Tell me /sci/, do you believe in a higher power?

>>9136254
depends on the situation. I prayed to god once that this girl would sleep with me on the first date and she did. havn't talked to him since tho

>>9136258
God is cool dude.

>>9136254
People who say we exist out of a fit of random molecule assembling are draft. DNA is not an element and could not have been created in a natural setting.

>>9136283
How did God create Itself? Wouldn't that be a random mergence of pre-existent entities into something new?

Or is God inseparable from the laws governing the universe?

Would the laws be random assemblies also? Where does natural law come from at its base? Is random, really

>>9136254
Yes, but not a benevolent one. At best, anything capable of creating intelligent life (or even life capable of developing intelligence in its own) would be ambivalent towards the thoughts, lives, triumphs, and failures of that creation. More likely is that we're a mistake, like letting bread get moldy, and our """""creator""""" is outright hostile.

>>9136283
Rust, ozone, Water aren't elements either but get created naturally all the time

>>9136304
There are even nebulas made of ethanol.

File: 30fcbf752314dd015c009a3cda109c144c338e6cab7a9ecbb984188e9547d46c.jpg (112KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 600x600px

Yes, but trying to understand him with our logic only gives problems. If he is the creator of this reality then I have no problem in believing that he is above that. I know that it is a bit cheap, but heh, I can concentrate in more important things
Seriously, if you personalize the old Testament God you get an asshole

>>9136305
BOOZE CLOUD

>>9136296
>How did God create Itself?
This is a retarded argument. We see the universe and interact with it, we know that everything has a beginning, everything has a cause, therefore one comes to the logical conclusion that the universe has a creator. You can't counter this line of thinking with "BUT WHO MADE GAWD?!" because the creator is outside our scope of understanding, we can make no statements about him besides what we can infer from his creation.

File: 1502883773031.png (17KB, 746x600px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 746x600px

>>9136254
Yes. To say life emerged and evolved naturally in the hostile environment of an early earth is like throwing a million dogs on mars and expecting them to adapt.

>>9136361
The problem I have with that argument is that I see no reason why we can't treat the creation/destruction of the universe with the same mysticism that we treat god. What makes it any more likely that the force that "started" or "maintains" the universe is an anthropomorphic being that's concerned with your existence, as opposed to some other incomprehensible phenomenon? The only reason I see to believe the second specifically is that it makes you feel better thinking that something like you is "in charge".

File: 1502927556619.jpg (221KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 640x360px

Intuition is real. If you honed it well enough you could predict events, get close to telepathy, etc.

No.

>>9136333
t. LARPing Atheist

File: eco evo phone wallpaper.png (255KB, 466x496px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 466x496px

>>9136254
life

>>9136598
>What makes it any more likely that the force that "started" or "maintains" the universe is an anthropomorphic being that's concerned with your existence, as opposed to some other incomprehensible phenomenon?
My argument was in favor of a creator existing, not an anthropomorphic being.

>>9136506
And there are millions if not billions of Earth-like worlds out there, none of which hosts life as far as we know, so we are that miniscule chance of naturally occurring life.

Given an infinite timescale everything that can happen will happen at least once.

>>9136653
>Given an infinite timescale
>infinite timescale
No such thing exists your fucking brainlet, get out of my /sci/.

>>9136660
>He thinks the universe will collapse into itself rather than forever expand and grow colder.

>>9136653
Except the thrust of his argument is THAT such a thing could have happened in the first place.

>>9136598
Because this supposedly eldritch phenomenon is responsible for "producing" rational beings that exist in a (more or less) intelligible universe. This principle is concerned in my existence insofar as my own existence participates in it, ie I have a concept of divinity, I live this conception etc.

>>9136653
So if I keep throwing dogs at Mars* one of them will "eventually" be able to breath and withstand the hostile conditions and multiply?
*(Note that this is an understatement. The early earth evolutionists believe in was actually MORE hostile than today's Mars)
>this is what atheists actually believe

>>9136703
You're attacking this from the completely wrong angle. Dogs are adapted to an oxygen rich atmosphere and temperate climate. The early life on earth would be single cell organisms, if even that.
And we know single cell organisms are tough as nails as we have found them on some of the most extreme places on earth.

>>9136254

Yes. High voltage power lines are pretty much proven to work by now.

>>9136715
Where did that single cell come from with all it's structure and genetic information on how to reproduce, how to eat etc.? You underestimate how complex a single cell is. Even if it were much simpler than today it would still need to fulfill basic functions like reproduction, metabolism etc. which would still make it more complex than a space shuttle.
There can be no "inbetween" steps before that or else the cell wouldn't even be viable.

Of course. Doesn't everybody? You're saying it's not common knowledge that God exists? There are people on this board right now who don't know that God exists? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>9136732
The cells I'm talking about were extremely rudimentary. That means no mitochondria or any of the complex functionality you're talking about. Just the ability to reproduce and survive.

The way life originated is an age old question. The hypothesis I found most satisfying is that something happened, a lightning strike, for example, that caused some atoms to bind together to form a molecule with the remarkable ability to replicate. Then over the course of millions or billions of years small errors in the replication process amalgamated to create what we can recognise as a cell. The process repeats and more and more complex lifeforms emerge until you reach us.

Now the chances of a self-replicating molecule to form are pretty slim, to say the least, but where you might argue that only a creator could have pushed life over the edge (which I can respect, though I myself find that answer unsatisfying) I'd argue that improbability is not impossibility.

>>9136598
>I agree that it's mystical let's just not call God a bearded white man
The abstraction is there just appreciate it and don't argue semantics

>>9136361
You realize that the creation of the universe is still somewhat outside of our understanding still, correct? You have no reason to attribute it to some entity that shares human traits rather than attributing it to some feature of the way things simply are.

Not to mention you're just copping out of the whole argument by claiming God is too fancy-schmancy to understand. How can you claim knowledge about something that is too transcendental to have knowledge of? You can't fathom what that is. You've just made a creator conveniently transcendental so you can ignore any response after claiming it exists (and claiming existence is nonsensical if you claim it's beyond understanding, since you can't even fathom what existence would mean for such an entity).

I will say, at least, that it's a fun bit of rhetoric to use on people that won't notice but it's still a bad way to rationalize your beliefs. You basically just gave up part way because it's hard, and then used that to support your belief.

Coherence of beliefs does not equate with accurate description of the external world.

File: 1487187988907.jpg (34KB, 480x401px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x401px

>>9136653
You can have an infinite set that that is missing elements. Consider the set R that is all real numbers. Now remove every number divisible by three and let this new set be X. X is infinite but does not contain every real number.

>>9136819
do you completely believe in your lightning hypothesis?

>>9136254
Yes. Does not seem to me to be an issue with /sci/ence, unless you start applying religious dogma as a test of scientific theories.

>>9136653
>And there are millions if not billions of Earth-like worlds out there, none of which hosts life as far as we know

Nor do we know anything else about them, really.

File: 6.-DogHeads_Cannon.jpg (1MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1067px

>>9136703
Hole up, hole up!

I want to try this experiment. We can't really KNOW what will happen if we don't try it.

>>9136669
>He thinks that colder temperatures don't increase electromagnetic and by extension gravitational attraction radii

>>9136254
>believe in
found the superstitious faith-based primitive

>>9136968
Asking who created God misses the point because God is already the First Cause by definition. He's not claiming personal knowledge, he's arguing based on the very concept in question. God cannot be another being because we're talking about the source/principle of being in the first place.

>>9136254
Question is so broad that it's meaningless.

I have no resentment towards the idea of a creator, whether intelligent or otherwise. I have no resentment towards the notion of purpose, in any of its forms. The underlying logic that drives the universe does suggest there is something else, that we'll likely never know.

The only thing I take issue with is the common attribution of omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience, to the creator. The creator need not have any of these things. Did Conway have complete knowledge of the Game of Life, right off?

>>9136506
WE

File: IMG_1850.jpg (584KB, 2247x2336px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 2247x2336px

>>9137184
>whether intelligent or otherwise
Forgive me, blog post incoming
I was required to take a religious studies class (in this case, it was literally Christian apologetics) and one of the arguments that our book used was something along the lines of "if the universe was made, there is an intelligent creator". One of the students asked why it was necessary for the creator to be "conscious". I assume the prof either didn't hear him or didn't fully understand the question, so he just repeated the point in a different tone and said "does that answer your question?"
The kid mumbled some form of "sure" since he didn't want to make a scene because it's the Bible Belt, and the other people in the class already believed in white beard God.
I told the prof he must've misheard the question so I gave him a scenario:
"Say an educated and fully qualified scientist purposely placed milk in a dish to let it ferment and form a culture. Now say a sleeping man knocks over a glass he had drank most of the milk out of, and it rolled under bed where he never looks. Eventually it will ferment and there will be bacteria. Is it any less of a culture because he was completely unaware that it happened?"
I feel so goofy typing this out, but the professor literally stared at me for a while in contemplation, and then said he had never even considered such a thing. He told me the next day that he brought it up to his circle of apologetic friends. I guess they talked about that for a week or so.
It's like a scene from the skeptic's version of "God's not dead."

Super nice guy.

>>9136361
>This is a retarded argument. We see the universe and interact with it, we know that everything has a beginning, everything has a cause, therefore one comes to the logical conclusion that the universe has a creator.
And therefor that creator has a creator, that creator has a creator, etc. Why does this argument apply only to the universe but not a god? We have never interacted with an entire universe and seen that universes have beginnings.

You can't have it both ways. Either everything had to be created or the universe did not have to be created.

>>9136652
A creator is a being. Adding the suffix -or to create turns it into an agent noun, a person who creates. If "creator" does not imply an agent, then why can't the universe itself be the "creator" of everything in it?

>>9137181
>Asking who created God misses the point because God is already the First Cause by definition.
That's not what was argued though, he simply said that the universe must be created since everything inside it is created. But that does not imply that whatever created the universe is the supposed "First Cause." So it doesn't miss that point.

Additionally, you have not shown why the universe itself cannot be the "First Cause," or why infinite regression should not be allowed.

No there isn't a higher power.
I feel honestly bad for religious people.

>>9137830
I don't. Being religious gives them an edge.

No. Always thought it was a phase, but been over 15 years and I still haven't changed my mind.

>>9136283
...we exist out of random molecule assembling.

>>9136506
except there weren't dogs around billions of years ago, just the very simplest unicellular organisms, which could survive and evolve in a hostile dynamic environment of early earth. as the earth evolved, life expanded and diversified.

I will say this - it still blows my fucking mind that there was nothing and then something. Whether it be god or big bang, or whatever. The point is: nothing -> something.
and what is nothing anyway?

File: generalfusion1.jpg (93KB, 730x430px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 730x430px

>>9136254
I believe that there is a very clever God that intentionally never existed. It's all epistemological.

>>9136254
i am the higher power.

>>9137881
Nothing might be a very human concept. Believing in "nothing" might be equivalent to believing in certain metaphysical concepts such as "souls".

Nothing is defined as "not anything." We like to say that that is "just common sense." But when is it observably true? We can have local situations where there is a lack of something. ie.
>"How many things do you have in your box?"
>"I have nothing in the box."
But when it comes to the nature of the universe? "Nothing" might not be an actual thing. So when asked the question
>"What was before the bigbang?" (and ignoring the inherent wording problem with the question that can be akin to saying "what happened in time before there was time")
The answer could very well be
>"Something other than our knowable spacetime"

If it is ENTIRELY unknowable, such as "what" was before the big bang (a good possibility), then we can just say it is functionally equivalent to "nothing", but that never means that there HAD to be something nor does it mean that there HAD to be the literal nothing.

>>9136254
I don't believe in powers greater than 5. Assuming something to excist beyond that is just silly.

File: Christian Enlightenment.jpg (1007KB, 1280x1599px) Image search: [Google]

1007KB, 1280x1599px

Before the matter of our universe formed anything of note, the laws the govern physics were introduced. If the laws of gravity or electromagnetism were different even in the slightest degree, then there is a strong probability that nothing of substance would have been formed and we would not be here

Does not prove anything obviously, but it does get me thinking

>>9136254
Hate to shill but I think this is a great exposition of the view I hold on this topic. https://youtu.be/jikYpkrEkTQ

>>9136254
bit conflicted about it, however i do think that alot of the religions here are very humancentric as in why a higher power would even care about a lower being? what is a even a god? what qualify a being to become a god? is it power, wisdom, intelligence or a god can just be an object that has no consciousness but does it thing because it has to?

>>9137958
A complete idiot amateur in both science and religion but I will try to give my best effort

>Why a higher power would even care about a lower being?

We are made in his image. We create and reflect about the universe around us in a way that nothing else in the universe can (from what we have seen). Disregarding the possibility of having some sort of attachment to humanity, it is easy to see why a higher power would be curious about the development of beings such as we.

>what is even a god? What qualifies it?

Being the transcendental source of everything else, what reality comes from and is founded upon on a metaphysical level.

>>9136732
>Cell requires creator
>my favourite god does not require a creator

In the christfag "brain", this makes sense.

File: beksinski.jpg (541KB, 1060x1060px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1060x1060px

>>9136254
I think it is profoundly ignorant to assume that all 'life' must be like us -- carbon-based lifeforms. Further, what would impede the existence of an inorganic intelligence of sorts? This does not mean that it *must* be true simply because it is an arbitrary possibility, but anybody who says it is impossible is irrational and should not be taken seriously.

Along the same thread, one might wonder how an inorganic intelligence would manifest and what it would 'consume' to continue existing, if it even had such needs... It is interesting to think about. I think some sort of "higher power" existed, we would be akin to ants to them, in the same way that an ant will mindlessly dron along and crawl up your finger, unable to fathom your intelligence, let alone your existence.

>>9137181
The first cause to what? There's always been something (even 0 has a discrete value)

>>9136254
Do you mean some sort of deity/deities? No.

>>9137835
You need to do some research on societal health vs religiosity, because your opinion is incorrect.

>>9136978
Maybe not necessarily that lightning struck, but a similar event that caused a self-replicating molecule to form. I just used lightning as an example. It's impossible to know for certain but as I said I find it more convincing then a creator.

It's not even my hypothesis. You can correct me if I'm wrong, as I might be misremembering, but I think I read about it in Dawkins "The Selfish Gene".

>>9137988
You need the infinite before the finite. The "who created God" argument assumes God is finite and would create an endless chain of "Who created x". This actually helps the creation argument: We know that the universe is finite, therefore there has to be a higher infinite step.

>>9137947
If the universe was different it would be different. So what?

>>9138405
>You need the infinite before the finite.
Why?

>The "who created God" argument assumes God is finite and would create an endless chain of "Who created x".
No it doesn't assume god is "finite," whatever that means. Either everything requires a cause or the universe does not require a cause.

>We know that the universe is finite
LOL, no we don't. Standard physics assumes it's not. You have no idea what you're talking about.

File: Gen1-1.jpg (25KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x360px

>>9139191
>no we don't
I do.

>>9139191
Yes, it does assume God is finite, because you couldn't ask what "created" a transcendent being on account of it being, well, transcendent. If you think a transcendent being has to conform to some kind of causality, you don't know what transcendent means.

Yes, I believe in a personal God.

>>9139633
>Yes, it does assume God is finite, because you couldn't ask what "created" a transcendent being on account of it being, well, transcendent.
And how do you know whatever supposedly created the universe is "transcendent?" Why is the universe itself not "transcendent?" You just keep renaming the same flawed assumption with more magical words, instead of justifying it.

>>9139653
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>9136304
>>9136305
Those compounds don't compare to the complexity of life's compounds and the compounds that they rely upon. We realize that the universe can host complex things, but there is nothing that comes close to the complexity of life. There is a missing link between what separates the universe without life and the universe with life.

>>9139791

You are a little behind the times here, Chuckles.

And no, I cant be bothered looking up the sources and references. Because I can tell you wouldn't want to listen anyway.

>>9136283
well executed bait friendo, have a (you)

>>9136732
If you want to debunk evolution, then why are your arguments aimed at abiogenesis?
You realize evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, rather the origin of the diversity of life and your silly strawmen won't debunk it

>>9136254

No. And if one existed it would be necessary to reject it.

The older that I get, the more that I hate the idea of a god.

>>9137936
Please don't conflate natural epistemology with mathematical reasoning.
Mathematics is a purely logical way of expressing abstract hypotheticals
The scientific method relies on models and evidence

>>9136254
I don't "believe" in a higher power in the same way I "believe" in quantum physics because it does not seem like a useful model to explain observed phenomena.
I have some nonscientific thoughts (that is, thoughts about things that are by definition not the domain of science, not things that contradict it), but those are of course just guesswork to make myself feel better. Nothing in my worldview is compatible with religion or spirituality.

>>9136732
>There can be no "inbetween" steps
To a "primitive" (or early prokaryote-like) sinlge celled organism metabolism could have been as simple as directly absorbing nutrients form the environment; and reproduction like falling apart in two's. With no specialized internal structures every part is similar (both in form and functionality) to every orher part.

The point is: You havent been able to think of viable in-between steps. That doesn't mean they don't excist

File: Schopenhauer.jpg (14KB, 300x358px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x358px

>>9139989
>Nothing in my worldview is compatible with religion or spirituality.

Git gud.

>>9136254
Fundie Baptist /unshakable/ + STEM grad w/135iq
AMA

>>9140151
Your inbetween step isnt viable, you need some sort of metabolism or where is the nutrients going. How do you repair the cell membrane. You need energy to reproduce too.

>>9140208
This "anything but creationism" rally cry just gets sadder and sadder. I look upon these people with a mixture of pity and bemused fascination.

File: s-l300[1].jpg (22KB, 300x239px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x239px

>>9140208
Ima gonna give it one last shot

The very primitive proto-cell is barely more than a blob of chemicals. There really isn’t very much to it. Hardly recognizable as being alive. Except that it can reproduce via a simple split mechanism. Once it reaches a certain critical size it splits in two. Not because it wants to or because it has evolved to do so, but simply because above this threshold size it becomes unstable and falls apart in two pieces.
The absorption of “nutrients” is also very primitive. Whenever our cell comes into contact with specific chemicals they are absorbed. Again, not because it wants to or because it has evolved to do so, but simply by the nature of chemicals reacting.

We now have two very primitive systems in place. Metabolism and reproduction. Each no more than the most basic and (literally) elemental chemical properties. But each now subject evolutionary processes. Any small (random) change in our proto cell will either improve or worsen the process.

Let’s say that on the outer edge of our cell a small change in the structure improves the absorption of the “nutrients” in a significant manner. Such that the cell reaches its critical size faster. Therefor reproducing faster. And before long this new feature will have spread through the population.

So, just like with eyes, there is no “it can only work as a complete system” and “it is useless unless it is in its modern complete form”. It’s gradual steps all the way.

>pic unrelated

>>9140217
i see what they mean though; creationism does encourage a form of complacency when it comes to discovery. creationist science is purely confirmational, it doesnt generally look for anything new.

>>9140277
I approach my science field with as much or more curiousity and wonderment as any atheist I've ever met. Your terminology of creationist science implies there is a divide somewhere and that an atheist is the only one with the real facts or something. Need i remind you that facts are facts?

>>9140243
yes but the nutrients need to be involved in some metabolic process to get to where theyre needed. metabolism isnt just absorbing nutrients you know.

>>9140307
In this fase metabolism isn't much more than absorption. Think: cell made of X absorps more X
Complex metabolic organs and processes are still way off into the future.

>>9140292
Eh, nevermind. I guess the complacency depends on the perspective of whether you believe in creationism or not.

File: notsosensiblenow.gif (753KB, 220x221px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 220x221px

>>9136283
Me
>>9136296
>>9136333
>>9136598
>>9136752
>>9137181
>>9137715
>>9137830
>>9137866
Allllll of you.

Higher power =/= a classical sense of 'god'. Higher power simply means a presence in the universe beyond that of human understanding and comprehension.

>>9139668
>why can't the universe be "transcendent"?

nigga you dumb af

>>9136254
I do but claiming a universal creator would care about you is like you caring about your quarks. Its moronic honestly.

>>9139936
Funny, for me it's the other way around.

>>9140359
"sky fairy" is a convenient strawman

>>9140316
what excuse can you make for that fact that we haven't managed to replicate the process artificially, if it's really not so complex?

>>9140766
>this expression indicates a Christfag's confusion and lack of understanding...

>>9140843
>less complex than modern cell = simple enough to replicate artificially
LOL no. First we would have to know the exact chemical mechanism, and don't.

>>9140316
Are you stupid? Whatever the cell imports needs work to be applied to it or else it will just float about within the cell membrane; It needs to be acted on by metabolic processes so it goes where it needs to go structurally and then waste needs to be gotten rid of. And DNA transciption itself requires metabolic processes.

>>9140359
your fucking post is worse then the ones you refer to.

>>9140854
you don't have qualms with believing in something happening spontaneously that's too complex for us to replicate? (and btw I'm not necessarily justifying any theist ideas, so don't use that in your rebuttal)

It takes a special kind of person to believe that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence. All that exists in but an abstraction in the deeper parts of our minds we have yet to understand, the borders between individuals is a stubbornly persistent illusion.

But why do I bother posting this on the board full of the most inflated ego's on all of 4chan xd

>>9140873
>you don't have qualms with believing in something happening spontaneously that's too complex for us to replicate?
Happening "spontaneously" over an entire universe of chemical interactions over billions of years? Uh, yeah I would believe that that would create something which we have not been able to replicate in only a few hundred years of chemistry. What exactly are you trying to argue?

>>9140874
>It takes a special kind of person to believe that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence.
You don't have to believe that, you can see it happen every day when a theist becomes an atheist.

File: thinking-emoticon.png (21KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x315px

>>9140874
Dude God lmao

satan put the bones there

dinosaurs are a meme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

>>9141058
That a person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance: either by changing parts of the cognition, to justify the stressful behavior; or by adding new parts to the cognition that causes the psychological dissonance; and by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information that are likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]

>; and by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information that are likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]

>>9140858
>Whatever the cell imports needs work to be applied to it or else it will just float about within the cell membrane
Floating about in the cell membrane is all that is required. The protocell does not have any functionality beyond propogation. "Food" and "waste" only make sense in the context of a modern cell with functionality that uses these things.

Here, try watching this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

>>9141069
No, because the cell still has to do things like repair its cell membrane and do DNA transcription, it needs specific metabolic processes. Propogation itself requires metabolic processes.

Without the metabolic processes, how is the cell going to survive? it wont be able to maintain itself in a non-equilibrium state and will literally erode into its external milieu.

If you have a point from the video, then say it, im not watching a 10 minute video right now.

>>9141109
>No, because the cell still has to do things like repair its cell membrane
Why? It just needs to compete, it doesn't have to excel. Did you watch the video?

>DNA transcription
This is pre-DNA and proteins.

>Without the metabolic processes, how is the cell going to survive? it wont be able to maintain itself in a non-equilibrium state and will literally erode into its external milieu.
Again, you are simply not getting it. Something in between a chemical and a cell is not "surviving." How does a molecule survive? How does a vesicle survive?

The point of the video is to show you a process from simple chemical interaction to chemical competition and propogation. It would answer many of the questions you just asked. If you don't have ten minutes why are to o spending hours here? Skip to 3:45 if it's too long.

>>9141052
>an entire universe of chemical interactions
nice try, how frequently do life capable planets with tons of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen appear?
>billions of years
what's the probability of a simple computer falling into place even in a planet with its entire surface coated with circuit boards and plastic panels? let's be generous and say 1/10^100, billions of years would have no effect whatsoever

My argument is simply that you chose the idea you preferred, you didn't arrive there by logic as you probably think you did

>>9141261
>what's the probability of a simple computer falling into place even in a planet with its entire surface coated with circuit boards and plastic panels?
Nice straw man

>>9141273
would you say a primitive prokaryote is simpler than a computer?

>>9141261
>nice try, how frequently do life capable planets with tons of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen appear?
Depends on the size of the universe. Standard assumption in physics is that it's infinite.

>what's the probability of a simple computer falling into place even in a planet with its entire surface coated with circuit boards and plastic panels?
That depends completely on what forces are acting on the pieces.

>My argument is simply that you chose the idea you preferred, you didn't arrive there by logic as you probably think you did
Of course I chose the idea I preferred. The question is WHY I preferred it. The answer is because it's the more logical and parsimonious answer.

>>9141289
Primitive prokaryotes did not arise spontaneously, the protocell did. And yes, the protocell is much simpler than a computer. A protocell is simply a lipid vesicle containing a nucleotide polymer. But this is besides the point since one being more simple sheds does not tell us how likely one was to spontaneously arise vs. the other. That depends entirely on the mechanism of emergence. No one claims ice crystals can't exist simply because liquid water is simpler.

>>9141327
you can assume that that a protocell existed, and abiogenesis happened, and you can also assume the universe is infinite. But others may choose to favor another explanation for our existence, and their choice involves the same amount of logic as yours

>>9141355
> But others may choose to favor another explanation for our existence, and their choice involves the same amount of logic as yours
Hmmm except they don't. How exactly is God logical? How is God necessary? It's simply not scientific, so you can't argue it's on the same playing field.

>>9141360
it's not logical, that's my point.

>>9136254
No. I don't believe in things for which there is no supporting evidence.

>>9141374
Then it's not as logical as abiogenesis.

>>9141126
Survival is the upperbounding of entropy.

>>9141388
why? it requires as many or more assumptions.
could it be that just because it's associated with the idea of "science" and favored by "scientists" that you assume it must be logical?

>>9141396
>upperbounding

Elaborate

>>9141402
It requires fewer assumptions than an omnipotent and omniscient god. Abiogenesis has theories about how what mechanisms could have contributed; whereas "God did it" fabricates an entire being that exists outside of the laws of physics, with no evidence other than the fallacy of "lots of people believe in it", and "a book said it was true".

>>9141396
What is entropically intensive about lipid vesicles containing a nucleotide polymer?

>>9141402
>why? it requires as many or more assumptions.
What does the number of assumptions have to do with whether abiogenesis is logical?

>could it be that just because it's associated with the idea of "science" and favored by "scientists" that you assume it must be logical?
No, it's the other way around. You tried and failed to argue abiogeneisis is improbable, so now you are just equivocating.

>>9141422
Evidence for God is a simple causality question: what/who caused the big bang? God doesn't need to be a personal God or even be remotely human. Science is funny, give us one free maricle and we'll explain the rest.

>>9141440
>Evidence for God is a simple causality question: what/who caused the big bang?
That's not evidence, that's a question. It also implies that God is irrelevant to the creation of life since this can be explained purely from the Big Bang.

>God doesn't need to be a personal God or even be remotely human.
Does God need to be an intelligent agent? If not, then the word God has no use. If yes then God is unfounded.

File: aw.jpg (66KB, 483x667px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 483x667px

>>9141452
Well since intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence God must be intelligent, the evidence for their existence is in psychedelics (no meme). As a total athiest and skeptic I smoked DMT a few times with a large enough dosage to breakthrough and the hypre-real clarity and familiarity was unexplainable. It's clear to me that a DMT trip is what brings your consciousness into the world when your born and removes it when you die. You can buy everything to extract DMT from plants online legally if you want to know more about consciousness, demensions, the brain.

File: hqdefault.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

I think Asimov's depiction of god in The Last Question is pretty spot on.
https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf


I think god would be the very last conscious being that exists at the end of time and has time traveling capabilities, but can't alter the past without altering itself. (cause it exists at the end of time) It would use that time travel powers to acquire all information that every will and ever has existed. That would include the very thoughts passing through your head right as you're reading this. In this way, your thoughts are now part of god, and because you're a distant distant distant relative to the beings that create this godlike being you're not only part of god but you're also his decendent. Everything that you are and ever will be was a necessary for this entity to become the way it is and while it could change history in order to change itself. The fact that you still exist means god hasn't changed history to write you out of existence and means you were necessary for some reason. Weather it tiny and small or important, you are/were necessary to create a god-like being.
And when time has truly and finally run out, and the universe is about to end it'll use it's accumulated intelligence to restart the universe. Ending it's own existence, but recreating the new universe in a way to ensure that near the end it'll come into existence once again.

>>9141479
>Well since intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence
According to what?

I guess you deny evolution as well since that is intelligence arising from non-intelligence.

>As a total athiest and skeptic I smoked DMT
Ah I see. Never mind then. Enjoy your schizophrenia.

>>9140841
What about aliens pumping out manufactored, rudimentary amino acids like gardeners planting seeds?
>>9140865
I never mentioned God. All of your retard army did. For some reason, this entire board gets into fully erect cerebral palsy mode whenever the mention of anything smarter than humans comes up.

>>9136254
No, because that shit is for folks who value their collective cognitive dissonance over reality.

>>9136254
Yes. My supervisor

>>9141423
I dont know im not a physicist but wouldnt they occur in nature?

>>9141412
Living things resist the second law of thermodynamics as dissipative structures

>>9136254
Depend on what mean by "higher power".

>>9136995
>he thinks we have the data to support either claim

>>9138087
Apparently, first living being appeared in deep seas, where there's lot volcanic activity, with lot of gooey stuff, and there where also some kind of sun laser.

>>9141479
> the evidence for their existence is in psychedelics (no meme). As a total athiest and skeptic I smoked DMT a few times with a large enough dosage to breakthrough and the hypre-real clarity and familiarity was unexplainable. It's clear to me that a DMT trip is what brings your consciousness into the world when your born and removes it when you die. You can buy everything to extract DMT from plants online legally if you want to know more about consciousness, demensions, the brain.

Or it mess with your brain.

>>9137979
So he would be some kind of scientist ?

>>9141760
Yes, under the right conditions.

>>9141761
The hypothesized protocell isn't "living" and operates according to simple chemical interactions which either increase entropy, or are caused by inputs of energy from thermal vents.

File: 6c20332d185701b1a95f0720c91870752f95e9b1ddcfd2c7255d570ce93f307d.jpg (24KB, 430x430px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 430x430px

>>9136623
Well, I go to church and everything. I must be really into LARPing then.
I personally see no problem, I can see science as a way to worship God and pay him respect. Simply put:
>God created the universe and trough it's un-mutable laws he created life and us
is a more comprehensive and respectful answer to his power than:
>Le ebin sky fairy just said "Fuck it" and created everything with a snap, not giving a shit about the laws he created a few days before

>>9136361
Please explain how this is an invalid question? Let's say the creator scenario is valid. How is it valid to assume the creator is outside the laws of physics?

>>9136506
The nature of your argument reveals your lack of knowledge of the first life forms. Dogs are highly complex animals compared to single celled organisms.

>>9136254
yes, just yesterday I used cubing to calculate volumes

>>9136361
>we know that everything has a beginning, everything has a cause
no we don't you dunce

>>9141973
Not that guy, but how so? You must have a cause to have an effect right?

>>9139608
But how do you know that? You're assuming the bible is true, and using (absolutely abysmal) evidence in the bible(that the universe is finite) to argue for a creator which you need to establish the validity of the bible. Do you not see how circular that is?

I know you religious brainlets tend to use circular reasoning but come on.

>>9141941
>God created the universe and through its un-mutable laws he created life and us

And

>Le ebin sky fairy just said "Fuck it" and created everything with a snap, not giving a shit about the laws he created a few days before

are both equally stupid and lacking of evidence with which to support.

honestly, i think we will never know. still, god or not? I'd guess not

File: 1502993632182.jpg (262KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1024x768px

>>9142009
We don't just assume the truth of the bible out of nowhere. There's plenty of evidence of biblical accounts.
>pic related

>>9136254
Jesus is Lord

>>9141977
For things inside the universe. We don't know how universes are created or even if they are created so we don't know if the laws w observe inside are applicable to the universe itself.

>>9136254
I do believe in some sort of higher supernatural plane of existence that isn't perceivable and that makes things the way they are, so to speak.
It's not a firm belief at all though

>>9142014
That's what faith is for faggot

>>9141479
>drugs of any sort
get this fucking degenerate out of here

>>9141479
>Well since intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence
Well since you didn't provide any evidence for your claim... >>>/trash/

>>9142041
Far be it from me to contradict your meme image, but according to Wikipedia there are no contends accounts of darkness.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness

All chains of such are from Christian writers quoting Romans, but none of these quotes have been found in a primary source. This is ancient fake news.

>>9136254
>a higher power
Higher than what?

>>9142351
>wikipedia is a more valid ""source"" than a reputable 2nd century historian
ok

>>9142569
>The primary sources cited in Wikipedia are more reliable than a 9th century monk quoting a 3rd century Christian paraphrasing a Greek historian not even known to be alive at the time of crucifixion.
Yup.

>>9142569
>le wikipedia is not reliable maymay
It's not 2005 anymore bubba

>>9142587
>>9142591
So you see nothing intellectually wrong with dismissing a 2nd century non-Christian historian who has been proven to exists and of whom we have several written texts just because ... "wikipedia said so"?

>>9142611
Yes. Just like >>9142587 said, Wikipedo is a much more reliable source (if you know how to use it) than your historian.

>>9141855
>He doesn't use Occams Razor.

Brainlet detected.

>>9142622
First off, I wasn't talking about the 9th century monk, I was talking about the source in my picture, which is from the 2nd century.
But if you like wikipedia so much look at this
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegon_of_Tralles
>"Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events [...], but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions." He referred to a description by Phlegon of an eclipse accompanied by earthquakes during the reign of Tiberius

>b-but the other wikipedia article doesn't mention him!
Then that's a contradiction between two wikipedia articles, further discrediting it as a reliable "source".

>>9142650
The 9th century monk is the source of the second claim in the picture.

>>b-but the other wikipedia article doesn't mention him!
But it does mention him. Try reading it instead of just making shit up. There is no "contradiction." The Wikipedia page says that there are no contemporaneous sources. Is the second century contemporaneous to the crucifixion?

>>9142664
>The 9th century monk is the source of the second claim in the picture.
Still, I didn't talk about it. I was talking about Phlegon of Tralles.
>Try reading it instead
Give it a go yourself. The first and second paragraph under "Ancient Historians" are separate. Origen didn't live in the 9th century.

>Is the second century contemporaneous to the crucifixion?
It's close enough. Eyewitness accounts were only one generation away. If it didn't happen at all it wouldn't be so universally accepted even among non-Christians of that time.

>>9142716
>Give it a go yourself. The first and second paragraph under "Ancient Historians" are separate. Origen didn't live in the 9th century.
Huh? The 9th century monk is Cyncellus, which is the source of the second claim. The article also discusses Origen's claim.

>It's close enough.
It's just Tralles repeating the story of Jesus in the Bible which he was told, not corrobarating it with a seperate account. If he was just reporting darkness then he would not be mentioning it in the context of Jesus ressurecting. So basically you are using the Bible to corroborate the Bible. It's laughable.

"Origen mentions that Phlegon also wrote that 'Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails'"

So why even bother with try to prove darkness? Here you have a "valid source" claiming that Jesus ressurected! Case closed! Gee I wonder why you didn't just start with that? Perhaps because you knew you would be ridiculed for trying to pawn this off as evidence.

>>9142752
I didn't mention it because we weren't talking about his resurrection. We were talking about the darkness.
In fact, the missing body has even more validity and historical support than the darkness, so I don't see anything wrong with Phlegon's claim.
Here's a video about it.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JMF6hkOnmY

>>9142801
Were talking about the validity of your source. Someone who is just repeating the story told to him by believers is not corroboration. The sole source of the darkness at crucifixion claim is Christianity itself.

There were things I prayed for that came true that were like 1 in a million chances, and it's happened like 10 times in the last few years.

I'm either really lucky or there's a God. Also no, I'm not basing my entire religion based on that.

>>9142854
You must be living quite the remarkable life. 1 in 10,000,000^10

Also, how many times do you pray for something and it doesn't happen? Do you even remember them?

>>9142866
It (not getting what I prayed for) doesn't happen that often, I only really pray for something when I really really need/want it but it likely will never happen, and then it does.

I guess there's been a few times where it didn't happen, but the results of it not happening led to greater happiness/success than what I originally thought would happen if the other had happened.

I'd go more in depth with real life examples but I'd rather not blogpost.

File: laugh.jpg (3KB, 280x119px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 280x119px

>>9142871
>confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, unfalsifiable conjectures of God.

kek

>>9142716
Cults all the time come to believe in weird shit about their leaders which blatantly isnt true. Just that christianity was a cult that managed to grow.

I don't believe in a higher power, but there is certainly (in my mind at least) some mystical things about the universe.