You think you so smart right, define God.
>>70136201
Creator of the universe//original laws of it.
>>70136201
Actually I think I'm pretty dumb.
Trump
>>70136276
False
The total sum of all things and all possible connections of those things on existence, including all spatial and temporal dimensions. Everything that exists, has existed or will exist is a part of God.
>>70136276
First time that a somehow working definition pops up in this thread.
Anyone else?
getting dubs
Show em who's the boss germany!
>>70136201
God is the idea of evil. Manifesting from humanitie's desire to give reason for suffering
>>70136201
Without your own pre-existing definition of god, how will you be able to tell whether we have sucessfully defined him or not?
>>70136443
What the fuck happened, you were way retarded just 3 years ago.
These aren't even bad.
>>70136467
my penis is your mums god
>>70136201
My initial urge was to be sarcastic, but I've decided to handle your question with a bit sobriety, in reality the ability to define god is probably outside of human reach, we have traditional definitions of course, but if an omnipotent all knowing being exists, or any other variant of the god concept as expressed by other cultures than judeo christian faith, it is likely that we would never actually be able to comprehend the true nature of it's being. I would thus argue that god, in the sense that we perceive reality, is any unknowable actor with influence that we have no control over.
>>70136535
We need some kind of standard in order to even discuss related topics.
There might not be a universal truth, nevertheless an alignment in understanding results out of such discussions.
>>70136201
OP is a Turanist T*rko from toruchan, that unironically believes in Tengri.
Think twice if you want to reply.
>>70136730
Actually, there is an emotional/experimental universal truth.
>>70136201
He is the answer to the unanswerable and the question of the unquestionable. I hope that clears everything up.
>>70136952
The only universal truth I came across is self experience since the proof lies in itself.
Can you elaborate your point?
>>70136201
A fiction being, similar to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, and the leprechaun standing at the end of the rainbow hoarding a pot of gold. The only real difference is that people stop believing in the aforementioned before they reach the age of puberty. God is basically the Easter bunny for adult retards.
>>70137111
Exactly.
9
#define GOD
>>70136201
God is what we do not understand.
With science we come closer to God.
God is what we will never understand.
*Tips fedora*
>>70137268
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
Also pic.
>>70137344
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qm6Rm9sT9c
>>70136201
the real god is ALLAH(Salahallü Aleyhi Vesselem)
>>70137880
double scrotum god
>>70136201
"God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith". -the dictionary
>>70137880
The God of Hairy Balls and a Small Dick
>>70136520
I saw that on Facebook last night too xD
>>70136201
The subsistent act of being itself.
Being itself.
Whose essence is his existence.
>>70136945
It's true.
>>70136520
where can I buy that???
>>70136201
The matter and energy of The Universe and its laws. God is everything, checkmate.
>>70138084
Falls apart when you take polytheism into account though.
>>70136201
Love
>>70136443
If you're just going to define God as "everything" then why not just say "everything"?
No, God (with a capital 'G') is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the Universe.
Any other definition is just wishy-washy, ambiguous new age garbage that's spouted in an attempt to seem deep and some how simultaneously above both theists and atheists/agnostics because that's just too mainstream.
>>70138995
>polytheism
>God with a capital 'G'
Stop
>>70136201
god is all of that which is not in our control
nothing is in our control
god is everything
>>70136201
Judge, jury, and executioner.
>>70139340
It's not handy to make concepts.
God can be defined as the universe (which means turned into one (all seen as one)) and beyond.
This is at least the defintion I work with and it's easy to understand and also embedded into most people's current understanding of the world.
>>70136443
>>70139760
That's pantheism which means god is equal or greater than everthing
>>70136201
Hello
>>70140354
I'm not a pantheist though.
>>70136201
okay i'll give it a shot.
that which creates and also destroys, and is alone.
>>70136201
God is coincidence and syncronicity.
>>70140531
MGTOW confirmed for god.
>>70136201
are you kidding me? god is made up shit that evil men use to control stupid people.
fuck off. I thought germans were smart.
>>70136201
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent Lord Creator of everything.
>>70141100
>god is made up
So is the universe.
>>70141248
>So is the universe.
really?
ok, i'm out.
bye!
OP that's not a topic for /pol/ actually
why don't you go /x/ or /his/?
Also you can't define god entirely. That's the point of being god. So don't expect something like that.
btw
>le ben alamanci
>le ben her şeyi bilmek
>le ama Türkçe konuşamamak :DDDD
>>70136201
ipsum esse subsistens
there
>>70136201
gravity mass = Energy thus we are inside a generator of god. has nothing to do with delusional religion
>>70141340
Yes. There's no proof for the existence of the universe.
>The Universe is all of time and space and its contents.
The scientific methods asks for proof, but since the universe isn't proven in its entirety, which it defines, the entirety... it's made up and a belief similar to some people's concepts of God.
>>70141617
>OP that's not a topic for /pol/ actually
Of course it is. Religious topics always have been popular on here.
>Also you can't define god entirely. That's the point of being god. So don't expect something like that.
Read: >>70136730
>>70140949
So beautifully put i a had an epiphany.
>>70141201
Also omnivore
>>70141100
RELIGION is made up shit that evil men use to control stupid people.
> But stupid people will be controlled one way or another.
>>70142225
>also omnivore
???
God doesn't subsist on anything. Everything subsists on God.
>>70136201
Father, son, and the holy ghost
>>70136201
According to quantum string theory, a sentient 10th dimension.
>>70136201
God is the one who noone else can be named along with him, he is unique, he is the he Exceedingly Compassionate and merciful. He is the King of all creation, the holy controller and granter of security, he is the allmighty, the all seeing and all hearing, he is the supreme creator of everything, he is the provider and sustainer of everything, he is the all knowing, the giver of honor and victory, he is the ultimate judge, the utterly just and all-aware, he is the greatful bringer of judgement, the watchful and generous, he is the boundless and omnipresent, the all wise, the witness in everything you experience, he is the dependable and strong who deserve all the praise, he is the giver of life and bringer of death, the independent and living, he is the self-sufficient and all powerful. he is the first and the last, the one without beginning and without end, he is the most high and owner of all sovereignity, He is the harmer and the source of good, he is the light and the way, he is the beautiful and everlasting, and the timeless guide to the right path. He is Allah, the only one worthy of worship.
>>70142406
>ghost
>>70142104
The scientific method does not ask for proof of something existing. The only way you can assume that if you're a cuck.
The scientific method means you make a hypothesis, make an experiment to prove it correct, and right down your results.
>>70136201
An imaginary friend
>>70136201
i thought this was going to be a pizza thread
fuck off, faggot
>>70142978
In order to claim scientifically viable.
Proof the existance of the universe.
And don't present aspects of the universe as proof for its entirety, since this could be equally done for God, and will still remain a matter of belief.
>>70143227
The thing you're looking for is philosophy, not science.
>>70142104
Okay then...
We can say lots of about god. He is unqiue,perfect.... But the real question should be what does god say about himself. In islam god says:
Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
Allah , the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent."
So I don't know about other types of beliefs if there is something like that please post it.
**Alamanci İslama saldırmaya başlama sikerim belanı dağıtma konuyu**
>>70143465
Don't hide behind categorizations.
>>70143476
Bizi rezil etme :DDD
>>70136201
Unmoved mover, pure actuality. Greeks figured out that shit long ago. You're not as smart as you think we are.
>>70143586
>accurate description of the difference between science and philosophy
>LOLOMG DUNT HIDE BEHIND FACTS AND REASON
kill yourself
>>70143770
You're the one being fucking retarded; either present some kind of proof for the existence of the universe or else I will have to categorize it as a belief, a concept, nothing else.
>>70143770
To make it simple for you, the most common definition of the universe will include unkown aspects of an preassumed entirety.
Proof the unknown part even exists (or that it's actually 'unknown', or that an entirety is even a thing, but lets leave out those keep it simple).
You personaly will believe that there's 'more out there'. Where's your proof for the existence of the universe as commonly defined?
You have none. You just expect those things and even claim it fact and reason just because it's a concrete belief.
This question has no factor disqualifying it as scientifical, but the exact opposite is the case. It's scientifical because it questioning truth values.
>>70136443
Spinoza pls go
>>70136201
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmtNqJ5wC2g
>>70136201
Want to see god? No faith required. Take 2 doses of LSD and a couple DMT sessions while you wait for the acid to kick in. Weed helps amplify the experience.
>>70136201
An Administrative Agent.
>>70143770
Please overcome the problem of induction. Right here and now please.
for the dumb muslims worshipping a demon
allah is iblis.
>>70136201
An invention to control behavior.
>>70145916
the problem of induction stems from indoctrination.
induction problem does not factor in happenstance and circumstance nor outlandish concepts.
In other words to solve the problem you need to rejigger the education system or just stop teaching lies.
>>70136201
All answers in this thread are simply ideas of what god should be.
Concept of a god is simply a juxtaposition to human nature, a wishful thinking against fragility and finite existence.
God is the extension of a man. It is translated from one's presupposition, morality and selfish human-centric idea that we are the ultimate chosen beings that can transcend to some imaginary world of solutions against our delicate and terminal nature.
The truth is - there is no god, without a man. There is simply no reason for it to be.
Also, I think you are asking the wrong question op, it's like asking if a unicorn can play a trumpet - setting that both, unicorn and a trumpet are real
t. agnostic
>>70136201
I thought that was a pizza
>>70146579
>indoctrination
>lies
What lie is there in the fact that the basis of scientific reasoning includes the assumption that the future will be like the past? That's an objective fact.
>>70146896
lmao now i get this >>70143153
>>70136201
A being that is All-Powerful All-Knowing and All-Present
>>70146961
yeah man those ancient romans and their computers and spaceships..
Because its a lie not a fact.
>>70147763
*What* is?
did you hear the Ancient romans killed a vase maker that made an unbreakable glass for the emperor so they definently had semiconductors and microprocessors we just have to get back to their level of greatness.
Its a romantic view of science but has nothing to do with the scientific method sorry.
>induction is just building off the work of the other scientists from our past BUT DON'T YOU DARE GO IN A DIFFERENT VECTOR cause we are gunna make "PROGRESS"
>>70136443
Canada ftw
>>70147921
The whole philosophical problem.
Ever heard the phrase, Shut up and calculate!
It applies to the induction problem.
The whole problem stems from NOT thinking out of the box.
if you want to really discuss science we should be talking about how quantum gravity can't into general relativity.
>ps Hawkings rescinds his life work because Einstein was proven wrong.
(its been a fun year for scientists already even if we have got the short end of the stick for all of human history because of the disbelief problem)
>I am a traditional experimentor and not a researcher.
>>70148708
So you do what every single other illogical empiricist-physicalist/materialist does - you ignore it. Congrats ;)
https://toruchan.org/b/res/540469.html#541079
hey guise this is a troll thread organized by toruchan. come and fuck them :D:D:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>>70148812
how is discussing it with you ignoring it ?
>>70148953
>Ever heard the phrase, Shut up and calculate!
>It applies to the induction problem.
>if you want to really discuss science we should be talking about how quantum gravity can't into general relativity
You're literally saying ignore it. Which is unsurprising, since over half of your types deliberately encourage people to pretend it doesn't exist.
>>70137268
You of all people should graduate to kant
That which is.
no really I want to hear the answer to this I have been pouring over it since we started discussing it.
The issue seems to stem from circular logic, that there always has to be a way to "debunk" or create a mechanism for.
this is a philosophical question that is not correct.
weak : The future has so far resembled the past
strong : The future will ALWAYS resemble the past
I already solved it by telling you I am using a computer.
ignore
Jɡˈnɔː/
verb
verb: ignore; 3rd person present: ignores; past tense: ignored; past participle: ignored; gerund or present participle: ignoring
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
God is relative.
>>70149266
seems like you forgot the post before that.
>>70146579
Its a philosophical question not a scientific one and I already answered it.
Answering is not ignoring and shut up and calculate is a oft used phrase to quickly explain it away without me having to go into a full tirade like this
NO THE FUTURE WILL NOT RESEMBLE THE PAST.
what is a WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
some things humans cannot understand without assistance however this is not one of those things it is a "problem" that holds no weight amongst those that do work and make their own creations and experimentations
THIS is only a concern of researchers pretending to be scientists.
because they are not creators and cannot manifest change.
>>70136201
God is like day
Day is 24 hours, but also the light portion thereof
see concentric circles
/thread
>>70150471
The one also implying the problem of induction should be ignored simply because it makes science look bad?
>yeah man those ancient romans and their computers and spaceships
>Because its a lie not a fact
You haven't even said what about it is a lie - only asserted that "it's a lie".
change
tʃeJn(d)ʒ/
verb
verb: change; 3rd person present: changes; past tense: changed; past participle: changed; gerund or present participle: changing
1.
make or become different.
"a proposal to change the law"
noun
noun: change; plural noun: changes; noun: Change; plural noun: Changes; noun: 'Change; plural noun: 'Changes
1.
an act or process through which something becomes different.
"the change from a nomadic to an agricultural society"
"THE CHANGE FROM A NOMADIC SOCIETY TO AN AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY"
That statement alone answers the "induction problem"
Induction means another thing to scientists by the way.
like the induction motor we do not deal with philosophizers because oft times they are worthless traducer that just want to litigate you.
>>70150676
because calling the musings of a philosopher a problem for science is giving them way too much credit.
You do know in the Scientific Method we do not factor in philosophy so thats why scientists ignore it because you sound like a junkie.
>>70150708
Why do you copy paste whole dictionary passages and why did you guys even take the questioning of the existence of the universe as a reasion to discuss a philosophical problem?
and to say I am telling you to Ignore it is not correct I am telling you that its bullshit and easy to defeat anyone capable of critical thinking can see its a classic circular logical fallasy.
>but anon what is the lie about
The whole subject.
>>70151016
Because this fuck won't accept his philosophy would not get him into a Stem field.
>>70150904
It's not "musings of a philosopher" - it's the *ENTIRE LOGICAL UNDERPINNING OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING*. You use logic and *love it* for everything to do with science, but simply *IGNORE IT* when it says anything bad about your beloved hobby. It is a logical *FACT* that believing the future will be like the past because in the past is has done so is *VICIOUSLY CIRCULAR REASONING* and *COMPLETELY LOGICALLY INVALID*. That's a *FACT*.
>this thread
You guys need the Green Pill.
>pills trigger me
Fine just read the books and think about it. Kybalion alone is a treasure trove.
>>70139340
>Any other definition is just wishy-washy, ambiguous new age garbage that's spouted in an attempt to seem deep and some how simultaneously above both theists and atheists/agnostics because that's just too mainstream.
Pantheism has been around since the 1700s.
>>70136201
im gay
>>70136201
A Jewish distraction, just like this thread.
>>70151242
It's like someone that has never read Harris wrote a comic
Nice trip tripfag
>>70136201
>define God
Muh Dik
>>70151716
He does a whole lot of empty rhetorical dismissals and appeals to consequence in his works. Don't even deny that.
>>70151016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI_OZZ_G4SI&nohtml5=False
that and people seemingly don't know the difference between theory law and principal.
>>70136201
>GOD
younger than your dildo, according to the USA
>>70151242
uh no it is not the underpinnings of scientific reasoning you should slap whoever told you that.
I've been a scientist for 20 years and you tell me its the underpinnings of my hobby and today was the first time I have heard about it and because I answered your silly little problem you now decide to attack me what are you a luddite?
I've been a scientist for 20 years and you tell me its the underpinnings of my hobby and today was the first time I have heard about it and because I answered your silly little problem you now decide to attack me what are you a luddite?
>because I am answering you I am ignoring.
Look I am sorry you wasted years of your life but I don't do this as a hobby mate.
>>70152264
Let me get this straight Assuie. You believe that to make predictions about any future state of affairs, you do not have to believe that the future will be like the past.
>>70136201
Yeah nah I don't care, I just wanted to find out what that picture was
Ended up looking it up, that's from an Ikea museum, and that's literally the inside of an ikea table.
MDF and cardboard, goddamn. No wonder it's so cheap and shitty
>>70152343
>>70152401
woah da fux why did nvm.
>>70152211
Omphalos hypothesis.
>>70152444
You damn fucking right because that would be retarded.
When you are talking about a dynamic frame of reference fucking oath I do anything less would be conceited and fallable.
>>70136201
Considering all the differing opinions here on this nebulous concept of "god", I'm more and more convinced that God=whatever you feel like.
Apparently having a gut feeling and believing with all of your pretty, emotional heart means it's real. We treat nothing else in life like this.
somebody who will give you 72 grapes when you die
>>70152688
Thats the whole point of doing tests and having a control...................................
KIND OF THE BASIS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND IS NOT A HYPOTHESIS ITS A PRINCIPAL SO THAT SUPERCEDES IT.
DO YOU GET IT NOW BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THINGS DOESN'T MAKE THEM NOT REAL.
>Our land has never been attacked or had a crime in human history and we never will
Saying shit like that sounds so fucking retarded only a philosopher could say it.
Enjoy your arts major.
>>70152688
So when you believe that when you drop a ball next on the earth's surface that it will fall to the ground, you don't believe that it will, in fact, fall to the ground because a force you call gravity has always attracted objects toward the ground under like conditions in the past?
*Really*? Why *DO* you believe it will fall to the ground, rather than fly off into space then?
The opposite of not-God.
>>70152905
4 u
>>70136201
god is.
Complicit delusion
wat's dat ting dere op?
>>70153026
some shit does fly off into space bro.
which again takes me back to your lack of evidence knowledge understanding and comprehension.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxRYdIlywbo&nohtml5=False
Theres big money on the line for me so I make a point of knowing my shit its not a hobby for me.
You understand we also found God right ?
Have you been keeping up with scientific discoveries... your talking like you are from the past.. so maybe the future will be like the past if we keep breeding pieces of shit like yourself.
>>70153505
>You understand we also found God right ?
citation needed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlch-DWaQE0&nohtml5=False
>hurr durr my ball will always fall away from me cause thats always hapened in the past
>never uttering the phrase "wtf thats never happened before!"
RRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE wanna be arm chair noobie scientists RRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEE
>>70153505
So you don't believe in science, since you don't believe you can make predictions about the future, and thus believe that there's any consistency between qualities in different time states. You literally fucked up your entire beloved religion trying to avoid a minor point. Fucking *hilarious*.
>>70153608
https://archive.org/stream/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God_djvu.txt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11143875/Prof-Brian-Cox-Theres-a-naivety-in-saying-there-is-no-God.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/science_of_god/scienceofgod.htm
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0lDdBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=quantum+gravity+finds+God&source=bl&ots=ryWzwk0mcz&sig=3lKDqfl-etoKJD3RTxg0YLPpybM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0n6y-hvvLAhXFF6YKHff3AOcQ6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=quantum%20gravity%20finds%20God&f=false
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/2012/07/10/does-quantum-physics-make-easier-believe-god/
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/05/looking-for-god-in-the-cosmic-details.html
http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/31/scientists-can-make-your-inner-monologue-audible/
>its kind of a big deal amongst scientists.
>>70153701
If you go to a place that you have studied really carefully and have seen that if you throw the ball it will not fall down, then guess what lad: the ball will probably not fall down unless you fucked up when analysing the place or something has changed.
>>70153968
Maybe I'm missing something, but none of those say anything about finding God. It's just people assuming some nebulous concept of god exists because "fuck it, why not"
Of course if you define god as "the thing you want it to be" it will exist. That's a retarded way to define something.
>>70136443
>being a degenerate pantheist in 2016
>>70137736
i lack the belief that you have knowledge
>>70136201
a Class S Meme
>>70136201
defining god would be like defining the "top" of a 5 dimensional cube. actually..... pretty damn close the the truth there
>>70137268
>being a degenerate zen
>literally the most indifferent religion out there
you know how zen people lived right?
>>70136201
A being than which none greater can be conceived.
>>70154856
You wouldn't know unless you experienced it.
>>70154806
and believing that the "top" of a 5 dimensional cube is thinking about you and influencing your life is kind of silly as well. It assumes some feature of this thing no one knows how to define, which is an absurdity.
>>70153815
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVnuFY20st0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&nohtml5=False
>step 1 is observation not a whole field about it
Second video disproves your precious little problem
NO THE PAST IS NOT ALWAYS LIKE THE FUTURE thats kind of the point of the scientific method.
You just developed an afixiation with step 1 because you can't get past it.
Try asking a legitimate question instead of
"will the next ball be black or will my ball fall"
Try asking what direction the ball exits or which direction will my ball bounce.
You don't ride an observation through the whole way you conduct an experiment to prove or disprove and there have already been enough examples of experiments that do disprove this not even experiments but quite literally just natural phenomenon.
Like a society changing its policies.
The question is not "will they change the policy" but how will the policy affect things.
"The past" being prior experiments and observations the induction problem as I have stated again and again does not factor in circumstance.
Im not going to link all of my posts again because im getting to the point where I feel you cannot accept being wrong and its wasting my time.
>"scientists always tell me off and to go away I wonder why they must have something to hide"
No its just that you are annoying bro.
>>70154477
or something changed.
>you didn't think about that did you?
>>70154979
I'm pretty sure your idea of Zen is something really modern and based on some hippo who took too much DMT
>>70138622
Grocery stores in America used to sell these all the time. They're little pills with sponges inside. They had all kind of shapes.
http://www.partypalooza.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=GrowAniCapsul
You could probably find them on Amazon or something.
OH MY GOD SOMETHING THE "UNTHINKABLE" HAPPENED THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE MONOTOMY OF LIFE.
Well for the past what couple thousand years our radiation levels have been sitting at around an average of the same numbers recently we entered a different part so there is an increase in radiation now all the radiation experiments have to be redone because Induction Problem is bullshit BECAUSE THINGS CHANGE.
>>70155421
WELL IN THE PAST THEY SOLD THEM SO SURELY THEY MUST STILL SELL THEM.
>>70155421
>>70155520
Sorry that was a bad link.
http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Capsules-Various-themes-Count/dp/B000096R2E
>>70136201
God
ɡɒd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, supreme being, divinity, immortal;
>>70155520
dude are you losing your mind or something. Maybe put down the spirits and take a breather
>>70155520
INDUCTION PROBLEM STATES THEY MUST
>see why scientists ignore you.
>>70155601
I was just doing a bit mate because there are some that do not believe in change.
Hell some people don't even believe in oceans.
>>70155520
Cool
>cool
Cool
>cool
Cool
>>70155146
The sheer dogmatism and "lalala I can't hear you" from you scientism retards is absolutely *LAUGHABLE*!
*HEAVEN FORBID* you feel as if you can't pretend everything you do is sacred and right! So fucking funny. You literally reject logic when it's inconvenient for your views - there's a reason you aren't and will never be respected by anyone outside your hilariously delusional hugbox, Kangaroo-cunt.
induction problem : I have never been to the beach so I will never goto the beach.
>>70155743
>You literally reject logic when it's inconvenient for your views
The ironing.
>>70155743
Your double standards soothe my shit stirring soul
>>70155884
Show me where I've made a logical error. Good luck.
>>70156000
I don't have double standards, though you'd surely like me to.
>>70136201
Which one?
>>70155743
>science is sacred
Well its obvious you don't understand what the fuck you are talking about.
I posted at
08:37:09
08:43:14
with 2 videos 4:16 + 5:03 9:19minutes
You didn't have time.
>>70136513
That's not how it works. I had a friend(Rocco) who had a friend who was Cuban and fucked different animals and told him about it. He said when he fucked a chicken it just exploded.
>>70156167
Go watch the videos fuck wit.
>>70156260
LOL
>>70136201
If we could define it, it wouldn't be God.
>>70153701
lolololol they think that test proves gravitational waves. these fucking "scientists" LOL holy fuck.
>>70156167
>>70156267
Yeah, because I'm absolutely certain your babby videos have rendered empiricism/physicalism beliefs in conformance with logic, despite it being admitted impossible by every philosopher of science since Hume.
>>70156167
fix:
I posted at
08:37:09
you posted at
08:43:14
You needed to spend 9:19 watching the videos then about 30 seconds reading what I wrote.
However this is not the case you took only 6 minutes.
So because you believe so much in the induction problem I can only imagine you will keep replying untill the end of time.
>>70156003
So because I have been replying to you since the beginning of our time together that means I am gunna keep talking to you forever right?
>me ignoring you disproves your induction problem after you where calling me ignorant topkek.
Whatever initially created the universe, regardless of whether or not there was any intent, if the creator had any level of consciousness, or if the creator is comparable in any way to traditional human depictions of God/gods.
>>70150559
Time cube pls go
>>70156913
>conscience and the universe is a creation and can be pointed somewhere in time, and not an entity that just is and will always be, as either all can exist or nothing
top kek m8
>>70136201
A place where some holy spectacle lies.
>>70136201
Jesus Christ, who is the Rock.
>>70157569
The Rock is an actor
No.
>>70156778
To dispel the problem of induction as being a problem for science, you need to do one thing, shitposter-kun. You need there to be some existential guarantee that the future *will be* like the past, like Descartes posits God can accomplish by appeal to His Truthfulness. Otherwise, *any and all inductive claims*, which science *REQUIRES* to function on, are called completely into doubt. You *NEED* time states to have like qualities to make any predictions with any accuracy. If the laws of nature do not stay constant, you can't calculate rocket trajectories, tensile break points under increasing stress, acceleration - none of it with *ANY* necessary accuracy. You *NEED* the future to be like the past for the scientific method to net you *ANYTHING* worthwhile in terms of usable information. And you can't logically justify the future being like the past under your axiomatic framework. It's conceptually impossible. You are fucked - period. You can shit-post all you want =)
>>70156618
If you care that much about the discussion why are you even replying anymore.
What I linked has a Sigma V rating and the other was an EXPLANATION of the scientific Method.
By the way whats been admitted impossible by every philosopher
> you are now aware you don't know the definition of Impossible and why I have been linking definitions this whole time.
>>70136201
a title that is given to certain mythological creatures and entities, that possess immense power or dominion over a substances or aspects of reality (water, time, chaos, death, etc.)
>>70156307
I'm not even kidding. He said when he inserted it in the chicken just went boom. Must've been too big for chicken or something. That Cuban friend fucked goats too and was generally crazy, Rocco told me. Like when once he was late and when he finally came he was just there masturbating in the alley.
And you can belive Rocco. He had the innocence and skin of a 6 year old and he was 23 at that time if I remember right it's incredible how good of a heart this dude had amazing. He was naive for me and I AM incredibly naive. Rocco was so cool. And he laughed so nice always too. God I miss my city so much..
>>70136201
God is what happens when you divide by 0.
>>70136201
The finite cannot understand the infinite
bible.org/article/names-god
>>70157677
Thanks for calling my Framework Axiomatic
that word means self-evident and Unquestionable by the way.
You understand what the word Upgrade means yes ?
>>70157833
P1)Science relies on x assumption, or else it's not science.
P2)x assumption is logically circular.
-----Implicit 1) logically circular reasoning is invalid
--------------
C)Science relies on logically invalid reasoning.
Holy shit Kangaroo-cunt - you're even dumber than I though. That's a real achievement.
Induction problem : I was born and have never died therefore I will never die.
See how stupid it sounds.
You NEED to factor into change its part of the video I showed .. never mind you didn't watch it because its babby shit and just want to post big words with anime pictures I get it you are trying to troll me.
>>70158186
>Thanks for calling my Framework Axiomatic
>that word means self-evident and Unquestionable by the way.
BEING *LITERALLY* THIS UNFAMILIAR WITH EPISTEMOLOGY!
>>70136513
what is this cartoon implying?
American
>>70155135
5 dimensional cube, in the vacuum of space and orientation. the dimensions are only relative to itself, if it were aware of them.
I never proclaimed I am intelligent nor did I ever really think about what God is. So, yeah.
>>70136201
God is the consciousness above all collective life, binding us all together after death, pushing the collective development of all life forward towards a higher complexity.
You and I are both a part of God's mind, and together we're advancing the infinite goal of developing the material universe, perhaps with the goal of attaining or creating a living physical presence of God in this universe.
God is lonely, or we wouldn't exist to stimulate his mind.
>>70136201
Relativity. Everything is relative- velocity, location in space, etc.
"God" would be that fixed point that everything is relative to.
>verified by pic related
>>70159068
>verified by an old magic man
>>70136513
>>70136201
A transcendent entity that is universal, moral, personal, and who is non-contingent to the laws of space, time, matter and energy - or uncaused first cause
Good.
>>70158529
Yes I know you where being sarcastic I just decided to accept it at face value because I have already stated my points and your literally just flailing about and lobbing personal insults at me now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVfI1wat2y8&nohtml5=False
If you won't watch a video explaning the scientific method why are you still debating it.
Things change things get proven and disproven its the nature of science and you started off by saying I am dogmatic and religious and my view won't change, If you can prove me wrong I will change my view but you have struggled so far because you suggest every experiment is a control test with no other factors or circumstances to it.
the scientific method does factor in changes on all levels including temporal and fundamental
and yes Data from ages past is of HIGH importance but by changing one thing or doing a corroponding experiment you can change that data because of new understanding.
being a philosopher I would think you'd understand new understanding.
But I guess yours Is law huh ?
I was debating one side of a thing I have never heard about untill today and you have the audacity to flaunt intelligence levels at me when you have already fallen to personal attacks I am still discussing the issue while you are swearing at me.
Tells you alot doesn't it Anon.
>fucking tripfags
>>70141201
>>70142391
>>70145916
Ah I see the problem now your a religious fanatic that thinks you are God's chosen one.
>>70159794
"The basic problem can be summarised as follows. Suppose that we observe a large number of objects with characteristic A, noting that all of them also possess characteristic B. It is natural for us to conclude that, in all probability, all objects with A also possess B — including those objects with A that have yet to be observed (or cannot be observed). The question posed by Hume is: What rational justification is there for making this inference? More generally, what reason do we have to believe that our conclusions about observed instances may be extended (even with probability) to include unobserved instances? The same basic question is most frequently framed in temporal terms: What reason do we have to think that we can draw reliable conclusions about future (unobserved) instances on the basis of past (observed) instances?
Hume’s conclusion was that, regrettably, we have no good reason to think that such inductive inferences are justified."
You have no way to justify, by logic, use of inductive reasoning. That's your problem. Since you have the English skills of an Abbo/Poo-in-loo or some other non-primary English speaker, it's not surprising to me you like to prattle on in defense of something you have a sentimental attachment to without having a clue what you're talking about. Have fun being illogical and inarticulate for the remainder of your life~
>>70136201
Thinking that having "stricter gun laws" will stop PEOPLE from killing each other is like thinking that throwing gas on a fire will put it out, Guns are inanimate objects,
>>70136276
But in that case where did god come from?
>>70161890
God has always existed. Nothing preceded Him.
>>70137039
No, it don't clear up anything at all, just makes things confusing.
>>70137268
>zen
>acting smug
>>70136201
The supreme master of existence, independent and outside of space and time.
>>70137880
What is that? There's no evidence for the existence.
>>70162138
>zen
>actually writing something on a furry containment city to show how superior he is
>>70136201
An omniscient, omnipotent, and maximally good being
>>70160507
I suggest Chesterton Ortodoxia
>>70162003
I know it's not necessarily the question of the threat, but why can't all matter in the universe have always existed?
>>70163403
Why can't it have? I'm not contesting that as a logical possibility.
>>70163403
before the bigbang nothing existed.
after the big bang everything was either in energy form for a while, and as the universe expanded and cooled down, a portion of that energy turned into particles, and matter.
>>70162764
I don't do "lolmysticism" senpai.
>>70163817
if you believe in Hume you don't believe in evolution either
>>70163891
I personally don't believe in evolution as a development-of-life theory, but that doesn't really have anything to do with Hume.
>>70163676
you literally don't understand cosmology or the big bang
please stop posting like you know shit
>>70164300
go ahead, offer a better explanation.
God is basically the big bang, or what force created the big bang. All the images of a white dude with a beard have been created by artists throughout the centuries without any real references. He's not even a he, but a force.
Religion is just how people understand what god is, and is a book of life. Love your neighbor, don't kill, don't cheat, don't have reckless sex. It's basically ideas on how to live a good life that have been passed down from thousands of years. It's not as perfect as god, as all people who write things have the in prefect human flaw, but it's close.
>>70164660
Last thing I've hard was it started with a compressed ball of energy... not nothingness.
o yesil ben degilim
>>70136201
god is your neighbor's invisible friend he tries to convince you to believe in too so you won't rape the fuck out of his 13 year old daughter.
any conscious entity that had a role in the genesis and/or evolution of the universe we live in today.
nice and simple and encompassing
>>70136201
>>70165459
might be any conscious entity whatsover
>>70165202
this
conservation of mass and energy
