This is what atheists actually believe

>this is what atheists actually believe

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qs26qv6C-38
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_metastability_event
twitter.com/AnonBabble

What's your point?

faggot

if you really think about it the expansion of the universe through time is really like a cock slowly twitching erect, filling a condom. is this our purpose among these stars? are we the cosmic sperm of the infinite planetoids? only more time will tell, i assure you

It is a theory. It isn't proven, but since you hate it so much do you have a better theory OP?

And what do you believe fuck face.....sky daddy did it all? Fucking Jew slave

>actually believing anything

here user try this mind bleach
youtube.com/watch?v=qs26qv6C-38

I think it's correct, but if you think "quantum fluctuations" is a valid explanation then you need to get your head out of your ass

In the beginning................god.
From everlasting to everlasting.

the universe is a party popper

weird.
am i an atheist?...i don't believe in god.
i know god.


you want god?
keep eating mushrooms until you get god.

keep looking outwards idiot.
it's inside.

You got a better explanation that doesn't involve sand niggers and a bronze age book?

Athiests are idiots. Of course Jesus created it. He said he did.

God can be an explanation, but I think you cannot claim supernatural intelligence created the universe without evidence.

My theory is that the universe exists forever, but because we as humans interpret time, as everything having a beginning and an end, it has an illusion of a beginning. I happen to believe that our universe will go on forever.

>keep eating mushrooms until you get god.

this shit is consistent with religion you fuck. why are there so many shills posting slide threads now?

Not really, that isn't a very good representation of the big bang or the expansion of the universe.

The purpose of this pic is to look cool and show the universe at various points of time.

You forgot to include the Big Crunch..

thats what all that eternity talk is about.
it's eternal life ;)

yeah we die. we molt our bodies.

what we are does not die.
it rides the lightning.

>will go on forever
What about the second law of thermodynamics fag

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You can't have evidence from within the system for something that happened outside of the system. There is never going to be empiricle evidence, that's why it's called faith. Science won't ever be able to get to what happened before space and time booted up. In other words, those in side the finite system will never understand the infinite system. We have to live comfortably with uncertainty.

This is what King Fedora actually teaches his millions of fedora followers.

it makes sense

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_metastability_event

OK, and what RATIONAL argument do you have against this picture ?

It's part of the ruleset set forth at the initiation of our system

If it exists, it's technically part of existence, and therefore part of the system. There's no "outside of existence." Moron.

Could anyone who understands the big bang a bit weigh in on this? I don't understand if the emptiness of space itself was meant to be compressed into the dot or if that came out too? Or was it like a small little ball of matter in the emptiness of black space?

>hurr durr I have absolutely no idea must mean le god meme did it

Cool god of the gaps faggot.

eh once we understand how quantum mechanics works with classical mechanics it will paint a better picture. we still may be in a metastable universe, which if so, would mean that another "big bang" will happen and birth another universe, at a lower, more stable state. it may never happen or it may take so long to happen that it doesn't matter.. but it's possible.

>it's an uneducated stupid white males debate astronomical physics and the origins of the universe episode

Leave it to the Jews and get back to what you're actually good at, providing daughters for Jamal.

it's both. see .

basically, there was a "universe" before which was in an unstable state. think of a tub with a plug in it. you fill it up with the plug, and the water stays. when you remove the plug the water wants to go down, to a more stable state. this is what likely happened. there's no way to tell how many prior universes were before ours (some may have not lasted longer than a few seconds) but eventually, they kept going "down" to a more stable state to create the universe as we know it today.

this is a simply analogy to complex math so don't take it for granted

Why does everything space related have the shape of a cock?

His name was jesus christ and you didn't believe him then and you wouldn't believe him now. It is still about faith.

>atheists must believe in the big bang
kek

Interesting. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but when they did the Hubble XDF scan between 2003 and 2004, they estimated a galaxy in the picture to be 13.2 billion years old, correct? 450 million years younger than the "Big Bang."

So, then I ask Atheist some simple questions:

If that galaxy is that far away and that old, does that make use all newfags?

Would that not mean that the "Big Bang" happened somewhere beyond that galaxy from us (or at least within about 20 degrees +/- that galaxy if centered in the photo)?

Why didn't we do a XDF in the opposite direction, or in the Cardinal directions + Up and Down?

Are we that conceited that we believe we know where we exist in the universe from one series of images?

Please.

Hypotheses are ideas as to how something is/was/will be/works/etc.

Theories are hypotheses that are well supported by empirical evidence.

Also, OP is trolling.

That's not a scientific theory, because, based only on belief, it can not be falsified or verified.

Did all you losers ACTUALLY miss the whole joke? Are you really THIS dense?

The fucking dark ages meme, and y'all go on tipping fedoras and shit.

The evidence supports it tbqh.

The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle called the Higgs boson, which the field uses to continuously interact with other particles.

Cheers for dumbing it down. One thing which might help me understand it a bit better is if you would be so kind as to define universe and what exactly makes it unstable compared to ours.

Every man is the son of God, but you can't build a system of authority around that so lolnope it was just that one guy, submit or die

I believe in the big bang theory, God said bang, and it happened

So then I ask Abrahamic fag some siimple questions:

Do you really believe in sky people and a big immortal bearded man surrounded by fat babies with wings?

Do you realize that Christianity is just an offshoot of Judaism, and that Christcucks are just Jews who don't run banks?

So if I start stating I created it now in 2000 years idiots will believe me too?

>god
Which one?

Because it's consistent with our observations, and because we can't see further back than 13.7 billion years, and so on and so forth.
We have a very good reason for believing in the Big Bang.

so many god damn unnecessary newlines.

Ridiculous

Supernatural entities have infinite complexity.

Imagine an uninflated balloon, spackled with random paint, and bunched up incredibly tight.
Now imagine blowing it up; not only does the balloon expand outwards, but the pain specks on it also move away from each other.
More importantly, there's no "center" from which all the paint is moving away from on the surface of the balloon; it's a 2d image embedded in 3d space.

Now, imagine space-time to be the balloon, and matter to be the paint. Space itself expands, and matter with it; it's just that space is 3d, not 2d.

One of the major theories for the "end of the universe" is something called the Big Chill; basically, the rate at which space-time expands is speeding up; over time, this means that galaxies will get farther and farther away from each other, until only those which are gravitationally bound (for us, that being the Laniakea supercluster), while everything else dissapears over the cosmological event horizon (so far away that space is expanding faster than light).

Another possibility based on this is the Big Rip, where if the expansion of space is even greater than we first assumed, it will not only cause superclusters to be torn away from each other, but individual galaxies as well. As time goes on, soon even solar systems will be pulled apart, and then planets from stars, and eventually the expansion of space would overpower the force of gravity (breaking apart planetary bodies and stars), electromagnetism (breaking apart matter and molecules), and the nuclear forces (breaking apart atoms), resulting in a cold void of lonely elementary particles.

On the flipside, should the expansion of space slow down, or even reverse, it's entirely possible that the reverse will happen; the universe will collate again, and collapse in on itself, possibly into another singularity.

The universe being stable and eternal is unlikely.

science fags are fucking retarded. the universe expanding from nothing for no reason is literally the most counter-intuitive hypothesis one could come up with

Our system has a definable beginning. Therefore it is finite. A finite system cannot initiate itself. This would mean that the constitutes of the system would already have to have existed at the beginning of the system, therefore if the constitutes already existed, it wouldn't be the beginning. The constitutes of the system must have be created outside the system. That which was outside the system, which created our system cannot be finite, or else you get infinite regress. Who created the system which created the system etc. Therefore the system which created the finite system (our universe) must be infinite(god). The big bang theory was rejected heavily by atheists for this reason because it logically implied an creator (everlasting system), look it up.

I'm an atheist and that is not what I believe.

Sure looks like a breath to me.

What do you believe then? The only two hypothesis possible are either the universe expanded from nothing for no reason, or some transcendent God figure created this

Severely underrated.

> The Big Space Fuck

Southern europeans are not white

checked. condom theory confirmed

Kekism is not atheism. It is paganism.

>prime mover
No

It's basic statistics, user; given an eternity, even events with an infinitesimal probability are guaranteed to happen.

But a finite system can reinitiate itself. The idea you have of god (initiator of the system) may well be something that exists outside of the system of the universe creating energetic disturbances in the void beyond our universe. It need not be sentient, or even know you exist, much less give two fucks about you.

>atheists think the dark ages happened before stars formed
wow... what retards

The everlasting one who initiated the system. Technically it's ineffable. Both our heads would explode, and anyone reading this thread's head would also explode if it was expressed. Potentially, the whole system (universe) would end.

quantum fluctuations is an interesting phenomenon. you're bound to end up with a super energetic, Big Bang state emerging spontaneously, it's just really, really fucking unlikely. good thing that there was an infinite, timeless interval before the Universe - it had to happen eventually.
anthropic principle and shit, it must've happened because we're here to observe it, neat how nature does that

>this is what atheists actually believe

this is what Christians actually believe

>axiomic linguistics
Great way to discover physical truths.
You sound like some theologian trying to prove God's existence

>Our system has a definable beginning.

Only because we define the point where our measurements begin (or end) as the beginning

The discussion of the big bang doesn't describe how the universe formed. It's just an incredibly articulated description of what the universe is. The question of how is unanswerable.

...

This picture does negate the existence or importance of God.

I'm pagan and I believe this. Because unlike the Cholesterol-clogged 'muricans I have an open mind when it comes to religious beliefs and science.

This is actually what atheists with incomplete (((scientific understanding))) believe.

But there are atheists with more refined theories, like perhaps Subquantum Kinetics by Paul A. LaViolette

Pffft duh

I think the question really is whether or not you believe the universe does itself on purpose

> it had to happen eventually.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

>It is still about faith.
But why? It's almost as if god is warhammer-tier demon that feeds on idiots' thought energy. Lying demon.

The truth is that there was something in the beginning that transformed itself into Universe

that's a sweet gravity bong
look nigger, technically, you can walk through brick walls. On 1 try out of a gorillion, all the particles you are made of will just happen to tunnel through without resistance.
quantum states with almost infinite energy can also theoretically emerge spontaneously.
there is no time outside the Universe, so it doesn't matter how unlikely it was or how long it took, if it could happen, it happened.

>It need not be sentient, or even know you exist, much less give two fucks about you.
I would acknowledge that the initiator of the system might not have an opinion either way with regard to the outcome of the system. This was a common hitchens argument he would use when the debate went down the course this one has taken. That would be where faith would come in, and apologetics for a particular faith, which is more than I wish to get into.

I was simply arguing for the logical necessity of our finite (finite in that it has a definite beginning where space and time were initiated) system having an initiator.

That has literally nothing to do with atheism

Best comparison yet.
>The prophylactic process.

Space and time have a definable beginning, if you've got evidence for something before that I would be extremely interested in it. I am skeptical, but open minded.

Big Bang theory is crypto-(((theism))) It was invented by a Jesuit after all. It isn't atheist at all and it's freaking full of holes.
Steady state theory is redpilled.

This; consider the following analogy:
You're throwing darts at a dartboard, assume the probability of hitting any given area is proportional to the ratio of it to the overall dartboard's area.
Actually hitting the dartboard has a probability of 1; hitting the left half is .5; hitting the bottom right quadrant is .25, etc.
The probability of hitting any given point on the dartboard is 0, points have no area, and thus the ratio of their area over the board's area is 0, and thus the probability is 0.
Obviously, even though the set of this event has a probability of 0, it is a non-empty set. Even more obviously, whenever you throw a dart, it WILL hit a point, even though the point it ended up hitting had a probability of getting of 0.

So, now that we've established that the probability of hitting any given point is 0, and also that a single point (even if it can't be described with a finite representation) is hit with every throw despite that probability of 0, we can assume that, given infinite throws, you will eventually hit a given point.

TL;DR: Even events with 0 probability of occurring will occur at least once given infinite attempts.

>this is what cosmologist actually hypothesize.
There, fixed it for you.

Why are theists always the most bone-jarringly retarded fuckwits on the planet?

That's the only way I, being a part of this finite system (our universe), can get at something like what initiated our system. You can't discover physical truths about the infinite system which initiated our finite system. We can't access, or describe the ruleset or laws of the infinite system from within the finite system. That's part of what gödel was on about.

A lot of religious people believe that, or parts of it, too.

based & redpilled individuals don't believe in (((Their))) gods. Yes, you believe in angels and jesus n' shit, so y'all ain't monotheistic.

Oh, and of course, we're working with an idealized dart that has an infinitesimally fine tip, but you get the idea.

Dis nigga don't know WTF he's talking about!!!!

Makes more sense than any religious bullshit Ive garden. Bring me a better argument user

Only if you get enough attention; best to start a cult that will worship you till the end.

>given an eternity
We have no evidence that eternity is part of the ruleset of our system. It's abstract.

>The everlasting one
Willy Wonka had a chewing gum of that name. Are your gods named after chewing gum?

>999
checked

I was only saying that asserting a starting point for this "system" at the point where we can't or don't know how to look further, doesn't necessarily mean it actually started there in any meaningful sense
It makes more sense, at least to me, that whatever existed before the big bang is the same thing as exists after, just in a different form

I do, but why are you explaining basic infinity shit to me
at least use cool examples like banach-tarski paradox or something

I wasn't explaining it to you, I was building onto your post for other anons.

>seriously expecting me to post something like Banach-Tarski when half of Sup Forums probably can't even do derivatives