The "science disproves God" meme

Such claim isn't surpising given that modern scientists don't have a general classical education like it was the case back then. Just try to read some schrodinger for instance, you will be astonished to the intellectual quality of his writings, not only on scientific matters, but also on his philosophical and metaphysical thoughts ( nature and the greeks for instance ). That isn't surpising because back then, knoweldge was way more general and most physicians had a serious background in epistemology/classical studies/philosophy. Hence, they didn't mix the domains of knowledge and know the basis of metaphysics, which allow them to interpret their scientific ( i:e, material ) discoveries with the light of philosophical thought.

But with the specialization of knoweldge, most scientists don't have a clue on basic metaphysical thought. It's as positive and negative, because they can actually go further in their research, having more time to spend on their particular domain. On the other hand, when they try to think outside of their own domain, they end up tottaly clueless and mostly resort to sci-fi maymays. The same default apply to modern philosophers who have absolutely no clue of modern science, because they don't have the time to study it, and often mix shits up ( like thinking on maths according to what they read in Kant's works, which was based on a tottaly euclidian vision).

For that particular subject, most scientists don't have a clue on what the concept of God refers to, be it in Philosophy or in Christian theology. They think of him as a super-being, i:e a material thing, who is materially, physically existing in the universe. Which of course, based on scientific methodology, isn't consistent. But God can't be existant in this material world, according to most Christian theology and Philosophical thoughts. God, on the contrary of finite, material objects, is infinite, and thus, can be perceived by us as a nothingness.

Other urls found in this thread:

mercaba.org/SANLUIS/Filosofia/autores/Contemporánea/Weil (Simone)/Gravity and Grace.pdf?hc_location=ufi
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Nothingness in the sense that he is the opposite of finite, material objects, and is present in the world on the modality of the total absence of himself.

Which, according to Christian theology is explained because God, by creating the world, leave himself of his own deity. Otherwise, all will be God. The laws of determinism, because those laws are the absence of God himself, he rules on this world through his absence, either exerced ( the Sun ), or endured ( the Cross ).

I'm sorry, i would like to go further, but I don't have a very good english and when I try to find words to explain it, I take literraly three hours.

Try to read Grace and Gravity by Simone Weil. She's not really orthodox on those matters, being inspired not only by Catholic thought, but by Gnosticism and Hindus Upanishads, but it's a good beggining on those matters. Then you can get hyped with some dope Thomas Aquinas sheit.
mercaba.org/SANLUIS/Filosofia/autores/Contemporánea/Weil (Simone)/Gravity and Grace.pdf?hc_location=ufi

...

To bait you into reading Weil, i will give you some of her quotes about tha joos ( Mind you, she was jewish by blood ).

A people chosen for its blindness, chosen to be Christ’s executioner.

Israel. From Abraham onwards (including himself, but excepting some of the prophets), and as though it had been planned, everything becomes sullied and foul, as if to demonstrate quite clearly: Look! There it is, evil!

God’s promises to Moses and Joshua were purely temporal, made at a time when Egypt was moving towards the eternal salvation of the soul. Having refused the Egyptian revelation, the Hebrews got the God they deserved: a carnal and collective God who, right up to the exile, did not speak (except in the Psalms?) to a single soul. [...] It is not surprising that little could be expected of such a people, fugitive slaves, conquerors of a paradise which had been fashioned by civilizations in whose labour they had not shared and which they destroyed through massacres. To speak of an ‘educational God’ in connection with this people is a cruel joke.
It is not astonishing that there should be so much evil in a civilization—ours—contaminated to the core, in its very inspiration, by this terrible lie. The curse of Israel rests on Christendom. Israel meant atrocities, the Inquisition, the extermination of heretics and infidels. Israel meant (and to a certain extent still does . . .) capitalism. Israel means totalitarianism, especially with regard to its worst enemies.
There can be no personal contact between man and God except through the person of the Mediator. Without the latter, God can only be present to man collectively, nationally. Israel chose the national God and simultaneously rejected the Mediator; it may, at one time or another, have moved towards true monotheism,but it always fell back on, and was unable not to fall back on, the God of the tribe

>be god
>pretend to be man
>be born
>to a virgin
>be boy but actually be god
>also be Jesus
>tell my fellow Jews the way of God
>(my way)
>get myself killed
>but not really because I come back to life
>but not really because I was a god the whole time
>save all of my creations by not killing myself, but by pretending to kill myself

Thanks for those quotes.

The contrast is really depressing.

Godfags have been chalking up the unknown to god for centuries. Every advancement of understanding, biblecucks lost a little more and a little more. Now jesusniggers cling to this one idea "god did it!" Every time something loses its mysticism.

It's a lot like the Holocaust in that the more proof comes to light the less credible it becomes

This. They can't even prove whether or not Jesus existed.

Agreed, it's honestly kind of startling to me that the contemporary public faces of science are such intellectual lightweights.

>perceived by us as a nothingness.
>present in the world on the modality of the total absence of himself.

Twisted semantics and empty rethoric
3/10 won't convert

Thanks for proving you didn't even read my text and just rushed to the thread to sperging your fedora-tiping memes. A proof is by definition, something you need to validate or unvalidate a scientific theory concerning a finite object, either it is the laws of evolution, the movement or planets or the speed of universe's expansion.

We, are talking about God, who is defined either in philosophical thought or Christian theology as a non-object, in the material sense of the word. It isn't a material object and yet you want to prove or unprove it with a scientific methodology designed to treat material objects. It's retarded. It's not the same domain, it never was as such. Only in a mediocre brain from the post-modern Europe the thought that the big-bang theory ( which was in part discovered by a Jesuit Priest, btw) or the laws of evolution could prove or disprove God.

Pretty much this, Christianity makes no fucking sense.
>God needs to follow specific rituals to forgive people
>God is all powerful
>Having your son/you die for three days is apparently a massive sacrifice

>science disproves God "meme"
But it does. Here's the trick:

Religion used to be the science of ancient history. It explained the world around us at a time when we struggled to understand the world around us.

In modern times, science has taken the baton passed to it by religion, and we understand a great number of things relevant to our lives in spectacular detail thanks to science. Science also pursues all the things irrelevant to our lives so that we can understand that, too.

Now religicucks have basically been backed into a corner, and their new meme to use is now 'God created science.'. I've heard this shit used quite a bit when the topic comes up around biblefags. I mean, hell, we have things like 'christian sciences', which exists only to blur the line between understanding and ignorance.

Because religions thrive on the ignorance of their flock.

C'est très simplifié parceque j'ai un très mauvais anglais, mais du coup je vais pouvoir mieux te l'expliquer et tu pourra traduire si tu as pas la flemme.

Ce que Weil montre magnifiquement dans le livre, c'est que Dieu, en tant que le plus éloigné de nous ne peut-être présent que sous la forme de l'absence. Ce qui n'a rien d'une sémantique obscure et d'un blabla ésotérique quand on s'intéresse au sens de la proposition. Tous les objets matériels de l'univers ont une constitution organique, des lois. Tout ces objets obéissent, aux diverses lois déterminés ( Causalité, pesanteur, comportements ). Dieu est le seul qui échappe à la finitude des objets, il ne peut pas être sous la forme d'un objet défini, avec une fin, une forme. Sinon, cela impliquerait qu'il a une fin, qu'il n'est pas infini. C'est ainsi qu'il ne peut être perçu par l'esprit humain que comme une absence, que comme la non-finitude, et qu'il ne peut pas être présent directement en tant qu'objet matériel, mais plutôt comme les lois même de l'univers, qu'il assume dans l'exercice de la diffusion ( Le Soleil, la lumière) ou de la soumission ( La croix, la souffrance ).

En même temps, Dieu, est essentiellement autre que ses lois qui sont de lui, dans la mesure ou il n'a pas crée la même chose que lui ( sinon, l'univers entier serait Dieu) mais ce qui lui diffère - les objets avec une fin, corruptibles. La seul modalité de similitude et d'accès à Dieu se trouve dans l'attention, dans l'amour. Car c'est essentiellement une brisure avec les lois du déterminisme, une attention sur l'autre, une négation de la matière, un retour à l'infini.

Je résume 500 pages en un paragraphe, donc je comprend que ça puisse paraitre ésotérique mais c'est au fond de l'intuition boudhique/hindoue (l'idée de Nirvana et d'acceptation du vide) ainsi que Chrétienne, Saint-Thomas d'Aquin montre par exemple qu'on ne peut concevoir Dieu que comme un non-objet

>We, are talking about God, who is defined either in philosophical thought or Christian theology as a non-object, in the material sense of the word. It isn't a material object and yet you want to prove or unprove it with a scientific methodology designed to treat material objects. It's retarded. It's not the same domain, it never was as such. Only in a mediocre brain from the post-modern Europe the thought that the big-bang theory ( which was in part discovered by a Jesuit Priest, btw) or the laws of evolution could prove or disprove God.

Doesn't matter, you have no proof. Absolutely none at all.

Wow you sound so smart... A-atheists o-on suicide w-watch

Here's a perfect example of modern lack of epistemological knoweldge, and once again, someone who didn't even bother to read my text. You're confused and mix different domains altogether and thinks, somehow, that make an argument.

Science was never opposed to Religion, either the two always worked together. But let's not even talk about Christianity, let's not trigger who.

If you follow Heidegger for example, there is an architecture of knoweldge who can be separeted in three domains.

Fondamental Ontology - Who examinte the question of the "Why ?". And by why, I don't mean a particular, domain. The reason behind the universe, the source of it. Those questions are often answered by onto-theological answers, which leads to various systems of faith, which we call the religious. We exist as the will of God to share his Love to other creatures, through the means of the material world-Christianity, We exist as avatars of the Global Consciousness - Budhism ...

Particular Ontology/Metaphysics/Philosophy : To question the reasons between particular process and answer questions based on empirical experience or on empirical experiences. ex: Are we free ? What does make the individuality of a human being ?

Ontical particular sciences : To describe the HOW of each phenomenon, to describe its causality, either it is the big-bang, the expansion of planets or whatever.

In an ideal society ( greek one for instance ), those three domains walk hand by hand. But nobody, through centuries, except in our retarded century had the stupidity to think that ontical proofs could be used to debunk ontological questions. Those are not the same answers. Ontological thought isn't interested in knowing the first cause of the material universe, that is the task of physicians, it is interested in its metaphysical reasons.

>Here's a perfect example of modern lack of epistemological knoweldge, and once again, someone who didn't even bother to read my text. You're confused and mix different domains altogether and thinks, somehow, that make an argument.
>Science was never opposed to Religion, either the two always worked together. But let's not even talk about Christianity, let's not trigger who.
>If you follow Heidegger for example, there is an architecture of knoweldge who can be separeted in three domains.
>Fondamental Ontology - Who examinte the question of the "Why ?". And by why, I don't mean a particular, domain. The reason behind the universe, the source of it. Those questions are often answered by onto-theological answers, which leads to various systems of faith, which we call the religious. We exist as the will of God to share his Love to other creatures, through the means of the material world-Christianity, We exist as avatars of the Global Consciousness - Budhism ...
>Particular Ontology/Metaphysics/Philosophy : To question the reasons between particular process and answer questions based on empirical experience or on empirical experiences. ex: Are we free ? What does make the individuality of a human being ?
>Ontical particular sciences : To describe the HOW of each phenomenon, to describe its causality, either it is the big-bang, the expansion of planets or whatever.
>In an ideal society ( greek one for instance ), those three domains walk hand by hand. But nobody, through centuries, except in our retarded century had the stupidity to think that ontical proofs could be used to debunk ontological questions. Those are not the same answers. Ontological thought isn't interested in knowing the first cause of the material universe, that is the task of physicians, it is interested in its metaphysical reasons.
NO PROOF OF GOD

And I never affirm than I had. It would imply that I make the same confusion you do.

Each society works according to a metaphysical system that explain the WHY? and the WHAT FOR?. It's not on the domain of scientific experimentation but metaphysical questionning. Those are the fundamental questions that direct the life of a men. Those questions can't be answered by Science is dedicated to the how of a process and on particular subjects. So, religious traditions brings answers, not in the same domain as science, but on absolute domain. It eventually form a culture than will propagate those answers. And religions don't only talk to societies but to an individual men, and the way he see himself in front of the Cosmos.

You, I, don't need proof on that domain. You had to question, to ask yourself. To read. And to do according to the answers you found the most convicing. Given that one day, you will ask yourself and you will need those answers.

Another quote from Weil on that subject :


He will laugh at the trials of the innocent.’ Silence of God. The noises here below imitate this silence. They mean nothing.
It is when from the innermost depths of our being we need a sound which does mean something—when we cry out for an answer and it is not given us—it is then that we touch the silence of God.
As a rule our imagination puts words into the sounds in the same way as we idly play at making out shapes in wreaths of 112 gravity and grace smoke; but when we are too exhausted, when we no longer have the courage to play, then we must have real words. We cry out for them. The cry tears our very entrails. All we get is silence.
After having gone through that, some begin to talk to themselves like madmen. Whatever they may do afterwards, we must have nothing but pity for them. The others, and they are not numerous, give their whole heart to silence.

5 block of text written in my shitty english to just make you understand that ONTOLOGICAL QUESTIONS aren't in the same domain as particular ontical scientific methodologie, and you still ask me the same retarded question,. NO PROOF OR GOD LEL. Well of course there isn't, I never say so. If there was a proof of God he will be a material, finite object and not God. And the relation to God will be finite analysis and not infinite faith/love.

Geez, I never really believe in this " burgers are dumb " meme, but you actually makes me reconsidering it.

Well, anyway, I will have to go soon.

If anyone wants precision or have question, I'm here for 10 minutes.

Can science disprove the existence of the word? It has no mass, it has always existed before any man was here to utter it. The word was with God in the begining.

>God, on the contrary of finite, material objects, is infinite, and thus, can be perceived by us as a nothingness.

Congratulations you've discovered Taoism

Not only Taoism but most major systems of religious thought, either it is Budhism, teaching of the Gitra or Christianism ( through Thomas Aquinas theology mainly ).

I agree with Camus but probably not the way he intended. He said when we search for truth with science we end up short and feel as though the world is pointless.

Finding truth from science is pointless, science should be a utility not a philosophy. You can learn how trees grow, how the sun rises and how small we are in this universe but you haven't progressed in terms of understanding your purpose.

The naive solution is to assume a pseudo-nihilist philosophy is backed by scientific fact but it's not. Remember the scientific method is true only through the merits of the scientific method. "Science should not give us a philosophy as a telephone should not tell us what to say" G.K Chesterson

I blame the total massification of education for this decline in intellectual discoruse