Hey /b/. I have a question for you. Rationally, could god actually exist?
Scientifically, no. As an omnipotent figurehead no. His laws are as inconsistent and irrational as man can conceive.
>>684411423
WHY HAS GOD FORSAKEN ME
IN YOUR EYES FORSAKEN ME
IN YOUR THOUGHTS FORSAKEN MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>684411618
What if the universe is part of a recurring simulation.
>>684411618
smells like high school here
Honestly, fags like you who go hurrr science but then can't even into science or engineering make me sick
Not even niggerically
I don't need a Doctorate to use common sense. The debate is for everyone.
I have been thinking that maybe we(humans, life) become god. The increasing complexity of the universe ends in an a state of infinite complexity.
>>684411423
Yes. Specially when you realize that human logic is limited to human understanding.
And nice grammar. Did you graduate?
A higher power could
We could all be brains in a vat hooked up to cables
But any current definition like Christianity or islam is not possible
For example surface tension means no one can walk on water
>>684412409
That's true. There really is no simpler way of understanding things than from our own brains which are the most complex entity in this planet.
>>684412530
Absolutely. Religion is a mess. But I wouldn't put it past a state of infinite complexity to create it's own stories and narratives.
Yes, because our being is finite and rationally there must be an infinite to ground us. Also without god morality is dead, and we humans believe in morality, or at least used to.
>>684412515
from 0 to summer, how new are you?
who are you even talking to?
Sure, it's up to the "scientists" to have the burden of proof that "he" couldn't exist. There very well could be a flying spaghetti monster out there somewhere in the universe. I honestly don't see how people can be sure (given our EXTREMELY limited scope of observation) that ANYTHING can't exist in the nearly infinite universe. But oh, aliens HAVE TO exist, you're retarded if you don't think there are aliens watching us right now (okay, what the fuck ever)
>>684412792
Honestly, some people still think referring to the flying spaghetti monster is edgy?
That is so 2008
>>684412390
>increasing complexity
Well technically it's the opposite
>>684412993
Complexity is definitely increasing in our planet.
Islam is the true religion.
>>684412993
Debatable. Have you read the inflation theory? Constant mass density even tho the universe is expanding.
Also, entropy means everything is getting more disordered which can be interpreted as being complex.
>>684413160
Regardless of entropy. Life increases in complexity in spite of entropy. You on the internet right now is proof of that.
>>684412951
I'm edgy as fuk mang, yu don't even kno. No need to be butthurt by real logic ;)
>>684413349
:^)
>>684413056
Complexity of what?
>>684413633
Exponential increases in technology.
>>684413633
I'm guessing he means life and consciousness (or our understanding of the abstract concept)
>>684412760
Oh just the jackass saying that because I don't understand science that I can't use it as an argument for atheism. We define science as the natural world. The rationalization is a being behind it. It all boils down to belief. If gods views revolve moral philosophy, can that be described as omnipotence?
>>684413785
Our understanding of it is pretty spot on. Consciousness is the most plainly obvious thing. The subjective awareness of our existence.
Scientists have discovered that the universe is constantly expanding. That means that it had to have a beginning.
>>684413786
You can use science in debates all you want, but if you don't actually comprehend it, it makes your points much less credible.
For example, the fuck who argues against vaccines uses science in his debates too, but since he clearly had the understanding of a teapot, he's points shouldn't even be considered coherent enough for a scribe to type down.
That's is why in actual debates, both sides must have the understanding and background of the subject, high school/university level debate competitions not withstanding.
Technology is increasing exponentially. Within a few decades computers are going to be very intelligent, very advanced and they will be advancing science and technology and it will be a recursive process.
>>684411423
I personally think that there is something more amazing than we could imagine waiting for us after death. Trying to say you know for a fact one way or another makes you look incredibly stupid. Just shut the fuck up and be nice.
>>684414188
Well read the thread, because I agree with you.
>>684413920
Actually, psychologists like to think we have a clear understanding. But neuroscientists don't believe so.
Are out thoughts just the random arrangement and interactions between electrons in our neurons or is it more?
You have to realize that in quantum mechanics where the mere action of observing changes quantum states as long as there is a concious observer, physicists are still unable to come up with a satisfying explanation why this is so.
>>684414069
True. I don't claim to be the figurehead, but when the creationists can only present theory with no tangible evidence you can claim that there is no scientific truth in their argument.
>>684414296
That's just details and facts about the brain. I am referring to the fact that you actually see a color, or smell a particular smell. You are truly aware of it.
>>684411423
More evidence points to intelligent design than random spontaneous life, so, yes, it's rational to think that God could exist.
On the topic of humans "being the most complex organism" consider a butterfly living In a sequoia tree. Lives for a couple weeks. Encounters no humans. Has no idea, because of limited perspective. That the tree is alive, that humans exist, etc. as far as it knows it's the most complex being. It's incredibly irrational and frankly arrogant for us to assume there is no more complex being than humans
>>684414362
You have to keep in mind the Christians who are worth debating with are mostly apologetics (by definition)
Also, the best debates are those with those catholics priests who have phds. There are alot of them.
It is also funny how evolution was actually discovered with the help of a priests (mendel)
Another fun fact, Isaac Newton believed in God.
I don't think anyone has to explain to anyone that newton is a smart fellow.
>>684414467
Ahh ok then.
On unrelated news, the captha is getting annoying as fuck
>>684411423
Could which god exist?
>>684413786
>>684414467
The five senses can't be relied apon at all times. Illusions of heat waves and water difractions prove this.
>>684412755
Horribly stupid post. Just awful.
I'd argue the God of the bible
>>684414593
That's a very good point. It is very arrogant to think that. And it's not very logical either to think we are a one time unique pop in existence. In fact, their most recent proof about how the universe could come about is that a quantum fluctuation occurred, some, "false negative" theory. Anyways, they are hopeless trying to apply science to philosophy.
>>684415066
Fuck off. /b/ is awful, why are you complaining?
>>684415136
Scientists I mean.
>>684414865
Lol. Yeah...
>>684414660
I'm not trying to argue that they are not educated, but it all boils down to theory versus understanding. As you mentioned they often are apologetics. God can be as imaginary as Harry potter waving his magic wand to create god.
>>684413725
But exponential increase in technology doesn't necessarily increase the complexity of the system. Also you don't really know if it's even possible to have interstellar technology, or how to battle entropy and the expansion of the universe. So far the data isn't too optimistic.
If anything, technology will most likely come to a halt and then regress as it succumbs to the ever increasing information of the system. The complexity of the universe is decreasing, if we are going to use your rationalization.
>>684414362
Grab dictionary. Look up "theory".
>>684411423
An infinite amount of gods could exist.
An infinite amount of invisible unicorns could also exist.
Doesn't mean shit tho unless they actually interact with us.
>>684415066
Could you please explain what is wrong in this reasoning sir?
>>684415566
we're on 4chan. That is what is wrong.
>>684415401
Ok idea. I use the term theory because we rationalize our emotions with our existence.
>>684415371
When the first stars blew and binded atoms, complexity started to increase. it led to planets, and then to chemical reactions, and then to cells, then animals, primitive brains, and now our brain, and everything that comes out of our brains which is the society we have built and all of its complexity.
>>684415401
Ok idea. I use the term theory because we rationalize our emotions with our existence. That is a human attribute.
>>684415566
>Without god morality is dead
The statement is as correct as this one
>Without tachyons the time travel is dead
>>684411731
Trust in my self-righteous suicide
>>684415871
LOL, litrially denying entropy.
Summer is truly here.
>>684416317
That is literally what's happening in our universe.
Who's to say that God doesn't exist in a higher dimensional plane that we are incapable of perceiving?
>>684416317
*sigh* Yes it is.
like that guy who doesnt know how to tag the post he is replying to
>>684414593
Dam straight, exactly how i see it thanks for putting it into words.
>>684415401
Maybe I should have used the term philosophy. Does science carry a sense of purpose? Something we humans thrive on.
>>684411423
Yes, it is possible that we are all inside a simulation and "God" is an alien entity who has created us. It is alternatively possible that there are an infinite number of universes and within one of those universes in the timeframe of infinity, a "God" has evolved, most likely technologically, and has found a way to create life in alternate dimensions.
There are endless ways that a god could exist, and one most likely does. A big bang does not happen for no reason.
>>684416317
I'm not talking about the universe increasing in complexity, i'm talking about a process that at the moment is at our current state of being. And through time, the complexity of this process has not stopped increasing.
>>684415871
Again, this is true but doesn't refute anything I said. What you have is a temporary increase in matter complexity, that is battling the entropy. Eventually the hydrogen to fuel fusion will be used up, radioactive particles will decay into iron, and the complexity of matter will decrease, while the information of the universe will increase. So far we don't know how to reverse entropy.
Imagine Hiroshima. The city had high amount of complexity and low amount of information before the bomb was dropped. Everything in the explosion core was scrambled, you couldn't distinguish buildings from people, the amount of complexity became low and the amount of information high. This is what is happening with the universe even if you have local short-term spikes.
>>684416413
I second that
>>684415871
What was there before this explosion known as the big bang?
>>684416887
We don't need to reach the end of time. Because the increases in complexity are occurring exponentially.
no one even reads my replies here. I'm leaving
good day faggets
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page19.html
check out the time it took from one paradigm shift to another and how they are getting faster.
>>684417178
Which one is you?
>>684411423
aliens?
>>684411618
this suggests numerous (currently living) religious theoretical physicists think less rigorously than you.
>>684417078
You don't even know if technological singularity is possible.
But lets assume we reach it, and then what? If you can't reverse entropy, it's just a short-term spike.
>>684411423
Yes. It is a very likely explanation for the universe that we are all either a simulation, a dream/thought in a consciousness, or some sort of science project of an extremely powerful being. Anyone who does not admit so, is simply stuck to thinking God=Monotheistic all-father told about in modern and ancient mythologies, IE Christianity/Judaism/Islam
>>684416726
not a simulation... compatible DNA mixing. you could even connect that with the apple of knowledge Lucifer offered eve
>>684417687
The thing is, we will most likely be able to merge our minds with a new substrate and simulate the system at such a high speed that we can essentially escape time itself.
>>684417247
laughing so hard at this rn
>>684418027
Anon, never go full retard.
>>684414164
I've heard they're only getting bigger and so expensive that only the richest man on the planet will be able to afford them.
Guys what happends when we die?
>>684411423
Rationally, yes. You cant reallly disprove his existance nor can you prove it.
if you are reffering to the biblical God, then no.
>>684418237
you are going to find out sooner or later
>>684418240
Why not the biblical God?
>>684414593
I disagree. Logical fallacy of false analogy. In reality, we very well could be the most advanced life form in the universe. We don't have any data any way too support or disprove it. It's irresponsible and arrogant, in my mind, to assume boldly that we are just one of many intelligent and advanced lifeforms. As a skeptic, I cannot abide by this given the SEVERE lack of evidence. Especially given the fact that we don't really know how life came to be in the first place, and therefore can't even begin to predict the likelihood of life appearing on other planets, regardless of their ability to "support life." Compounded onto that is the likelihood of life (if it did somehow spontaneously occur) actually reaching through the evolutionary process a society just as if not more advanced than ours, given the improbability that it would. Just saying, our civilization can and will be gone in any given moment due to war, disease, climate change, or natural disaster. Whose to say other civilizations had the ability to last indefinitely? Or that, if they did advance, they would place the same emphasis on technological advancement? It seems highly unlikely in my view that there are any civilizations of alien origin even in existence, much less more advanced than us with the capability of interacting with us. Any true scientist and skeptic must be highly dubious of claims of alien visitation and communication with us
>>684416726
along with god feeling betrayed about his creation becoming corrupt
>>684418027
Explain.
>>684411423
Christian, muslin or jewish god no, a god maybe. Scientifically god should be able to create energy out of nowhere violating physical laws, as we need a begining. However it might be just a cosmical phenomenom or some shit.
>>684418236
It feels like you're trolling. anyways, I have a device that has access to a huge database of information and I can communicate with others with it. I can also use it wherever I want. And it fits in my pocket.
>>684414660
Best person to debate with is a recovering secular atheist who was raised by a fallen Catholic and Jew
:D
Ain't got shit on me, copper top.
>>684417590
According there lotion god knows everything. Why should the debate be limited to existence? How moral was it to kill the first born child of families in the time of Moses? This sounds like human reasoning and hypocritical tyranny.
>>684418240
i disagree, but im not saying i trust biblical texts or churches
>>684412076
this
>>684411423
God? Could you...rationally... point me to where you "saw" him existing?
>>684415371
Entropy as a concept is flawed, and this less scientifically educated fellow is schooling you on why.
The flaw in the assumption about energy and systems is that energy is never created. Energy (and mass) are being created all the time. That's what Gravity is.
Once a system reaches "peak entropy" as you are thinking of it, gravity will pull that mass back together and the process restarts.
So really you're just describing "disorder" and superimposing ideas into it based on not realizing Newton was partially wrong.
>>684418573
sound was his first creation... according to ancient texts
>>684418595
God has control of life and death. Think of the story of Abraham and Isaac as an analogy to dealing with extreme loss, like the loss of a child. The pain when God says he's going to take from us something as dear as a child due to a disease. Then the joy when it doesn't happen and the child manages to survive. Don't take the stories so literally, it's all mysticism.
>>684418332
Because the way he is depicted in the bible is way to open to interpretation, its full of contradictions, and if God ( if he exists ) really were omnipotent and all knowing, he wouldnt give two shits about us or our religion/s
>>684418851
oh, I forgot to send you my picture.
please point him out on my kik
[email protected]
I am by no means Kratos
>>684418999
my trips dont lie
>>684418548
Technology is advancing exponentially, computers are getting stronger, even when moores law dies it will be replaced by another trend just like it always has. These computers will help speed up technology and they themselves will self improve, which in turn will advance technology faster. We will probably be able to merge with these machines. We will each be able to have our own personal infinite universe to explore, each individual who makes it to this will likely become the god of its own reality. The processing speed for this occurring could be happening at such an immense speed, that the current universes "time" seems to come to a stop.
tripz means God exists
>>684414660
>You have to keep in mind the Christians who are worth debating with are mostly apologetics
No, they are frauds who never admit when their assertions have been disproved.
>Another fun fact, Isaac Newton believed in God. I don't think anyone has to explain to anyone that newton is a smart fellow.
Theism was standard before there was an alternative explanation for existence. To remain theist now is a rejection of the better explanation, and therefore unintelligent.
>>684419146
i am here
>>684412390
Dick = blown
>>684418582
It's from a Simpsons episode. Also, I'm relatively new to this thread.
We are falling in time, Towards truth. And the endgame of our existence, is to become everything that ever was.
>>684419112
Didn't know Ray Kurzweil trolled /b/ at 6am ET
>>684419642
I've read a lot of his stuff and it makes plenty of sense. I can't deny that technology is advancing exponentially.
>>684418999
More true than most "Christians" would give you credit for. Hiding behind the Bible as the only source of truth. Taking it literally. God, if he/it exists, is way larger than any one doctrine or religion that we have. I must say though, as a Christian myself, I believe simply that Jesus had special insight and connection with God that gave him more insight than anyone else in all of history into God's will for humankind. People don't realize that Jesus laid down a few basic tenants (Love God (the eternal, external life force and source of truth, wisdom, and morality) and love each other, also that we are all the same and require a mental revolution to live in harmony with one another) but also gives us the power to determine truth for ourselves with our mind and our "connection with God" (aka the Holy Spirit inside of all of us). It really makes sense to me on a spiritual level, but then again I am a Christian mystic/existentialist. Then again, I believe that Christians were always meant to be mystical and not religious/lawful...
>>684419726
Right there with you brother. Man is a prophet. Just sucks realizing how unoriginal all of my same thoughts on the matter are.
>>684419454
Hi you seem smart what's going on
>>684419112
I am afraid Dave, that's not possible. All sources of energy will eventually be exhausted.
As science has not proven or disproven that god exists its possible
>>684411423
lol screw you op, im an agnostic so this question really hurts my head to think about it...
>>684419906
My guess is he believes in Atlantis. He's not wrong. Just crazy. Probably the LSD.
>>684411423
Not any gods conceived by men. Not rationally.
>>684419972 see
>>684418911
And then stop being so wrong.
>>684420071
He's smart I can tell really wanna talk to the qt
>>684419972
If black holes can affect "time" with their gravity, then it's possible we humans or whatever we end up becoming could harness that power to exist within an instant in time in reference to the outside universe. That, on top of running it's own existence in a very fast (thats an understatement) computer.
>>684418595
i wasnt commenting on whether or not a particular idea is convincing. i was just commenting that there are many hard science people who think the notion of some god is consistent with current knowledge.
Of course, God is the greatest conceivable being (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc....)
>>684420161
Well, no. The system is slowly "degrading" to uniformity of maximum information.
>>684420375
Black holes exist in a finite time and they eventually evaporate.
>>684420901
No. All things are growing. Our earth will look like Neptune one day, Neptune like Jupiter, Jupiter the Sun, the Sun a bigger star and eventually black hole.
>>684420901
Oh, and no, black holes don't disappear. Where have you read that, silly?
>>684420901
We are increasing and exploding in complexity, the process that is life, that we are a part of and are actually at the forefront of is in an upward spiral. The endgame of this is a whole lot of complexity. Like, a whole lot. Why would you think that a process that has not stopped since the beginning of time will suddenly one day stop?
>>684412390
You've "been thinking." Because that's a real idea called the omega point theory.
>>684420287
>>684421446
Well, I haven't read up on that but it does make sense. I'll look into it.
>>684411423
Rationally, the mere word "god" is nonsensical and so is any discussion about it, that's why atheists are just as wrong as theists, they've built all these theories and discussions over something that's the equivalent of "hjksdhfsdfsdfjsfh" when the only rational course of action would be to dismiss it out of hand.
hey atheists. if god's not real, then why are you going to hell, LOL.
>>684411423
Rationally yes but depends on what the person believes to be true. You could equally say, rationally god couldn't exist so it's a fundamentally meaningless question.
>>684421693
No it wouldn't, we seek meaning and that meaning fills us with purpose. There is nothing irrational about trying to understand this universe and what this very real existence means.
>>684421960
That's all very nice, yet the word "god" is still nonsense that can only be defined using other meaningless terms.
Both sides are wrong, the whole god problem hasn't been solved in thousands of years and will never be solved because it's a pseudo-problem, it's nonsense.
>>684422614
You have no belief in god then?
>>684422614
>huehuehuehuehue
I get that you're trying to seem above it all, but you're actually just stupid.
>>684422922
Your question is meaningless to me as it contains the meaningless word god in it. You have no sdsjkdsf lksjdfjd djfdsf?
>>684422614
It's not nonsense, we seek meaning in things, including our own lives, that's what we are all about, this constant daily struggle we put ourselves through, what's it for? And we create meaning in a very real and tangible way, these words we use to communicate extremely complex ideas for example. It is not a non problem, this desire for meaning is a part of this trend of life, we seek truth and beauty in things and this is what we struggle for every day.
>>684411937
Yet, you brought absolutely nothing to the table.
>>684423065
Sorry I busted your little bubble, but you've been wasting your time debating nonsense
>>684423089
Do you have a definition of god in your head at all?
>>684423101
It's epistemological nonsense, a non-concept, i'm not talking about your hopes and dreams and what makes you happy, that's completely irrelevant
>>684423311
It's not a non concept, in fact you're contradicting yourself by referring to it at all. Anyways, why would you think that choosing to evade the problem of what this existence means is the right way to go?
>>684423465
Not at all, I can refer to shskfhskdhfksfdh and square circles as well, I'm not contradicting myself by recognizing flawed words
Why would you think I'm choosing to evade the problem of what existence means?
If you care about my views ("Ignosticism") this site sort of explains them
http://www.strongatheism.net/
>>684423791
Ok, i have a non controversial definition of god. Obviously I don't contradict logic and reason. I would say that god is the endgame of this process that is life. I have been talking about it the entire thread.
>>684421146
>>684421255
>>684421384
This actually made me sad. I was trying to help and you are just baiting me, wasting our time.
>>684424110
Not baiting at all, I am being honest.
>>684423985
>the endgame of this process that is life
Well there's nothing supernatural or theistic about that, in fact there's already a concept for it, it's called death
>>684411423
If this post ends in 5 6 7 8 9 God exists
>>684411423
Yes, but it wouldn't be an old dude on a cloud.
If God exists, it's not a person, or anything our minds can grasp.
>>684424488
Not the endgame of an individual life, but life as in all life, We being the most complex form of life that exists. We came from atoms to conceptual beings and this process does not end with us.
well /b/ it's getting late. will be leaving in a few min.
>>684424701
Yep, I agree.
>>684418498
Well that simply isn't a logical fallacy of a false analogy. To make that claim is to misunderstand the fucking point he made.
This post made me so mad. Your point is fucking retarded.