Sir Isaac Newton was a CHristian and believed in God.
What makes you think that you're smarter than Newton,dipshit?
>>69150424
My own ignorance!
>>69150424
He also believed in alchemy
>>69150424
Cause, in respect to Sir Newton, I'm from the future.
But yes, I also believe in God.
>>69150424
They're just primitive people who dismiss art as vanity and literature as not scientific. The only source of knowledge they accept is a description of matter, nothing else
>>69150424
>Isaac Newton
>thinks universe is a mechanical clock
>doesn't believe in free will
>"Sir Isaac Newton was a CHristian "
What makes you think you're smarter than a dumb ass Serb,you zero history,non-language having, stable keeping faggot?
>>69150424
>Croatia
>Science
fuck off
>>69150424
Arguments from authority are fallacious arguments. But you are religious, so no wonder that you fall for them.
>>69150424
Christianity was just the dominant symbolic model at his time. And he was by no means comparable to the superficial hypocrites such as Ted Cruz. He was a student of symbolism, alchemy and textual analysis.
intelligence != knowledge
There are no valid rational or emperical arguements that support the existence of god
>>69152782
Pascal was still willing to wager there was a God, just to be on the safe side though...
should reach bump limit 6/10
Aristotle didn't believe in evolution. You guys think you're smarter than Aristotle?
Checkmate, atheists.
>>69150424
Newton was a white male, and the established church reinforced his privilege
>>69150424
Newton didn't believe in the Holy Trinity, he was a heretic.
>>69150424
Sir Isaac Newton also believed that his physics work in all cases, and yet it was refuted in early 20 century with relativity. You cannot say for sure if he would be a christian now, with all the philosophical works made.
>>69150424
Alot of the stuff he believed in was completely wacko. Just because someone believes something that is true doesn't mean everything they believe is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton
>Sir Isaac Newton was a CHristian
NO
>and believed in God.
nah
>What makes you think that you're smarter than Newton
ISACCUS WAS A FUCKING JEW STEALING IDEAS FROM BOOKS AND A DEGENERATE INTO THE ALCHEMICAL BULLSHIT
>dipshit?
OP
>>69154965
>ISACCUS WAS A FUCKING JEW STEALING IDEAS FROM BOOKS AND A DEGENERATE INTO THE ALCHEMICAL BULLSHIT
Sure Pasquale, sure. Keep telling yourself that after too many hits on the old crack pipe.
>>69150424
He beleived in an arianism and hermetism.
>>69150424
he was pretty autistic, 2bh
>>69150424
>smart guys believed something
>therefore it's true
>because they're smart, not because of evidence or anything
Gas yourself
>>69150424
Dude, stop being mean to me.
A modern 10 year old knows a lot more than Newton about certain subjects.
>>69150424
He also thought he could turn lead into gold, and died of ingesting mercury, thus proving that science is a bitch sometimes.
>>69157146
Technically you can turn lead into gold, at least theoretically.
>>69153252
Christian or not, if someone approaches Christianity(or any religion) with pascals mindset, they are missing the point. Religion is about faith, regardless of what the world tells you.
>>69157209
Neat.
>>69157209
They do it at CERN. After a few months of experiments they start colliding lead atoms.
The more you knowwwww.
>>69150563
And chemistry is real.
>>69152526
He wrote prophecies on the Bible. He was a sincere believer.
>>69152782
There are several logical proofs for God.
>>69158061
You mean logical "arguments", the vast majority of which are not compelling and do not inform a reasoned worldview.
>>69150977
>Cause, in respect to Sir Newton, I'm from the future.
So you're saying... it's the CURRENT YEAR?
>>69158141
Theoretical Physicists have no way to prove what they they say because they cannot test their hypothesis in the real world.
So they rely on mathematical proofs.
We use logical proofs to argue God's existence against empiricists. If you don't find them compelling, you are either biased, not following them correctly, having a logical fault somewhere along the line of reading one.
>>69153507
ughhhh so much this
>>69158419
This is true; the proofs prove; Hecate.
>>69158419
Is this an example of the "logical proofs" to which you subscribe? Because you've asserted a logically invalid circularly reasoned premise in the span of two sentences.
>>69150563
alchemy was a metaphor
>>69150424
Sir Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, believed in magic and witch craft, and actively saved his own toenail clippings and vials of semen that he horded.
Dude was literally insane
>>69158897
Do explain.
>>69159117
>if you don't agree with me, you're making a mistake
>you're making a mistake because you don't agree with me
A > B > A
Many christians are really smart people, many atheists are retards. This thread proves it. Fuck you all. Look at all you stupid faggots actually arguing over it.
>>69159275
No, that is not what I said.
>>69158419
>Not believing the Earth is ~6000 years old.
It's 2016, people!
>Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC)
>>69159330
That is exactly what you said.
>>69159384
No, it's not. You've managed to strawman twice of the course of two posts.
As I said, if you don't find them compelling you are making a mistake. I listed what they were, and none of them have anything to do with me.
>>69150424
>What makes you think that you're smarter than Newton,dipshit?
I haven't poisoned myself to death with mercury.
>>69159992
>if you don't find them compelling you are making a mistake
Right; this is what we call an invalid argument.
A valid argument would be probabilistic.
Your argument is logically invalid.
ANGRY CANUCK
>>69153252
Pascal's wager is complete bullshit.
>>69159992
>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), similarly asserts that the finding and translation of the Plates of Laban, also known as the Brass Plates, into the Book of the Law of the Lord and Voree plates by James Strang, One Mighty and Strong, establishes the existence of God.
>>69160085
Considering they have stood on their own for a long time, and are called LOGICAL proofs, if you don't find them compelling, you aren't being logical. Pretty simple Desu
>>69153252
Which God?
Quantum Physics came from the Vedas: Schrödinger, Einstein and Tesla were all Vedantists.
The list goes on and on.
India – The Most Advanced, Oldest and Continuous Civilization
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmjpdiSZjaM&list=PL1DD07BA32C645584
India – The mother of industrial revolution. It also exposes the duplicity of the west
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfsbIH41I7M&list=PL1DD07BA32C645584
India is the birthplace of Mathematics, science and Astronomy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbqFEAPOcX0&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL1DD07BA32C645584
India – The Birthplace of Physics, Chemistry and Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVhyO5bUUA8&list=PL1DD07BA32C645584
India- The Birthplace of Medicine and Surgery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BM72MUd648&list=PL1DD07BA32C645584
>>69160391
This.
>>69150424
It was appropriate to believe in a creator before evolution by natural selection was understood.
Complexity didn't make sense at the time and demanded a complex explanation. Natural selection explains how complex features can fall out of a simple process after previously unfathomable sequences of non-random selection events. After the scientific community internalized natural selection, belief in a creator god as described literally in Christianity became less and less popular and for clear reasons. But you can't blame pre-Darwin scientists for wondering where the diversity of life came from.
smart does not equal right automatically
didn't newton's physics get BTFO?
>>69150424
Newton was certainly a genius but was wrong about many things. Einstein was a pantheist but I'm not dumb enough to claim that made him right either
>>69158419
Most logical proofs of God rely on faulty assertions and ignoring things that were previously asserted to make new assertions. And they're usually just arguments for a Creator not a particular one.
>>69150424
having some really good ideas doesn't make other ideas you hold better by association
He also believed in the Elixir of Life
>>69150563
>he hasn't taken the red potion
>>69157518
That's exactly what he wrote. Try actually reading his writings rather than just wikiing the wager.
>>69158212
I mean, come on
>>69161083
>most logical proofs contain many errors and therefore they aren't logical
Then I wonder why they still have yet to be logically refuted, oh I know. Because everything you just said is wrong.
God is a DJ.
>>69161502
C'mon, boys; it's been proven by our hallowed savior; Joseph Smith. Let's quit with the fussin' an' fits and bow our heads. Ammon.
>>69158419
>So they rely on mathematical proofs.
>We use logical proofs to argue God's existence
Oh, hai.
>>69153252
Pascal was a Jansenist and a lot of his work was attacking the Jesuits.
>>69150424
His belief in God also hindered him scientifically. He could not accept that light had a finite speed since this would preclude the existence of an omnipotent God.
>>69150424
He was also kept in a jar as a kid because he was a cheeky cunt
>>69162319
>this would preclude the existence of an omnipotent God.
it really wouldn't tbqh
>>69150424
At the end of his life he said his greatest accomplishment to be LIFELONG CELEBACY.
Meanwhile, in Africa...
>>69160578
poo in loo
Because he believes in magical flying man with no proof, going against his whole life's work of theory and evidence to make truth.
Quit trashing Sir Isaac, you fucking cuck knaves. Calculus and Newtonian physics easily make up for his weird personality.
Why are people so binary in their thinking?
To 99 percent of people it has to be either
(a) Newton was a religious fanatic and everything he did was because of his religion
(b) Newton's religion had nothng to do with his discoveries
on almost every issue this is the way people think. It's clearly some mix of both. Why are people so determined to be on one side or the other?
>>69164411
Vut?
>>69160851
Isn't that just an example of self propagating code? Who wrote the code?
>>69162319
Oh man I can't wait to hear the reasoning here.
Except he didn't give any.
>>69164648
>imblying
