Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

God

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 15:29

Does God really need to exist in order to be real?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 15:41

yes, since most people would define real along the lines of 'that which actually is' and in order to actually be, you must be.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 15:54

>>1
ITT religionfag grasping at straws.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 15:58

i just think god is a figment of our imaginations, we want to believe in anal powerful being

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 16:48

Trying to understand god using logic is like trying to build computer using stone axe.
Therefore GTFO all of you who bring these pointless religious discussions here. Grow the fuck up or go troll someone else.

Name: Finch 2007-10-31 17:24

Humanity couldn't comprehend the reality of being completely alone, so they invented a Omnipotent and Omniscient figure that would relieve them of their mortal fears.

/thread

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 18:22

>>4
Like goatse?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 18:24

>>4
Like goatse?

Name: Finch 2007-10-31 18:29

Indeed

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 19:18

Wow, these religion threads are more annoying than the .999... trolls.  God != /sci/   GTFO

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 0:34

>>7; >>8:

Yes.  Also, you are TEH WINNAR!

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 23:06

So, Gamma(God + 1) = /sci/?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 18:30

>>1

We live in consensus reality.
Derive your answer from that.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 18:39

>>13
gb2 postmodernism
The fact that the scientific method works consistently means this "consensus reality" bullshit is at best paranoia.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 18:47

>>14

we're talking about god, don't we? where is your scientific method now?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 19:27

>>15
NOMA is broken as fuck. Quit niggering.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 8:12

>>16

let me rephrase:
we pass reality through the filter of the psyche. there is no other way. what we accept as real is mere interpretation that occured at some level of the mind.
tl;dr
you see what you want (expect) to see.
after all, "people cannot stand too much reality".

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 8:37

>>17
Ah, the brains-in-vats justification for postmodernist vapidity. Note the similarity to delusional paranoia.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 10:15

>>18

Note the bullshit and the absence of argument.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 10:30

>>19
Indeed.
This idea that we can't know reality because it's "filtered through the psyche" breaks down when you consider the fact that science works consistently and for everyone, so the only other option is that the entire world, including every other person, is just our (well, my, I suppose) imagination. That is, solipsism.
Most people realise solipsism is bullshit (and indeed a form of delusional paranoia), so postmodernist retards like >>17 rarely bring the argument to its logical conclusion.

The only reason they keep perpetuating it is because it gives them the illusion they have anything relevant to say on the topic of science while conveniently never having to do any work.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 11:25

since our reality is just in our heads, then everything exists to us, just in our minds, this is where you find God

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 11:51

>>21
And to think, most religious people actually take offense when you point out religion is a mental illness.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 11:55

>>20

I wouldn't take it to the extreme (like the wannabe troll >>21), but indeed we struggle with the discrepancy between observed (and it's interpretations) and actual reality. Science gives temporary explanations to phenomena that hold until better ones are given.
Cartesian skepticisam was not ment to make us dump entire knowledge to garbage but to raise awareness about the loose ends. To help science flourish by reminding us that there might be other (and possibly better) explanations etc...

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 12:35

>>23
The problem with reminding people of the loose ends is that scientists are already keenly aware of them, and idiots grab on to it to attempt to validate their own crackpot theories, and to claim "revealed" knowledge and faith are as valid a way of approaching reality as science is.

Fact remains that science is the best approximation to reality we have, and that the scientific method is the only legitimate way to acquire more knowledge. I think that's more important to stress than the (self-evident) fact that we don't have absolute knowledge.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 16:06

>>24

Agree.

But wouldn't you agree that between knowledge (and theories and hypotheses) and raw reality, something else happens, something slightly outside the scope of the science (as of yet)? Something that demands that we take position about but we don't necessarily posses scientific tools.
And no, I'm not advising that we jump into religion right away, but just, take note of that aspect of our relation with reality for now.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 16:44

"Hey hey, my my
Rock and roll can never die
There's more to the picture
Than meets the eye.
Hey hey, my my."

The same goes for religion (not my cup of tea though). But why?

nb4: peepl are stupid and quote from that cockfag Dawkins

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 17:17

>>22

thsts really not what i sais

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 20:24

>>25
No?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 20:46

If God is scientific in nature, there must be physical proof of his existence; If God is mathematical in nature, there must be a well-posed theorem of his existence; if he is neither, then WHY THE BLOODY FUCKING HELL IS HE ON MY /SCI/!?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 20:50

>>29

Apparently he exists, but where?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 21:38

you take a left at the internet and then find digitaland, he should be there signed in as philadelphia_kid2439.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 22:07

God is non falsifiable, but that does not mean he is not real.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-07 22:10

>>32
Same goes for unicorns. The fact that there isn't even the slightest shred of evidence does mean you're an idiot for believing in it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-08 6:16

>>32

True. It tells us much about falsifiability (i.e. logic). Much more than about god, aliens, vampires and Eskimos.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-08 10:22

>>33
Does the unicorn happen to be invisible and pink?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-08 10:51

You know what I do when I see verbal exchange or physical confrontation where seven people are bullying one person? I join and help that one person because I have principles and ideals. Most people would probably join the seven because it's easier, they don't care for what's right. I believe in fairness, not bullying. In the outcome of it I probably would lose respect from those seven people and my reputation might get damaged. So what? You know what it's about for most people? Save yourself (or in this case reputation). Why risk it to defend someone who the multitude seems to dislike? I'll tell you why, because it's right.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-09 13:11

There is no god and youre all stupid. NERDS!!!!

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-11 3:52

>>37
Your forgetting the evidence supporting your theory.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-11 7:36

>>38
For the first part: burden of proof is on the godfags.
I'll leave >>37 to defend the second part for himself.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-11 9:56

>>20
The only problem is that all of our working science encompasses only a small, infantecimal amount of reality.

>99% of the all the energy in the universe is unobservable to us, so just because something "works" all the times we've done it doesn't mean anything.

It is likely that reality is not just us dreaming. But it is also likely that reality is just us dreaming. However, it is much much more likely that reality and dream are one in the same.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List