How can the Big Bang be possible without an unmoved mover?
>en.m.wikipedia.org
It seems impossible to have something come from ABSOLUTE nothing, and it seems equally improbable that there has always been something. Something is amiss Sup Forums, what am I not getting?
You're not getting we have ZERO workable data from anytime before the Big Bang, and it's impossible to build any theory based on ZERO data.
It's like saying what do you think about my mustache, does it match my shirt user?
Meaningless question that is unproductive and unnecessary, much like religion. Humanity needs to drop this baggage of trying to master the universe and learn to live in it.
So do you know about the theory we’re actually an incredibly complex 3D shadow of a 2D data representation stretched across the surface of a black hole?
You don't have a mustache
It may have been a singularity at one point, but that's all we know.
The god theory is just as valid but I love to fantasize about the true nature of our reality.
EVERYTHING
IS
NOTHING
INFINITE POSSIBILITY
9 = 0 = 9
Exactly, something cannot come from nothing without outside help
Therefore God exists
He might be powerful but not omniscient. Possibly has no idea of our existence within the universe he created.
Virtual particle congregation dynamics during space time expansion. Time is a constantly flowing linear stream how could you tell the ocean from yourself if you were a dihydrogen monoxide atom?
At a minimum were trillions of quadrillions levels deep in simulations within simulations. The question goes back much much further than the big bang. Consider this however: 1 and 0 are everywhere and so are 2(10)and 3(11) and so on. Fractals emerge naturally at all scales. Fractals go through an infinite amount of complexity. Think about this.
what shirt?
learning to live in the universe requires understanding moron. Metaphysical questions are paramount to philosophy, without it you are unable to progress.
If god exists why do niggers?
Big bang happen from the structure that bigger than that
the bigger and more complex structure of multi dimensions which you can't imagine
while you have a excellent point the more disturbing thing is the lack of the term billion in OPs info pic. WTF is really going on her. who the hell says thousands of millions of years? you trying to make me do math so your time line doesnt look more laughable
any one know anything about vacuums? any one ? any one? they are cold. they can actually freeze a fluid or be used to cool a fluid if not maintained constantly like in a phase change water cooler for your pc
how the fuck is it going to be 18 degrees a "thousand million" years after the source of the initial reaction in a vacuum?!?!?!? i want some answers black science man ... if that is your real name
same reason all the other animals exist, but it is our duty to preserve them and even aid them onward into our new world.
Sage! Fuck this shit bait thread! Religion should be banished from Sup Forums and kept on /x/ where you can discuss it to your hearts content. This is not even vaguely related to politics!
Well even with ZERO FUNCTIONAL DATA people will make guesses, and debate the result with literally nothing to compare it too, unless we make micro universe one day... for all we know we're a pocket universe
/thread
I'm pretty sure that the theory goes that the universe came from a singularity of infinite mass. It didn't come from *nothing* but rather the mass held all the ingredients to cause the big bang.
Well you could test that theory but I doubt you'd like to spend eternity in a black hole.
We're going to end up there anyway.
Exponentially expanding event horizons*
What an interesting diagram. Have any nore like it?
Why does everything need a beginning ? Just because our lives have time constraints doesn't mean the universe needs to.
Big bang / big crunch x infinity
I don't know much about the Bing Bang stuff but I do know scientists say life came from non-life. Literally the stupidest thing i've ever heard.
>vacuums are cold
That does sound pretty stupid. It's a good thing I didn't say that, my face sure would be red!
Burger education every time lmao
>something cannot come from nothing without outside help
God is then.. what?
a. nothing - it doesn't exist
b. something - it must come from outside help, therefore it cannot really be a god
All life on earth is just various examples of the alien virus we know of as DNA attempting to create better and better hosts so that it can escape this planet. All life on earth began when the ship or asteroid carrying the virus landed on Earth. The real question is where DNA came from originally.
This is chicken shit. Before it existed in another form that was not shit.
also
c. everything - wut?
It's more of a nothing that does exist, except not physically. Imagination is the same way: it exists from the viewpoint of the imaginer, but has no physical existence. The answers you are looking for are known but secret. They have to be discovered. Me telling you isn't enough to convince you.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Rules, there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE nothing, there is always quantum foam
RNA, came before DNA, DNA is actually a recent adaptation.
Bong education people, can only parrot
This is a difficult concept for human to fathom but, our minds cannot comprehend everything. Just like all matter, there are limitations.
Our universe is a black hole
It is the only thing else that starts from a singularity and time is warped by the universe the black hole is in
Just think about it user. Its the cold hard truth
>Big bang.
>Nothing shitted out everything all at once for no reason and that made you for no reason leading to you shitposting on a Hungarian chair sniffing forum so you waste your life and never reproduce ending the bloodline that supposedly carried on for billions of years, for no reason.
>This is more credible than a creator
Pick one.
1. Nothing continues to be nothing. Nothing happens.
2. Nothing turns into something. NEETS read shitty philosophy books and emote.
psst, hey kid. Have you tried - dividing yourself by zero?
it wasnt absolute nothing.
my prediction is that all of the shit in our universe was in some super-super-massive black hole (which we incorrectly assume is a singularity with zero dimensions, but thats another topic)
then something else collided with it which caused it to "supernova" or "big bang" into what we see today
0 isn't real.
There are literally experiments proving that basic pre-cell live entitites can form in a pre-historical Earth coditions: ozone, water, cloud atmospheric electricity, voclanos and constant changing lead to birth of life.
But surely thats too hard for you so you can invent some god and thing he did errything.
Some burgers are trying, lol.
The thing is "the creator created us because it is eternal and terrible bored" (ie the Terry Davis theory), while true, isn't much more optimistic.
>it wasnt absolute nothing.
lol
How can God exist without an unmoved mover?
You fucking moron.
>life should have come from magic
>atheists: we don't know
>theists: so shut the fuck up
/thread
*Thermophiles
chemically fixating bacteria most likely.
in order to master the universe one must first ascertain whether it is fundamentally nothing or something, and if the latter one would be behooved to specify exactly which thing it is. Duh.
Dont worry about it. We aren't smart enough to understand shit like that. Believe in God or whwtever if that makes you comfortable.
No there isn't, all experiments have been fruitless. In perfect laboratory conditions at that. Do you realize your saying lightning struck mud and created a living thing?
it's ill advised to post pictures of yourself on nepalese sandal knitting forums
Does OP's picture suggest that we are the center of the universe?
This. "Nothing" (No-Thing) is a human concept and so is "Something" (Some-Thing).
The biggest problem we have with explaining the Universe is that we're constrained by linguistic concepts that actually have no basis in reality.
THAT
The big bang doesn't even come from nothing. It is widely believed that our universe isn't the only one, but rather, one of many that are concurrent that were "big banged" into existence by a greater, much larger larger part of something greater than the space we know.
Rubbish. Our linguistic concepts are all based on something, unless you are a pitiable and desperate post-modernist. All our scientific knowledge of the world is based on such concepts. Matter and vacuum are provable, and nothing and something would have real concrete meanings in the context of the pre-universe
>what am I not getting?
That this argument is as old as time itself, so what makes you think you can solve it? Either you believe in a prime mover, or you don't believe, or you neither believe nor disbelieve and choose to refrain from making a decision until you see further evidence (i.e. never)
This is the point when the entire attempt to explain how things came about turns into the thing always was but it was small in relative terms. And we never actually explained where things came from because we can't.
It, came from nothing and then bam, and then things.
Why is solipsism untrue? If you were the only conscious being you would be God but God is all powerful and you are not, therefore you are not God and this is not a solipsistic universe. But what if you are God having a dream? If God was not able to control his dream then he would not be all powerful and therefore wouldn't exist because he could not create himself.
Everything designed in our experience has a designer, and every body in motion is being acted on by some force. Every law has a lawgiver. Every creative expression has a creator. Describe to me God's form, and how he 'moves', and I will then comment on how he requires a 'mover'
Black hole reaches terminal density and creates a new universe.
Having nothing in our current set of rules implies somethiing.
Having nothing is timeless; but time goes forwards, and with time comes space.
It's inevitable that the universe springs into existance.
And don't think "why didn't it explode some other time", again- it literally is time existing that causes this. When the universe is at that nothing point, there is no forwards or backwards. Time is just... well, like travelling at the speed of light, time factors out completely.
Perhaps nothing existed for an infinite amount of time. So then shit started to happen.
The universe just expands after a big bang, black holes get massive and eventually pull everything back into a supersupersupermassive black hole that then collapses on itself resulting in another big bang and the process starts all over again.
Ok.
Who's that mover's mover?
Who's that mover's mover's mover?
Who's that mover's mover's mover's mover?
ad infinitum
ok. that might be the biggest problem for you, but the things or lack thereof are not important. It is the beginning of life that is the mystery. Suppose there were particles and atoms and then a big bang as opposed to nothing and then a bang. It's no difference. What banged the life into the first living thing? that is the mystery of nothing. Because you look at a rock and you see it has no life. So it has 0 (a totally real number) in the life energy. Now tell me how big of an explosion will be needed to bang life into the rock?
The materials and process needed to create the big bang clearly fucking happened so we could learn if we maybe reversed engineered it.
electricity creates life you dingus
>How can the Big Bang be possible without an unmoved mover?
Our Jewish lord started it all.
So solipsism is self-negating because you wouldn't be God but would be God at the same time. Why am I going on about solipsism? Because people call it an unverifiable hypothesis.
I just hope that after I die there is nothing and it stays that way.
...
Then there is the first cause. Aristotle understood that 2500 years ago, but what can you expect from a leaf. Motion requires a mover, but a mover doesn't require a mover. But its amazing how ejaculatory fedoras get with this non issue.
What, Donal Drumpf?
Do Irish enjoy talking to themselves? If we can posit an absolute form of something, this implies that it somewhere exists, otherwise why would we conceive of it? Before you start talking about teapots, all imagination of man and conceivable things to his mind almost invariably contain real concepts that are either concrete or extrapolated
Niggers exist because they are lesser beings . Many people will go to hell because they did not love their neighbour , this also means niggers
Generally, our perception of the universe and everything is still based on information, which really means we are really guessing anything physical exists at all.
If we say imagionation/information is not based on the physical world - any theory (with or without god) is possible, but grasping/realizing/understanding it is then really meaningless.
I'm not against the God hypothesis. To me it would be just as puzzling as the nonexistence of God.
I'll be there with you friend. This is a strange dream regardless.
Perhaps the universe just imploded into a point, and the blew up again?
Information is real. Our depictions of that information are real to an extent, otherwise they wouldn't be shown to work. We couldn't theorize about the universe and perform experiments or even basic daily tasks if our conceptualization of reality was false. Our perception of the universe may actually be more profound than postmodernists allow, the deconstructionalists. The brain seems to be able to process a more wholistic view of reality than those who try in their conscious minds to break down reality into little bits ever could. Also nearly all physical constants require (actually I think all) a point of observation, A, and relativity only works from a subjective veiwpoint, as does quantum mechanics. There is significant evidence that God has hardwired consciousness into the universe as a physical necessity and structural feature.
Existence is more puzzling really than non-existence, but here we are.
What I don't understand is why there had to be nothing at some point? Seems tinted by our own mortality.
perhaps cause and effect didn't correlate strictly forwards in time; and our entire existance is the externality of a paradox of a particle causing it's own past existence?
And yet, it is.
You simply choose to omit how many questions "a creator" poses.
The approach "let's just claim that there is a super being that does that kind of thing", clearly defies logic and carries no useful data no matter how much you analyze your super-being, and it's easy to see why — no information means no meaningful analysis is possible.
But that's just for purely abstract discussion, in actuality one also has to consider the organized religion stance. So, "a creator" makes sense to you, in a context of the universe, does it also make sense to you that such a creator sends 'himself' on some wacky jewish adventures in a minuscule fraction of his creation? Would the maker of the universe be upset/worried if you forgot to put a kike-on-a-stick around your neck this morning? And that's not even getting into what cattle-dinglers believe.
Does it still make sense to you? Because personally i'll take the Big Bang. But my point is if you are more of a clever dick who believes he can "adapt" some of the bits of religion that he likes and disregard the rest, somehow ending up with a consistent picture, i won't be the one taking issue with it, organized religion will, sooner or later.
no god that created dindus can be good
well for starters you're assuming you perceive the universe the same way as a creator; which could be blatantly false and misguiding your questioning.
Perhaps earth isn't a miniscule fraction of his creation; and we are just simply unaware of how this is.
A mover does require its own mover, though
Are you retarded?
It doesn't matter what you believe the cause is, there is a point at which the quest for knowledge ends, and that is around the point of the big bang. I believe that no order comes from disorder, that energy doesn't come from a vacuum. Essentially, I don't believe in pure miracles. A disordered big bang is effectually a miracle more miraculous than anything in the major religions. At this point, the rational observer must humbly seek information from the source of that order, energy and creativity.
No, Earth is pretty miniscule compared to the rest of the Universe. While we haven't gotten the full picture of it's size we've certainly seen a lot.
No it doesn't. Why would it? In an infinitely regressive chain, there is always a first number or point.
are you a retard or did you just not read what I wrote?
...which requires its own mover