'Everything can be explained through natural force, laws, and observation'
>laws break down when explaining the most crucial aspects/events of the universe.
>science changes its views and theories every decade (half the time contradicting what was considered concrete evidence)
>all atheist shoot down religion but st-start stuttering when they try to convey how nothing became everything.
>free will is not possible if consciousness is just a product of predeterministic neurons firing based on prior causes.
>physicists who ramble on about the multi-verse to explain the unknown are just as guilty of taking a leap of faith with no proof to back it up whatsoever.
>>308550
>>all atheist shoot down religion but st-start stuttering when they try to convey how nothing became everything.
Citation needed
atheists abstain from opinions until science tells them otherwise. their viewpoints rely on the data, whereas religion just believes whatever a book tells them to regardless of certain things being disproven
>>308567
>well you see it started with the big bang
how did that start
>w-well we think its an infinite cycle of collapse of expansion
how did that start
>w-w-well we think there are virtual particles that can borrow energy from vacuums and immediately explode and that the big bang is the maximal amount of energy that can be released from this
how did that start
>w-w-well u-u-uh
>>308550
>Reason
>freedom
>equality
Translation
>Hedonism
>>308779
>god created the universe
Who created god?
>hurrr durr god is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
I knew at*eists were gay as fuck.
>>308550
>>science changes its views and theories every decade (half the time contradicting what was considered concrete evidence)
New theories in physics tend to fit old models in certain limits. Like if you take relativistic equations and make your velocity approach 0 you recover Newtonian physics.
Similarly with quantum mechanics, some limits return the classical case.
>>308822
God is apeiron, it doesn't have to be created, boundaries do.
>>308833
>scrutinizes hermeneutics and biblical interpretation
>propounds that scientific theses can be interpreted to fit to classical models
nice
>>308904
>>propounds that scientific theses can be interpreted to fit to classical models
Mathematically they can, in certain limits. Entirely different from interpreting a text from 1600-3000 years ago that's been through about 6 translations before reaching English.
>>308926
>entirely different from interpreting a text from 1600-300 years ago that's been through about 6 translations before reaching English
what you mean like ancient mathematics and natural philosophy that would later evolve into the scientific methodology?
:^)
>>308550
>when they try to convey how nothing became everything.
My god, you tards never learn, do you. Time didn't exist before the big bang. No one is saying nothing became everything. PUT THIS IN YOUR MIND FOREVER SO YOU DON'T STRAWMAN NEXT TIME.
>>308550
What a load of bullshit
Religion is for weak-willed pussies who are scared of death so much they conjure up fantasies that death isn't even real instead of coming to terms with their mortality
Invisible forces, abstract laws, and observations explain everything when your ontology is limited to only things they explain, I just hope you aren't falling into circular thinking with that one.
>>308550
>laws break down when explaining the most crucial aspects/events of the universe.
Then the laws are changed until they become unbreakable.
>science changes its views and theories every decade (half the time contradicting what was considered concrete evidence)
Because science accepts whatever is confirmed truth, or is more likely to be truth. The second one can change from time to time.
>all atheist shoot down religion but st-start stuttering when they try to convey how nothing became everything.
Only fedoras. Also,
>nothing became everything.
no one has ever said that. Everything has always been everything, it just changed shape, composition, etc.
>free will is not possible if consciousness is just a product of predeterministic neurons firing based on prior causes.
neuron free will if you want. Don't try to retard technicisms.
>physicists who ramble on about the multi-verse to explain the unknown are just as guilty of taking a leap of faith with no proof to back it up whatsoever.
Most physicists that say this (for example deGrasse Tyson) say it seems obvious, it looks more probable, it appears to be more likely, there's a possibility about multiverse. Only a retard would claim it as an absolute truth.
>>308779
You can't just keep saying "why" and call it a debate. You're just being a prick. However, if the other guy tries to explain things we don't know, such as how and why the big bang occurred then he's being just as much of a prick
>>308550
>ha god totally obviously does exist my halfassed ideas actually work
>>308779
>I am a toddler
>>308779
fucks sake, at least read the wikipedia page on the big bang, retard.
>laws break down when explaining the most crucial aspects/events of the universe.
It means the explanation isn't adequate, shit-for-brains. Science tries to find the right answer. No one ever said the first attempt to answer is always correct. In fact, it never is.
>science changes its views and theories every decade (half the time contradicting what was considered concrete evidence)
See above.
>all atheist shoot down religion but st-start stuttering when they try to convey how nothing became everything.
God of the gaps is a shitty argument.
>free will is not possible if consciousness is just a product of predeterministic neurons firing based on prior causes.
Free will is influenced by prior causes, you asshat. It's you reacting in your own way to stimuli and events based on logic and emotion rather than instinct.
>physicists who ramble on about the multi-verse to explain the unknown are just as guilty of taking a leap of faith with no proof to back it up whatsoever
That they are.
>>308779
Don't think that's up to date
>everything created nothing
You christfags have had this explained to you for YEARS that you are understanding the big bang incorrectly. Yet you still continue to do this. Stuff like his really shows Christfags have no interest in facts or truth. All they care about is expanding their cult and they are willing to lie about physics to do it.
>>310009
They've been doing this forever. They always resort to bullshit uncited ad hominems because they have a shit theology
>>309107
What if one of the religions turns out to be right, what then, smart guy?
I bet you'll feel like an asshole when you wind up in Nazi heaven when you die.
>>309166
>It means the explanation isn't adequate
how can you explain things using laws? they are merely descriptive laws, not prescriptive laws
>>308904
Hermeneutics and biblical "magic" were extremely important in establishing modern chemistry. The authors at the time were developing knowledge as best they could with the resources they had availiable. Later generations will look at our simplified chemical models as outdated, and their fundamental particle interaction undergrads will memorize them and their limitations for a single point on their exams.
>>310009
/pol/ is a Christian board m8. I'm literally posting there right now.
>>308550
>.... Can't explain how nothing became everything
>... Multi verse ... with no evidence...
Science gave us concrete evidence and law in hundreds upon hundreds of phenomena that happens throughout the universe. Science struggles to explain one of the biggest events of literally all time since the instance the universe came to be. We can provide explanations back to just fractions of seconds after the singularity 'shattered'.
Religion literally offers not a single explanation for literally anything in the universe apart from "its just there". You say God created it all but we know absolutely nothing about your God. We don't know appearances sizes, smells, etc.. Not a single piece of evidence has ever existed to validate gods existence.
Therefore I end this thread by saying,
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>Reductionism is flawed
>No GUT
>Must be gawd
lel
>Rationalism
Fucking lol
ITT: strawmen
>>312347
>God has an appearance, size, and smell
lol go back to fucking reddit
>>312464
Of course he doesn't
Because he doesn't exist
>>308550
tell me how the world was made then, anon
because most religious evidence points to it not being an abrahamic god that did it but rather a pantheon of gods variously named elemental gods
>>308550
Fucking hell those guys an embarrassment.
Fucking congratulations, you're an atheist. I bet your mother is proud. Now shut the hell up and stop making us look like a bunch of rainbow waving retards.
The New Atheists deserve death
>>309107
Come on, guys. Who resurrected Friedrich Wilhelm?
>>308550
>laws break down when explaining the most crucial aspects/events of the universe.
That's not true. Laws break down, we just don't know how they actually work. We're working backwards without a rosetta stone. New law supercedes old as we establish a greater understanding of the intricacies of natural law. It's the difference between a man in France understanding how to ask where the bathroom is and how to understand idomatic phrases.
>science changes its views and theories every decade (half the time contradicting what was considered concrete evidence)
Science adapts for new findings. This is a strength, not a weakness. You should know that, considering that you're posting on a fruit of scientific thought.
>all atheist shoot down religion but st-start stuttering when they try to convey how nothing became everything.
The number of people who understand the mathematics behind the beginning of the universe probably don't number above the thousands. The fact that I don't understand it is not evidence that a magical invisible Jew is responsible, however.
>physicists who ramble on about the multi-verse to explain the unknown are just as guilty of taking a leap of faith with no proof to back it up whatsoever.
Evidence exists to suggest other universes based on current mathematical models. If evidence arises to contradict this, those speculations will fall by the wayside. Meanwhile you will still be insisting a magical Jew created everything.
>Science vs Religion dichotomy
Stop, americans
>>312543
A magical invisible jew, then, huh?
If you seriously think this is what 2000 years of christian theology boils down to, I feel sorry for you.
I suggest to you: Thomas Aquinas, the Gnostics, Kierkegaard. Deist starter pack.
>>>309107
Why the amount of edge? Don't you have to go to high-school right now?
>>312464
Provide not only a single claim that he anything, but also provide evidence of the claim. You literally can't even make the claim let alone provide evidence for it.
Kek'd
>>312577
>If you seriously think this is what 2000 years of christian theology boils down to, I feel sorry for you.
You're, it actually boils down to pointless language games
>>312600
Lmao, dismissing 2000 years of european thought as language games. Youre truly a rebel.
>>312629
No, I'm just someone who doesn't fall for undefined and untestable gibberish
>>310517
You cannot know which is right, and there are A LOT of religions in this world. Besides, that's on the 50% chance that there even is a divine being.
>>310009
>>310429
And yet, throughout all of my years on 4ch, it is only the Christians who actually try to explain their beliefs and can discuss them in high detail if when someone legitimately asks them to. Atheists NEVER do that. For example, so many of you atheists always spout things like "you don't understand the Big Bang you moron," or "science has had an explanation for a while already explaining ____" without EVER explaining it themselves.
If you two have any integrity mentally whatsoever, I challenge you to stand by your statements and back them up, and explain what caused the Big Bang to happen, or under what pretense the physical universe is somehow thought to be eternal.
If you can't, or simply link to some academic paper no one without a Physics PhD can understand, then you have no more to say.
>>312709
The problem seems to be that you are demanding understandable answers that can be given over the course of a single discussion to problems that takes literal years of study to even have the background knowledge to understand it in a meaningful way.
Your argument is that since we can't explain these concepts to everyone in a way that is simple and concise, they are therefore wrong.
I can't explain the inter-workings of an automobile to you in a way that is simple and concise, does that make my understanding of how they work incorrect?
>this thread
