What scientific discovery would it take to make you believe in

That gender is a spectrum

that numbers are real

>>8872598
>What scientific discovery would it take to make you believe in God?

That chiristians experiance luck to an extent higher than that dictated by chance.

Without that, there is no reaon to belive in a god. Even if there was a god, it sure as hell isnt what the christians belive because he doesnt help anyone.

>>8872648
Why should christians be more lucky? God isn't rigging the game for them

>>8872601
This to be honest family

>>8872598
The discovery of God would suffice

>>8872598
The navel cord of the Lord would be prove I guess.
Or a real message in stone from God, like in the bible, but it has to be a real message about tv or Facebook and Insta and stuff. You now, about these days. That would really open the eyes of many people.

File: ReallyMakesMe.png (394KB, 680x680px)

394KB, 680x680px

>>8872640

>What scientific discovery would it take to make you believe in God?
The clouds parting and a huge figure appearing, thundering "yeah it's all true", would do a fine job.

>>8872694

>why does God not exist?
>because there is no evidence that God exists
>what evidence would it take to prove that God exists?
>none
>why?
>because God doesn't exist
>...

Master logician here, folks.

>>8872735
If that happened to me, my first assumption would be that I went insane. At least you have to confirm that several other peolple saw the same thing, somebody captured it on camera, and there's absolutely no way that this was faked by some agency.

>>8872735

Interestingly, this is part of the apocalyptic prophecy in Christianity. If this happened amidst the worst war, famine, and terror you've ever seen or heard of, would you then believe? Even if it meant that you'd be the victim of said terror?

>>8872750

Let's say that all of the above happened (other people saw it, it was captured on camera, and that it was proved beyond doubt that no agency had faked it). Would you believe?

Now let's say that God, following this event, guaranteed that he would not do anything this public for another ~5000 years. How would you preserve this evidence such that nobody in the future begins to doubt it? In other words, how do you prevent this now-settled question from being asked again due to the doubts of people born generations after the event?

>>8872752
>If this happened amidst the worst war, famine, and terror you've ever seen or heard of, would you then believe?
Sure. It would be a prediction by the bible, coming true, that would be hopelessly improbable if god did NOT exist. That's what evidence is.

>Even if it meant that you'd be the victim of said terror?
That would mean I would not be HAPPY about it, but that does not change the judgment that it's true. Belief is about judgments of fact, not about whether or not the believer condones the result.

>>8872764
Hmmmm really makes you think

>>8872765

I suppose the question here is not whether or not you'd be a believer in the sense that you acknowledge that God exists but rather a believer in the sense that you become a Christian. Another obvious course of action would be to accept the existence of God but be against him for one reason or another.

>>8872752
>>8872764
>>8872735
>>8872750

I remember reading a book with this premise. It was some kind of Dan Brown lite type thriller where some corporation pull a stunt like that to market their soft drink or some shit

>>8872750
>If that happened to me, my first assumption would be that I went insane.
Insanity is a hypothesis of maximum entropy: it predicts all possible experiences equally strongly. You should be VERY wary to suspect insanity, when in fact there is a readily available hypothesis that strongly predicts the specific experience you just had.

>>8872648
>Without that, there is no reaon to belive in a god.

Pascal's wager?

Literally bringing people back from the death. And I mean already decomposed people.

File: 1481837243714.gif (2MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x250px

Every person in the world, gets a letter, which materialises before their own eyes, from thin air. It explains in their language that this is god and stuff and predicts what happens in future at certain hour that day in their life (a lamp breaks or something) or it mentions something from that persons past, that only he knows. Now, of course some kids and people who can't read would be left out, but if 6 billion people received the letters, I think there would be no doubters.
But who are we kidding here? There is no god.

>>8872777

I mean, I'd say that the Bible and the current state of the world reflects the same premise.

Witnesses claim and documented that God revealed himself 2000 years ago (and then a few thousand years before that) in the best way that they could. We are now discussing whether or not the experiences of these people reflect reality.

>>8872775
>I suppose the question here is not whether or not you'd be a believer in the sense that you acknowledge that God exists but rather a believer in the sense that you become a Christian.
Hm... I suppose that would depend on what exactly God were to say to me from the clouds.

Two complications apply here. First, there are a lot of proposed deities that could match my description above, as well as a bunch of non-divine characters (like the stereotypical alien teenagers trying to mess with people). God would have to say a bunch of details that would make me recognize him as the character from Christianity, specifically. (How do I distinguish that god from the Jewish one? I'm sure there is an answer, but I don't know the details, not having studied much religion myself.) But if God were to say things like "yeah specifically the first and second testament histories are true, everything else is bullshit" then that would be quite unambiguous.

Second, God as the character in Christianity is kind of a dick, and it would take some convincing for me to become a *follower* of the character rather than just someone acknowledging that he exists. But if, for example, God were to present an excellent case why various biblical atrocities were in fact entirely sensible all things considered, that would be a different matter. (Note that I don't expect any such justification to exist -- which is exactly why God convincing me *anyway* would be good evidence. Me hearing a good justification is something I expect to be extremely unlikely in a world without God, and much more feasible in a world with one.)

File: 1481651598141.jpg (38KB, 400x167px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x167px

The god could just plant the belief into everyone. I mean, one day everyone becomes a believer with a strong internal knowledge, that god exists.
???
Profit

>>8872598
The discovery that raping children is good for you would make me muslim.

>>8872796
*tips*

>>8872785
I recall doing some philosophy lectures on that and it doesn't actually logically add up. But then again i cant remember a word of that and most unis are keen to attack christians at every turn so who knows.

>>8872598
It's hilarious how many christian threads there are on sci. Science really threatens their shit-tier brains.

>>8872822
If the old testament god was true, he would not give a single fuck about proving he is god. He would just be like "lol fuck you fedorino" and send you to hell

>>8872601
Gender, if accept pseudoscietific observations, is much more like a vector space.

>>8872975
Although there is some hardcore religious shitposting, this is a good mental exercise.

File: 1429810518229[1].jpg (9KB, 420x316px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 420x316px

>>8872598
which god ?

>>8872785
I think a common issue people cite with that is that it's still near impossible for you to predict the correct God anyway, there are too many belief systems that already exist for this to be in your favor. Besides this there's the case of "What if there is a divine being or group of beings that created us and it none of our world belief systems actually follow them?"

The numbers don't really work out in your favor no matter what you follow.

>>8872598
Which God?

File: 1493316493455.jpg (25KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x480px

>>8872598
Frost giants returning along with Fenrir eating the sun and moon would convince me.

An infinitely burning bush that speaks would also be convincing if it occurred under sterile conditions.

>>8872975
>nothing in OP's post mentions christianity in particular
>REEE CHRISTFAGS!
Show on a doll where the pastor touched you

god helmet

>>8872995
There can only be one God per Universe. We just don't know anything more.

>>8872598
Goddidit is a fallacy

I think the rapture would suffice nicely, or if we're not going judeo christian, then any avatar that has no problem getting into things here on earth, coming "once again"

Christianity is toxic and I can't believe it's still somehow managing to survive preying on gullible idiots around the world.

File: 1493406301142.jpg (252KB, 680x1024px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 680x1024px

>>8873356
I bet many of these "idiot" are smarter than you.

I always found fascinating how narrow minded people are to be able to say things like this. They are CONVINCED that people believing in a good are automatically idiots.

>>8873394
In a god*

>Typo implying god is good

God exists confirmed.

>>8872598
God: Human from the future/ alternate universe that arrives at the beginning with the sum of human discoveries that are then used to recreate/create/emulate the universe said god came from.

Angels:Homunculi with wings

>>8872694
>A scientific discovery with that property does not exist.

A lot of shit didn't exist before the necessary scientific discoveries were made to attain said possibility.

>>8872992
No it's not. It's complete bullshit. If you think this is "a good mental exercise" you don't belong on sci. The only necessary response is: Russel's Teapot. Anything else just encourages the relfags.

>>8873072
Low-IQ shill.

>>8873072
Yet another shit-tier adolescent. Why are there so many low-IQ shills on sci?

>>8872764
It would be like any other historical fact, except it would be the most important one. There would be textbook chapters written about it, research papers, museum exhibits, and the evidence would be collected and made widely available.

>>8872640
How can numbers be real if our eyes aren't real

>>8872789
How do we know the concept of death truly exists though? How do you know it isn't a form of conscious sleep, in which your consciousness remains in a sleep like state while your body rots? The bible does say that when you die, your simply sleeping, and no one can really validate what death truly is because of decomposition.

>>8872806
Except that you have that story from every religion. If god wasn't a meme perhaps people would pay attention to the "evidence" a bit more.

>>8873492
>hundreds of wars happen, libraries are burned, ethnics are cleansed, publications hidden and censored, speech stifled and facts perverted
>only one book survives

>>8873394
>MUH BIG EXPENSIVE CHRISTIAN ART
Yup, you're dumb.

>>8873516
Global war will never occur again.

>>8872598
Such a stupid question. I don't even know where to begin. Go take some science courses and some philosophy courses and leave sci the fuck alone till you graduate from high school.

>>8873528
Seems like World War 3 is on the horizon to me. There's already cyber warfare and escalating tensions.

>>8873499
What truly is death? Do we actually have a solid grasp on what it is?

>>8872653
Tell that to the "prayer works" memers.

>>8872598
A repeatable method to interact with this God.

I don't see how that would be a problem for someone who is infinitely powerful.

>>8872598
If we actually discover a theory of everything then that would be "God".

>>8873537
War costs too much money and almost all countries share too much economic interests with others countries to start a war.

China is the first creditor of the USA, meaning that if China start a war against the US they lose all the debt that they have accumulated and that if America starts a war against China, they lose their first financial resource, and all the factories they have over there.

It is literally a lose-lose situation, no country has enough military power to take down and dominate another country. The US couldn't even do it for Irak, imagine what it would cost for China or Russia. It is also true for the other way around.

>>8873440
>Anything else just encourages the relfags.

What's wrong in encouraging religious fags?

>>8873612

The fuck are you talking about, war is very profitable, the united states runs on it.

>>8873622
Some companies in the US run on it, mostly by picking on small countries that can barely retaliate. WW3 would be very different from that.

>>8873612
Isn't North Korea the perfect catalyst for this whole thing. China props north korea up to piss of the US. US eventually is forced to act but can't pin it on China because china didn't support the NK from a public eye. China then would have a justified reason for attacking the US since the US messed with it's ally. Couldn't things play out like that?

File: 1488982285403.jpg (860KB, 1900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 1900x1200px

>>8872601
>>8872640
>>8872648
>>8872653
>>8872660
>>8872701
>>8872706
>sci fags avoiding the question

truthfully the answers lie in the black hole

>>8873642
Actually, if we could understand what death truly is, that yield sufficient proof. The bible claims that death is simply a form of sleep. If you could verify that, then indeed it would be +1 for the Bible.

>>8872653
Shitty god desu

>>8873630
China doesn't want nukes near its borders, whether they are US or NK. If NK goes berserk, China will be the first to strike it down.

But yeah, NK is the free electron of the equation, mostly because they cut most of their economic connections with the rest of the world, so they have very little to lose.

They are on the verge of famine if I'm not mistaken, not sure how this will play out.

File: 1271575993096.jpg (17KB, 184x172px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 184x172px

any kind of rock solid proof of god is proof of a god that isn't what i'd call "god"
the point of faith is belief in the total absence of evidence, and having a little doubt in there is healthy
any god which can be proved to exist is just a very powerful being but not god

now everyone go back to posting bill nye

>>8873000
>>8872785
>>8872966


>tfw dumbfucks try to decipher pascals wager


you'd be retarded NOT to live a virtuous life with a belief that a god exists and that you're misguided.

why?

you win? eternal joy
you lose? nothing
you lose bc god sucks? lower chance than living like a sinner with no belief in a god

>>8873708
that doesn't really work because it assumes there is a "correct" religion. what if the correct religion is the Egyptian pantheon? If you go abrahamic you don't get nothing when you "lose", you get the Egyptian equivalent of eternal damnation

>>8873711
>you lose bc god sucks? lower chance than living like a sinner with no belief in a god
done

other religions also have + for living a virtuous life

>>8873708
The true God may only punish people for being religious, and there is NO argument for why this God is less likely to exist than any other God.

>>8873727
>what is risk management
am I on /sci/ or IGN forums?

>you'd be retarded NOT to live a virtuous life with a belief that a god exists and that you're misguided.

>>8873741
>missing the point
It could be the case that God only punishes those who do what you propose, in which case it's better to NOT live a virtuous life and NOT believe a god exists. There is no formal argument as to why this is likely to occur than the type of God you are alluding to.

>you win? eternal joy
If you follow ethical principles only for the promise of eternal joy you aren't following ethical principles.

>you lose? nothing
>Implying that I lose nothing from slaving my life away with religious principles

File: Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg (42KB, 514x514px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 514x514px

>>8873000
>>8872785
>>8872966

>tfw dumbfucks try to decipher pascals wager


you'd be retarded NOT to live a virtuous life with a belief that a FSM exists and that you're misguided.

why?

you win? eternal joy and delight in eating delicious meatballs
you lose? nothing
you lose bc FSM sucks? lower chance than living like a sinner with no belief in FSM

>>8873765
>don't be a cunt to others and pray once in a while
>"slaving my life away"

>>8873780
God might specifically condemn only people who do that. There is nothing preventing that from being the case, so God cannot be used to justify acting like that.

>>8873780
Tell me what abstaining from sex before marriage has to do with not being a cunt.

Tell me what denying without any thought scientific theories like evolution has to do with not being a cunt.

Tell me what suppressing my passions has to do with not being a cunt (The 7 deadly sins of gluttony, lust, greed, etc.)

There are ways of not being a cunt without being religious or believing in God, and there is no basis for what you see as objective ethical principles.

I feel like "God" is just a personification of the universe itself.

Jesus is just a guy who made a few simple observations, leading him to the conclusion that everything is made out of the same stuff, the universe is essentially indivisible, and this means what's best for any one person truly is what's best for everyone.

He then communicated this to the people around him in a way they could understand- by creating the notion of God to explain how the universe is basically just one thing

>>8873816
Jesus was smart af

>>8873816
I shouldn't have said that Jesus "created" the notion of God, but you guys know what I mean. People like Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham, etc. were just regular dudes who made some simple observations and decided to communicate the great truths about nature through religion.

>>8872598
maybe verifying some type of M-theory

>>8873787
God is more likely to be rational than not, because the Universe seems to be quite rational. Worship seems like a good bet.

>>8873715
A virtuous life can be justified on its merits. Choosing to believe any given god or pantheon of gods (and assuming that the aforementioned cannot distinguish between your insincere, opportunistic belief and that of true believers) is just as likely to damn you as it is to save you, considering there is no reliable way of determining which of them is genuine.

>>8872777
what book? sounds cool

Hey /sci/, God here.

Just wanted to say I appreciate the shitposting. Top zoz. Anyway, tripfagging is now a mortal sin.

If sone autist could screenshot this and put it into the next bible, I'd appreciate it.

Shit, phone's at 1%, but I also wanted to clarify that I hate fa

>>8872750
This is why God doesn't bother (very often)

>>8873516
if God fully revealed himself beyond a shadow of a doubt I doubt there would ever be war again because everyone would just convert to Christianity (or whatever) and we'd all follow the same ideology

File: jesus.jpg (44KB, 426x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 426x600px

>>8874355
> everyone would just convert to Christianity
You assume it will be the Christian God.

Plus, in the Book of Revelation, the anti-Christ appears and claims to be the False Prophet. Sort of a safety valve against anyone trying a repeat of the Christ thing.

>>8874370
Why was God retarded enough to make an anti-God? Literally what was the point

>>8872598
Maybe finding out some element of reality trough which God would balance things out or let reality play according to his "plan" and if we would have the possibility to temper with it and see intelligent responses from it..

or simply said finding self-correcting stuff inside the fabric of universe would be enough, it would prove the intelligent designer - not necessarily a personal God - I think that's already an answered question, there's no such thing as a personal God.

>>8873516
Majority of humans throughout humanity existence were illiterate, ever after Torah was written... so If the supreme being intended that channel to prove his existence so that people follow his guide book - it wasn't a good move.

He could've put something in our brains to hallucinate an angel or something that trough our life asks us if we want to follow God - but otherwise we're totally free to do w/e we want - that would make the religions God seem real.

>>8873630
And then 3 minutes later nuclear explosions everywhere - game over, well played humanity.

>>8873108
Prove it.

>>8873895
Nice assumption, friendo. I assume you're 12.

>>8874355
>Because Christians never fight each other.
Read a history book, mein friendo.

>>8874425
>He could've put something in our brains to hallucinate an angel or something that trough our life asks us if we want to follow God - but otherwise we're totally free to do w/e we want - that would make the religions God seem real.

Part of the challenge of life is to go out, research, and find the one true religion from the hints God gave out. Spoon feeding the correct answer would just let all the brainlets into heaven without prove themselves smart and non-lazy.

>>8873394
If christians are smart then why do they believe in something as fucking dumb as a magical skywizard daddy who sacrificed some dead kike on a stick?

File: 1419938288361.png (160KB, 464x470px)

160KB, 464x470px

>>8874494
>magical skywizard daddy

i called it a funny name there4 it is dumb. i r so smart!

>>8874504
Your comment would be valid if I said anything false. The concept really is a magical skywizard daddy. I dont have to misrepresent what you retards believe in to make it sound stupid.

>i posted a picture of an atheist in a fedora therefore YOU are dumb. i r so smart!

File: 8f4ca330-7f81-0133-6eda-0aecee5a8273.png (533KB, 740x528px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 740x528px

>>8874507
>skywizard

Just because cartoons show God in the sky doesn't make it true.

>>8873613
They are welcome to live on their own boards. Here, they lower the level of discourse, discourage serious discussion, and ultimately turn away intelligent posters.

>>8874447
ok, but assuming God said which brand of Christianity was the right one the infighting would be minimized
also, if God really showed himself people would really believe they might go to hell, so they wouldn't fight for that reason too

>>8874580

The rules of the game go like this: if you know God exists and you see him then you are not allowed to repent and if you sin you're out foreever. That's why angels don't get to repent. Humans are special because they have to rely on faith alone which allows them to repent if they fall out o favor and whatever. "Forgive them for they don't know what they're doing." etc.

>>8872598
>Barring the bs like angels coming down from heavens and personally sucking your dick
Sorry, that's roughly the level of evidence that I'm going to require. For anything else, it's going to be that a more likely hypothesis is mistake, lie, hallucination, etc.

>>8872775
>rather a believer in the sense that you become a Christian.
Now this is basically impossible. If Stargate SG-1 taught me anything, it is that the proper response to an evil creature calling itself a god is not to bow down and worship, but to try and blow it up. Nuke god! We'll never know if it works until we try.

Now, if the Christian god introduced itself as saying "ah shit, I forgot all about you guys, come on in, the party is still going on", then that sounds like something that I could be friends with. Still no worship. I still wouldn't be a "Christian" in the usual sense.

>>8873630
>China props north korea up to piss of the US.
It's more likely that they do so because they don't want a massive flood of refugees that they have to deal with.

>>8873862
Abraham didn't exist. Jesus may not have existed. AFAICT, Muhammad probably(?) did exist.

>>8874523
That was the old testament understanding of cosmology. Heaven was literally what we would call "outer space" in the solar system. Heaven was outer space. That was their conception of reality. Entirely wrong, of course.

File: pascals_wager2.png (276KB, 1685x2008px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1685x2008px

>>8873708
>>8872648
Good luck with that...

>>8874666
>>8874663
>>8874661
>>8874656
>>8874654

You are cancer, get out.

>>8873835
Just a dude
A smart dude
Not the son of God
Just a smart dude

>>8872988
Please write proof for that

>>8872598

Angels coming down from heavens and personally sucking my phallus, probably.

>>8872598
>Barring the bs like angels coming down from heavens and personally sucking your dick

Then why even make this thread?

>>8873440
Yes it is a good mental exercise, because you have to think about the boundaries of the scientific method. This is more of a philosophic thing, but you can't think by yourself, and need to spit premade arguments.

>>8874254
Sure big G, I'll cover you

>>8873802

>Tell me what denying without any thought scientific theories like evolution has to do with not being a cunt.
Are you from 1950 or earlier?

>Tell me what abstaining from sex before marriage has to do with not being a cunt.
>Tell me what suppressing my passions has to do with not being a cunt (The 7 deadly sins of gluttony, lust, greed, etc.)
You should be good to yourself. Such "passions" are bad, especially from a moral standpoint. Letting yourself choose is great, but then exists the right and wrong choice.

>There are ways of not being a cunt without being religious or believing in God
Yes, religion is more than ethics (i.e. harder to accept).

>and there is no basis for what you see as objective ethical principles.
I hope you at least acknowledge objective ethical principles exist in one form or another.

t. christian

>8872752
>>8872777
I think one of CIA´s plans to overthrow Castro, was to use combination of stuff like flares, film projectors and reproductors mounted on planes.
to crate an image of the Secong Coming in the clouds, so they could have the Jesus-figure tell the people to overthrow Castro. So asking if this is staged by the government would be a valid question.
fuck, I don´t have a better source on short noitce. http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2012/08/faking-the-second-coming/

>>8872735
I think it was the estimable Sir Pterry who wondered if the "junk DNA" might encode the message "Ha ha, it was me all along -- God."

>>8876065
>I think one of CIA´s plans to overthrow Castro, was to use combination of stuff like flares, film projectors and reproductors mounted on planes.
>to crate an image of the Secong Coming in the clouds, so they could have the Jesus-figure tell the people to overthrow Castro.

Brilliant. Somebody needs to try that in the "Islamic State..."

>>8874481
But there's not even a single hint towards the existence of personal Abrahamic God m8.

Not even for reincarnation or any other major religious philosophy

>>8875498
For this reason I actually enjoy the flat Earth, evolution is fake, and Apollo hoax threads. The trollish posters therein can be pretty ingenious in posting arguments to be refuted, which I find fun and good mental exercise. Which is not to say that some are not at the "LO, NO U!" level -- them you can simply ignore, though.

Angels coming down from heavens.

>>8872598
Depends on what level of creation god would be considered, but it still is pretty much the same. I'd have to meet a person or persons with significant evidence that they created whatever they claim to have created, and I expect they would probably just be really advanced lifeforms. Even then it would depend on his/their motives and what they planned for me, for me to follow them. Unless of course some magical bullshit happens at which point I'll just give up trying to understand. We just can't know until we know, though.

>>8876347
Oh, and it couldn't be anything that can be explained by normal physics either. If it's just some big showy shit it could just be some dude(s) more advanced than our own pulling our leg. Anything that follows physics to any degree would not suffice me to believe in traditional "magical" deities. Big guy comes out of the sky all fancy blaring music and shit, so what? I could do that too with some smoke machines, speakers, and a parachute.

>>8876218
>But there's not even a single hint towards the existence of personal Abrahamic God m8.

Of course there is. But it is all anecdotal, personal and unrepeatable in nature. And therefore outside the realm of science. You can say that there is no PROOF, or no evidence you find compelling, that would be a fair statement.

>>8874679
No way the Jews are so lenient when it comes to paradise for goys, especially satanic goys who would speak of Yahweh's name in a bad manner

God's chosen people must have a perk with it..

There is no god. If there was one, he wouldn't allow his children to slaughter each other in his name. If there was a god every fucking human being would be born with the conviction of his presence. The need for god would be natural like e.g. the need to eat or take a dump. If there was a god he - the almighty creator of all things- would solve all his children's problems with a wink of his anus. So there are two possibilities: 1. there is no god and the whole idea is just a manifestation of our egocentrism and fear of death; 2. There IS a god but he run away as he saw what are his children capable of.

>>8876428
>If God is not my slave waiting on me hand and foot, I hate him and he doesn't exist.

How's middle school?

I'm not sure, but I'm sure he could tell me.

>>8872598
>What scientific discovery would it take to make you believe in God?

There can be no scientific proof for or against gods existance.

Here, let me break it down for you as simply as I can:

1. Trying to prove that god doesn't exist.

Proving a negative is not possible, becuase despite the fact that we lack proof, it is always possible that we just haven't found where god is hiding...

On the dark side of the moon?

Near Alpha Centauri?

Outside the virgo supercluster?

Beyond the realm of the physical universe?

It's always possible that, despite a lack of proof, god still DOES exist.

2. Trying to prove that god DOES exist.

Proving that god exists is also impossible, because the attributes OF god make proof FOR those attributes literally impossible.

I.E. God is Omniscient... so, if someone comes up to you on the street and claims to be god, EVEN IF THEY ARE GOD... it would be impossible to prove, because we would have to TEST their omniscience...

And the only way to test if someone is omniscient, is to ask them literally every question that is possible to ask, about everything in the universe that it is possible to know something about...

AND, to also be omniscient enough to know whether they got the answers right.

The only way to scientifically test gods omniscience, is to BECOME omniscient.

But even if you did that, you still couldn't prove it without making the person you are trying to prove it TO, omniscient as well.

tl;dr Science cannot say anything about the existence or non existence of god.

Science is agnostic, and MUST be agnostic, because scientific proof either for or against the existence of god is impossible.

File: Sha_Ka_Ree_God.jpg (309KB, 1196x800px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1196x800px

>>8872598
I'm having trouble thinking of how could even one have a "scientific" discovery of that. Something that you could not only observe, but test, makes theories about, and reproduce analysis. Even "angels coming down from heavens and personally sucking your dick" wouldn't necessarily qualify for that.

>>8876592
Fair example of the problem I'm alluding to, but omniscience isn't God's only property. There's also actually quite a wide debate as to whether or not he even has that property, particularly if you go back and actually read the Bible, where he demonstrates regret, some degree of surprise, and is constantly not only testing things, but where this supposedly omnipotent being is regularly depending on humans to carry out his will, and situations that are against his will are regularly occurring.

It maybe, much like even the most minor of the Greek gods are described as "all knowing and all powerful", despite mythological tales demonstrating they are anything but, these are merely titles, and they've been inflated to such a degree as to be paradoxical.

If such a powerful being were to reveal itself, it could readily demonstrate it had powers sufficient to inspire the tales in the Bible, even if some tales were exaggerated or distorted through time and retelling. It might even be able to explain how it has those powers and how they work. You might even be able to be made to understand how such a being could create a universe (hell, we have theories on how to create universes ourselves.)

But yes, you can't prove that something is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenign. If anything, that's an empirical contradiction in and of itself that the observed state of the universe does not allow.

I think the best one could do was, "God, but not as we know Him."

File: catman.jpg (36KB, 640x625px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x625px

>>8872598
You can experience God through theoria
One needs to be pure, and self aware first this is done through Kartharsis, purification adhering to the word of Jesus. It takes time.

1.the first three are merely natural preliminary stages, corresponding to the vegetative, sensitive and rational levels of human life;
2.the fourth stage is that of virtue or purification;
3.the fifth is that of the tranquillity attained by control of the passions;
4.the sixth is entrance into the divine light (the illuminative stage);
5.the seventh is the indwelling or unitive stage that is truly mystical contemplation.

You experience God at the stage of illumination

>>8872598
Define god.

>>8877293
Are u Catholic? If so where can I read more about this?

>>8872601
it is

>>8876592
>Proving a negative is not possible, becuase despite the fact that we lack proof, it is always possible that we just haven't found where god is hiding...

It's possible to prove a negative to the same extent that it's possible to prove a positive. There's some truth in there, but taken to this conclusion, it's just wrong.

Sagan once famously said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. Sagan also wrote one of the great parables of our time, the Garage Dragon parable, in which he concludes that garage dragon believers are deluded, e.g. wrong, and demonstrably so.

>>8876592
Many depictions of gods are not "all knowing" nor "all powerful". Even the Christian god of the Bible is not depicted as such. It's a much later addition to the mythos. In the Old Testament, the Christian god was just the tribal god of one tribe, and other tribes had their own gods. The Christian god sometimes didn't know things, or was tricked.

Regardless, you could show that such a creature exists, omniscient or not.

> And the only way to test if someone is omniscient, is to ask them literally every question that is possible to ask, about everything in the universe that it is possible to know something about...

Absolute proof is a red herring. There is no such thing, for any claim, even mundane claims. All we have is probabilities. Get with Bayesian reasoning already.

>>8876951
> How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism
> (final draft – to appear in Foundations of Science)
> Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke, Johan Braeckman

https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/methodological-naturalism

>>8874376
>/sci/ fags try to discuss theology
Stick to your textbooks kiddos

>>8872598
I've witnessed a (Catholic) priest once claim that another priest once blessed the bread and the resulting Eucharist (The Body of Christ) had transmutated into heart tissue. I didn't believe it myself, but it would be decent evidence of God.

>>8874370
In Revelations, Satan still manages to gather an army of chumps after there's been a unified humanity under God's rule for roughly 1000 years.
People just like to fight.

File: 1493160890561.jpg (45KB, 750x573px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 750x573px

>>8877524
Oops, meant for >>8874355

I'm going to bed

File: tmp.jpg (125KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1280x720px

>>8872598
>angels coming down from heavens and personally sucking your dick
kek, this

>>8873495
Could have made an i joke.

>>8872653
this is true, god loves everyone alike, also, earth is kindoff a purgatory or test for humans, so they can return to heaven.
Why should god be christian anyway?

>>8872975
>GOD almighty
>christian by default

ok sir
(anyway, the fact that everyone connects both says a lot about god itself)

>>8872598
a complete fall in causality

>>8872598
Achieve enough computational power to create a simulation of a universe

>>8872764
>Now let's say that God, following this event, guaranteed that he would not do anything this public for another ~5000 years. How would you preserve this evidence such that nobody in the future begins to doubt it?

The real question is: Why would god not appear for 5000 years if he cared so much about us knowing he's there? Especially since believing in his existence is the deciding factor for where you get to spend eternity. Wouldn't it be slightly unfair to reveal yourself to a selected group of people and then condemn everyone who doesn't belive the unbelievable because of critical thinking which you implanted into them yourself?

>>8877799
Assuming you meant "fail" that happens all the time:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.0167v1.pdf
Not that it would cut it for me.

>>8877816
>It's a test...
>...a really, really, long test...

All I need is the light of the morning sun.

>>8872785
>Pascal's wager
>Throwing away all of your intellectual integrity by selling your conviction to the highest bidder
>Let's suggest this on a board dedicated to science

>>8877786
Unless someone's quoting the Dali Lama, Alan Watts, or some such, I generally assuming that's who we're talking about whenever anyone uses a capital G in "God" on an English board.

Granted, it is 4chan, so I also assume we're talking about some bastardized and misunderstood concept of the Christian deity, regardless of which side the argument is coming from.

>>8877821
>Can I make my creation believe some unfalsifiable shit by promising eternal reward and threatening with eternal damnation?

Not it all makes a shit ton of sense.

>>8877849
*Now

>>8872598
Evidence of a being that aligns to at least one human religion.

>>8873708

You're a fucking idiot. You ignore the infinity of possible deities that could have inverse reactions and thwart your stupid attempts at garnering egotic happiness.

EX: Baal sends his worshippers to hell and heretics to heaven.

Jesus laughs as he burns Christians alive and elevates the strong to heaven and the weak to Marinas Trench.

When you're dealing with entities that you have no real clue about, you have to take into consideration the infinity of permutation of behavioral, "personal", and material quirks possibly attached to such a being.

>But that wouldn't make sense!

So you, stupid fucking asshole motherfucker who takes Pascal's Wager seriously because you don't understand sets, are willing to tell the forger of leviathan and the forger of behemoth what he must necessarily do?

What a fucking stupid human. Get the fuck off my planet.

>>8877956
CONT

This also applies to shitty atheistic attempts to "disprove" the existence of the possibility of deities.

God might have more in common with Azaztoth than the one taught in Baha'i

>>8872598
Granting me immortallity biologically.

>>8872822

I don't think an all powerful being would care much for what you believe is sensible. What is 'being a dick' or 'biblical atrocities' to
an omnipotent being beyond all human comprehension? A being whose very visage causes men to drop dead from the sheer glory.

It's as though a lovecraftian entity rises from the deep and all of reality is peeled away by the source of all physical and moral law in the universe and you really think your opinion would matter at that point?

>>8877976
Not him but... Of course an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni benign being would care about what you believe, by definition. It knows your suffering, and everyone else's, and can convince everyone at once, throughout all time, if it so chooses, with no real effort on its behalf, when set next to its infinite power.

Now, a Lovecraftian god might not give a shit, but there's not a lot of benign gods in that particular pantheon.

>>8877976
>>8872775
Have the same problem here, the OT god is more than a bit of a dick.

I mean, if I find there's some omnipotent being sending folks to hell for eternity, I'm going to look for a way to fight that entity. I'm probably not going to win, but meh, I'm not giving into evil just because it's all powerful.

But if the Cathars were right, and the OT god is just Satan doing his bit, while the NT god is more representative of this entity, them I'm more apt to choose to pledge by allegiance.

And if the truth lays somewhere in between - if it's just a pantheistic god of all things, where its goodness is equal to its evil, then it doesn't much matter one way or the other, may as well just keep doing what I'm doing.

(Great, now I'm going to have Steiner yelling at me.)

>>8872598
Some sort of message written in particles in every atom saying "hey I exist m8o the bible is real and shit".

>>8878493
Well, I'm sure if you scroll through π long enough, you'll find that message numerated.

>>8878493
Superposition - particles are already writing that - along with all of Shakespeare's Sonnets.

Somehow proving that a soul exists would be enough for me.

>>8878140

The problem with this mindset is that your concept of evil is moot in the event that such an entity exists. Its existence implies that it has established any and all moral law. Human ideas of good and evil (if such concepts actually exist) are irrelevent if it is the law maker. It could decide that murder is a virtue and your demands for ethical and fair conduct would simply be wrong because it is the one who has decided what is and is not ethical and fair.

Goodness would simply be obedience to the entities rules, and evil the antithesis. The decision to stand against this entity in the name of good superimposes the idea that good and evil exist beyond the entity and it too is subject to these moral laws, but if the implication is that the entity is the arbitrator of these laws then your actions are subject to its judgement and your actions cannot be in opposition to evil if it so chooses.

The premise itself implies that such a being is a reality warping entity capable of creating, shaping, and destroying the very fabric of nature. It can rewrite the laws of causality, or unmake the past. It is the ultimate tyranny. An emperor with true absolute power. Opposition is beyond futile -- it is nonsensical.

>>8879039
Well, the premise to story goes he gave us the power to know good and evil. (Or at least did nothing to stop us getting our mitts on it.)

...and I call an omnipotent dick who sends his mortal creations to suffer in hell for all eternity for reasons ranging from simply not being aware of him, to not sucking his dick, fucking evil.

I mean if Hitler was suddenly raised (...wait, I'm on 4chan...) *cough* If Hillary Clinton was suddenly raised to the position of omnipotence, she may be de facto the final arbitrator of good and evil, but so long as I have the illusion of free will, I ain't bowing to it.

Granted, I can't do dick if an omnipotent being just changes my mind for me, but, as the story goes, that's not part of its plan.