Atheists btfo

what does this have to do with leftism?

Nothing. Now fuck off and find some other place to shitpost

Jesus never lived.
Early Christians thought of him as a more of a spirit, or ideal metaphorical figure.
I have nothing against Comrade Jesus, but there's a reason why the church is one of the most wealthy, powerful entities in the world.
Religion tries to add meaning to a meaningless world. It's simply a form of a coping method, which has been exploited to generate a capitalist value.

Could be,
but that just proves you don't know what spooks are :'^_

If it's outside this reality then its not real.
THEIST BTFO

Metaphysics is irrelevant. We can't know about things that exists outside the physical world. If we can't measure it, detect it or prove its influence empirically, then we are in the worst position and will see patterns where there are none.

also, memes aside, religion is a spook. Also new atheism, or whatever those youtube assholes call themselves these days.

and the catholic church is evil as fuck.

If Jesus never existed, why did so many of the apostles willing die torturous deaths? Also, watch second vid.

If God was real, it would be necessary to abandon him for the sake of eternal warfare and destruction of the human soul.

Ever heard of Jonestown? People die for a lot of silly reasons

religions are a form of idealism and are massive spooks they are literally nothing but social constructs

The records of Jesus, his apostles, and their fates were all of which was written long after they had allegedly happened, in an ancient language which was then translated to another ancient language, then maintained by monks who literally hand wrote the book over and over for most of their lives, before then being translated into our language, which is so loosely interpretable it has 50 different versions.
Is it just *maybe* possible some important shit was messed up?

Do you deny that things can be proven by reason?

You can't reason the unobservable, as you have no data.
You're just guessing and hoping you get it right.

...

Mathematics are an observable truth.
I can observe that combining 2 of an item and 2 of the same item makes 4 of that item.
I can't observe that an all seeing all knowing being created everything and then sent his son to forgive us for our unobservable spiritual boo boos ;^)

You're just assuming that the natural world is the only observable reality

I really recommend you watch the first video, as it shows that the existence of God logically follows.

But maths goes way beyond that. The square root of 2, negative numbers and counting beyond infinity are pseudo science then?

Also, read a book called "The Last Superstition"

numbers don't exist in the real world. there is no "higher plane" where numbers and equations exist.

what does this even mean?

math is not science.

This is idiotic.

Why?

Then why do mathematical equations describe reality?

Look out your window.
See the plants, animals, and buildings?
Those were all created by one person. He lives on the other side of the world, and he'll created a dope house for you, but you have to believe he exists, or he won't do it for you.
There's no photos of him, no one has ever seen him, and those that claim to have talked to him died over 2000 years ago. He decided he won't interact with the world, and that you just have to believe he exists.
Without leaving your house, do you believe all of this?

Mathematics is an human invention, it may or not model empirical data.

Like the rest of mathematics, they're shit we made up that fits within a basic framework. Math isn't real. We made it up. It just so happens that we built it in a consistent and logical manner so that we can use it to figure shit out. It doesn't exist separate from our minds, though.

Not all of them do. In fact, there is an infinite amount of equations that definitely do not describe any type of reality.

While we're writing prescriptions, read The Ego and His Own, spooked user.

It's*
Pardon me.

When does he even use math?
I've been watching for 30 minutes and he's just rambling about tables and the earth.

...

...

...

Nice cultural imperialism, sinner.

what they said:

also, mathematical equations don't model reality perfectly.
they're merely an abstraction of reality that makes it easy for us to reason and predict what will happen. that's why if the math predicts some "new science" it is not accepted as such until it is actually observed in nature, because it could be that it is an "error" of the mathematical model.

that's not what he said. he said LONG after. nice try though

even if God existed, how'd you know the Christian god is the true one?

Christcucks BTFO

Really activates the almonds.

you must be fun at parties

How would you know, if you still don't know what a spook is?

I've seen Feser's arguments before so although I didn't watch the full video, I looked at a few parts and I think I know the kind of argument he's making here, so I'll talk about this from perspective of someone who doesn't think all metaphysics is all just spooks. One issue is that in metaphysics there are two basic views of time, "presentism" which says that only present things are real and the future is unreal, and "eternalism" which is more in like with the "spacetime" view of physics, where future things are just as real as present things but just exist in a different region of four-dimensional spacetime than the one we're perceiving. In the theory of relativity there is an idea called the "relativity of simultaneity" which says there are multiple "reference frames" that disagree about whether a given pair of (one frame can assign both events the same time-coordinate while other frames assign them different time-coordinates), and that the laws of physics look exactly the same when written down in the coordinates of each frame, so there's no physical basis for saying one is more correct about simultaneity than another. This doesn't totally rule out the idea that there could be some purely metaphysical truth about whether two events "really" happened at the same time (as you'd need in presentism) but it at least makes it a lot more doubtful that you need such a notion, since if it has no empirical consequences Occam's razor would push you into the direction of getting rid of this kind of idea.

Likewise Feser assumes a notion of "cause and effect" that depends on the assumption of presentism, that some earlier event causes something else to come into being that didn't exist before, whereas the only notion of cause and effect you really need in physics is that there is a law-like mathematical relationship between physical states at earlier times and physical states at later times (and in fact, a property called time-symmetry' in physics means you can just as easily use the same laws to deduce earlier states from later ones). As philosopher of science Tim Maudlin says in an interview at 3ammagazine.com/3am/philosophy-of-physics/

So basically, if you assume the metaphysical views on time and causation that seem to fit most naturally with modern physics, Feser's argument falls apart.

Hard to stop laughing long enough to answer…

When will fundies ever learn what the words "proof" and "evidence" mean, and that there is none supporting a haunted universe.

Silly superstitionists.

BTW, nobody really gives a shit if you idiots believe your lives are being controlled by imaginary little gods, ghosts and goblins; we only give a shit A) that you're robbing children of the ability to think rationally by forcing them to actually believe that your delusions are real, and B) your obnoxious insistence that your bullshit be accepted as some kind of "science" in public schools.

Religious fundamentalism is intellectual terrorism.

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

Religionfags BTFO

Ridiculous superstitious spin, moron.

You're just pissed because atheists cannot "sin".

The irony being that it makes atheists more like jesus than you religious fruitcakes will ever be.

Suck it up, fucktard. :-)

Because that would make such a yuge difference…

reddit leave

never

Gee! I can see nothing gets past you!!!

Give an example where it doesn't, moron.

Or are you just another superstitionist pulling shit out of his ass in a desperate attempt to pretend his imaginary little friends are just as plausible as reality?

Newsflash: Failed again, fucktard.

Why would I want to learn a spook?

then at least stop posting

Mathematics is just an abstract logical system that has no bearing on reality whatsoever. It's no use laughing at christfags when they actually have a point that blasts retards off the board.

Were you born this breathtakingly stupid or did you get this far gone by practicing a lot?

he's right though. we use mathematics to model nature, but our models are incomplete, contradictory, and abstract.
math is divorced from the physical world.

Which makes you as fucking stupid as he is.

And your point is…?

You're divorced from your brain.

Go back to bed.

Because you can at least shitpost about it better

'bout 8 minutes in, can't take him seriously.

He's divided change into four categories, and claimed that we know those categories are meaningful independent vectors because we detect them with our senses. Alas, if that was valid we would still think there are four elements (fire, water, wind and earth) because we can detect them, whereas our senses are pretty shit at detecting nitrogen or potassium for example. Much the same goes I expect for the bodily humours.

So all I got from this is "change occurs". I'm guessing his overall argument will be some variation of, "stuff happens, we don't understand how, therefore jeebus".

ok cunt,
explain how math and yourself are more than tools.

Aw shit. You win.

Who the fuck said math wasn't a tool?

As I said before, were you born this fucking stupid or do you just practice a lot?

thanks

what do you mean by what you're saying.
"ur stupid" is not an argument.

Actually in your case it is.

And it's "your" or "you are", not "ur", you illiterate cunt.

Yeah, no.
Condensate it here into a paragraph.
Or don't, god "proofs" are historically bullshit.

Then it's probably even worse than the medieval philosophers proofs, which is saying a lot. Why is your faith so flimsy that you need pompous sounding rhetoric to feel reassured? Isn't faith supposed to work without proof anyways?

Actually in your case it is.

And it's "you're" or "you are", not "ur", you illiterate cunt.

math is divorced from the physical world.

OK, but imagine hypothetically that we *did* live in a universe where everything that happened obeyed a unified set of mathematical laws, but actually figuring out what these laws were would require a long process of coming up with theories about different aspects of nature and testing them with increasingly complex machinery (giant particle accelerators telescopes and such). In this case, then if we imagine some beings in this universe who are still only part way along the road to discovering the fundamental laws, do you think it *wouldn't* be true that their partial models would be "incomplete, contradictory, and abstract"?

your wrong tho, and really stoopid. and you shitposted twaice.

let me break it down for you because it seems you can't read.
this is me:
>what do you mean by what you're saying.
then this is me, quoting you:
then this is me again:

I use the quotation marks to indicate that I'm quoting something. And while you did not actually say "ur stupid", I was using it to show how idiotic you sound.

Christ! I'll bet you could roast hotdogs on the heat from your butthurt!!

Look stupid, math models the real world whether stupid people like you like it or not.

So as I said, in your case "ur stupid" is a valid argument.

Deal with it, fucktard. :-)

the thing is though, the laws don't actually exist in the physical world. There isn't a place where these laws exist. Math is the language by which we understand logical systems. The universe can be logical, but the language we use to understand the universe doesn't exist in the physical world.

Basic models like Newton's model works really well, but doesn't describe all phenomena in the Universe, like space-time dilation. Some models even contradict themselves. In fact, a mathematical model can't be both complete and consistent, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
So even if there could be an "ultimate" physics model, it would still be incomplete or inconsistent.

we use math to model the physical world. the physical world doesn't give a shit about your math.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox

dad, get out.
I called you a cunt because you were being one. I said you sound idiotic when all you say is "im right bc ur stupid". You're the one throwing insults around like it's nobody's business.

Every single time. This is a spook. Don't fall for it.

No grander and more epic despooking of a sciencefag has ever been commited up to date.

Whether abstract things like laws or numbers "exist" seems to me to be mostly a matter of definition, so I prefer to just talk about what are the objective truths about our world. Can you can at least imagine a world where it's an objective truth about that world that every physical event can in principle be predicted from a combination of prior events along with a certain set of mathematical rules, even if you wouldn't say the rules themselves "exist" separate from the physical events? If so then that's all that's needed to understand what I said in about "a universe where everything that happened obeyed a unified set of mathematical laws." I mean, you'd at least agree we could design a computer simulation of a universe where this was true, like the "cellular automaton" at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life right? So put aside the question of whether the laws themselves "exist" or not, and just tell me whether you'd grant that beings in such a universe who were working on uncovering the correct laws, but hadn't found the most fundamental and general formulation yet, would find that their partial models were "incomplete, contradictory, and abstract". If you'd agree that this would be true in the hypothetical scenario, then the fact that the laws we have come up with so far in the real world are also "incomplete, contradictory, and abstract" is not really evidence against the idea that our universe is one that obeys universal laws like in the hypothetical.

there must be an eternal constant in order for us to exist. whether the universe has existed infinitely or there is a creator is the question. neither are natural explanations.

Pick one

Uh the post that you are quoting in the first line was written by me and I was not using it to argue for "God", I'm the same user who wrote which was arguing against the OP's video.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZCL4dXUtblg

Because they can be useful tools?

yeah, this is necessarily true.

I follow what you're saying. So imagining that we are able to describe the universe perfectly, what then? What is the argument? I'm trying to predict what your argument is, since your posts don't explicitly state it.
Is it that since two civilizations can separately find the same physics then that means physics exists independent of humans? Well, both civilizations are observing the same universe, so you would expect that the mathematical systems (physics) that perfectly describe the universe are basically the same (or mirror each other, be transformed one into the other, etc). (The physics itself wouldn't exist independent of the civilizations though, since it exists only in their minds, not in the real world, but we agreed to skip past this, so disregard this point).
So I guess the next step is saying that, the same thing except with god. If two civilizations discover the same god, or something similar like that, then it must mean it exists independently of humans. The thing is, physics is math + empirical evidence. Your model might be tight af, but if it can't be proven by empirical evidence, then it is useless. The whole God thing lacks that empirical part. Like, if two civilizations developed human sacrificing rituals, that doesn't prove the need for human sacrifice to appease the gods.

I was arguing against the comment at (yours or someone else's?), which seems to be implying that because we don't *currently* know a set of mathematical rules that allow us to describe the universe perfectly, and the current mathematical rules we can write down are "incomplete, contradictory, and abstract", that this somehow implies we don't live in a lawlike universe. In other words, the comment seems to be arguing that we don't live in the type of universe where every event can (in principle) be perfectly predicted by from earlier events using a unified set of mathematical laws, and that the "incomplete, contradictory" aspect is telling us something fundamental about the world and not just about temporary limitations caused by incomplete knowledge.

ah, I see. I meant it as arguing further that math and reality are divorced. Apologies for the confusion, yeah, I agree with you.

Regardless, whether or not god exists is irrelevant. Even if he does exist, I'm still not going to worship him, that would be putting him above myself. All things are nothing to me!