What has Science and Maths taught you about God?

>What has Science and Maths taught you about God?
That it is vanishingly unlikely that there is such a thing.

>Are you religious?
No.

So, infinity vs infinitesimals.

>Analysis vs calculus.
>Anal vs Stone
>"Smashes head against a brick wall."
>Claims to be intelligent.

>That it is vanishingly unlikely that there is such a thing.

Because people keep saying that like a mantra?

Science has no more to do with religion than cooking has to do with music.

The true redpill is that we are no closer today than we were thousands of years ago in solving the God debate. The only way we know is when we die. It's impossible to figure out the answer.

>Pauses the infinity orgy of sluts being thrown at autistic/schizo/mathematicians to ask some arbitrary query instead of passing the lube like fucking asked.

>Because people keep saying that like a mantra?
No, because that is the judgment of the probability theory. A complex and therefore low-prior-probability hypothesis, a complete lack of any supporting evidence, and untold numbers of confident predictions that are readily disproven with modern science, together yield a probability of "lolno".

>Science has no more to do with religion than cooking has to do with music.
Now THAT there is a commonly repeated mantra that is simply false. Science can study the truth or falsehood of religious hypotheses just as well as it can study most other hypotheses. It has, and it has soundly found them false. The claim that science has no bearing on religion is simply a lie by religious people to dodge criticism that their beliefs cannot bear.

>If God exists or not is not that important. I agree with Dostoyevsky on that one.
AFAIK Dostoyevsky's idea was if god doesn't exists, there's no morals.

>What has Science and Maths taught you about God?
There's no god in science.

Has it taught you that god is in science, infinitesimally?

God > Science

1 > 0

t = 0

17pbp

Same for flat earth.

Er...no. Science has verified that the Earth is not flat.

Go away Alex Jones.

>No, because that is the judgment of the probability theory. A complex and therefore low-prior-probability hypothesis, a complete lack of any supporting evidence, and untold numbers of confident predictions that are readily disproven with modern science, together yield a probability of "lolno".

Holy autistic buzzwords batman.

>Science can study the truth or falsehood of religious hypotheses just as well as it can study most other hypotheses

Scientism is the worst.

Condorcet jury theorem

Real votes are not independent, and do not have uniform probabilities.

The notion of "correctness" is not well defined in the realm of policy decisions.

The theorem doesn't directly apply to decisions between more than two outcomes.

The behavior that everybody in the jury votes according to his own beliefs might not be a Nash equilibrium under certain circumstances.

Do you have a criticism of my position more substantial than "no"?

...

Have you read your own statement? Reads like it came out of the big bang theory.

>probability theory
>yield a probability of "lolno".

What is the P[God] and how are you calculating it?

>A complex and therefore low-prior-probability hypothesis

Complex is relative and any other theories of how a universe poofs into existence are just as complex if not more so.

>a complete lack of any supporting evidence

The lel "no evidence" meme, seriously? Are you like 12? Since when have you ever seen a (non-mathematical) argument not have evidence on both sides? You have to resort to the most artificial of circumstances to come to such situations. You can't dismiss and not even examine evidence because it doesn't confirms your biases.

>untold numbers of confident predictions that are readily disproven with modern science
[citation needed]

Protip: The flat earth myth is literally a strawman invented by atheists in the 19th century to bad mouth religion.

veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html

>No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.
>The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense."
>The answer is that the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

>The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict.[8]

"All i know is that i know nothing..." -Aristotle
I can't assure you what science has told me is right, maybe in one century the whole modern scientific theories will be replaced by new statements, but what assures in any moment that our knowledge is right, if we go deeper, is there any answer which is right? I don't think so... Quantum Mechanics states now that both position and momentum of particles are not defined until we look at them, so, if we don't exist, then particles do not have a defined position; it might be that reality is just an ilusion to conscious beings and that if our existence wouldn't exist then an absolute reality neither, every discovery points that way...

No, i'm not religious but is sad to think that not believing in God is kind of forbidden in Veeky Forums; i just don't believe so because it's hard for me to believe in religions at all, they don't seem correct to me, but don't come here just because my beliefs are not yours to call me a 12yo autistic child... it's dumb

And then there's this faggot.

Idk man, i think God could be the Electron, who knows.

>"All i know is that i know nothing..." -Aristotle
You're thinking of Socrates.

>Man is created in God image as we can abstractly think and engineer.
You surely don't mean that human thought is just a scaled-down version of divine thought, as if God actually comes up with ideas or designs things the way a human does.

I'm convinced that there is a greatest possible being. I choose to be Catholic because it is how I was raised and what I enjoy being.

>viable as moral philosophy
Viable, sure. But far from optimal.

>Was it truly random or was it being biased in someway
Are you retarded? Of course it was biased in some way. It's called natural selection you mongrel.

And whats better, communism?

Only an absolutely tiny fraction of the exponential number of mutations will ever occur. Which do is completely ""random"".

Of those that do occur and then continue to propagate is natural selection.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

If I could die from an overly dilated anal sphincter caused from an excess of humorous stimuli, this would kill me.

I want to believe in god because math and the universe are really cool and I know almost nothing about them. It's comforting to think that perhaps there is a supreme entity out there somewhere that authored both and therefore fully understands the inner workings of mathematics and the universe governed by mathematics. However, every priest, prophet and psychonaut who has ever expressed that they are privy to knowledge of god or somehow share in his power is a charlatan. To be religious is to trust charlatans. Trust yourself above all others and only state what you can prove.

>Science has no more to do with religion
Yeah it does. Religion doesn't just limit itself to attempting to provide a philosophical and moral code by which to live our lives, it also attempts to give metaphysical answers to questions about the nature of reality and of natural phenomena, and this is definitely where science comes into conflict with it (as it does with various other metaphysical philosophies).

Metaphysics is outside of physics by definition. It's not like metamathematics.

Buddhism

its the based religion

>no bullshit, all the suttas are common fucking sense
>buddha is a total g, forgives everybody
>people come to kill him, he's chill with it\
>tells people not to believe him unless they can verify what he says for themselves
>lower intestine explodes at 80 years old
>still dies in peace
>last words are literally "I've held nothing back. be heedful of my words and move swiftly to awakening"

>all these faggots on here promoting literal bullshit

0/100

>people promoting science
love to see it, Buddha would be proud

>tfw we're entering the degenerate age of the dharma

Yeah that "meta" shouldn't be there.

I am. I prescribe to Pascal's wager.
Lutheran because I'm German as fuck. But if I die and end up in Valhalla you wont see me giving a fuck. Not really sure I'll die in battle though, so think I'll just hedge on Christianity for now.

not religious but i started to think belief in God is like a theory.

>being a cuck: the religion

Yes. Learning math has reinforced my belief in God. The fact that math is able to exist and the way that mathematical objects are all logically consistent with each other just like a computer program just lends itself well to the idea that there is a design to the universe.

math is easier than science
>like, so much easier

>we aren't caught in a do while loop of humanity achieving the computing power to simulate a mind which simulates humanity achieving the computing power to simulate a mind

>we convince each other that we feel pain and don't want to die, and that we're enjoying life. Some other entity is convinced in that, too
>some entity has tried out different forms of existence. This life is the most convincing and "real," and is the blueprint to continue something that everything perceives as reality.
>this way of life might provide the most potential for enjoyment compared to other constructs of reality. Whoever's "software" this is, is the best

So I don't know what's going on here. I think there are rules- karma, sort of. We reap what we sow. It is better to do good and be a good person because that furthers the cause of life, and furthers the progress of humanity. Being nice helps people be more amicable to working cohesively. So maybe it needs (or just wants) us to work together

But the debate can't be solved.

Maybe it is our job to understand suffering and create a world where it is minimized for all

>Your post
its like you've never talked to a Christian before.

IT went from sane to schizophrenic in no time at all.
Please leave new-age faggots.

This literally has nothing to do with science or math.

>from the third century B.C. onward
Apostles believed in flat earth and wrote it in revelations.

> How has science and math affected your religious beliefs?
> Not related to science or math
>

>it might be that reality is just an ilusion
Copenhagencucks belong to

>in revelations

Have you literally never even looked at revelations? It has more symbolism and imagery than an acid trip.

How has science and math effected your favorite videogames? How has science and math effected your opinion on the election? How has science and math dealt with tfw no gf?

It described events have symbolism, not their description, save for puns.

God doesn't exist. Please take your Risperdal immediately before I am forced to report you to the proper authorities.

Nothing is important and nothing really exists. Now take your Domestos.

Child molester detected. You have been reported to the Forced Euthanasia Lobby. Thank you.

Is there such a thing as a 'Child of God molestor, call the cops'?

If you're made in God's image and you subscribe to the faith of pedophiles then you're saying that God is a pedophile too. Kill yourself.

Child molester = pedophile?

13-18 == Ephebophile

13

>reality is an illusion
that's not what he's saying. local realism is pretty much in the water phys.org/news/2017-07-probability-quantum-world-local-realism.html

i'd like to remind you you must be over 18 to post here

Yeah, so why are you here with your off topic christcuck thread?

Nobody cares about your shitty pedophile logic. Reported to the FEL for termination.

You can just hide the thread if it triggers you too much mr middleschooler

>thinking Western morality stems from Christianity

>Catholic priests' rate of child molesting is half that of the general population and the same as any other Christian Church
>Meanwhile Islamic clerics/imams/preachers' rates are vastly higher and have the crimes go unpunished by the STATE

Yeah double standards.

...

Us one man of all threads?

We can't prove/disprove a deity.
Lets look at the facts, we exist "cogito ergo sum", regardless, its no proof of anykind of god. We are just animals. We didn't evolve to think more abstract, we are limited to this 3rd dimension. Everything is just a guess. I therefore don't believe there is a god that has in any way interacted with us. BUT i did come to a rational conclusion that its ignorant to deny something that cannot be proven/disproven. We will see what happens, after i die.

>One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.
This /pol/ meme needs to die.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

>doesn't even know the Nicene Creed

gb2 >>>/reddit/

It has taught me that human religions makes no sense because most of them reduce the universe to being a world made for us where everything is related to us and they still doesn't like the idea of us being animals and not some sort of divine being.

That said I consider myself pantheist, I think there's some sort of creator, but not something that has human characteristics and I don't consider religions a bad thing because they sometimes teach good values to people that wouldn't have them without that guidance.

Yeah why would a programmer care about an AI when there's terabytes of other data and thousands of other programs.

literally every power people normally ascribe to 'god' is in reality done by the mind
think about it

Se la religione nostra richiede che abbia in te fortezza, vuole che tu sia atto a patire più che a fare una cosa forte. Questo modo di vivere adunque pare ch'abbia renduto il mondo debole, e datolo in preda agli uomini scellerati; i quali sicuramente lo possono maneggiare, veggendo come l'universalità degli uomini, per andare in paradiso, pensa più a sopportare le sue battiture che a vendicarle.