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.

File: 1298504187610.png (137 KB, 265x290) Image search: [Google]

137 KB, 265x290

>>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?

>>684412760
Ha

>>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?

File: SPAGHETTI.jpg (91 KB, 394x394) Image search: [Google]

91 KB, 394x394

>>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?

File: 1462328827065.gif (2 MB, 400x266) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 400x266

>>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?

File: ss+(2016-05-15+at+04.47.22).png (124 KB, 1203x946) Image search: [Google]

124 KB, 1203x946

>>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

File: the chan 2.jpg (131 KB, 942x960) Image search: [Google]

131 KB, 942x960

>>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.

File: pictureswap (7).jpg (8 KB, 300x259) Image search: [Google]

8 KB, 300x259

>>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

File: pictureswap (8).jpg (37 KB, 600x450) Image search: [Google]

37 KB, 600x450

>>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.

File: the chan 1.jpg (140 KB, 960x949) Image search: [Google]

140 KB, 960x949

>>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

File: dpmnoil1loqwkdhostd6.jpg (44 KB, 692x484) Image search: [Google]

44 KB, 692x484

>>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.