It isn't. The big crunch is a sham. Wake up you sheeple.
Also, because there is no infinite regress, there must exist an eternal, prime creator, as all creators or universes which aren't eternal have beginnings, and therefore a creator without a beginning is required.
Simply because there is no infinite regress; that an eternal universe is physically impossible, we can conclude there is an "eternal" God which exists outside of time that we experience.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
quora.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
And who created the creator? There’s your infinite regression retard. Oh what’s that? He’s eternal? Then so is the universe.
>Then so is the universe.
There isn't a big crunch, cunt. We live in an infinitely expanding universe, how is it supposed to contract to fulfill a fucking cycle?
It's fucking impossible you numpty
Literally the only ever arguments or shit I've heard against athiest from Christians have been the most retarded self righteous, logically fallacious, or just plain fucking stupid thing I've ever heard, no logic or reasoning is used by you fucking absolute retards just a bunch of parroting and annoying self approval and approval from other christcucks. Btw i fucking hate athiest too but fuck me if you guys arent the most fucking retarded people I've ever met
>Literally the only ever arguments or shit I've heard against athiest from Christians have been the most retarded self righteous, logically fallacious, or just plain fucking stupid thing I've ever heard, no logic or reasoning is used by you fucking absolute retards just a bunch of parroting and annoying self approval and approval from other christcucks. Btw i fucking hate athiest too but fuck me if you guys arent the most fucking retarded people I've ever met
Can you say something about my argument then, mate? Or anyways I could improve my meme-smithing?
Why would it need to contract? The fuck are you talking about.
Read this you spastic cunt.
Dark matter is fake
Check this video out. "The Big Bang Theory Fraud":
youtube.com
>Can you say something about my argument then, mate?
>There isn't a big crunch, cunt. We live in an infinitely expanding universe, how is it supposed to contract to fulfill a fucking cycle?
>It's fucking impossible you numpty
I'm entirely sure that there is a logical and scientifically sound answer to what you have said here, also here in your argument you dont make any points or provide reason to what your saying, all thats being said is "hurr durr its impossible because i said it was" instead of just throwing something out there provide some theory's to why what you say its impossible like "well if you see here this contradictory blah blah couldn't be if blah blah" or something along those lines, (sorry for writing this out like a retard im phone lurking and i just got off work)
>Or anyways I could improve my meme-smithing?
Fight them on their own level but with still your religious zeal, thats really all i can say
I ain't hating on you by the way upside down man but shit you religious people always get my jimmies rustled
>Why would it need to contract?
If you believe the universe is eternal then the universe must exist in a cycle. The universe began compressed into a singularity, this we know from observation, so in order for the universe to continue eternally it must at some point return to it's initial point in a cycle of expansion and regression.
Otherwise the universe would just expand forever and that would be indicative of it not being eternal as anything with an ending has a beginning.
>Read some book real quick
If you've read the book, can you point out the floor in my argument instead?
The big bang is real mate-o.
Because chance does not exist.
>I'm entirely sure that there is a logical and scientifically sound answer to what you have said here
There isn't. "The big crunch", the only solution to the eternal universe interpretation was proven false.
>Because chance does not exist.
Can you explain what your point is, mate?
Not even close to being accurate. I curse every person in your life that ever gave you the slightest idea you were intelligent, and you should too.
How has the big crunch been proven false?
>Not even close to being accurate.
What parts, mate? A cycle is necessary for something to be infinite. The very fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed by other matter SHOULD lead to such a cycle existing, but it just doesn't.
Indeed a creator exists. The creator is definitely not any of the deities created by man. Not a single religion has it right. The main character of the world's largest religion is now known to be a myth by those willing to find and accept the truth.
>proven false.
Proven false in a scientific way, science is a weird thing my kangaroo friend, just because something was proven as false (also i would like you to provide me some sort of link to whatever research paper was done on disproving the big crunch) doesn't mean that the entire idea about it was wrong or that since this one interpretation of how this happened was proven wrong everything else is wrong too, there could still be something that explains it that hasn't been seen yet, just like General Relativity, Special Relativity, or quantum mechanics, arent entirely true or correct theory's, they are still seen as law because that's as much as we know about it so far, if something else is brought up that makes more sense than the last and fits better to our understanding of how the universe works then the old ideas and theory's are thrown out and the new one takes its place
>If you've read the book, can you point out the floor in my argument instead?
The universe doesn't just *operate* according to mathematical laws (manifest as physics), the universe *is* a mathematical structure. Any mathematical structure that includes the capacity for self-awareness (which is defined in the book), then those self aware systems within it will perceive the mathematical universe as a physical reality. There's no need for a creator, since all mathematical systems "exist" it's just that some lack spatial and time dimensions, so nothing "happens" in them.
This is intresting, i like this view, however what religion do you think is close enough to the right idea? What haven't we thought of? You'd think after so many century's and billions of people that something close could have popped up already
There was no beginning and there will be no end.
>that an eternal universe is physically impossible,
incorrect, it repeats, eternally.
>we can conclude there is an "eternal" God which exists outside of time that we experience
It's more of a machine.
If it expands forever thermodynamics says it has to experience heat death. Basically all particles either fall into a black hole or separate and decompose. Black holes eventually dissipate too due to hawking radiation. Crunch is needed for cyclical/eternal universe, but even then it has to recreate. Hindu Brahma cycles are a mythological analogy of this.
>Proven false in a scientific way
Doesn't really matter. It was disproved in the 1997 discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding at accelerating rates, and there is no force in existence which is pulling it together.
>There's no need for a creator
I honestly don't see how mathematics existing as a human construct disproves this, mate.
>There was no beginning and there will be no end.
The physics don't fucking work that way, mate. There just can't be a big crunch to make it into a cycle.
>It's more of a machine.
Might be, mate.
Unless a fundamental property of our universe is wrong or misinterpreted, which is almost certainly the case.
>decompose
They decompose into radiation as well mate. That shit can't be used to construct particles.
>atheists believe the universe is eternal
BAHAHAHAHA WHAT A BUNCH OF FUCKING MORONS AMIRITE
>Christians believe God is eternal
WELL OF COURSE!!!
My point is that if god is real then chance can not exist.
Deism. Some of our country's Founding Fathers followed this new age belief that gained prominence
during the Age of Enlightenment.
>now known to be a myth by those willing to find and accept the truth.
What do you think about this then mate? Three separate sources from the second century AD, who would have had access to hundreds second generation witnesses in the form of the citizens of the levantine region, and reinforced by astrological data.
I can agree to this, spirituality and morals are a great thing, organized religion can die in the hellfire its created in its own head
Seems possible.
I myself am agnostic but i think very highly of deism
>if god is real then chance can not exist.
That depends on whether God simply just created the provisions necessary for complicated life with a bit of forethought and computing or whether he is constantly and actively intervening.
>Seems possible.
It fucking isn't mate. The big crunch is impossible by our current models, and an eternal cycle, therefore, simply cannot exist. Everything that comes to an end has a beginning, otherwise the forces which keep it eternally in existence would prevent it from ending.
Jesus is a myth. The myth was written with some contemporaneous fact.
The big problem with Western Atheism is that it is Christian Atheism. An Atheism that borrows its whole view on Morality/Ethics from Christianity because Atheism as practiced by Christian Atheists (all Western Atheists) is a purely subjective rejection of some Christian Morals/Ethics.
The few people who have built a somewhat rational coherent Atheist worldview generally throw out the whole idea of Morality/Ethics and adopt a morally neutral worldview, because without God, Good and Evil are purely subjective opinions of preferences for every single person.
So common morality is purely at the whim of the tyranny of 50%+ democratic opinion.
The second century versions are Greek translations. The pharisees, and the Roman empire at it's behest would have had anyone preaching a faith which is so critical of their teachings killed.
Chance works into neither.
If god created chance occurence then chance occurrence could uncreate god.
Why people think the universe is eternal thought? What evidence there is for not thinking that the creation of this universe is a unique event that it will eventually end in entropy?
Fuck of you nihilist cunt. I'm bet you're all for eating fetuses like the Chinese.
And Christian morality shares parallels with ancient Greek morality, as both were ideologies which sought to discover the most humane and civilized ethics and virtues.
>Chance works into neither.
>If god created chance occurence then chance occurrence could uncreate god.
You're not saying anything of substance there, mate. Fucking think through what you parrot yourself first, and if you still believe it try and explain your view a little more clearly.
>What evidence there is for not thinking that the creation of this universe is a unique event
Nothing can self-actualize. If something didn't exist it can't make itself exist whilst being in a state of non-existence, as non-existent things can't exert any forces or much of anything at all.
If you believe something can make itself you might have a mental impairment, mate.
You are very right, personally what do you think is the right way of thinking in a moral/ethic regard to the world
It might not be accelerating though, if the universe is indeed a three model torus it could appear to be accelerating but it’s actually not. quora.com
I'm only on this Earth for the memes.
>what do you think is the right way of thinking in a moral/ethic regard to the world
He just told you he believes in nothing mate. Nothing matters to him, he's a nihilist.
Well fuck. I thought it was completely disproved.
>he's a nihilist
Shut the fuck up you mongaloid where the fuck did you learn to read? I think i found an Abo that broke into someones house and is using their computer guys!
I'm not assuming it just appeared into existence, the only one assuming here is you, saying that because the universe exist therefore it's eternal? That's a HUGE leap in logic.
The universe as we know comes from a single "point" "where/when" mass started to expand (TBB), Theres No evidence that this is an eternal loop, and as things point, this little accident called existence (in the broadest meaning) is just an unique event destined to end, forever
weak memes, and factually incorrect.
big bang states all energy/matter/etc in our expanding spacetime can, by extrapolating backwards and correlating various cosmological phenomena like the variations in the cosmic microwave background, trace back to a single point, which we'll call t=0
what came before t=0?
no idea. science doesn't have a description for it.
is that just the structure of spacetime, a natural accident? maybe
did a god do it? maybe
there's no evidence on what happened before t=0, and thus every hypothesis is equally invalid
a christian came up with it
You're all retarded all of reality is simply a false illusion, the true nature and the state of our being is that of divine will and intend, nothing more, nothing less. We are all eternal.
>Shut the fuck up you mongaloid where the fuck did you learn to read?
He said the problem with Atheism is it's inspired by past moral teachings. If you abandon all moral teachings you have no beliefs and so are a nihilist.
>saying that because the universe exist therefore it's eternal?
I was saying that it was created by something that's eternal, not that it's eternal itself.
You've got three choices, one of them you'd have to be an idiot to make as things can't create themselves, one which can't be disproved because it asserts the existence of a God, and one which could be disproved but apparently matches current models for the universe, which do, in fact, imply that the universe is eternal
As seen here:
>this little accident called existence (in the broadest meaning) is just an unique event destined to end
So, you are instead saying that the universe either was created by an outside influence, or it created itself. My argument for God was that it must be an outside influence.
>and factually incorrect.
I know that now, mate.
And my father works at nintendo. This is a thread about logic and making informed conclusions, not making up nonsense.
Where does everyone in this thread fall on this graph
(If its top right or bottom right, neck yourself)
Im agnostic athiest
lol no worries
it’s not exactly settled “science” but it is really fucking interesting! I personally think the hindu/brahmin/buddhist model of cosmology is right, which in the case of a three model torus it would technically be confirmation of their analogies
what’s crazy though, if you let me go off on a tangent here, is the Buddha had spoke of many planes of existence (consciousness) some independent from each other, some more knowing of leases planes but not higher planes, etc. think of it like your vs a bacteria, a bacteria is one it’s own plane of existence unaware of anything, where you are on another plane aware of the bacteria and many other forms as well. The Buddha went on to say that dieties like the christian or jewish God, or the many Gods in Hindu, would have a similar plane of existence whereby they were also aware of lesser planes (like humans)... it gets interesting though how the Buddha claimed these “Gods” have very very long lifespans, so long that they could become egotistical and believe that they are the creators of lesser planes (like humans) and their correspondence with humans would lead to human worshippers. However the Buddha claimed that once the universe contracted, everything was reset, and that all beings from all planes are smooshed into a single plane, until expansion and then slowly over eons the planes become scattered again and the cycle repeated.
/end
Bee awoken youtube.com
Saying that if something exist someone created is such a simplistic way of thinking, first I would like to know what you define as "existence", and second that same circular argument of a creator doesn't answer why you think the universe (or your shitty God) are eternal, what is eternity anyway? Can you prove eternity exist? Or are you keep using the same arguments and expect different answers, you fucking Abbo?
The right hand side, mate.
That's pretty interesting, mate.
>If you abandon all moral teachings you have no beliefs and so are a nihilist.
Thats not what he is tho
>The few people who have built a somewhat rational coherent Atheist worldview generally throw out the whole idea of Morality/Ethics and adopt a morally neutral worldview, because without God, Good and Evil are purely subjective opinions of preferences for every single person.
>morally neutral worldview
A nihilists is someone that completely diaregards all morals in the belief that nothing matters and there is no point in chaining yourself to the wall with morals and you should do whatever you damn well please, however thats not what has been said here, what he said was that a rational atheist built a moral system on a neutral world view on what is bad or good in a logical view instead of a religious view, meaning that there are still morals to be had therefore completely negating any though that he could be a nihilist
>tfw the universe will get so big that it rips itself apart in an infinite series of big bangs, creating an infinite number of new universes
>constantly and infinitely expanding and infinitely iterating amongst a sea of infinite universes
>Saying that if something exist someone created is such a simplistic way of thinking
I didn't say something had to create it. All I said was it couldn't have created itself, as such an act would occur after the universe was in existence and therefore would be bound to the same laws that we can observe.
All atheists are nihilists imo senpai
Define EXISTENCE.
Human understanding of the world is as limited to us as is rocket science to ant
Undoubtefly there exists at some time beings we could call gods, but arguing whether a single region in the world is right is laughable
Humans, life itself could been created by whim of a supercreature
>define: (gasp) EXISTENCE!!!
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
the second one. Our universe, the realm of existence that we can observe is objective, and so it exists.
>All atheists are nihilists
You just went full retard, never go full retard
>same laws
This is another HUGE leap in logic, you actually are admitting that you don't know how the universe was 'before" it's creation yet you assume it had to be bound by the same "rules", laughable.
>All atheists are nihilists
Also thats an absolute, and (ironically because this is an absolute as well) only the left and idiots think in absolute
>Implying atheists, people who believe in no objective but physical reality, could believe that morals are also objective
Bretty sure they can't
>'before" it's creation yet you assume it had to be bound by the same "rules"
I said AFTER creation, you illiterate beaner. I'm saying that you're either implying the universe made itself or it was made before it was the universe by something else.
Yes certainly our universe exists in the physical sense of the word (at least in a way) but what of the consciousness of observers themselves?
the universe is infinite and through odds and chance EVERYTHING exists including god. Bible says don't worship any other gods not I'm the only god.
So in order to something to exist it must be "alive" and be objectively observable?
So are you denying God now?
existence - having the qualities of impermanence, a beginning and an ending. Without permanence.
>we can conclude there is an "eternal" God which exists outside of time that we experience.
So where did he come from?
3/10 troll harder newfag.
>only the left and idiots think in absolute
Only a sith deals in absolutes, you mean.
>what about observers?
We can measure brain activity, can't we?
>So in order to something to exist it must be "alive"
Fucking hell cunt. The definition said OR not AND. Go back to Nicuraga, you deplorable.
>>Implying atheists, people who believe in no objective but physical reality, could believe that morals are also objective
>Bretty sure they can't
Implying that just because i don't believe in a god means that i dont have any morals either, entirely false, you don't have to be religious to be moral, remember what i said about absolutes
>Without permanence.
Physics says otherwise, mate
>So where did he come from?
ETERNAL
Which is possible because he exists OUTSIDE of time. Which is possible because scientists believe that TIME ITSELF began at the big bang.
the big crunch is something else entirely. and it has been all but proven to be false.
You are implying that whatever come After or before the " creation" of this universe is bound by the same "laws" idiot.
So either the universe doesn't exist or it isn't eternal.
And neither apply to God you fucking aborigen, the only evidence of God that you have is your delusion of how existence works.
no its fucking not
god isnt real soooooo... youre dumb
You can't even define what is eternity or what makes the universe God eternal you fucking hack.
>Being told how the universe works by someone who believes books written by sheep herders 1500 years ago
+1
The limits of what we don't know have been shrinking for centuries. We know how life evolved, how the galaxies and stars and planets formed.
But we don't understand everything. Perhaps we never will. But just as "God" was a bad explanation for rainbows at a time when we did not understand them, "God" is a bad explanation for how the present configuration of the universe came to be, 16 billions ago.
"God" is a bad explanation because it tells you nothing, it makes no novel predictions, it gives no power of understanding and prediction.
Look, cunt. Ex nihlo can't be disproved, it just seems silly.
>We can measure brain activity, can't we?
Of course but is that brain activity it self forming consciousness and sapience or is it simply another biological function, is there nothing greater than that to consciousness, is sentience merely an evolutionary quirk, an accident with no meaning behind it? If you believe that we are merely this ephemeral crude organic matter destined to be born for no reason and then to die forever for no reason how could you not be a nihilist?
because nihilism is different from believing im magical bullshit. You can be an athiest and still find meaning, beauty and love in a universe with out a creator.
>"""""intelligent""""" life on a spec of dust rotating around 1 of 300billion stars in 1 of 100billion galaxies i the observable univers believe they know how it started and what it all means
kek
There is nothing wrong with infinite regress, this is a meme by idiot christcucks that never studies transfinite mathematics.
Fin, are you making a purposefully fallacious argument or do you genuinely believe there is no direct connection between your brain and your consciousness?
My point is that thinking about existence using such archaic concepts as "creator", "existence" or "eternity" is stupid, you are setting up the rules of how you want to look at the universe, like predispositining yourself to think about an "eternal Creator", human constructions used to make a broad definition of the "reality" we manage to perceive, as I said laughable, keep your "God" and yourself to you, I've already know where your "thinking" is.
>If you believe the universe is eternal then the universe must exist in a cycle.
No.
Often athiests are mistaken as non believers however the true athiests who know what that actually means believe what they're able to prove, and are open to all beliefs and posibilities to be explored!
>the bunch of memories of learned behavior and instinct that push a body forward somehow create a magical being called "self"
Nah.
Of course not, you could hardly be conscious without a brain, but is the brain organ itself the origin source, the generator of that consciousness or is there more to it than that.
Could you have consciousness without a brain?
>inb4 a decentralized argument
Still a brain. You could make a grey matter system the size of a small moon if you had the capability.
well it isnt a receiver which is where youre trying to go with that. people who have Alzheimer's, Strokes and severe brain damage can attest to that point.
>anyone preaching a faith
You are begging the question of his existence. And Rome was very tolerant as long as you did not threaten the government. The official policy on Christianity was "don't ask don't tell".
The Gospels show no signs of having been translated from Aramaic.
Face it, your "savior" did not even exist.
Even on the slim chance he existed we have virtually no reliable information about him.
> sermon on the mount
later fabrication
> eucharist
later development
> resurrection
just plan made up
But if you did make that moon, how do you know it won't be just worthless grey matter or if it will actually form awareness. If i copied your brain 100% perfectly right now and hook it in a system to keep it alive and put it in a jar would that brain be another conscious you?
its entirely likely Paul made up the entire thing.
I have heard of the receiver theory but that is not specifically what i mean here, if i did then i certainly would have used that term to describe it. I simply do not know what the true nature of awareness is.
No, it would be a copy.