Will atheists ever recover?

if you understand Kant both sides of this argument are absurd

> They still describe our universe perfectly

They do not, moreover they were written to justify and understanding of the world which no one takes seriously anymore.

At the very least they shouldn't be take as an absolute tot he point where we take arguments based on them as a final proof of a God

Lets be honest here, all raghead goatfucker religions (judaism, christianity, islam) and their followers should fuck off from the west.

I'll take a look for specific examples, in the mean time here's an article about why Aristotlean Powers are useful for explaining things from a scientific perspective

personal.lse.ac.uk/PEMBERTO/AP v10.0.pdf

>gravity: that which makes heavy bodies fall
That is neither a useful nor accurate description of gravity, nor does it contribute to the understanding of what gravity "actually" is.

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman.

>after the development of quantum physics

what do you mean "after", quantum physics is extremely young as a science, QFT and its relation to gravity are in current development and are awaiting more data from expensive collider experiments

how do I find God and how do I know its the right one?

>a thief can't find a policeman.
but they can?

Say this prayer: "Lord, I believe, help me with my unbelief!"
If it is the God of the bible, it is the true God.

It is pretty easy:
>first check out if it has delivered on its promises (i.e. if the god you're checking out promised to get rid off giant ice niggers then there better not be any in your neighborhood)
>then make sure that the god in question isn't a meme tier
>after that expand your mind with use of chemicals and try to contact your deity of choice
>if you succeed: congrats you've found your god
>if you fail: return to step 1 and begin again but with another god

metaphysics-of-entanglement.ox.ac.uk/

Using Power ontology to understand the phenomena of entanglement and superposition.

“The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God” (Psalm 14:2)

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

Quantum physics is significantly older than plate tectonics. It is of enough that, if scientists are really using Aristotle's metaphysics to explain new theories accurately, we should have specific examples of it.

unless this is some kind of mantra that I have to chant word for word, I've already done exactly this and nothing happened

>meanwhile on the other side of the world.

"Just call on the Amitabha just once with sincerity and you will be saved!"

>Dr Anna Marmodoro
>Official Fellow in Philosophy
You said scientists.

Watch these.

youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

youtube.com/watch?v=1zz8_MxcnzY

youtube.com/watch?v=S80z3kC31uw

this doesn't look like it's from any scientists, this looks like it's affiliated with the philosophy department

It's a relatively new thing. The scientific revolution threw the baby out with the bathwater and it's only in the last few years that scientists who have a decent grounding in philosophy are coming around to realize that powers are very useful in explaining causal relationships. The main problem is that even though the usefulness of powers ontology is slowly spreading in the scientific spheres, there is still a fair amount of prejudice against using metaphysical concepts to explain physical phenomenon.

>scientists who have a decent grounding in philosophy
but she isn't a scientist

It's a multidisciplinary group that includes philosophers and physicists

>Aristotle's metaphysics

we're still at the "look at how it behaves" part of that

>we should have specific examples of it

Josephson junctions
Quantum Computing

www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/steane

This guy is and he's on the research team

So it is a multidisciplinary group in a same way as putting dog shit on bread is making sandwich.

If there are testable predictions with results, they will be published somewhere. I already brought up the example of plate tectonics, which seemed ludicrious until the predictions of continental drift were tested and confirmed through seafloor spreading etc., and is became uncontroversial outside of YEC types and flat earthers, even to those who were initially resistant. Results break through resistance. Where are the results?

>a known promoter of religious propaganda

>Josephson junctions
>Quantum Computing
How were these developed/advanced using Aristotelian metaphysics? What was the contribution?

He has some publications. Which of these make use of Aristotelian metaphysics?

I don't think you actually understand what metaphysics are, do you

If scientists are using them to make sense of physics, as is the claim, there should be evidence of that.

All science implicitly uses metaphysics as the base. For example, does anything actually happen outside of your own mind? That's an assumption science makes but it can't be proven, that's a metaphysical idea that all of science hinges on to actually make any meaningful conclusions.

Yes, using powers ontology to explain phenomenon is gaining steam within scientific circles. It provides simple causal relations based on what the nature of the 'thing' in question is, a very appealing idea for understanding the nature of what things are and how they work

erm yes but that doesn't answer his question about specifically using Aristotelian metaphysics

That doesn't answer my question. The claim is that scientists use Aristotelian metaphysics to make sense of their discoveries. I would like to see specific examples of this.

>gaining steam
Show me the receipts. A citation in a respected physics journal would be nice.

>t
There are scientists who use Buddhist metaphysics to explain their theories. They are not saying that Buddhism or its metaphysics are necessarily true, just demonstrating how the ideas line up

Read the work of Edward Feser, he provides lots of examples of metaphysics in mainstream science and it will teach you the basics of metaphysics and how it helps

Sure, I'll look into him, but you could give me a short introduction. Tell me of one of the examples he gives of scientists using Aristotelian metaphysics to explain and interpret their results. If he's being specific, there should be a citation of a respected mainstream physics journal publication making use of the concept and producing testable predictions as a result. Point me in the direction of the published paper.

>producing testable predictions as a result
This is the problem. You don't understand metaphysics if you think it produces testable predictions. Metaphysics is used to make sense of the nature of things and WHY they are the way they are. You need to do some basic reading on what metaphysics is and how it works then I can direct you to sources on how it has helped make sense of results

Here's the problem. If it, as you said, actually had any effect on making sense of the results, then the implications of said results will lead to new predictions. From a scientific perspective, if there are no new predictions gained from an understanding, there was no understanding in the first place. It's why I'm hammering so autistically on this one specific point. You can't have it both ways, where metaphysics both can't be tested but also has a continuing effect on science.

>If it, as you said, actually had any effect on making sense of the results, then the implications of said results will lead to new predictions
This is wrong and I don't know how you got that idea. Again, this argument is entirely predicated of your misunderstanding of what metaphysics is and treating it like it's a branch of the physical sciences instead of a branch of philosophy that is focused on understanding why things are the way they are. Powers are an extremely useful concept that to this day modern science hasn't been able to trump in terms of explaining why it is in the nature of things to do the things they do.

You can´t be serious.

>This is wrong and I don't know how you got that idea
Because that is literally how science works. If it doesn't generate a testable prediction, it isn't science. They don't have to be big predictions necessarily, but any statement or understanding in physics has further implications which can be tested.

I am also not treating metaphysics as a branch of the physical sciences. I am rejecting the argument brought up earlier in the thread that Aristotelian metaphysics is, currently, making sense of physics, by asking for proof of said original statement. Metaphysics can do whatever it likes in its own corner, but once you start making statements about physics, the rules of science come into play.

how tf am i supposed to read this correctly? far left column all the way down then middle column then far right analysis, or do i just haphazardly try to read left to right and connect the correlating points?

shit/10 format

What's with the recent influx of christian faggotry? Why do christians browse Veeky Forums? Trying to get a ticket to hell and at the same time redeem yourself by running ads for your man in the sky?

>Aristotelianism
>400 years after it became obsolete

wtf is wrong with this dude he has asperbers

He's a super genius with an IQ of over 200

It's easier than you might think to be a Christian on Veeky Forums.

i mean what he is saying is pretty believable it's just his actual personality is very comical like everything is sarcastic or something. but then again why would someone spend 3 hours sarcastically making videos about ancient humans. idk but these videos are intriguing.

how do you know what his iq is?

You mean you can train self-righteousness and bigotry?