/sci/ - Science & Math

endless strings of universes arising from singularities fed by previous universes.

The supposed problem being ignored however is that in a linear view of infinite time there had to at some point be a first universe.

someone here can correct me on this I suppose, but I don't think time is necessarily linear or infinite, so there's no problem to solve.

There probably were something before tBB.
Point is that whatever was before has no impact on what is now. TBB is THE beginning from our perspective.

there was not 'nothing'

atheists just have no clue what theyre talking about so they parrot the nonsense they hear from agenda pushers like dawkins

then they try to explain it away with outlandish theories with zero evidence, such as the idiots above, one of whom mentioned string theory (which has ZERO evidence)

>>3699554

You do realize you have 0 evidence for a god. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean "GODDIDIT". I would suggest going to >>>/x/ since we solve problems by the scientific method. Not by using myths of a Jew prophet who was supposedly was the sun of god. Yet the only people who cared about him were drunks and prostitutes.

>>3699564
see, look at this atheist moron. not once did i mention god but because i challenged his religious beliefs on string theory and made fun of his religion (atheism), he puts up a strawman argument because his lack of education doesnt allow him to do much else except espouse knowledge (baseless theories) absorbed from youtube videos in order to seem 'rational' or informed

>>3699554
>one of whom mentioned string theory

>nobody itt mentioned string theory

>idontthinkthatwordmeanswhatyouthinkitmeansweirdalyankovick.jpg

>>3699554
>string theory
lrn2reading comprehension
Besides, you don't know shit about string theory other that what you've been told by pop-sci.

But the big bang created all matter in the Universe. Without matter (ie. subatomic particles, not necessarily atoms etc.) the concept of time is useless.

>>3699571
>>3699572
same butthurt fag who posted

>endless strings of universes

in the second post detected

>>3699590
really?

you are seriously fucktarded man. Strings of universes isn't string theory. If I had a cow that stupid I'd be afraid to drink the milk.

you must be /new/ here

>>3699568

Even tho troll.

>his religious beliefs
Atheism is not a religion. Much like monotheism and polytheism ARE not religion. There's no dogma of atheism other than to not believe in any deities. Someone can believe the Earth is flat and can still be an atheist.

Also, a reply to your earlier post.

>outlandish theories with zero evidence
Like the 0 evidence for god and it's unfalsifiable, but you're going to sit on /sci/ all day complaining about evolution and proclaiming "GODDIDIT".

>mfw I'm not an atheist

>>3699590
>endless strings of universes
he's talking about the big crunch theory (which seems highly unlikely since the universe is showing no sign of halting its expansion), not string theory, you illiterate fool.
Just because it's the same word does not mean it's the same concept.

I personally prefer the multiverse that M-theory implies and the idea that our big bang was the collision of two P-branes causing vacuum energy to go haywire

>>3699590
>no

Also, OP, when you say it "makes more sense," you're applying intuition to a situation which is waaaaay, waaaaay beyond anything intuition could possibly tell you about. The best choice for now is "I dunno, but maybe we can find out."

>>3699604
>more strawman arguments
>more projecting beliefs and claims never made onto your opponent and attacking those beliefs/claims as if your opponent had said them, though he never did

wow atheists argue like children. none of you know shit about what happened before the big bang, and i called you out on it. the same big bang which was discovered by christians, by the way. its really that simple.

>>3699531
Nope, doesn't make more sense -- just feels more familiar, since you cannot imagine the other.
The Big Bang isn't just 'a bunch of matter exploded' -- it's the actual creation of the universe, described from before there was matter or time.

>>3699609
I was actually considering something closer to fecundity of universes, with black holes each giving rise to a new universe... but without the actual application of anthropic principle for fecundity.

>>3699590
>>3699554
>>3699568
copy out this string of words
>HURP DERP STRING THEORY NO PROOF HERP DERP

If you didnt pick that up after it was POINTED OUT TO YOU by this fine gentleman >>3699571 then I doubt you have to mental capacity to actually discuss anything with any logic

Doesn'teverything in the universe add up to nothing?

Therefore we are just a partiular state of nothingness now so coming from nothing makes total sense.

>>3699617
Actually, it's not really even about the creation of the universe, just what happened after it "began existing" or whatever. Sorry if that's pedantic, but some people legitimately get mixed up on that.

>>3699613
Huh... that's a really neat idea...
M-theory does predict that the content of the different universes can only interact with each other through gravity.

>>3699554
That's not correct; we have loads and loads of evidence. There is a LOT we can observe about the universe, and we have no reason to assume the history of the universe is disparate from all current states -- especially since it goes on.

You seem to want to equate religion with physics theory, and that simply isn't possible. Religion, for one thing, deals with something extant, something that cannot be tested and something subjective. It is beyond questioning.
Physics, on the other hand, is entirely within testability -- it's just that we have to fit our knowledge (spare in most regions) to what we think happened in the past.
There are also many ideas about the past being tested, not just the Big Bang theory.

In no case should you feel so damnably defensive about religion, where nothing is being threatened of that.

>>3699629
>M-theory does predict
[citation needed]

>>3699632
1. there is ZERO evidence for string theory and most of the other made up theories atheists parade around

2. i never tried to equate anything with religion, that is your own insecurity because i am attacking your religion (atheism)

>>3699633
Wiki
>Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes.[16]
And their citation
>16 - Paul Halpern, The Great Beyond, 2005

Sorry if I assume too much, just a pop-sci.

>>3699531
>But if you step aside, think, it would be more likely that ....
Trying to use human reasoning, evolved to deal with contextual-causal events, to grapple with events completely outside that frame. = Complete and utter fail.

Do understand that there are plenty of facts about the universe that we know are true and yet have no way of understanding intuitively. Like the sheer size of the universe etc..

>>3699635
get out, this place isn't for you

>>3699616

And neither do you, my friend.

2/10 for making me respond

>>3699616
'Discovered by christians' -- how does that matter, even if it were true (it is not!). You are divorcing yourself from all of the theory, yet claiming Christianity founded it?

as far as 'none of you know shit' -- that's the whole problem, isn't it? it isn't a failure of the people discussing it to say that -- it's your failure to realize you are in the same boat.
You, also, know nothing at all about religion. You believe in spite of evidence, not because of it. Again, that is not a failure of religion -- it lies outside that necessity.

>>3699641
>implying /sci/ is a place for agenda pushers who parade around theories with zero evidence as likely scenarios

sounds about right

>>3699643
>baww he made fun of my atheism and challenged my baseless beliefs in theories, like m-theory, that have no evidence paraded around by my atheist heroes like dawkins so ill attack him by saying he believes in magical sky wizard or whatever atheist cliche is being used this week

keep strawmanning atheist teen

>>3699648

You do realize you just committed a fallacy, right?

>>3699635
Zero evidence? You are completely mistaken, even ignorant. There is a LOT of evidence ... it's just not decisive. It is being argued -- simply because there is evidence, not proof.
I suspect you were thinking 'proof' and claiming 'evidence'.
You are right, there is not proof. (So what? That doesn't mean no one has any idea, or knows what to look for next, or what other possibilities there are!)
You didn't equate anything with religion?
Then that fourth posting,
which brought up atheism (for no reason)
and Dawkins (without any cause)
and called the theories outlandish beliefs of idiots --
No, you made ad hominem attacks, made it about religion (as you continue to try) and failed.
You took a topic that isn't decided and isn't about belief at all,
and tried to criticize people who didn't disagree with you.

stop posting if you don't understand that physics does NOT conflict with religion (atheism, christianity, buddhist, whatever). It is simply a different realm entirely

It's branes all the way down.

It's trolls all the way down.

>>3699663
i am using the word evidence in the same way that atheists use it (improperly). with the proper definition, which you seems to be invoking, if you claim there is evidence for string theory and the like, then you must also admit there is evidence for god. if you dont, then youre simply biased and disingenuous.

either way, you lose.

>>3699671

Don't reply. It's either a troll or a religious zealot. We can keep pounding information into him and he still won't get it. There's no point. Let him be blissfully ignorant or a troll.

>>3699663
How is formation of the earth not in conflict with Christianity, Judaism etc. who believe in a created earth.

>>3699648
you are a really confused little person.
You cite my post, but make up a quote that has nothing to do with anything I posted anywhere?
I didn't claim atheism; I agreed atheism is a part of religion.
I disagree that physics theories are baseless, because I know more than you do.
I disagree that religion gives you any knowledge of physics at all, or could -- it is outside that purview.
But then you changed the topic, to m-theory where you previously argued against string theory.
Clearly you have no concept of either, but why attack them, then?
No one at all supported Dawkins -- but you attack everyone else as strong supporters?
No one at all 'bawwed' -- so I guess it's only you that is threatened and whining.
Pussy.

>>3699675
>I agreed atheism is a part of religion.
It's not, though.

>>3699674
There is a difference between the foundation of religions and their literal scripture.
You may choose to believe in the scriptures literally, but then you're falling into the trap you accused everyone else of -- following the statement of one person for whom absolute knowledge cannot be true.

>>3699531

What is the photo of?

>>3699678
Of course it is; notice the grammar.
Atheism is not a part of a religion, but it is part of the concepts of religion(s).
It (like agnosticism or skepticism) is a belief system.
None of those are a refusal to have any belief at all, which is what would be necessary to fit your statements.

>>3699681
Without scripture, isn't the only thing a person can believe in is something vague and something that nobody can make any claims about.

>>3699671
>>i am using the word evidence in the same way that atheists use it (improperly).
Without an explanation of how either side used it improperly, I can only assume you have no idea what you mean.

>>if you claim there is evidence for string theory and the like
I do claim that; I know much of it, and I also admitted it is neither decisive nor complete. That was the weakness you SHOULD have jumped on, rather than further admit you knew nothing of the evidence either way.

>>then you must also admit there is evidence for god
Why? It's not the same evidence, so your second assertion makes no sense, and is unrelated.
Cite something that is evidence of a God, and we can talk about it -- but you can't just broadly claim all of our evidence proves your statements without knowing what any of it is!

>>if you dont, then youre simply biased and disingenuous
Or, I recognize you offered no evidence, cited nothing, and seem to know even less about the other argument.

>>either way, you lose.
Nope, because I can still make sense and reason, where you just tried to make a personal insult and competition from something that cannot ever have either.

>>3699699
Close -- without believing in scripture blindly, all belief is subjective (and which no one else can challenge).
Scripture is still valuable as lessons, as guidance, as a set of principles and statements that make the foundation of religious belief for a group.
The problem with scripture is that it has no authority outside of belief, so we can use it only in the same way that we use, for instance, the 'structure' of an atom as a model for reality.

Neither one reflects the true nature of the universe, but both are valid attempts to understand it -- and one, science, requires changing with new information.

>>3699689
>None of those are a refusal to have any belief at all, which is what would be necessary to fit your statements.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.
How more 'not related to religion' can you get?

Don't tell me you are saying that because the "not believing in a god" part makes it a part of religion.
That would be false, I'm pretty sure all newborn babies are atheist, and they don't know what religion is.

If you want to claim that they do believe in god or know about religion, please prove that.

>>3699710
Sorry, I should also have acknowledged that religious belief in an individual should reflect that person's changing views, feelings, and beliefs; otherwise, he fails to be true to himself, which is a failure.

>>3699684

somewhere in australia I believe

>>3699712
>>Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.
>>How more 'not related to religion' can you get?
That is agnosticism; atheism is the _denial_ that there is an ultimate entity.

>>Don't tell me you are saying that because the "not believing in a god" part makes it a part of religion.
Yes, I am -- because that is the only way to talk about it. Religious belief includes all statements for or against religion.

>>That would be false, I'm pretty sure all newborn babies are atheist, and they don't know what religion is.
That's where you make a mistake; newborns can only be ignorant, not informed, and without belief (they don't even have a sense of self or separateness!).

>>If you want to claim that they do believe in god or know about religion, please prove that.
Infants? I thought you just made the claim that they had a belief system -- I would argue that they cannot.

And please, having no belief is NOT the same as Atheism, Agnosticism, or Skepticism.
You can't be any of those with ignorance.

>>3699727
Does a newborn baby believe in a god?
Yes? He is a theist.
No? He is an atheist.

To rephrase:
Has a newborn baby a belief in a god?
Yes? Theist.
No, it lacks belief in a god? Atheist.

Gnosticism has nothing to with it.
an agnostic is not necessarily a believer in a theistic, as in, religious sense.

He might belief that atoms are small entities or a part of a giant entity.
He does not necessarily derive any personal values from that.
It might just be a passive explanation.
As in, even if they do believe in a higher power, it does not mean it's the christian god, similar.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Being 'Agnostic' is too ambiguous.

that baby is agnostic.

agnostic about what? language? if there is a jack in the box?

in this case, it's theism.
and since he doesn't know theism, he doesn't know about the gods in it.
and since he doesn't know about gods, he lacks the belief in one.
he is atheist.

an agnostic atheist, not an agnostic theist.
you can believe in a god, after all, even if you are not sure if he is really there.

>>3699699
This comment sounded mournful and without hope;
yes, without the specific statements that people pretend is real and knowledgeable guidance,
they have no solid, factual information.

Which is what is really happening, if you don't have belief. Belief gives scripture weight; nothing else does.

But people need to have some understanding of the universe, so regardless of their belief, they might seek to learn how the universe is.
That isn't a weakness to attack; it is true of all sides of the religious question.
It also isn't anything threatening to religious people -- it simply has nothing to do with their religion (at least, until they decide to through out all their comprehension and thought and believe blindly in literal scripture).

>>3699710
>>3699714
Well. This was for more informing then I expected of this thread. I will disagree that it holds authority anywhere if it doesn't have evidence.

>>3699727
I don't believe there is a god. I'm an atheist
I don't for a fact there is no god I'm an agnostic

I am an agnostic atheist
You can be both

>>3699736
If it sounds that way, it's because of the state of religion itself and not my current feelings.

>>3699735
>>Does a newborn baby believe in a god?
A newborn cannot have belief, period. Even a young child needs some abstract concepts with some clarity before he can be said to have any belief.

>>Has a newborn baby a belief in a god?
>>Yes? Theist.
>>No, it lacks belief in a god? Atheist.
I understand: you are trying to use the semantic definition here,
but apply the common description when you criticize the belief of others.

>>Gnosticism has nothing to with it.
>>an agnostic is not necessarily a believer in a theistic, as in, religious sense.
Not necessarily? The context of religion was established early in the thread
-- yes, we COULD be using that word in another thread on another topic, but we are not, so that definition is useless to us.

>>Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god,
>>whether knowingly or unknowingly.
Nope; that's going back to a semantic definition, but we already have context in the thread,
so we don't have to fall back on the wide-open nonsense that cannot help at all.

Being 'Agnostic' is too ambiguous.
Within the context of religious beliefs, Agnosticism is a specific set of principles.

>>agnostic about what? language?
>>if there is a jack in the box?
Now you're trying to make all language pointless, by pretending we never have context
or an ability to communicate on a topic?

>>in this case, it's theism.
Should I play the same game and explain to you how 'theism' itself
has a broader, less meaningful function that is outside our discussion?

>>he is atheist.
and all these gymnastics got you to a statement that doesn't help any part of the argument,
which was used as a distraction,
and which only shows that babies can't be knowing contributors to a complex topic?

>>you can believe in a god, after all, even if you are not sure if he is really there.
no, that is nonsense; if you believe, you are saying you think he is there.
Maybe you meant 'you can believe in a god even if you have no proof.'
That is, after all, always the case.

>>3699727
>That is agnosticism; atheism is the _denial_ that there is an ultimate entity.
No, it isn't. You're redefining words with out any logical backing.

Most atheists are AGNOSTIC atheists. Philosophically they say do not know if a god exist (agnosticism) and theologically they do not BELIEVE a god exists (atheism).

>>3699763
>>3699764
Your objections are not making sense bro.