Can someone/sci/entifically refute this post?

File: 54654346.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

people just got bored, is all

God is unfalsifiable. Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways do not prove anything other than that something was first, which is really a no brainer anyway.

>>9076886
But the first thing must, by definition, be supernatural. That has no bearing on whether it is a personal God or not, just that it scientifically superseded nature as we know it. Thus supernatural in the most technical sense.

And I'm more talking about science-minded people and their refusal to admit anything might even possibly be be metaphysics

>>9076884
I've never gotten the context of that image

>>9076886

God isn't EVEN unfalisifiable, it's a completely vague and undefined term that doesn't obviously MEAN anything at all. Ask three different theists for a definition of God, you get three different definitions. No way you could even begin to devise a method to falsify such a nebulous term, it doesn't even reach the level of pseudoscience and bunkum, it's just infantile waffle.

>>9076906

You can't prove that. We have no reason to reject a physical, NATURAL cause for the Universe, sure it doesn't fit into any existing model of reality but guess what? Neither does God.

>>9077113
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/billy-herrington-gachimuchi

>>9076874
He's not wrong but it's a double-edged sword. If atheists are actually believing in a supernatural event then theists are actually believing in a natural event if the same event can be explained both ways.

In the end it's just semantics. People who want to call the first thing to happen God usually want to draw moral consequences from that event, which is a separate philosophical issue.

The pure theological issue of that being the case aside from the moral one though, again, reduces to semantics.

So people are literally arguing over nothing other than who can win the name calling debate: the christfags, the fedoras, or the antifedora edgelords.

All of them need to kill themselves.

File: god-alien.jpg (124KB, 1024x772px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x772px

>>9076886
>5 ways
The 5 ways are part of chapter 2 here http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP.html
There are hundreds of other chapters of Aquinas arguing that the first something is God.
>>9076874
Poster is right.
>>9077142
>no reason to reject a physical, NATURAL cause
Plenty of reasons why God is more plausible than a natural cause. Boltzmann brains, fine tuning, 5 ways, etc. No reason why natural is more plausible than God though.

>>9077144
Thanks and nice digits.

>>9077150
I don't think it suggests any one religion is accurate, or even that "God" in that sense is a personal entity, just that the first cause must be inherently supernatural.

>>9076886
>unfalsifiable

This is just a retarded buzz word 13 year olds say.

>>9077214
>Plenty of reasons why God is more plausible than a natural cause. Boltzmann brains, fine tuning, 5 ways, etc. No reason why natural is more plausible than God though.
And yet by your own admission, still, always- no proof.

>>9077822
That natural cause by that point fits all the requirements to just be considered an impersonal God.

>>9078360
What requirements?

>>9078480
>Independent of time and space
>Independent of the laws of physics as we know them, ergo
>Omnipotent and self-sustaining

It's an impersonal god at that point. In fact, I'd hardly call it a natural cause if it must by definition predate nature itself. So it's really a supernatural cause that has the previous traits and then it's just a god.

>>9078493
But why is it god?
At the end of the day inserting god into a thing we haven't figured out yet is always going to be god of the gaps.

>>9078501
You seem to be implying I mean I got of a particular religion, when I mean it in the most deist sense.

>>9077214
>Plenty of reasons why God is more plausible than a natural cause.
There are absolutely no reasons why God should be more plausible than a natural cause. God will always be a further complication of anything else you can come up with, so why even assume there is one? It makes no sense at all

>>9078902
There cannot be a natural cause to something that predates nature.

>>9077139
>three people may have different beliefs, therefore God is undefined
How many YouTube arguments have you won with this?

>>9078927
Not an argument.

>>9077822

And you think some how that makes him wrong? 100 years ago we had no proof we lived in an ever expanding universe. Now some research says we don't even. This is evidence that the lack of evidence is not a method of disproving something. Just basis for insecure people to reject an idea because they think they're too smart for it. There are things that we don't know about the ocean or how it works. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Don't be stupid.

>>9078902

Why assume that there isn't because it creates more questions? Shouldn't questions lead to answers to questions? And if there are no more questions aren't you just at your wits end, and not informations end? Or maybe you're looking in the wrong place. The suggestion that there is a creator is infinitely more reasonable than the idea that chemicals which come from stars, which didn't exist at the time, reacted with one another and caused something in a violent explosion, powerful enough to create space and linear time. This theory fails to take many things into account. Specifically time. Was time always passing? Did it exist before existence? Is it even something that really exists, or is it a tool used for keeping appointments?

>>9076874
The universe was created exactly three minutes and thirteen seconds ago by god in this exact configuration. The god that created this is an all knowing all seeing god that damns people who bring up these arguments to circle jerk and never actually internalize other points of view into the deepest pit of hell.

Prove me wrong.

>>9078974
That's not proof.

>>9078985
You've failed to explain why we should replace "we don't know yet" with "god did ".

>>9079008
Why must the two be incompatible? If you learn a magicians tricks, he doesn't cease to exist or do the tricks, you just understand them now.

If the most staunch determinist materialist is to be correct, this supernatural first cause did in fact do EVERYTHING THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN by way of being the first cause, whether we understand the following events or not.

>>9077822
>no proof
If a suspects fingerprints are on the murder weapon and the victim's blood is under his fingernails does that 'prove' he's the killer? No, but obviously he is. There's a point where asking for proof is just hiding from the truth in a tiny little gap of an unlikely possibility because it hasn't been absolutely disproven yet.

>>9079083
?????
Are you implying that we have something as damning as DNA proof that God exists?

>>9079068
>Why must the two be incompatible?
It's not whether they must be.
It's why god is on the table at all. If a sentient first cause exists, we'll find it eventually. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

>>9079094
DNA itself is proof of intelligent design

>>9079111
Explain your reasoning.

>>9079116
DNA is a coding language. Randomness can create patterns but not information or definitions.

>>9079008
>why we should replace "we don't know yet" with "god did "
That's exactly what should happen when we work out God did something.

>>9079119
That's based on a suposition that "randomness" didn't create DNA, and we have no proof of that.

>>9079127
Not even sure what to say.
We have no proof that God exists.

>>9079119
More exactly it's an encoding/decoding device, for it stores information about the organism it's part of. For example in the DNA the information about eye color of the organism in certain circumstances. Let's say you figure out X gene = Blue eyes. That is a definition of the programming language.
>>9079134
Matter and energy (no matter how randomly) can not create information because they're on different axis.

>>9079094
DNA evidence just tells you some things are more likely than others. Universe is no different. Why is it fine tuned? Why aren't we Boltzmann brains? It's very unlikely the result of natural processes.

>>9079148
Furthermore DNA has intent. There is no logical reason for multiplication. It just does it. The intent of DNA is multiplication. You cannot create intent from matter + energy + randomness.

>>9079148
>Matter and energy (no matter how randomly) can not create information because they're on different axis.
Again, they can, because DNA exists. Something being incompatible with our current understand does not mean god did it you fool.
It means only that our current understanding is limited. But as we see from history, science is always incorporating new truths.

>>9079153
>It's very unlikely
Why even post?
That's not the argument.

>>9079134
>no proof that God exists
We also have no proof that dinosaurs ever walked the earth or that humans evolved from protomammals that survived the Cretaceous mass extinction event.
We do have a bunch of rocks and bones and our best guess about what most likely happened.
>>9079156
What is the argument?

>>9079155
>Again, they can, because DNA exists
Unless it's replicable it's just an assumption. Unfounded one at that.
>Something being incompatible with our current understand does not mean god did it you fool.
Not an argument.

>>9079173
>Not an argument.
Then you're not using logic. I'm out.

>>9079164
wat
What do yo think dinosaur bones are?

>>9079178
Something being incompatible with our current understanding does not mean god didn't do it you fool. It means only that our current understanding is limited. But as we see from history, science is always incorporating new truths some of witch might eventually lead to intelligent design.

>>9079183
>does not mean god didn't do it
I didn't say that. Nice try fæm.

>>9079189
No. I did.

>>9079195
No, I meant that you were strawmanning me.
But you knew that.

>>9079196
I was trying to use the same logic you used to point out that what you were saying wasn't an argument against what I said and proved nothing.

>>9079202
>>Something being incompatible with our current understanding does not mean god did it
This is a true statement, and a refutation to your assertion that DNA proves god.

>>9078927
a belief not shared with others is called a delusion

>>9079209
You're going in circles. Instead of refuting my point you're saying IT WILL BE REFUTED IN THE FUTURE!
Which is basically a stalemate.

>>9079253
>You're going in circles.
No, I'm not. You said that DNA is proof and I refuted that and brought us back to the truth that neither of us knows dick.

>>9079267
What I said is this:
1. DNA is an encoding language.
2. DNA has intent (to multiply).
3. Randomness does not create intent.
You said just because we haven't observed it doesn't mean it's not true. (Which is a very theistic way of approaching things, see russels teapot)
I'd say we can only base our arguments on what has been observed so far.

>>9079304
Whatevs homie. Ain't neither a us no nuthin.

>>9079315
I agree but it's still fun to think about.

>>9079321
Not really. God is a dumb concept when the real answer is we don't know. But unlike science, God has absolutely no basis in reality.

>>9079326
>God
You're too hung up on that word. It triggers you. I suggest you swap it with something else when you're trying to think about this. If you don't even make the effort of trying to understand the other persons argument then it means you're really insecure about something.

>>9079304
>1. DNA is an encoding language.
>2. DNA has intent (to multiply).
>3. Randomness does not create intent.
All three of these assertions are just a game of semantics and don't constitute an argument. Intent is only something humans and other animals of sufficient intelligence possess. The statement "DNA has itnent" is nonsensical.

>>9079330
I prefer to only be psychoanalyzed by people I'm paying.

>>9079337
I find it hard to think you believe that. How do you define intent if you accuse me of manipulating words?

>>9079180
Literally all they are is weird chunks we found in the ground.
I think they're the rigid bits that used to hold dinosaurs up against gravity.

>>9079381
You can't prove that>

>>9079326
>real answer is we don't know
"we don't know" is an admission of ignorance not an answer

>>9079388
Right I can't prove it but who cares about proof anyway? It's more reasonable to think that's what they are than water eroded geological formations and that's good enough for me.

>>9079389
The answer is that we are ignorant.

>>9079408
The answer is either god did it or god didn't do it.
The question is what happened, not do you know.

>>9079419
You seem incapable of uncertainty.

I find it funny that science accepts higher dimensions but will jump through hoops to call a higher dimensional force anything but God

>>9079481
Why is that funny?
Why would that be god?

>>9079119
What about junk DNA?

>>9079490
If a 5th dimensional entity came tomorrow and told everyone on earth, 'yeah the bible, that was all me' science would jump through every hoop to avoid calling it god.

>>9079548
It wouldn't be God though?
It would be a fifth dimensional entity who wrote a book.

>inb4 see you're doing it too
There's no reason to call that god or allah or ra or whoever else.

>>9079571
>There's no reason to call that god or allah or ra or whoever else.
Why not? Because a higher dimensional being would fit the role of "god" in many religions.

>>9079584
Because it would also most probably have elements that don't jive with the holy books.
Plus the different books say different things.

>>9079589
then why would it be claiming to be god or allah or ra?

File: Proof.jpg (82KB, 718x480px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 718x480px

>>9076874

>>9079593
you lost me

>>9079593
and even if it were, wouldn't it's opinion as the alleged author of said religion overrule anything non-kosher/heretical as human error or misinterpretation?

>>9079595
Didn't know Stan Lee claimed Spiderman existed or was based off true events.

>>9079600
It would be illogical to conclude that the stories contained within either work were based on true events.

>>9079599
>5th dimensional entity shows up and says "Hi, I'm Yahweh, I wrote the Bible"
>you say "There's no reason to call that Yahweh because it probably has elements that don't jive with the holy books, even if it's claiming to be"

I was disagreeing, and think that a higher dimensional being would be in a position of authority where anything could be written up as human error or changed by man.

But the more I think about it, I am failing by assuming that a higher dimensional being has honest intentions and isn't just trolling the dumb 3DPDs. Hell, you could say all religion originates from 6th Dimensional internet trolls, or as my mom says, Ancient Aliens that were actually just joyriding alien teenagers before they got caught.

>>9079600
Didn't know God personally made a press conference and claimed he existed or events in bible was based off true events.

>>9079629
>Spiderman was written and sold as a fictional comic book by a single author
>The Bible was written as a collection of books that cover multiple genres of history, law, mythology, history, and letters from x to y, written over a span of 4000 years with multiple authors

How is it logical to treat them the same?

>>9079639
The authors of the books of the Bible never claimed to be writing fiction. Stan Lee did from the beginning.

The existence of God is unfalsifiable, but hypothesis which include the actions of God can be falsified.

>>9079648
Both are fiction, what's not to understand? Is there any proof for the bible other than the church saying "yeah it happened" ?

>>9079653
I didn't know that ancient law books could be categorized as fiction.

It's not one book.

>>9079655
Anything with zero evidence is fiction by default

>>9079659
Is anything that happened before 500 B.C. fiction to you if their texts include religious rites and beliefs? Is all civilization a lie?

But yeah, it's too bad there's no archaeological evidence of jews ever living in Israel, or those ancient cities having ever existed.

>>9079667
sooo are you finally admitting that you don't have any proof for anything you said ?

>>9079673
What makes you think that?

>>9079667
>too bad there's no archaeological evidence of jews ever living in Israel
too bad there's no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, to support the existence of a """""god"""""

>>9079676
>pushing the goalposts

>>9079676
I'll take the Universe for 200 Alex.

>>9079459
If you don't know the answer to a question saying "I'm uncertain" might be true but you don't get any points for it.
Talking about uncertainty is a way to avoid the original question and make it about how sure people are about what they think they know.

File: lewontinfoot.jpg (163KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 960x720px

>>9079481

>>9076874
It's possible that God exists and we can't disprove it, just like we can't disprove faeries and unicorns exist, but that's not evidence that he does exist. In science, lack of evidence of the negative does not prove the existence of said thing, and science is the best that we have. Therefore, we should not act as if God exists.

File: bl.jpg (9KB, 244x206px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 244x206px

>>9079887
>science is the best
>its literally useless here
>therefore

File: pepe.png (57KB, 327x137px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 327x137px

>>9079901
>all those arguments

>>9079907
Okay I guess I'll spell it out.
You know how hammers are great for hammering nails but you're an idiot if you brush your teeth with one?
Whoever taught you that one single method is 'the best' and you should use it even on problems it can't solve and base actions on its useless output instead of switching methods did you a disservice by turning you into a functional retard.
Reprogram yourself.

>>9079929
>that false analogy
>implying the scientific method isn't the best system for explaining things at humans' disposal

Opinion discarded.

>>9079933
>completely missing the point
Scientism is for retards.

>>9079304
>>9079154
>DNA has intent
You're anthropomorphising a chemical here. DNA is just a particular construction of matter that happens to replicate itself as a result of how its built. If a strand of DNA splits, each side will necessarily become a copy of the original strand because the "rungs" will only attach to certain chemicals (AT/CG pairs).

This is like saying a strong acid's "intent" is to corrode things because that's what it always does. DNA is just a chemical that always self replicates.

I don't know enough about genetics to comment on how DNA ends up encoding proteins and whatnot but the replication thing only requires a high school level of understanding for it to not seem mystical.

>>9079901
Can you think of any other way apart from observation to find out about things outside of our own minds?

>>9080581
muh feels
muh revelation

>>9076906
There is no evidence there is a "first thing." In fact current evidence supports that it is an infinite casual chain.

File: pensive lenny.jpg (38KB, 724x513px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 724x513px

The greatest question of all here is not whether God or not exists but why do fellow /sci/ users waste their time trying to argue against religious fanatics who deny every single truth you present them. You're either arguing with a religious person for the first time or just being pathetic, if the former you are a newfag and if the latter you should fuck off.

>>9080576
>but the replication thing only requires a high school level of understanding for it to not seem mystical
this

File: 1500228753737.jpg (86KB, 620x768px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 620x768px

>>9080624
>waste their time trying to argue against religious fanatics who deny every single truth you present them.
But it's too baffling and makes me want to engage because I don't understand their motivation.
They claim to want truth yet dance around emperical truth at every turn while not admitting that their stance boils down to just faith by trying to dress it up in mumbo jumbo.

It's truly facinating.

File: average place.jpg (1MB, 3276x2360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3276x2360px

>>9080634
>makes me want to engage because I don't understand their motivation.
You have to understand that 99% of internet Christians are white suburb Americans, they live in houses like pic related, in small towns. The 1% usually being autists who see these Christians on the internet and try to fit in. Their motivation is purely social. They grow up in a Christian environment. Their mothers are Christian. Their fathers are Christian. Their siblings are Christian. They are taught Christianity in school and play with Christian friends. They just don't of any other possibility. Trying to argue reason with them is like trying to communicate in a different language. It's completely animal, social behavior. There's nothing else to it. Think of it like this. Imagine you walk into a British pub full of Manchester United fans. What do you reckon would be their reaction if a Manchester City fan walked into the pub and started saying MC is objectively superior to MU because trophy count, historical achievements etc? The pub gentlemen would laugh at you and kick you out of there without the slightest concern for anything you said.

>>9080624
Poster in OP wasn't being a religious fanatic.

>>9080624
take your high horse and fuck off, no one is this thread is acting like a "religious fanatic" everyone is arguing about gnosticism

>>9080652
that has to be the most euphoric post I've ever seen on this board. How about you? Are you not a white kid who grew up in a middle class suburb? Do you spend time with people who believe different things from you?

>>9080581
If you're a mathematical realist all you need to do is think.

>but to say we existed despite the laws of physics and current science writing itself into a corner and logically concluding that we can't exist by natural means is dumb.
We can't exist by natural means? We're just as existent as any other living thing. Everything we know about the human body is known there isn't some reaction from the human body that doesn't already have a medical explanation.

>Then how is it not God?
How is it not Shiva or Ra or Zeus or Thor? We have no reason to believe that it is God, it's your job to give a reason why it is. Just because we can't disprove something that is unfalsifiable is no reason for anyone to believe what you're saying. You can't disprove it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that isn't any reason for you to believe it is him. The burden of proof lies on the one that makes the claim. If no one brought up the notion that there is a divine creator you wouldn't have counter-argument that there exists no divine creator, because the counter argument cannot exist without the first claim being made.
>Fuck off. The same logic that posits the universe came into being supernaturally but secularly shouldn't be given some sort of credence just because atheists don't want to admit their best theory comes down to something beyond time and space but totally scientific guys.
Just because we don't know something isn't any reason for you to blame it on God. Not knowing something is just motivation for the future generation to work hard at finding the truth. To blame it on God isn't caring about the truth, you just want others to become deluded with you.

>>9081411
>We can't exist by natural means?
They don't mean humans, they mean the universe, and the laws of nature as we know them indicate that yes, the first cause had to violate them somehow.

>how is it not [other gods]
They didn't say Yawheh, they mean God in the deist sense. As such, the claim of a divine creator persists because the universe does and cannot make itself exist as per current natural law.

I agree on your last point, though dismissing the idea of a God, personal or impersonal, isn't caring about truth either.

>>9081460
>dismissing the idea of a divine creator is not caring about the truth either
How so? We don't know how the universe exactly began, so should we just stop investigation and progress and call it a day? Just say some unfalsifiable deity did it? How is that caring about the truth? What is it with so many deist with "muh divine creator". Even if there somehow exists a divine creator you're still left with the impossible task of answering which one it is. Or which version of the god is the correct one. There are many denominations of religions you may as well tell all the other existing religions to suck it and create your own religion. I am not apart of any religion because you can't determine which religion is the correct one and all of them are just your own flavor of delusion.

>>9081460
>They don't mean humans, they mean the universe, and the laws of nature as we know them indicate that yes, the first cause had to violate them somehow.
No it doesn't.
>They didn't say Yawheh, they mean God in the deist sense. As such, the claim of a divine creator persists because the universe does and cannot make itself exist as per current natural law.
Yes it can.

The "current natural law" is Quantum. Quantum has no causality, there is no causality in Quantum Mechanics.

>>9081476
What are you Talking about, a deist beleives in a dive creator because that's what deism is. And in deism it isn't saying it's the God of x, it's just the thing that creates everything. Trying to say a supernatural cause isn't possible because there might be incorrect things attributed to it seems off.

>>9081477
Please provide a link of quantum physic proving it can be noncausal and nonconservative, and then if you don't mind, could you explain why we aren't using these proven sources of perpetual energy to be a type III civ?

>>9081499
No but if your only evidence for a supernatural being is that it isn't impossible, and the only way you can say it isn't impossible is because it's unfasifiable, then your argument is very weak. I can't see how you can question why someone doesn't believe you

>>9081518
The evidence is that there comes a point going backwards where science fails completely and (until shown otherwise by that one anon) natural law cannot possibly explain how things started. By that alone, something supernatural started the universe. You can explore that as you wish, religion or not, but it's a fools errand to swear that isn't the case in favor of an ideology you know cannot explain it any other way. Even Hawking's explanation boils down to shit that violates scientific law being able to happen because there was no reason it couldn't before those laws were in place.

>>9081533
>By that alone, something supernatural started the universe.
Stopped reading there. How do you even come to the conclusion without it being a non-sequitur. Because that's how it comes off to me. You're simply telling me that when science does not have an explanation for something yet, the supernatural is what comes up. How would you even be able to verify if the supernatural is behind it when the supernatural cannot be detected. And if it can be detected, than it is not supernatural.

>>9081543
It's literally a thing that supersedes nature.
>we don't know
But that's not what happens. The answer you get asking any serious physicist what happened before the Big Bang is
>we CANNOT know.
Science literally cannot explain the first cause but you believe it, when that by definition makes the first cause supernatural, but you don't want to say that?

>>9081566
>Crossposting /his/ to argue religion undercover on /sci/ and throwing a bitch fit that a science board isn't going to just say God did it.

>>9077479
Yeah, you right.
Is not like important concept yes?
You dumb.

>>9081979
It's both, really. People use it out of context some/a lot of times but that doesn't mean it's a useless term.