The creation, god & science

Ok atheists, bear with me here.
>Big bang happens, because reasons
But what were those reasons?
And what were the reasons for those reasons
And what were the reasons for the reasons reasons.
Do you see how flawed science can be? There is allways one step further which we cannot possibly hope to explain.
And let's say we actually boil it down to... let's say it all happens because "that's just how particles react which eachother" or some shit about movement and chaos.
What started that movement and chaos?
I'm in no way a hardcore christian, I've just started beliving a little more after having these thoughts, that little "coincidence" that causes everything to become, it must be something beyond us, something beyond the physical. Maybe that is the thing we could call "God"?

Other urls found in this thread:

multivax.com/last_question.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt's_paradox#The_Big_Bang
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
youtube.com/watch?v=5TFU_yxMlYg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

These are my beliefs.

>something likely happened billions of years ago
>we can't describe exactly what or why because we can't time travel
>pfft science is useless checkmate athiests

Oh shut the fuck up, here have a better example:

I'm not saying god is the answer for everything, I support alot of scientific theories and such, but the really BIG things however.
Have an example:
>humans are biological entities
>consisting of atoms
>consisting of electrons and all that good stuff
>our thoughts and senses are just electronic responses
>because electrons move around
Aas of such, you could say the electrons controll EVERYTHING we do, the reason you thought that ... thought you just did was because the electrons your made of has traveled a predestined path.
BUT, what makes those fuckings electrons move?
"Hurr electromagnetic forces"
But why do they exist? Probably because of some smaller particles moving around aswell.
But why do they move around?
>tl;dr: what made the first particle move it's ass and spark "creation"?

This question has infinite layers, and humans can't comprehend infinity, so it's kind of an annoying paradox.

Who created god? Who created whatever created god? Who created what created whatever created god?

Same shit.

If you go: "lel, God is like, da beginning". You can aswell say: "lel, le natural cause is like, da beginning."

Religion doesn't solve anything. What's worse, if you go into organized religion said God needs to fit a preconceived concept from two millenia ago.

There are many questions that science does not have definitive answers yet. It is normal.

I don't buy into the Big Bang Theory, it strikes me as just Christian propaganda, the Fiat Lux with a thin veil of science.

The universe doesn't have a "beginning," we've found star nurseries etc. and I'm inclined to think creation and destruction are an ongoing process. The idea that it had a beginning is nonsensically anthropocentric and siple to me.

>Do you see how flawed science can be?

You can use the same argument for God.

>how can humans come out of nothing?
>how can the universe come out of nothing?
"well, an ALL POWERFUL BEING came out of nothing that could make whatever it wanted."

its just turtles all the way down

I dunno man, thats why I'm agnostic.
I think there could be a god, so I hope I'm a nice human, so I can get maybe sometime in heaven. But I also believe that a "bang" could be the possible answer.

You can use the exact same form of annoying child logic to fuck up Christianity just as easily. I don't, because I don't like to go out of my way to annoy people with different beliefs, but it works.

>waaah annoying child logic
Fuck off, annoying because it's not possible to answer? Isn't that my point?

>I'm still right, atheshits.

>Fuck off, annoying because it's not possible to answer?

Of course its possible to answer. Properties of the atom and to go further, if you believe in such things, the vibration of superstrings determine their properties.

I don't personally believe in string theory but I find it entertaining. It is, however, as close to the bottom of the 'layers' as you can get.

If you like believing in God, same shit, why does he have the properties he has? He simply is this, this, and that.

You are beginning to see the light.
T. Theoretical physicist

Then why do the superstrings vibrate?
I'm not looking to be right, I'm just pointing out the hopelessness of the situation.

>the Fiat Lux with a thin veil of science.
Yeah but as someone who has actually studied it...
It really isn't.

It's possible to determine through redshift analysis, that further something is, the faster it appears to be moving away from us. Taking into account the speed of light, this means that in the oldest times we can see (about 13Billion years) we are looking at an ever expanding universe.
Unless you have a better explanation for the redshift patters, the scientifically correct way is to accept the current one.

Also, an all powerful being wouldn't have had to come out of nothing, because time doesn't have to be linear outside of our own universe.
But if causality exists, then the universe had a cause.
If causality doesn't exist either we are left we can not imagine anything outside of our own universe.
So "a superbeing did it" is the only explanation humans can imagine.

Not neccesarily a sentinent being in the human sense, but some real abstract shit.
We're talking about forces and concepts that don't apply to modern physics

Their particular resonance.

>I'm just pointing out the hopelessness of the situation

I don't see how its hopeless. Whether analyzing ancient desert tales or science, you simply, at some point, accept that such and such are the properties of God or the most fundamental wisp of matter imaginable.

I don't find it hopeless, I find it exciting. It will be many thousands or millions of years before we finish science as we know it for the most part and by then many new questions will arise.

But user, you don't seem to comprehend this one simple fact, things in the universe are infinite, thus the chain of reactions are infinite.
We can't comprehend infinity.

>Pfft, those silly humans with their gimped sensory organs and inferior technology can't hope to discern the true nature of the universe

>the bible tho. shits lit senpai. God, amirite?

I don't think we can finish science as we know it.
But here's something that relates to that topic...
please read it.

multivax.com/last_question.html

>So "a superbeing did it" is the only explanation humans can imagine.

Nah. I don't buy into turtles upon turtles cosmology.

>Also, an all powerful being wouldn't have had to come out of nothing, because time doesn't have to be linear outside of our own universe.

Yes, I'm familiar with that line of argument. Thomas Aquinas, right? Again, I don't find the notion that "oh well because of faith, I choose to believe that this universe needed a creator but the creator didn't need a creator" even 1% compelling or intriguing.

>Unless you have a better explanation for the redshift patters, the scientifically correct way is to accept the current one.

"Scientific correctness" isn't about accepting dogma. All that proves is that the observable universe happens to be moving apart at the moment.

Its the height of hubris to say that because the observable universe is moving apart now, that the point at which it began to move apart was the "beginning of the universe."

If the observable part of the universe was on a pineapple grenade detonated on an episode of Mythbusters, those who lived in it might conclude that was the beginning of the universe and that nothing came before it, when in reality its just a local phenomena of limited scope. They may conclude that whoever detonated said grenade was a benevolent being who did it out of love for them.

I do comprehend it.

>things in the universe are infinite

Not at all.

>thus the chain of reactions are infinite

They may be. Quite an assumption.

>We can't comprehend infinity

We certainly know certain aspects of infinity. We know there are not, say, infinite Barack Obamas, because all space would have to be occupied by a Barack Obama clone, including the space inside your butt.

>trying to reason with atheists

don't bother. fedoras can only think in binaries and it's not only boring but incredibly stupid and obnoxious. every atheistcuck should drown in his own piss.

But for fuck sake user, okay, say the UNIVERSE isn't infinite, but what's BEYOND THAT must be infinite, mustn't it?
Given this infinity there is an infinite chain of reactions, and thus it would require infinite knowledge to understand it all.

Except you genuinely don't have the infinite regression problem with a God.

If there is something at the top of the hierarchy of causation it, by its very nature, has the attributes such as being unchanging (what could possibly change it if it's the head of the hierarchy, there is nothing before it in the chain), eternal (how could it ever have not existed if it is at the head), there can be only one (how could there possibility be more than one if it's at the head), etc

If we know the universe is not eternal, or that it has a beginning, then you cannot simply reconcile the problem because no aspect of our universe meets the qualifications necessary to even contain such an entity. You can only apply these properties without an external entity (something beyond the universe) if you believe the universe itself to be eternal, having always existed and will always exist but I don't think you believe that.

Reading, though I'm going to point out how new stars are being made all the time.

>what were the reasons
>dunno
>welp must've been God then
Flawless lodgic

...

...

Why must what's beyond it be infinite?

But why are you assuming that there has to have been something before the Universe?

Because if what's around the universe isn't infinite, then there must be something beyond that again.

Finished. Pretty cool. The idea of explosive population growth makes me feel nostalgic.

>Nah. I don't buy into turtles upon turtles cosmology.
It's nice to have at least a sortof answer for a question where we literally are unable to imagine a real answer.

>Thomas Aquinas, right?
No idea who that is.
>because of faith
Not because of faith, but because of the reasons detailed below that.
You have zero reason to assume, that anything outside our universe follows time and causality normally, but everything that is a part of this universe has a causal reason/connection somehow.
Except the physical laws governing the universe.
But they too are a part of this universe.

So there has to be some connection between
(maybe) weird causality, and normal causality. It doesn't have to be a being it could just be a concept.

>All that proves is that the observable universe happens to be moving apart at the moment.
No. Light that has travelled 10billion years shows us that the universe is expanding super fast 10 billion years ago.
And then slow again and now faster by the minute.
We also have a deduction: the dark era, before the first stars ionized the cosmic gas, and then "suddenly" light could travel. This should be roughly a homogenous "wall" in our look into the past as we look into the distance.
And would you look at that the CMB corresponds exactly to a blackbody radiator which was the whole universe.

Also, it's possible that we are a part of a larger universe or that other universes interact with our own (some people are trying to use the polarization of CMB to prove the multiverse theory).
But this does not explain what caused everything.

Also, i'm not claiming that the origin of every natural law and causality itself is God.

It is however my god
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, kαὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, kαὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
Of note here is the word Λόγος = LOGOS. It is translated as "word" but it has other meanings: (natural)law, knowledge, logic.

But why? Whatever is outside the universe doesn't necessarily have to obey the laws or internal logic of the universe. Maybe there was no "before" the universe.

>why are you assuming that there has to have been something before the Universe?

Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you make an assumption like "yeah, but what then created God, huh?!"

Here is a tip: the assumption is being made because if it is not made then infinite regression is not solved because the universe cannot have infinite regression if it has a starting point in the first place.

Or "beyond" for that matter.

I'm not saying "yeah, but what then created God, huh?!" though. I asking why isn't it possible that there simply is no state of being at outside of the universe?

>say the UNIVERSE isn't infinite, but what's BEYOND THAT must be infinite, mustn't it?

Nah. If the comprehensible universe was in the explosion of a grenade, and the rest of the universe or the multiverses or what not was the rest of the world and there was nothing beyond it (you just appear on the opposite side), it would not be infinite, merely big.

There may be infinite space with a whole lot of nothing, but even if you had a realm that was an infinite amount of space, and there was one astronaut in a spaceship per AU, you still wouldn't have an infinite number of astronauts.

>Given this infinity there is an infinite chain of reactions,

There may be an infinite amount of nothing, but there is, without question, a finite amount of somethings. The overall result may very well be disproportionately simpler than one may expect as well (each universe may be nearly identical save for one person being evil instead of good, or whatever).

Another thing making this seem all the more fucking awesome:

Currently scientists are pretty certain the universe will pull itself apart. This is a relatively new thing.
When the heatdeath happens, you will have a universe that has no gravitational interaction.
Only non interacting photons.
This also means that time itself becomes a non-concept, because there are no physical processes.
Also no distance.
So you have
>the entire universe
>in a homogeneous mass
>containing all energy
>without time
>and with no size.

Compare and contrast to the BigBang at planck time 0.

>>Big bang happens, because reasons
>But what were those reasons?
>And what were the reasons for those reasons
>And what were the reasons for the reasons reasons.


>I AM A MORON WHO DOESN'T DO ANY RESEARCH OR EVEN READ AND HERE I AM TO TELL YOU HOW BULLSHIT SCIENCE IS

I know this thread is bait, but I'm sick of imbeciles that won't even take the time to read about popular scientific theories, there are plenty of "reasons" behind why the big bang happened, but since we don't have a time machine and we can't just make our own (yet) we rely on what Math and Computer Models can tell us.

It is much better than "hurr durr God just made everything and there's no reason to look into it further"

Taking the point and showing it up the ass, top it off with some ad hominems and that's you user.
Back to Cred Forums

I just don't understand how some people despise science so much, there's still so much to discover.

The reason we assume that is that everything that is a part of this universe has a reason, so the thing containing everything in the universe
(big bang at 0 planck time)
SHOULD have a cause too.
>>So there has to be some connection between
>(maybe) weird causality, and normal causality. It doesn't have to be a being it could just be a concept.

>Except you genuinely don't have the infinite regression problem with a God.

Then you don't need the infinite regression problem without a God either. I don't know how people can say God's presence simplifies shit. If God can come out of nothing, then not only could people come out of nothing as well, but entire everything-creating badasses can materialize out of nothing.
If God always was then I see no reason to think the universe could not always have been.

>or that it has a beginning

There is a likely time since the observable universe began its most recent expansion.

As it is the only expansion we will ever perceive, we may -- on anthropocentric faith alone -- CHOOSE to conclude that the beginning of the expansion was the "creation" of the universe.

Even then, calling it the creation of the universe still strikes me as painfully stupid, since obviously all the matter and energy was there already...

who has created God?

because if you don't have some kind of external factor, within the finite universe it is illogical and impossible to say that there can be infinite regression

but if there is not infinite regression, then there must be a starting point, a head of the hierarchy of causation

when examining the attributes of an entity at the head, it is pure impossibility that this entity can exist within the universe; it has to be outside of it

And what makes that even more awesome is the fact that physicist in a guest lecture about it in MIT or Harvard or where was it, suggested that there may be ways to escape such a restart.

That scifi short is really awesome.

Order from chaos

god is sufficient to itself, therefore not requiring of other things outside of itself to cause it or justify its existence
it has always been and will continue to be

is the textbook opinion on this I think

He created himself.

who created that recursion?

I really don't give a fuck I'm just trying to portray to theists how retarded they are but they do not want to see it.

If our universe is an artificial construct, then we don't have the capacity or the knowledge to explain that which did the construction.

Claiming that scraps of parchment found in the caves of desert dwellers are akin to the blueprints of the universe is painfully facile.

It's dumb to get carried away with creationist mythology because all of it boils down to a grandiose fairy tale concocted by humans.

>No idea who that is.

7th century theologian (iirc) who put forth the idea that time is a property of the created universe and isn't relevant outside of it.

>You have zero reason to assume, that anything outside our universe follows time and causality normally,

I have no reason to assume the universe needed a cause or that anything existed outside of it. The fact energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed punches a nice clean hole in the meme that the universe was created.

>But they too are a part of this universe.

Should there be things beyond the universe, them being a part of the universe does not imply they are not a part of other universes as well to some degree.

>Light that has travelled 10billion years shows us that the universe is expanding super fast 10 billion years ago.

I was semi derisively calling 10 billion years "a moment" since we are including perspectives of potential beings that exist outside the universe.

>But this does not explain what caused everything.

That we happen to be in the middle and part of an explosion does not require that explosion to be the first event in the universe (or metaverse or multiverse or whatever the fuck we are indeed in).

>It is however my god
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, kαὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, kαὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
Of note here is the word Λόγος = LOGOS. It is translated as "word" but it has other meanings: (natural)law, knowledge, logic.

Nice, I guess.

>I really don't give a fuck I'm just trying to portray to theists how retarded they are
a noob with silly explanations pretending this is the consensus among theologians
they call this strawman you know. Atheists need those desperately

Very nice. I figured everything was flying apart, but didn't realize it would be that total.

what really boggles my mind is that they brazenly claim to know the answer to the creation, and every single "hey fedoras" thread brings it up in the op

you would call it God in the first place because of its attributes as the head of the hierarchy; unchanging, eternally existing, only one of them, the root of all cause while being uncaused, etc

all you've done is shift it from being outside of the universe to being the universe itself and calling the universe eternally existing

at that point we're only arguing semantics as to what the universe actually constitutes because you still acknowledge the universe had a ""beginning"" like the big bang

Why are the cognitively impaired incapable of understanding that
(1) non-belief in any gods
and
(2) cosmological science

are two entirely separate things. The only hypothesis I have for their compulsive obtuseness? Falling for lies and fairy tales must have severely damaged their ability to reason.

II don't it can all be explained by a god who demands wafers and cakes spread with oil as sacrifice, either.

I'll remain agnostic, I don't know but I certainly don't believe any man made religions, they're so stupid at times and unfortunately, followed by baser people.

I sometimes think that all this religion thing was made for mentally impaired so they don't give up on life and kill themselves.

What if our understanding of God is wrong. What if God is chaos with no intelligence? Intelligence is the consequence of human evolution and need for survival. God didn't need survival.
>Blood for The Blood God! Skulls for The Skull Throne!

Because god had to have existed.

religion's original purpose is refuge, yes, but you are being unfair
anyway, I'm talking about religion as a philosophy
the vulgar materialism that I always see incorrectly called "science" can't answer the question of creation either

Science does a mjch better job at answering the question however.

Sure, LE SCIENCE IS FUCKING AWESOME movement is retarded, ignore those fags, Yuri.

>But what were those reasons?

Why are you asking atheists? Why don't you ask an astrophysicist?

You must have been confused because they both start with the letter "a"

At least they don't lie about it and kill you if you disagree with their view of "creation"

>all you've done is shift it from being outside of the universe to being the universe itself and calling the universe eternally existing

Well no, the opposite is what you've done, glued a superfluous extra step to the top of your order of operations. If I am ever going to develop a need for God, it will not be because I chose an extra layer of needless complication.

>at that point we're only arguing semantics as to what the universe actually constitutes because you still acknowledge the universe had a ""beginning"" like the big bang

I most certainly DON'T agree that the universe had a "beginning." How the hell would that even work? If matter and energy could be created out of nothing then, why not right now?

An unspecified portion of the universe, which may comprise anything from "all of it" to "an irrelevantly tiny sliver of it" happens to be expanding and has been for quite awhile, and we are probably particles in a big explosion somewhere. Calling that the "creation of the universe" seems dangerously egotistical. Just strikes me as natural phenomena.

>Do you see how flawed science can be?

Actually, we only see how remarkably successful science has been for centuries.

You can always feel free to overcomplicate things by adding a needless extra step that still fits all observable phenomena. So you can say God created everything, but I can say God Sr. created God as a practical joke. It doesn't get us anywhere, but it is amusing and perhaps uplifting to consider.

>But what were those reasons?
God is timeless, the meatworld is not.

The system in which the big bang occurred does not have a beginning, end or arrow of time. Measure what goes in a vacuum and particles chaotically appear and disappear, traveling in random directions through space and time.

Time and causality are emergent phenomena of the big bang, not core laws of the universe.

>Maybe that is the thing we could call "God"?

Bad choice. Every single time of the thousands of times it's been used, the gods invariably turned out to be made-up, false and wrong.

The best thing would be to get rid of all the Abrahamic religions that are poisoning the world with violence, terrorism, injustice and brutality.

As a scientist, we can only explain what we can.

Some religions believe a God ejaculated the universe into existence so.... your God's Cum

oh didn't see your reply at first, sorry

so there's nothing wrong with believing that the universe is self-sufficient and deprived of creation, lacking anything outside of it? that the big bang was not the act of creation but merely a phase shift?

>Because god had to have existed.
Thousands of gods have existed as figments of our imaginations

>it will not be because I chose an extra layer of needless complication

literally semantics if God constitutes that which exists outside of the observable universe and has the traits of the hierarchy I have previously mentioned

you are acknowledging that some part of the universe (beyond our observable universe) allows for infinite regression and acts as the head of all causation

other than what you classify as "the universe", you're not in disagreement, you just don't like to call it God

Oh, outside of the OBSERVABLE universe. Well that's less egregious.

>infinite regression

I don't see any particular reason to think its infinite regression.

>the head of all causation

I don't see any reason to think that.

You can say "God is the part of the universe you haven't been to," but we have a shorter term for that, "the universe."

>I don't see any particular reason to think its infinite regression.
>I don't see any reason to think that.

Then you've just ignored the entire argument up to this point and have not solve the problem of infinite regression.

>literally semantics if God constitutes that which exists outside of the observable universe
Logic and reason only apply to the physical and natural.

That means your supernatural "gods" are illogical and instantly relegated to the realm of fairy tales, myths, legends, fiction, superstitions, and other such contrived nonsense.

you have made no real argument, nor addressed any point of the on-going argument I have made

all you've done is tip your fedora

Not at all. We've got no reason to think the problem of infinite regression exists.

In Christianity, the bottom of the totem pole is "well, its God's fundamentally numinous unchangeable perfect nature," or God's nature, for short. In String Theory, superstrings are the base point -- though scientists have never discovered evidence something so small, so the good news is that the smallest quantifiable unit may be significantly bigger than a superstring. Certainly, we have no reason to think there's anything smaller or more basic.

>But what were those reasons?
I don't know. The theory never stated any reason at all and I'm sure it's not the aim of it.
>Do you see how flawed science can be?
Science only explains how not why. It cannot actually be verified at the moment because science studies the natural, not the supernatural. Therefore, your post is meaningless and a strawman version of science.

That's nice, but we're not talking about the size quantifiable units and I have to say, pointing out that there is a limit, or finite smallest possible unit doesn't really help your argument either.

This is about the regression of causation. The chain reaction of events that accounts for all cause in all things.

It is entirely unwise to make the assertion that there is no god.

Atheists can be swiftly and easily defeated by one elementary argument: there is no way any one of us on earth can prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

It's just impossible. Anyone who says otherwise either has an agenda, or is incredibly overstating their level of intelligence.

>Occam's razor
>burden of proof
>Atheists can be swiftly and easily defeated

>you have made no real argument,
I didn't need any arguments. Watching you fail so spectacularly was entertainment enough.


>nor addressed any point of the on-going argument I have made
You mean your on-going non-arguments about infinite regression? That was just you failing to understand the Aristotelian limit of scientific knowledge. It was Princess Bride cringe-worthy watching you use that word and not
really have any clue what it means.

The brain dead religionistas are such binary-thinking disasters they believe that there was "nothing" before the big bang. Science doesn't make that retarded presumption, but that didn't stop the idiots from fabricating a ridiculous strawman.


>all you've done is tip your fedora
You probably didn't know the religious priests started the fedora movement.

>Big bang happens
I have never understood the obsession with things having a beginning. What if it's always been?

OP specifically mentioned electron properties and shit so I wasn't exactly clear on that.

If we're just talking about the order of events then, yeah, since matter can't be created or destroyed the universe has to have always existed and thus the idea of the "creation of the universe" is a contradiction in terms.

The universe includes all time, space, and their contents, and as space (however empty) probably goes on forever, I have no particular reason to think that time doesn't go on indefinitely in either direction. Of course, go far enough out in space and presumably there is nothing else relevant, and go far enough back or forth in time and presumably there is nothing relevant there either.

I think if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then by necessity the universe cannot have a beginning.

>have a feeling because you are somekind of dumb animal who cannot let go of basic emotions
>use that driving feeling to search out pieces of information to support it
>fat acceptance
>vegetarianism
>many others more...
>and of course...religions

People like you, are not really people. You are relics of an ancient past. The real sins are with those who grant certain parts of their brains, immeasurable importance. For no good reason whatsoever.

This mental illness has caused a 70% obesity/overweightness epidemic. As the "sweet tooth" feeling, rules over logic, and caloric counting.

This mental illness also gives rise to other addictions, alcoholic, tobacco and hard drugs. Shit even gambling.

This zealotry, in favor of one area of the brain can go into any direction. From senses (food), but also other senses (like MDMA and other drugs). To more metaphysical feelings still.

The biggest challenge that most modern men face is the challenge of overcoming these positive feedback loops. Of allowing a self correcting script, in their neural biological programming to sometimes run through it.

This self correcting script we call nihilism. Without it, a person just reverts to solipsism, or some form of that, that you experience right now.

It is nothing more than a mental illness however.

The mistake is thinking traditional causation is a core property of the universe. We are used to things working in a certain way, that doesn't mean all things do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt's_paradox#The_Big_Bang
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

>a maximum-entropy Big Bang would have no arrow of time
No arrow of time means causation no longer works the way we traditionally model it

Stupid. Occam's razor is meme-tier horseshit.

Remember this: what is outside of your current "reality" simply 'is'.

There are no rules which govern it. There are no laws. There is nothing which dictates right from wrong.

It exists completely outside of our current existence, as we humans cannot see beyond the veil with which we have been shrouded.

It simply 'is'.

Remember that.

only one survives cos it's true, you like it ornot

>t. my subjective consciousness
lol

>What if it's always been?
That was always the assumption until mountains of evidence reluctantly made people accept that the big bang happened. The big bang claim is just the observation of the fact that matter was all condensed in a very small area at one point.

Inflation tries to explain how that situation came to be
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Exactly, which means it also doesn't have an end. It may drastically change states because of some hitherto unknown mechanisms (overall being more solid or more energy in it's state and such), but i don't think it wil ever really 'stop'.

You're attempting to apply human philosophy and science to a concept which is completely independent from them.

That is where you fail.

Remove the human understanding.

Cast it aside.

What does your intuition tell you?

that you need to lay off the coffee, my man
>to comprehend, abandon your only tool of comprehension

I think we might be misunderstanding. I'm not saying"the bang didn't happen", I'm saying maybe the bang wasn't the beginning, but just another 'conversion', as i mention in It's difficult to explain as I'm tired, but think about the laws of thermodynamics. Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can change form, though. So what if the big bang was just the universe reaching an absolute end of this (all energy having converged into matter, how i cannot say), leading to a big "crunch". I'd further hypothesize that the big bang is "in the way" for us to see further back. Like trying to see a candle in the distance behind a huge bonfire, from the other side of the fire.
Get what i mean?

well what created god?

Wew the ad hom and non sequiter

The big bang theory wasn't meant to "disprove" creationism, only to prove that the universe expanded from a certain point. For all we know, there could be a god just sitting outside our known universe, b/c we simply don't know anything past that horizon. It could be a god or virtually anything else that set this universe in motion, but that's no reason for me to believe in any particular religion.

So is there an infinite chain of causes and explanations, or is there a so called "first cause"

If it is an infinite chain, then what is the explanation for the chain itself

youtube.com/watch?v=5TFU_yxMlYg

finally. proof that god exists

Religion has it's own philosophy. It's "okay" for someone to base theirs off of a religion.

That isn't what I said. Remove the human understanding. Strip away your ideas of philosophy and science. Don't apply laws like Occam's razor.

>(strangely, I am drinking coffee right now - making sure webcam disconnected you creepy ruskie - stop watching me)

Silly being, God IS.

>wasn't the beginning
it's a matter of definition, it was the beginning of our line of causality and what we call the observable universe.

It's very hard to make scientific claims about anything outside the observable universe because of lack of data but you can infer a few things.

our universe is the result of a brane fluctuation
time only began with the big bang , ergo there was no time before that, literally you cannot go beyond that,
the universe is cyclical , every universe starts with a big bang , ends with a big cruch and the process reapeats itself
there nigger I just gave you 3 explanations and i'm no scientist , just somebody who reads stuff. instead of reading the bible maybe read a real book and stop asking strangers on the internet for answers

That's a fair point.
>tfw no matter how much we see and explore there is always so, so much more we can find out
Reminds me of being a kid in the woods. It's a good feel.

hey idk about you lizard coffee people, but us humans only have human understanding
and that's literally what you have said -- unless -- you actually propose emotion as a mean of understanding
yeah nah
emotion is for women

>Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Quantum fluctuations is what you get when you measure a vacuum, the events there have no connection to our causal line. Quantum fluctuation seem to represent be the "normal" eternal state of the universe.

Since the arrow of time doesn't apply those infinite random fluctuation in effect all happen simultaneously and a tiny subset of those fluctuations by chance cause a self sustaining reaction like the big bang. Even though it's a tiny subset of all fluctuations that still means infinite different universes.

no you are wrong.what the article wants to say is that those microscopic quantum fluctuations ,during the big bang, have developed in giant concentrations of matter ( ''the galaxies'')

For there to be a first cause, matter and energy have to be able to be created and presumably destroyed.

>then what is the explanation for the chain itself

In the same way that you will not run into a brick wall after flying out of the universe for several eternities, but only run into an expanse where nothing happens, so too would you run into an expanse of time that was of no interest to you.

The article doesn't make any claims countering my claims. They use fluctuations to explain the distribution of matter, I go further making unprovable and thus unscientific claims about the origin of the universe.

> 2016
> being an athiest

Lmfao you guys think you're redpilled? Let me clarify you goyim

Marx was right, there are only material forces at play. However, he couldn't possibly have been aware of the transdimensional space being that calls itself HWH'Y. This being founded the ((astronomical elites)) and keeps influencing our planet throughout history.

EARTH IS AN ORGANIC ENERGY PLANT FOR THE JEWS

Millions of years ago, the first humans saw the moon and marbled. The first ((woman)) who was a race traitor, Eve, bred with the alien race and conceived Kain, who later on symbolically sacrificed the son of cucked Adam to her satanic space dwelling aquintance.

THE MARK OF KAINE IS THE JEWISH ELITE

THE LINE OF ABEL IS THE GOYIM

The elites have kept this secret. They communicate through space technology to the alien they call G-d HWH'Y

SATAN AND G-D ARE THE SAME SPACE ALIEN

The white man must arise and put an end to the powers that be. Russians and Chinese are our natural allies.

NATIONALISM (THESIS) + COMMUNISM (ANTITHESIS) = NATIONAL SOCIALISM

The European feudal lines were taken over or destroyed by the ((elites))

GOD IS REAL, HE IS A CONSCIOUS BEING FROM TRANSGALACTIC HYPERSPACE

WHITE MAN WORSHIPS NATURE, CULTURE AND RITE! PURGE A KEK, STONE A SLUT, BUILD A FARM
They invented the internet (WWW= WAW WAW WAW = 666 IN JEWISH) TO KEEP US DOWN!

WE NEED TO BECOME FARMERS AGAIN; LIKE OUR FATHER ABEL WAS THE FIRST FARMER

PORN IS THE DEVILS WORK! ABSTAIN FROM PORN AND MASTURBATION AND BUILD YOUR BODY! UNLEARN EMPATHY, OUTKIKE THE NIGGER

You raise good points.