So the Universe undergoes rapid inflation

>So the Universe undergoes rapid inflation
>Expands to a trillion light years wide in a fraction of a second
>Hot particles and gas slowly cooling for millions of years
>Creates possibly infinite galaxies, stars, planets
>Several supernovas later our solar system is created
>Planets just sit there molten hot for millions of years
>Somewhere in this mess an infinitesimal ball of dirt follows the same processes of natural selection as everything else in the universe and leads to animated matter we call life
>Giant asteroids hit the planet for no reason, killing everything
>Volcanoes kill everything again just because
>The remaining creatures inhabit the planet for billions of years eventually developing into primates
>Creatures suffer for thousands of years struggling to survive
>2,000 years ago the creator of it all shows up in the desert and writes this

Really makes you think doesn't it?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=JTOMNkZJRao
youtube.com/watch?v=XaO_aH4cthg&index=1&list=PLebLAvrUbivauJRKwU7LHi8cmz6ZfWUHC
pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylemorphism#Thomistic_dualism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Not much point in writing a book for giant birds that are going to get space rocked desu.

explain consciousness

Rlly omaKSo u thanks o________________-O

John 13:34-35New International Version (NIV)

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Either GOD loves us, and wants us to love one another; or not user. The rest is filler.

Where did the universe come from before this magical expansion that "just happened"?

What was in the area the universe expanded into before the universe expanded into it?

Just enjoy it for what it is.
You have to be blind or stupid not to value what that book inspired great men to do.

We don't know.

OP sounds like a 'le epin black science man' redditor

It was fine until the last sentence so no, it didn't make me think at all :(

Ok, but you need to define consciousness first.

Common sense says the the Universe goes through recurring Big Bangs and Deaths. So before our universe, was another universe that existed and died. And that's not even getting into multiverse theory.

being aware of stuff

who cares? I mean, whatever was there has no influence over the current state of the universe which is all causal. so you're worshipping something , even if it exists , hasn't been relevant in billions of years.

>Common sense says the the Universe goes through recurring Big Bangs and Deaths
We have no way of knowing that. Don't make shit up.

Which one is your favorite g0d?

I prefer if you pick just one -- but two is allowed.

Select the one you like to worship best.

OK to tell why as well.

>Where did the universe come from before this magical expansion that "just happened"?
>What was in the area the universe expanded into before the universe expanded into it?
This shows the very simplistic mindset most people have

If a tree falls down in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

meta realization

me, myself and

Either the universe has always existed, or an outside source created it.

Physics and science can currently explain neither of those things. And, if they can, it means our current understanding is meaningless to begin with, since it can change... so basing your beliefs on it isn't very logical, no matter what the truth is.

There is only one God here

>don't make shit up he says
>believes a book of literal made up shit

We have no way of knowing. But string theory and the like points in that direction.

If it's not an endless recurrence of multiverse, then a simulation is more credible.

Those aren't very specific definitions.

So let's go with the official one:
Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

I don't see what's so special about this. Especially considering AI has already attained a very limited state of self-awareness.

It's just a natural step in the evolution of intelligence.

>believes a book of literal made up shit
Nice strawman buddy. I never said.

String theory is a mathematical theory not a scientific one, and it should not be taken seriously.

>atheists think this 'evolved' from a monkey

I just want to become a Christian monk somewhere in the mountains.

By praising Jesus I can't force me to kill myself and I'll live in peace while the world goes to shit.

Math is the foundation of all science you dumb fuck. All scientific theory is mathematic because the universe is mathematic.

And multiverse theory is scientific.


Also unrelated to your post, but I thought I'd post a source for the "AI have achieved consciousness" statement.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=JTOMNkZJRao

There is literally nothing special about it.

Cosmic background radiation indicates that the universe was "created", which supports the belief in a god.

look how the op cant go without words like >Creates created creatures

His soul says we are created the jews who designed his mind says we came out of nothing

>Math is the foundation of all science you dumb fuck
This is not true in at all. You should probably go back to school.

Many worlds does not necessarily mean the universe/multi-universe undergoes a cyclical process of birth and death. Again, we have no idea.

>Cosmic background radiation indicates that the universe was "created"
Not at all. It just means the universe was once in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Not sure if you're seriously this dense, or you're putting on a great show.

what

>he thinks esoteric symbolism stolen by the jews from the Egyptian and Mesopotamian mystery schools are to be taken literally!

you're thinking as much as the average mouth-breathing evangelical you think you're smarter than.

[Citation needed]

Cosmic background radiation does not indicate that at all. Quit making up shit. It only points as far back as the Big Bang down to the nanosecond, but nothing prior to, because nothing existed then. Thus, there is no evidence of anything.

All we know is that everything spawned into being from one particle expanding itself.

I'm ashamed to be your fellow burger.

You're right, because esoteric symbolism is nothing but a metaphor for the constalations and cycled of the sun.

Except it is you idiot. Science is mathematic because it requires experimentation, and math is used for proof because it's infallible.

Math is used for mathematical proofs. There is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Experimentation does not require mathematics. Merely noting qualitative observations is perfectly valid and just as scientific. Math is a tool scientists use, but it is not "the foundation of all science." That's retarded.

>hurr i don't have an explanation therefore i am going to insult you and not adress the question

or the frequency domain range in which radiation is a function and form therein came into being at some point from the mutation or evolution of some other, pre-extant domain range and/or dimension... but (You) merely measure it (and the rest of the frame wherein it resides as a phenomena which is in your ability TO measure) from the perspective of it being the measure of ALL THINGS.

It's silly really... but understandable as it's the best we can do with what we have/know at the moment... and TOO MUCH acknowledgement of chaotic uncertainty is scary... as you'd have to admit you truly know nothing.

This kills the Ego.

These questions are asked by people who base them on their extremely limited experiences on Earth. Barring a multiverse, the universe isn't expanding into anything. "Before" the big bang is more complicated

>Religion is mans earliest attempt to explain nature and morality.. it is nothing more, it is nothing less

And how in any way does this support your statement that
>hurr, string theory shouldn't be taken seriously because it's mathematic.

If anything, it proves me right. The nature of the universe is best expressed through math, and math has been used to accurately predict future discoveries perfectly. Especially Einstein's theory of relativity and everything after it. At this point, the common consensus is that Relativity is the perfect model of the universe, due to its accuracy.

So following this train of thought, how in the fuck is string theory not correct, but also less valid that scientifically disproven scriptures from 1000s of years ago that got the entire conception of the Universe totally wrong. Even at the stretch of a metaphor.

>You're right, because esoteric symbolism is nothing but a metaphor for the constalations and cycled of the sun.

For astrology... certainly.
But it's much more than that. Moreso how our "inner world" of thoughts, emotions and consciousness interplay with all of those cycles and forms.

I personally believe we will not truly progress until we can find a creative way to marry the two. The founders of modern math such as Euclid and Pythagoras knew the importance of this.

There's a reason the graphic of Euclid's 47th proposition was so prevalent in many older rites of Freemasonry.

>Jesus wrote the bible
Atheists really don't know what the fuck they're talking about, do they?

>isolating yourself from the world
Missing the whole point of christianity right there.

This is fine. I can't argue nor disagree with this, since I do believe in Spirituality.

Religion and the Bible are nothing but misguiding horseshit that blind people from the true nature of the universe and their own spirituality. It is a corrupt institution used for control. If you people were truly "red pilled" you wouldn't be defending one of the biggest lies to ever exist.

That last part isn't directed toward you btw, but most of this idiot board who chooses to cling to Christianity to be contrarian because they equate atheism with leftist.

The sooner people realize that spirituality doesn't have to be wed with religion, the sooner they'll be doing themselves a favour. And no, spirituality and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

And yet all of these phenomena have developed through fundamental laws towards real goals and ends, all of which could not exist without a Being to sustain and direct them all. Hence, the basic claims of Theism.

No, sound is a perception and perceptions require a conscious observer. The tree falling still creates the atmospheric waveforms which would be perceived as sound if there were a conscious observer in the area though.

I'm just reading the Gilgamesh epos and liked how Gilgamesh was 1/3rd human and 2/3rds god.

Reminded me of something.

A magic man created it...a jealous vein one at that!!

Hallelujah!!

Basically a bunch of switches in the mind, like a computer.

>Expands to a trillion light years wide in a fraction of a second
Violates absolute speed.

The mind is immaterial, hence materialism is false. The following argument demonstrates this fact:
"Consider first that when we grasp the nature, essence, or form of a thing, it is necessarily one and the same form, nature, or essence that exists both in the thing and in the intellect. The form of triangularity that exists in our minds when we think about triangles is the same form that exists in actual triangles themselves; the form of “dogness” that exists in our minds when we think about dogs is the same form that exists in actual dogs; and so forth. If this weren’t the case, then we just wouldn’t really be thinking about triangles, dogs, and the like, since to think about these things requires grasping what they are, and what they are is determined by their essence or form. But now suppose that the intellect is a material thing—some part of the brain, or whatever. Then for the form to exist in the intellect is for the form to exist in a certain material thing. But for a form to exist in a material thing is just for that material thing to be the kind of thing the form is a form of; for example, for the form of “dogness” to exist in a certain parcel of matter is just for that parcel of matter to be a dog. And in that case, if your intellect was just the same thing as some part of your brain, it follows that that part of your brain would become a dog whenever you thought about dogs. “But that’s absurd!” you say. Of course it is; that’s the point. Assuming that the intellect is material leads to such absurdity; hence the intellect is not material."

Relative to what?

>have developed through fundamental laws towards real goals and ends

That is incorrect, and this is called confirmation bias. There is nothing to suggest that any of this is planned. It could very well be experimentation. Take multiverse theory into account, in an infinite number of universes, you have an infinite number of variables. Thus, an infinitely differently universes have developed. We just exist in the one which has the ideal conditions for us coming into being. We believe it's unique, because we exist, but if you really think about it, us existing was nothing special or planned, but merely a consequence from having infinitely variable universes exist, and this one existing as a result of that.

Because Dark Matter is not subject to the speed of light constant.

>And no, spirituality and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

then you have understood neither.

No my friend, it is you who doesn't understand.

youtube.com/watch?v=XaO_aH4cthg&index=1&list=PLebLAvrUbivauJRKwU7LHi8cmz6ZfWUHC

pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW

What's the form of air-ness?

Why is it possible to stop your mind via material means (knocking you over the head with a bat for example)?

>Creates possibly infinite galaxies, stars, planets
>Somewhere in this mess an infinitesimal ball of dirt follows the same processes of natural selection as everything else in the universe and leads to animated matter we call life
Contradiction. Infinite population creates infinite population for any definite probability >0. No observation of one, nevermind infinite extraterrestrial lifeform to date.

>uncritically pasting walls of text that you don't understand

Uh huh. Please come up with a model for such a matter under any established system, or come up with an alternative hypothesis for current systems that is subject to experimental verification.

No one denies that the intellect depends on the body, the question is whether the intellect itself is material, and it isn't.
>Eleonore Stump describes Aquinas's theory of the soul in terms of "configuration". The body is matter that is "configured", i.e. structured, while the soul is a "configured configurer". In other words, the soul is itself a configured thing, but it also configures the body.[60] A dead body is merely matter that was once configured by the soul. It does not possess the configuring capacity of a human being. Aquinas believed that rational capacity was a property of the soul alone, not of any bodily organ.[61] However, he did believe that the brain had some basic cognitive function.[62] Aquinas’s attribution of rational capacity to the soul allowed him to claim that disembodied souls could retain their rational capacity, although he was adamant that such a state was unnatural.[63]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylemorphism#Thomistic_dualism

You still have to give an account for why the multiverse exists, and that supposes a Cause beyond it.

I will when we're able to detect Dark Matter. Wait for the Euclades telescope to launch in a couple years, and then you can read the NASA statement.

Energy. Dur.

>and it isn't

Pretty absolute statement, buddy, it would be neat if you could back it up with something other than some Aristotle knock-off "believing" things.

Multiverses have always existed. Before and after, and they will forever continue to exist after this one ends. This one was just one of many before it. No creator needed. It's just nature.

The vessel for consciousness is the autonomous, animated clump of the universe.

Consciousness is the universe experiencing itself.

Gravitational waves have been a part of a system that has been verified through other means for decades.
What gives you the fucking courage to just expect a fudge variable to suddenly become an observed matter?

There is no proof of multiverses. And I think it messes with the definition of universe anyway.

Surely if their were lots of big bang bubbles or however your imagining this, they would still be within in one universe.

There is no proof of God either, and at least Multiverse is supported by quantum mechanics and String Theory.

>hurr, how can the universe exist without a creator for which there is no evidence for
>there's multiverse theory
>but there's no evidence for that

They just went where the money was: with the church.

I think his point is your fighting something with no concrete proof by using theories which also have no concrete proof.

Cut the noses off the statues of greater men and stamp a cross on their forehead?

I'll give Superstring more merit after CERN finishes their current testing.

Currently they're trying to "push" energy into a 5th dimensional space to help explain the discrepancy in gravitational weakness. The theory is that gravitons are inherently 5th dimensional.

I'd wait until results come back before jumping on any bandwagons though.

Doesn't diminish the beauty of their creation.

Notice how God in the picture sits in something that looks like a brain. That alone leaves a lot of room for interpretation and commentary. Goethe said "Without having seen the Sistine Chapel, it is not possible to form an idea of what one man is capable of obtaining." continuing Michelangelo's idealism of what humans can achieve: "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."

You on the other hand use it as basis for infantile penis humor. Make of that what you will.

>hurr, how can the universe exist without a creator for which there is no evidence for

I'm not a Christcuck. I didn't say that. You just made yourself look really stupid Spain.

>hurr i don't have an explanation therefore god did it

Except those theories are supported by scientific observation.

Are they, or are they an attempt to explain a scientific observation? That maybe have other equally valid mathematical theories to explain it?

I don't know, but I was under the impression it was the latter.

Then what the fuck are you arguing for? Follow the conversation you decided to jump into. The burger was arguing in favor of a creator.

>religious nuts show just how thick they are and how blindly they'll follow dogma when it comes to basic premises in science.

The moment you have to label your observations as scientific you're really just spouting shit

okay american bro i try explain it like to 6yeard old kid

did you know what is VISIBLE SPACE?
its area who our strongest and best telescopes can observe - 13 triliors for americans?/miliards of light years

but..
itdoesnt mean that is WHOLE UNIVERSE what we know
its VISIBLE UNVIERSE, all what we can SEE
so its highly possible...
that universe is EVEN BIGGER AND WE DONT KNOW HOW MUCH BIG
so technically.. universe IS ethernal. it was be long before us and will be longer that any life on this planet

Our observation is limited. All we can do is propose theory. The unintelligent are the ones that belive these theories are fact. They are not concrete and in no scenario could we ever manipulate varibles of creation to replicate a "big bang". Belief in faith is no less credible than faith in scientific theory. It is a bold statement to be made that we as humans who cant leave our own galaxy can speculate on the creation of the universe. Scientific theory today is no better than Ptolemy theory at the time.

>my retarded low-church protestant pastor is proof that christianity is fake