/lit/ - Literature

>>21366609
before the big bang was another universe. eventually this universe will implode and cause another "big bang".

No, that's not how it works.
New 3-dimensional universes are consistently emerging from an expanding 4-dimensional hypersphere. (More like onion layers.)
Our 3-dimensional universe is a layer of that hypersphere.
Eventually, the stars will burn out, and the universe wlll expand so much that nothing will be near anything else.
At that point, the vast majority will die, except those that have developed the ability/technology to escape into a younger universe...where, compared to the beings in there, they will be gods.
For instance, Jehovah became a god a lot more recently than someone like Cthulhu.

>>21366636
Ah yes, rubberband theory. How do you explain the constant expansion of the Universe? What will cause the Universe to reverse direction and begin to retract? Convenient for your point of view; if there was a Universe prior to the Big Bang, it is unprovable since the Big Bang has such massive consequences as to irradicate our current Universe of any empirical evidence to the way things were prior to the Big Bang.

>>21366609
Yes, because a vacuum is inherently unstable, and instability is the fundamental property of life and existence

>>21366927
>For instance, Jehovah became a god a lot more recently than someone like Cthulhu.
based

>>21366609
I have news for you. You believe in god.

>>21366965
>How do you explain the constant expansion of the Universe
Universe is still very young. We're in the expansion stage.

>>21368544
I’m an atheist.

These threads should be created for the sole reason of locating and exterminating the participants.
You will learn nothing, you will prove nothing, no concepts will be explained properly. This is /sci/ level of retardation.

>>21369532
But the rate of acceleration is increasing, in defiance of our understanding of gravity.

>>21366609
Imagine believing in The Big Bang, or that humans came from monkeys. Retard OP. Sage.

>>21371305
So what's your theory, if not the Big Bang?
>monkeys
Australopithecus, technically.

>>21366609
>outside of the universe
lol

>>21366965
Everything is expanding, eventually the fabric of atoms themselves will expand to the point that they 'burn out' and cease to exist in any meaningful way. What do they become? The cosmic microwave background present in the next universe. Boom, solved

>>21366609
>... as in this philosophical and critical age empiricism can scarcely be taken seriously, and it is probably put forward only as an intellectual exercise and for the purpose of putting in a clearer light, by contrast, the necessity of rational a priori principles, we can only be grateful to those who employ themselves in this otherwise uninstructive labour.

Sciencefags are like two hundred years behind the philosophers.

>>21366965
The universe is not infinite, so once you expand beyond a point, you loop back. Everything will move outwards pushed on by spacetime expansion, but then once it hits the "loop point" (which exists purely from our perspective), everything will start moving towards everything else, still pushed on by spacetime. Eventually, everything collides. This creates a supermassive blackhole that reverses the trajectory of vacuum decay, causing spacetime contraction, fueling the blackhole. Eventually, all spacetime and energy collide to a single point, which then explodes outwards.

>>21366609
Causality is their true God. Why does causality exist? They have no clue

>>21371887
expansion is an interpretation at best. Space and atoms are both abstractions humans use to make predictions and not representative of objective reality.

>>21366609
Nobody knows what came before or caused it. Inflation theory only describes the evolutionary genesis and growth of the physical cosmos - atheist bugmen have no model beyond this to explain exactly what “caused” this all to happen

>>21371955
causality is not based in any scientific proof

>>21371896
Kant really said that? Wow he's a retard

>>21371966
What caused god to happen?

>>21371974
The normie is usually taken to be superior to the retard, autist, and schizo in normie metaphysics. However in actual metaphysics the normie can be considered engrossed in Kants empirical intuition, which is why she is adapted to the physical world. She is actually the lowest stage of human evolution. The next stage is the schizo, who is becoming engrossed in imaginal intuition and thus becomes lost in his confusion of the imaginal and the sensible. Next comes the autist who has been born with intellectual intuition and is higher or lower functioning in the sensible or physical world depending on how developed his intellectual intuitionis, with high functioning autists having a lesser developed intellectual intuition and low functiong autists having a more developed intellectual intuition culminating in the absolute retard who is so engrossed in intellectual intuition he has lost touch with physical reality. Thus as you see in the hierarchy of human being the absolute retard has the highest being and is closest to God while the normie has the lowest being and furthest from God. The normie is also known by the term of midwit.

I would like to add that autist, schizo and retard are normie terms developed by normies to understand nonnormies from within the normie metaphysic and therefore carry with them the negative connotations normies associate with these nonnormies. In actuality however these connotations are contingent overtones of the normie metaphysic which is a faulty metaphysic grounded on the lower empirical intuition as opposed to the higher intllectual intuition, giving direct knowledge of reality. But we must communicate to the normie on his terms if we are ever to communicate with him at all.

>>21371979
>As there is nothing before or outside of God he must contain within himself the ground of his existence. All philosophies say this, but they speak of this ground as a mere concept without making it something real and actual.

>>21371979
God himself knows he exists without reason and that there are countless realms that do not exist from his perspective and yet exist from their own. Everything is possible. But there is no evidence that God exists in this universe, of course.

>>21371979
Super god, duh. All causes have a cause.

>>21372049
Yes, but only as phenomena. Noumena, such a God, can be logically unconditioned; causality does not (as far as we know) apply to them. In which case, all causes would not themselves have causes. But only Critique of Pure Reason readers will understand.

>>21371979
The one we think of as God is an ordinary fellow in his realm. He's only God in this one.

>>21371979
>he's never had a moment of direct insight into the fact that, despite every contingent act of consciousness he's ever experienced being governed by the regulative notion "Every object of experience has its cause, and that cause is merely the effect of some cause, and so on, in an infinite sequence of causes that can be plumbed to whatever depth is necessary or reasonable for whatever practical purpose we are presently engaged in," and despite not even being able to intuit what an "uncaused cause" might be except as an empty but logically valid name, he can still intellectually intuit the fact that there MUST be an Absolute that is causa sui, the ratio cognoscendi of which is also its ratio essendi
>he's never realized that despite all the modern world's attempts to lock him in the iron shell of disenchantment, he can still "see" the door beyond which God lies, any time he wants, in his own mind
>he's never tried to apply the empiricist's, the sceptic's and the materialist's doubt to this intuition once he has it, thinking "just because i can or do intuit the logical necessity of a causa sui beyond and behind all thinkable or experiencable contingent entities, doesn't mean it must exist lol. surely that's just a quirk or limitation of my mundanely evolved monkey consciousness, and the most enlightened way to look at the universe is as a meaningless material substrate that just happens to spit out thinking feeling monkeys"
>he's never realized one by one that all the empiricist, sceptic, and materialist counterarguments fail utterly against the sheer manifestness of the insight: "There must be a causa sui, because the only other option is an endless regress of causes and no 'base' to reality, which is the most retarded non-answer; and this causa sui must be somehow utterly different from all mundane, contingent things, even highly abstract but still contingent things like mathematical laws of nature or the fabrci of space-time or quantum foam"
>he's never turned back around and used his sharpened metaphysical sensitivity to try to re-assess and re-intuit the possibility of such a mundane substrate as the ultimate base of reality, something that could satisfy his felt need for a causa sui without being anything like what religion speaks of
>he's never realized that every proposed alternative is still mundane and contingent
>he's never realized that built into the causa sui intuition, which he can't un-see even when he wills himself to see "otherwise," is not just the empty logical notion of a causa sui, but the demand that it be utterly transcendent
>he's never realized how gray and lifeless all pseudo-explanations like "quantum foam" and "mathematico-physical constants" now seem to him, and how sad and limited all their proponents seem

>>21372145
>he's never realized that if he wants to intuit this "something" that transcends all contingency entirely, he will have to cultivate or activate or access a form of experience or intuition that is beyond all his normal forms of cognition, which are all suited only for experiencing contingent objects
>he's never realized that his mind's available categories are intuiting the possibility of their own self-transcendence and sublation by means of their frustrated reflection on an absolute idea or symbol that is implanted in him without his consent, that his mind is literally designed in such a way that by reflecting on its own contents and assumptions it automatically generates the empty space of expectation where a higher form of mentation should, nay must be
>he's never thought "how strange it is i once thought i was just a material monkey man floating on a gray rock in a gray continuum governed by gray laws" and realized he can no longer "see" what he used to see
>he's never realized that this is exactly the ascetic and propaeudetic refinement of cognition spoken of by plato and plotinus and presumably all those other mystics
>he's never realized suddenly that these mystics are the true scientists and explorers, because they are not just orderers and tidiers of contingent empirical cognition according to immanent transcendental laws of thought, they are inner explorers who ask "whence the lawfulness OF the transcendental laws of thought? if this is immanence, then what transcends and grounds this immanence?"
>he's never realized suddenly that all of these questions, and all questions of knowledge and science, lead back to the necessity of a being whose way of being transcends not only his own but all contingent beings
>he's never realized that he's back where he started in his inquiry except at an infinitely subtler and more profound level than could ever have understood when he began it, like a two-dimensional being trying to understand what three dimensionality is directly and experientially
>he's never realized that he has become one of these three-dimensional beings, that he has begun the sympathetic awakening of some faculty or capacity he can't define but which he feels like a fire kindled deep inside him
>he's never realized that the fire feels like it's still growing, and that he has no way of knowing how many dimensions there even higher than three
>he's never realized that an invitation to the ultimate adventure was basically inscribed in his soul all along, "the flight of the one toward the One," and that simply by thinking through all this he has already become one of the aforementioned explorers, and there is no turning back now