What's the point of living a restrictive life of lawfulness and obedience if we all lose consciousness for eternity...

What's the point of living a restrictive life of lawfulness and obedience if we all lose consciousness for eternity when our individual time is over?

What's the point of anything for that matter?

Only one way to find out

There is no point.
People like to think that there is some deep point to existence, but there isn't.

You live, you die; that's all there is.

To get money for drugs, hookers and other things to enjoy this short existence

It all depends on what you believe. Tell me this much; why do YOU believe that there is no afterlife?

You only lose awareness at some point.. you exist for a time after death depending on how much yang energy you accumulate.. after a time you will dissipate and all the energy that was you becomes other things.. the point is a mystery.. but it seems ascending out of this state of being is something to achieve.. and there are nothing but distractions here from that.. we all feel an incompleteness that we try to fill with weird shit.. we are incomplete beings and that is why we must take energy from other beings to prolong our lives.

> Why does someone believe a claim others make with no evidence is not true

Don't think you understand how formal logic works

There's no point in anything. This may sound scary at first, but ultimately it's liberating. There's no heaven or hell, no man in the sky watching you commit sins and planning your torture or judging you, or anything. Ultimately, a finite amount of consciousness is what gives your life value (only to yourself, someone else's life means nothing to you unless they are close to you).

what is 'afterlife'?

Do you understand the concept of entropy?

Because that's ho logic works. There is no evidence that there is an afterlife, so until such evidence is made available, a logical person is to assume that there is no afterlife. It's impossible to disprove the existence of something, that's why a lack of evidence to the contrary of something's existence doesn't prove existence.

I do, the real question is, do you? Because your question would indicate that you do not

The ascension of your consciousness through other dimensions. A "heaven," or "Hell," a "Purgatory." A different state of being that we could not achieve while our soul, or mind, or whatever is trapped here, in this vessel.

Entropy states that the universe constantly spirals into chaos. This is what it seeks, and what it finds by nature, the laws of physics cause it to expand and disassemble.

A good way to see this put into effect is to place a stack of Jenga blocks on a table. Eventually, those blocks fall, or move, or are thrown across the room. why is this? Because the Universe does not WANT stability. The only way that something is made stable or sustainable is through outside help. A suburban house left without care for twenty years will crack and grow mold, moss, and vines to be reclaimed by nature. Left for fifty years, it will surely crumble, yet places like the Whitehouse for example, are hundreds of years old and still in good condition. Why is this? Maintenance.

Hello fellow traveler.. we meet in strange places.

> Eventually, those blocks fall, or move, or are thrown across the room

Dude, they'll eventually fall (In like 80 years) after the wood rots and decays and falls apart but they'll never be thrown across the room are you fucking retarded?

And what does this have to do with the afterlife?

(I'm really looking forward to your pseudo-scientific bullshit spin on trying to make this your great evidence for the afterlife btw)

Continuing, do you know what the probability of our universe existing in its current state is? ZERO. If there had been any slight tweaks to the laws of gravity, heat, radiation, or any other fundamental force, it would have crumbled within the first moments of existence. The same goes for Earth, and life itself. Even with multiple eternities the chance of us existing is ZERO. It should not, and logically could not have happened, but it did anyway. Coincidence is never this strong.

> an argument for the existence of god based on entropy
That's how I know you don't understand science. Go learn science if for no other reason than that there will be one less theist around. The universe is crumbling (though this is a vast oversimplification of entropy, the concept of which you clearly don't understand), it's just really really really big, so it takes a shitload of time for it to crumble. This isn't really that hard.

To continue our species.
And in the meanwhile, enjoy your fucking time being alive.
You only have this short time, so make the most of it.

>Earthquake
>Tsunami
>Tornado
>Earth explodes

It will be thrown across the room.

Because of the sheer number of variables any unique outcome of the universe has a probability of about zero of happening. Why don't you actually think about things before just regurgitating them? It isn't coincidence, it's just the way it is. Any unique outcome should not 'logically' (not that you know what that actually means) have happened because the probability is ~0.

> do you know what the probability of our universe existing in its current state is? ZERO

Sauce on the mathematics for this.

> If there had been any slight tweaks to the laws of gravity, heat, radiation, or any other fundamental force, it would have crumbled within the first moments of existence.

This only applies to our *specific* universe existing under our specific laws. This argument ignores the possibility that if the universe had different laws of physics they would work under a different model.

It also ignores the possibility that the big bang could *only* result in the current laws of physics as they are now, which would make the odds of the universe existing 100% btw

> The same goes for Earth, and life itself

This is just objectively false, there is a "golden range" for earth to exist in and still support life, you could drastically change the conditions of earth and still support our current life. You are just objectively wrong here, which is adding more and more to my idea that you have a very poor grasp of science and the other concepts you are trying to fumble your way into an argument.

>Earthquake
>Tsunami
>Tornado
>Earth explodes

But none of those have to do with entropy you stupid nigger

That's

> Geology
> More geology
> Meteorology
> A hypothetical situation

You are confusing the scientific concept of entropy with the metaphysical concept of fate you goddam ignoramus

So why did ours happen?
Why hasn't Earth or the universe crumbled inward on itself?
Why haven't we crashed into any of the asteroids in our solar system yet?
Every day our very existence defies all probability.

> Argument from entropy mixed with the argument of design based on complexity/unlikelihood of existence

Douglas Adams perfectly answered your "The universe was designed, it couldn't have been a coincidence" folly

> "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

Why does there have to 'be a point'?

>
>That's how I know you don't understand science. Go learn science if for no other reason than that there will be one less theist around. The universe is crumbling...
You retard. You tell him to go learn science, then back it up with "the universe is crumbling" kek til death.

> Why

Asking "why" is a fallacy

> Why hasn't Earth or the universe crumbled inward on itself?

Science explains this pretty well

> Why haven't we crashed into any of the asteroids in our solar system yet?

It also explains this

> Every day our very existence defies all probability.

No, no it doesn't, you just kinda dumb

Wow. The retard levels just keep growing...

This.

Dude. Go read a fucking book. Brian Cox. Stephen Hawking. Anything. Fml

>Sauce on the mathematics for this
Learn any basic astronomy or physics.

>This only applies to our *specific* universe existing under our specific laws. This argument ignores the possibility that if the universe had different laws of physics they would work under a different model. It also ignores the possibility that the big bang could *only* result in the current laws of physics as they are now, which would make the odds of the universe existing 100% btw
The fact is that our universe is the one that exists despite the fact that literally any other universe could exist, and despite the fact that any slight tweak would have completely destroyed the chance for ours to exist at all. It's too coincidental. Besides that, our universe always has the chance to crumble and recede at different rates and there's always a very real chance that it might not exist an hour from now.

>This is just objectively false, there is a "golden range" for earth to exist in and still support life, you could drastically change the conditions of earth and still support our current life.
Look at the specifications of life on Earth. The variations and complexity. It isn't just bacteria or amoebas that exist, you the multiple kingdoms, vast amounts of species, huge mammals, small lizards, and a great number of plants. Besides that, most forms of life rely on others to exist. It's all about probability, and yes, bacterial and simple life may exist on other planets, but nothing like a reptile or bird or anything of the such.
>But none of those have to do with entropy you stupid nigger
Force that causes change in the universe
Doesn't involve change in the universe.
Sure.

>What's the point of living a restrictive life of lawfulness and obedience if we all lose consciousness for eternity when our individual time is over?
>
>What's the point of anything for that matter?
The only point of living by the law is to conform to a system that rewards you with a paycheck and doesnt lock you behind bars when you dont meet their moral code.
The only point of anything is the point that YOU give it. Yes, there is no other point. Some try to immortalise themselves, whether by art or politics or murder or whatever. You have to give your life a point, otherwise it is pointless.

Eventually it goes back up into the sky, and falls somewhere else after it's done its where it is. There is a point to it you twat, life in that area wouldn't exist without that puddle.

It's called life you stupid faggot. You think you're an Alpha? No, that's why you contemplate life like a little bitch.

> Learn any basic astronomy or physics.

No, I want the actual sauce on your maths, show your working.

You can't say the "Odds of the universe existing are ZERO" and not back that up, because if that was true it would mean either

A: We don't exist and this is a fever dream of a autistic kid

B: Science proved god and the debate is over and we have objective indisputable proof

So show the math, that will be objective, indisputable proof.

> The fact is that our universe is the one that exists despite the fact that literally any other universe could exist, and despite the fact that any slight tweak would have completely destroyed the chance for ours to exist at all. It's too coincidental.

I'm gonna need you to read my argument again because I don't think you understood it, I already answered this.

> our universe always has the chance to crumble and recede at different rates

No, this is (again) objectively wrong, it expands at a constant rate and decays at a constant rate, these rates can't change, so you're wrong. Again.

> there's always a very real chance that it might not exist an hour from now

Again, no there isn't.

> Look at the specifications of life on Earth. The variations and complexity. It isn't just bacteria or amoebas that exist, you the multiple kingdoms, vast amounts of species, huge mammals, small lizards, and a great number of plants. Besides that, most forms of life rely on others to exist. It's all about probability, and yes, bacterial and simple life may exist on other planets, but nothing like a reptile or bird or anything of the such.

Again, wrong, life in it's current form on earth could exist in a vastly different number of scenarios, that's what the "golden ratio" is, a range of areas that our exact version of life could still prosper in. You are just objectively wrong here.

> Force that causes change in the universe
> Doesn't involve change in the universe.

That's not what entropy is you fucking moron.

Steven Hawking, the man who is quoted with "Because there is a law such as gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
A quote that explains nothing, but simply tries to sound smart.
"Bread is here because bread has crusts."
Pretty much the same quote there.

> You didn't understand the saying

You're making a prime case for religious people being ignorant and slow.

You're misrepresenting and misinterpreting massive amounts of science, talking as if you understand the concepts but what you say clearly demonstrates you don't and all the whole being unable to actually comprehend the counter arguments put back towards you.

You're really doing more harm than good.

1. Most, not all, quantum and standard model physicists agree our universe is one of an infinite number.
2. Nobody knows what life is like on other planets, your speculation that it wont be any kind of evolved lifeform is exactly that- merely speculation. Odds are in fact it will be an advanced technology, as other civilizations may have had up to a 4 billion year head start on our own.

Only beta's consider whether one is alpha or beta.

Some people would say that 80 years of being content is greater than 25 years of hedonism.

Also, some people would say that seeing their family grow around them is the greatest pleasure one can imagine.

So, there's that.
I guess it's about whether you want to play a risky short game or a safe long game.

>
>
>> our universe always has the chance to crumble and recede at different rates
>
>No, this is (again) objectively wrong, it expands at a constant rate and decays at a constant rate, these rates can't change, so you're wrong. Again.
>
Incorrect. The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Basic cosmology there.

So OP, did u get your answer?!

I can't give you the absolute math, because it's almost impossible to do considering all variables. Millions upon millions of numbers that basically add out to "No, this isn't possible."

>No the universe expands at a constant rate and decays at a constant rate.
No, not really. Gravity isn't even really "constant." The universe on a grand scale, is malleable.
>Again, wrong, life in it's current form on earth could exist in a vastly different number of scenarios, that's what the "golden ratio" is, a range of areas that our exact version of life could still prosper in. You are just objectively wrong here.
It's not really possible for life as complex as the life on our Earth to exist elsewhere, with multiple ecosystems and such. If it was, I'm sure that it would at least be possible to find other forms of simple life on other planets within the observable universe, and yet we have found none.
>Entropy, which states that "The universe constantly changes" has nothing to do with universal change.
Okay.

Then where in the Hell is literally any evidence for their existence?

As yet, there is none, which should come as absolutely no surprise when the sheer size of the universe is factored in.

> I can't give you the absolute math

So, to clarify, you have no sauce on your claim?

> Millions upon millions of numbers that basically add out to "No, this isn't possible."

Then POST THE FUCKING SAUCE

> No, not really. Gravity isn't even really "constant."

You misunderstand these subjects so hard. Gravity is a constant, it is just at different strengths in different areas, but the strength of it is dependent on certain factors, it is a constant.

> The universe on a grand scale, is malleable.

No it's not, also your "gravity" example has nothing to do with your false claim that the universe has a " chance to recede and crumble at different rates"

That's objectively wrong, and your gravity example is irrelevant

> It's not really possible for life as complex as the life on our Earth to exist elsewhere

Again, wrong, I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp as I've explained it 3 times.

THERE IS A RANGE WHERE OUR EXACT COMPLEXITY OF LIFE COULD EXIST. IT IS NOT ONE SPECIFIC SET OF VALUES.

> >Entropy, which states that "The universe constantly changes" has nothing to do with universal change.
> Okay.

This is intentionally misrepresenting your argument to save face.

You said entropy caused tsunamis, earthquakes and hurricanes. It doesn't. That's not what entropy is. That's what I'm arguing.

Dude, you're fucking uneducated as fuck, you're bringing up all these scientific principles and you literally don't understand any of them.

Go take a fucking college physics class before making these kinds of arguments.

This wouldn't help find anything

You think.

> I can't give you the absolute math, because it's almost impossible to do considering all variables. Millions upon millions of numbers that basically add out to "No, this isn't possible."


You're confusing "Wow, this exact scenario is really unlikely" with "Me predicting this exact scenario is really unlikely"

The fact is, while some situations seem unlikely as fuck something had to occur.

Take, for example, the lottery. It's super unlikely to win it, but someone will. So you're confusing

"Wow, it was so unlikely I would win the lottery, god must have blessed me" with "wow, aren't I lucky that I won the lottery, but someone had to after all"

Want to see an amazing, improbable, super unlikely event that potentially could never happen again?

Go grab a standard deck of playing cards. Shuffle them. Spread them out.

Do you know what the odds of them appearing in that exact order are?

1 in 52?

1 in 104?

Nah fam, the odds of you getting that exact order right now are 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000

AND WAIT, OH MY GOD, YOU JUST GOT THAT ORDER. BUT IT WAS SO UNLIKELY, CLEARLY GAWD HAS CAUSED THIS ORDER

This is just you not understanding how probability works. Sure, the odds of THIS EXACT THING happening is low. But the odds that some exact thing had to happen is basically 100%

You had a super low chance of getting that order of cards, nobody could have predicted that order. But you were guaranteed to get some order.

Same as life on earth, yeah, life being on this particular planet in this particular solar system in this particular galaxy in this area of the universe etc are super low. But again, the it was pretty much 100% guaranteed to happen somewhere.

You don't understand probability just like you don't understand entropy.

Stop listening to William Lane Craig, that dude's a fucking moron.

>So, to clarify, you have no sauce on your claim?
Not a specific one, but I also don't have sauce on who came up with 2 + 2 = 4.
>You misunderstand these subjects so hard. Gravity is a constant, it is just at different strengths in different areas, but the strength of it is dependent on certain factors, it is a constant.
Arguably. Gravity itself is still technically a theory, and is still under study.
>Again, wrong, I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp as I've explained it 3 times.

>THERE IS A RANGE WHERE OUR EXACT COMPLEXITY OF LIFE COULD EXIST. IT IS NOT ONE SPECIFIC SET OF VALUES.

Then where is it? Or literally any evidence for it within our observable universe?

>You said entropy caused tsunamis, earthquakes and hurricanes. It doesn't. That's not what entropy is. That's what I'm arguing.

If it's a force that causes change in the universe around it, then it involves entropy.

Awesome. Well said.

Alright, I get that some things are bound to happen, but you also have to understand that some things just can't. Our universe existing at all, in its current state or any other is less than 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000. It's kind of like that quantum theory statement that says "anything can happen at any time for no reason." If I hold my hand out in front of me for the rest of eternity, at what point will a sandwich appear? I don't care what kind of sandwich, or how its built, when will it happen? Never. Same goes for life, the universe, and everything else.

> but I also don't have sauce on who came up with 2 + 2 = 4.

Nobody came up with that, maths is an observation.

And you are dodging the question.

If you (Or someone) actually had a mathematical equation that proved there was an absolute 0% chance for the universe to exist that would be it. Debate over. Biggest news story in the history of the universe, no questions, everyone would live in peace and harmony.

And yeah, I'll grant that it could be a long as fuck equation so you can't post it here, but still, someone would have had to make it and some scientists would have had to check it, so if this was true the news would have got out

DEBATE OVER EVERYONE, SCIENTISTS PROVED THERE IS A ZERO PERCENT CHANCE OF THE UNIVERSE EXISTING WITHOUT GOD.

The fact that this hasn't been a news story means your equation doesn't exist. That's what I've been saying and that's what you don't seem to understand. Because you're pretty fucking dumb tbh.

> Gravity itself is still technically a theory,

Confirmed doesn't know literally anything about science.

> Then where is it?

Consider the size of the universe. Consider how long we've been looking. Consider suicide.

> Or literally any evidence for it within our observable universe?

We've found about 13 planets that could support our version of life in just our galaxy alone.

> If it's a force that causes change in the universe around it, then it involves entropy.

No, confirmed doesn't actually know what entropy is.

That's like saying if I talk and change someone's mind about what to get for dinner entropy caused them to want McDonalds and not Burger King. You are so fucking stupid it hurts.

>

>Arguably. Gravity itself is still technically a theory, and is still under study.

Wrong again. There is NO theory on gravity, yes it is still "under study", but if there were a theory- that theory is 99.99% fact. Its good that you have an interest in cosmology, but seriously, there's better ways to learn and/or spend time than arguing about things you dont quiet grasp yet.

> Our universe existing at all, in its current state or any other is less than 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000

Show that math. You've been asked about 8 times.

> but you also have to understand that some things just can't.

Sure, but your arguments don't prove that.

> It's kind of like that quantum theory statement that says "anything can happen at any time for no reason.

Literally never talk about science again.

> If I hold my hand out in front of me for the rest of eternity, at what point will a sandwich appear? I don't care what kind of sandwich, or how its built, when will it happen?

See above

> Never. Same goes for life, the universe, and everything else.

Equating the odds of a sandwich magically materializing in your hand with the odds of the big bang occurring means is a false analogy.

Also you're fucking retarded and don't understand science at all in case nobody's mentioned that.

>Consider the size of the universe. Consider how long we've been looking. Consider suicide.
Consider what we can see. (A lot.)
Since our existence as a species. (~10,000 to 1,000,000 years.)
Been there, done that, figured it wasn't worth it.

>We've found about 13 planets that could support our version of life in just our galaxy alone.
Do any of them actually have any signs of life?

>That's like saying if I talk and change someone's mind about what to get for dinner entropy caused them to want McDonalds and not Burger King.
That's butterfly effect, which applies to human interaction. What you're trying to say is basically that entropy is limited to the "big stuff," like expansion/recession of the universe, even though it broadly involves a lot of stuff.

>Show that math. You've been asked about 8 times.
Again, you can look at pretty much any aspect of physics or astronomy to figure it out. Better yet, how about you disprove it?

>Literally never talk about science again.
12 year old level insult

>Equating the odds of a sandwich magically materializing in your hand with the odds of the big bang occurring means is a false analogy.
Not really. They're both stupidly unlikely occurrences.

If nothing matters, then surviving doesn't matter either.
Kindness may be pointless, but cruelty is pointless too.

this

If I'm only going to live life once, I don't want to live it in jail, getting ass railed by niggers.

I think because karma. as in karma will catch up to us in this life and effect us or just wait till the next life to effect us. either that or nothing really matters and there are no morals. who even knows anymore

honestly. good point

that's one the most retarded opinion i've read all day.

but karma is just a fancy name for cause and effect

its just that the effects of our actions often cascade much further than we normally comprehend

> Consider what we can see. (A lot.)

We can see about 20% of the universe (We *CAN* see, not that we have) and even then most of that is blurry images

> Since our existence as a species. (~10,000 to 1,000,000 years.)

Wrong, since about 1960's when we were actually able to explore space

> Been there, done that, figured it wasn't worth it.

That's only because you're a fucking idiot who can't think things through logically,

> Do any of them actually have any signs of life?

Missing the point.

> That's butterfly effect,

No, that's the exact logic you used.

> like expansion/recession of the universe, even though it broadly involves a lot of stuff.

But not tornadoes, earthquakes and tsunamis

> Again, you can look at pretty much any aspect of physics or astronomy to figure it out.

Again, if people had and they had the equation this wouldn't be a question. What part don't you understand?

> Better yet, how about you disprove it?

Sure thing, show me the equation you have and I'll disprove it

> 12 year old level insult

Doesn't change the fact you've been misinterpreting the scientific concepts you've been using this entire argument

> Not really. They're both stupidly unlikely occurrences.

Nope, it's a false analogy, one is physically impossible, one is a low probability occurrence (According to you, but that you can't provide the math for)

False analogy, couldn't be clearer.

I dont think we just randomly pop out of pussy and then just die at the end.
I think the point of life is the life itself.
It's just a playing of the souls that are attached to the body, learning and expanding the knowledge through the 3D experience.
I think there is a place we go when we die. You should read 'Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon - Survival of Bodily Death'

The levels of autism are rising to incredible heights here. To the guy constantly calling the other an idiot what is the point in you even replying, he clearly won't change his mindset. And to the guy who is trying to prove god, why are you trying to prove it to a person who clearly doesn't care about any of that? One way you could see it is when he does finally die and is faced with god he can have a nice chat about this latter. Doesn't mean he will go to hell or something but he could prove it for himself then.

> One way you could see it is when he does finally die and is faced with god

> Implying

I do enjoy implying.

On one hand though you want him to use logic, yet you aren't using logic to realize he doesn't care about what you think and only is trying to change your perception on the matter.

> yet you aren't using logic to realize he doesn't care about what you think and only is trying to change your perception on the matter.

I'm aware he's not capable of changing his mind, but he does care and is trying to argue using science and logic. He is misrepresenting the science and using objectively bad logic, if he wants to believe in god fine, don't care.

But if he wants to try and say science proves god then he's gonna have to be able to back up his words. He can't, he just thinks he can. And while I could never disprove god to him (Can't prove a negative after all) I can prove his arguments wrong.

If people wanna say "I have faith" that's sweet, couldn't care less but when they try to argue like they have science on their side proving them right they can fuck right off and I'll happily embarrass them all day long.

if yu could get away with lawlessness and disobedience, and still live a good (pleasurable, healthy, log, fulfilling) life then there would be no point in being lawful and obedient.

point is that it is very unlikely that you can live a decent life and be a criminal/disobedient sort in any serious way for very long.

your life is much more likely to be better if you work within the system. yes work to change it, if theat would increase the goodness of life for you (and to get support, for others as well) but recognise that life is a social activity, and needs society to support it.

otherwise dies alone in a hole in the ground after struggling with self sufficiency and never being safe and secure and comfortable.

obvious, to anyone over the age of fifteen, I would have thought....

so just be like kira from jojo?

I would say good to you, but you're really only embarrassing yourself with this guy.\
>inb4 samefagging

If he's not using science correctly then there is no reason to even reply to him, for when you reply to him your showing that there is an argument to be had when he clearly, by missinterpretting science, is only bolstering the fact that is argument that he is starting is invalid.

Anyways continue, don't let me interrupt :^)

...

...