesn't make it true. No amount of consensus can bridge the gulf of knowledge, true and perfect knowledge is impossible even in theory, because once you know EVERYTHING about a given topic, you still can't know that there is no more to know. Even God can't know what he doesn't know.

>>1936548
I said a hint, not all the answers the universe holds. That being said, my good monkey, you are well on your way.
What you say is true, you cannot know all things, nor can you know all there is to know about a singular subject.
The question isn't how much you know about a subject, it's how much you need to know. A dirt farmer doesn't need to know quantam mechanics, nor does a theoretical physicist need to know how to farm dirt. Each are equally important to the survival of your species.

You'll find most often that fact is nothing but widely accepted opinion. It all depends on how you as a species decided to define any given thing at any point.