/sci/ - Science & Math

checkmate, atheist minority ;)

Pantheist cosmology mustard race

Could anyone here explain why they believe in the big bang theory?

>>5201725

If you have to keep self-bumping, it's not a good troll.

>>5201693
is this image legit?

>>5201738
They edit in photoshop, was originally sun made of ice.

>>5201746

>different pic

5/10

I believed in the big bang theory, but later found out that something cannot come from nothing without any cause.
The big bang theory declares that something (the universe) came from nothing, that is just wishful thinking.

btw, not I'm not OP.

>>5201788
>btw, not I'm not OP.

But are you a girl?

>>5201788
>The big bang theory declares that something (the universe) came from nothing

No it doesn't. But feel free to go back to reading your pop-sci and let the grownups do science.

>>5201788
The BBT does not declare that the universe came from nothing. Read moar.

>>5201847
but it does imply that our whole universe was in a hot dense state.

>>5201847
what does it declare then? that it is the result of a continuing cycle of the universe expanding then contracting again? at one point the simplest atom (hydrogen) had to come from something, right? unless the cycle of contraction and expansion under the BBT implies the universe as ALWAYS existed.

>>5201859
it also implies that nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started.

>>5201863
wait

>>5201863
>Expansion started...
Interesting, please feel free to go on!

A) Expansion started from something.
B) Expansion started from nothing.

>>5201881
wait

>>5201881

Expansion started when a quantum fluctuation allowed for inflation.

>>5201887
>quantum fluctuation
Interesting, please continue!

A) The quantum fluctuation appeared from something.
B) The quantum fluctuation appeared from nothing.

>>5201900
>implying that "nothing" and "something" are not constructs of the human mind

>>5201900

How much do you know about quantum mechanics?

Christards confirmed for liberals.

>>5201926
>quantum mechanicS
Where did the laws of quantum mechanics come from?

A) From something.
B) From nothing.

>>5201944
from something

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI

>>5201900

Not only does "nothing" not exist, it cannot exist.

>>5201957
>something.
Please go on!

So basically, we have 2 options.
A) Either the universe came into existence from nothing (which we admit is absurd, or else your answer would have been 'from nothing').

B) Or the universe came into being from 'something', which ultimately could not be nature, but beyond nature, aka supernaturally (God).

Theists therefore have a better position to argue that God is the primal cause of the universe, instead of 'nothing'.

The ultimate cause of the universe is therefore:
A) Nothing.
B) God.

>>5201959

10/10 Master troll

>>5201997
Why do you assume the universe "came into existence"? If I showed you an absence of a universe, would you conclude that there used to be a universe there, and that it turned into nothingness?

I don't get why you assume that a certain position leading to a contradiction proves that it is true.

>>5202005
>Troll

I am an atheist and that argument is not horrible.

Not amazing or enough to make me believe but still not horrible.

most people ITT

Maybe the universe began with something so small and simple that its existence doesn't require any explanation.

>>5202026

not horrible !=> valid

>>5202010
>>5202034

The statement "the universe came into existence" is not an assumption, but a scientific claim presented by Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem.

We thus can conclude that the universe had a beginning and the primal cause must have been:

A) Nothing.
B) God.

>>5201881
>from something
>from nothing

Neither. The universe is simply finite in the time dimension.

>>5201997

Really? That's what you're going with? Is this your first time having this argument ever? Ok:

Did God come into existence from:
A) Something
B) Nothing

?

>>5202057
No, actually it's not my first time.
God is (by definition) eternal and ever-existing, therefore God didn't came into being.

>>5202052

No, i'm saying that the beginning doesn't necessarily need a cause or explanation itself.

>>5202062
>God is (by definition) eternal and ever-existing

And so is the universe. Welp, this has been fun.

>>5202064
>the universe needs no cause
That's even worse than saying that it came into existence from nothing!

>>5202052

You are defining "universe" as "the hubble sphere that we live in". There is no evidence that the universe in its entirety (or multiverse if you want to call it that) came into existence at any time.

>>5202072
>>5202074
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem has shown that the universe did indeed at some point came into existence, and therefore could not have been eternal or causeless.

This leaves us with 2 choices:
The primal cause was:

A) Nothing.
B) God.

>>5202075

That's exactly what you're saying about "God."

>>5202075

No, i'm saying that there maybe never was a state of nothingness and that the basis of reality and the universe is something that doesn't require an explanation itself.

>>5202088

The universe floats all by itself.

>>5202087
>>5202088

God has no beginning, therefore God has no prior cause.

But according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem, the universe did have a beginning, therefore the universe needs a prior cause.

What if I told all of you that God is a man-made construct used to "explain" the creation of the universe. The Idea of a "God" is used all over history to explain what we could not. The Greeks had Gods that moved the sun across the sky, and lit the starts in the night,. now that we have evidence to explain how it really works, we dismiss them as mythology and superstition. So we now have a God that explains the one question we know we won't be able to answer: how was the Universe made? The reason we make these figures is to find reasons that aren't in front of us.

>>5202115

I think the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem only deals with the beginning of bags of spacetime not the ultimate origin of the whole universe.

>God has no beginning
What makes you say that? How do you know this? Have you met him? Who told you?
You can't answer any of those questions.
We won't be able to answer where and how the universe came from for the very same reason we can't answer where God came from. It's that there is no evidence that suggests God exists, and little evidence to support the big bang. I find that neither can be trusted, and that dwelling on them won't cahnge anything, as much as I'd love to know

>>5202115
If its so easy for you to accept that some fictional sky daddy has no beginning, then why is it so hard to get through your thick theist scull that the universe may not have a beginning (as we perceive it) too, just like god?

>>5202084

You completely missed the point of my argument. You are assuming that our hubble sphere is the extent of the universe. This is almost certainly false.

>>5202084
>Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem
>Barely recognized outside of creationist circles
>Even the original paper it was published in acknowledges that there are alternatives to a proper universal beginning
>Even the original paper it was published in acknowledges that it doesn't require a God exist.

2/10 made me consider

>>5202122
So you basically say that God is not the primal cause of the universe, therefore your conclusion leads logically to the statement that the primal cause of the universe is Nothing at all!
I am amazed at your conclusion, sir.
I was expecting a more reasonable and coherent reply.

>2012
>Believing in God

>>5202166
I'm saying we won't find an explanation, and God is just a way of covering that truth up.
The answer very well may be a god
The answer may be nothing
The answer may be something we haven't ever even thought of
The thing is, we won't know, God and Theories won't change it

>>5202167
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem is well recognized in the scientific community.

Any other alternative cause of the proper universal beginning still must deal with the main problem: A universe coming into existence out of nothing (absurd).

The theorem doesn't mention God, but one can postulate God as a primal cause to balance the counter position of the universe coming into existence from nothing.

This truly leaves us with only 2 options.
The theorem tells us that the universe (wether a multiverse or any other form) must have had a beginning, therefore had a primal cause.

>>5202175
>The answer may be something we haven't ever even thought of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI

This shows that whatever the cause may be to the beginning of the universe, that cause cannot be the cause of its own being, unless it is something beyond the natural aka supernatural (God).

Thus we conclude that the primal cause of the universe is therefore:
A) Nothing.
B) God.

ITT one samefag arguing the theist side

>>5202261
Did god come from something or nothing?

If he came from nothing, the universe could too

If he came from something then that would be more powerful than god

But I thought nothing could be more powerful than god

If god always existed, then the universe could too

>>5202280
The universe has been shown to be not eternal. Therefore it had a beginning, thus it had a cause.

God by definition is uncaused and eternal, therefore God doesn't require any prior cause.

>>5202294
I can just ask the same thing of you. If god created the universe from what did god come from. You just go round and round in circles

OP is trying to argue the anthropic principle --> God's existence. I submit multiverse theory, which states we exist in a universe of 10^500 universes that allows for human life. The other "big bang needed cause --> God" arguers can be silenced by a few things, my choice is space-time interconnectedness. When no space existed, because of Einsteins space-time continuum, no time existed. Nothing can come before time, but a before and after state is required for causation. Therefore, no causuality is needed.

>>5202294
>Therefore it had a beginning, thus it had a cause.
>My first and final conclusion is that something as complex and creative as a human caused it rather than any natural phenonema unfortunately unexplained because of our lack of observation beyond the bing bang.

I bet ants believe that the earth is a giant anthill created by Antgod.

>>5201689
>amerifag still thinks non believers or atheists or a minority

You are living in a dream world

>>5202313
no I live in Texas

>>5202294
I know you're a troll. Even if the universe is not eternal, it does not prove it had a creator, or initial cause. On the contrary, *nothing* is very much something, in Physics.

Please proof that there is a god, if you say this faggot exists.
Why should we proof that there is no god? How should we proof what doesn't exist?
The big bang is fact. It's an event which created our universe. Beyond that are only theories at the moment. But it doesn't proof that there is god, if you don't know it, or if you don't have an explanation for it.

>>5202336
>Please proof that there is a god, if you say this faggot exists.
You going to hell boy.

>>5202344
>Threatens Hell

Because this is the only way Christians can get people to keep believing them.

If God was real, he wouldn't have created niggers.

>>5202301
Your question assumes that God had a cause. But God, by definition, is beginningless, thus causeless.
This is perfectly coherent and is not contradictory.

>>5202304
The multiverse theory also needs a primal cause, thus it cannot evade the question of where the multiverses came from (from nothing or ...).

Also your claim about space-time interconnectedness can be disputed by the next proposition. Namely, that cause and effect can occur simultaneously, (so not necessarily first the cause, then the effect). This therefore proves that the universe as an effect must have had a cause, wether simultaneous or not is therefore irrelevant to the question.

>>5202344
>no counter argument
>says go to hell
You underaged or something?

just curious /sci/
has anyone looked into Islam without the media bias/ignoring the amount of fundamentalists they have?
It really is just strict monotheism

>god creates man in his image

>chinks, niggers, sandniggers, curryniggers, taconiggers, timberniggers, and polargooks exist

>>5202357
If god is causeless why can't the universe be?

>>5202357

"Under extreme conditions, general relativity and quantum theory allow time to behave like another dimension of space. This removes the distinction between time and space, and means that the laws of [stellar] evolution can also determine the initial state. The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing." ---- Stephen Hawking, Astrophysicist. TED Talk 2008.

>>5202363
Islam is the second worst religion. The worst being Judaism.

>>5202374
was stephen hawking not proved wrong many times by his own students?

>>5202370
Probably it is. Maybe it's just a chain reaction or chemical reaction... burning out in a certain time. Our sun and other stars will cease to exist too.

>>5202357
>The multiverse theory also needs a primal cause

No it doesn't, several variants of the multiverse theory are infinite, which is why those theories claim infinite universes.

>that fucking feel when no gf

>>5202374
Stephen Hawking was wrong for making that claim.
An effect cannot be its own cause, therefore the universe cannot be its own cause.

>>5202357
Cool story bro. I don't care. I grant you god exists for the purposes of this conversation. Now demonstrate to me that the bible is true, an afterlife exists, and worship gets you in.

>>5202416
Who said anything about the Bible?

>>5202416

shut the fuck up asshole

>>5202416
>athiest
>cool story bro
you're what makes us look bad
you think that being an athiest makes yourself smart
kill yourself pls

>>5202424
*atheist

>>5202392

I think you are refering to this line of argumentation: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.htm
l . However, this man isn't trying to disprove Hawking's claims, but say that the laws of physics had first to be written --> God. This is more (and justly so) philosophical. I link you to this article. Sorry, I don't have time to paraphrase. http://news.discovery.com/space/the-universe-no-god-required-120626.html

>>5202423
thank you, will read.

>>5202419
Because the existence of a "just first cause" god doesn't fucking matter at all. So, why are you arguing about this?

>>5202424
How am I making "atheists" look bad by asking questions?

>>5202411

stop it.

If god is true, then why doesn't he want me to have gf?

>>5202405
Multiverses, wether infinite or not, still need a beginning, therefore they had a primal cause.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem makes that strikingly clear.

If you simply boil the argument down, you have to make a choice.

A) Either the universe (infinite multiverse or not is irrelevant) came into existence from nothing.

B) Or the the primal cause of the universe was God, being beginningless and thus causeless.

to responders of the Stephen Hawking Quote:

This is quantum physics. Standard causation in the philosophical sense doesn't apply. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/uov-qcr100212.php

>>5202439
I wish I could stop it. I feel it everyday.

>>5202443
>still need a beginning

why?

>
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem makes that strikingly clear.

No it doesn't.

>>5202424
>so edgy
>>5202357
There also theories stating the universe is/ or more likely was in some kind of "rubberband" state, e.g. if you pull a rubber band and let go of both ends, they collaps towards each other. It that movement does also involve the width of the band, it it's possible to engage in some kind of "oscillating" state. What happened before the current phase/stint is not determineable. If this line or argument is valid (and there is nothing to disprove it, as far as i know it) the universe in it's _current_ state had a beginning, but not neseccarily all states of it.
No cause needed, like your god.

>>5202465
>so edgy
Is that the best you got? That I ask questions of people making claims?
Go crawl under some rock.

>>5202471
Are you retarded? I responded to your responder, and am an Atheist myself.
So he was edgy, and you are retarded. Settled.

>>5202479
Meh.

Why are women so shallow?

>>5202363

Apostate here.

Shit tier religion. Even worse in it's application.

>>5202485
Do you just sit around and huff paint, is that why you're "trolling" /sci/ by spamming tfw?
You've been at this for quite a long time now, you're dedicated and all, but /sci/ deserves better trolling than this.

this thread is proof /sci/ is no smarter than /b/.

>>5202465
The 'Oscillating universe' might have had multiple states, our current universe being one of them. But this model of the universe must deal with the infinite regress problem. That is, you cannot have an infinite amount of events occuring in the past. The conclusion follows that regardless of how many theories are proposed, one cannot escape the question of the primal cause of the universe.

>>5202363
This is a fucking joke right? It's a fucking ideology, i.e. a great merging of both earthly and theistical dwellings. Sharia etc., politics is an intrinsic part of it. No islam without a rule for living.

>>5202500
I'm not trolling. I feel it everyday. Please help me find gf.

>>5202509
>infinite regress problem
The same applies to the existance of god in every single second. This line of thought is not fit to disprove just side of the argument.

I also punch my dog when people ask me questions.

is this weird?

>>5202525
It shows the problems that naturalistic theories encounter when dealing with universes that deals with infinities.

>>5202532
Whatever. Get back to me when you say something beyond "a first cause exists", because I do not care.

>>5202509
You can not escape the question of the primal cause of God either. I completely reject the idea of anything being exempt from logic.

"He can do anything he is God :)" is not an acceptable argument. It is worthless. If you don't obey the rules of the game you can not play; simple as that.

>>5202541

>>5201788

First of all, that's not really what the theory implies.

Second of all, it's not wishful thinking, it's just how it must be.

Think about it--where or not you believe in a divine creator, it doesn't matter. We have to assume that at some point in this entire time of everything BEING, something must have come from nothing. It's the only way we can make sense of it all. Creator or big-bang, let's assume something came before it. Before that, something must have been around. So you get this infinity. But in order for the infinity to be there, then you have some other outside starting thing. Then there's OTHER stuff before that.

It'll keep going on like that, unless you assume, "You know what? Maybe at some point it was just nothing, and then something came up."

That's just me, anyway. My opinion. I'm not a scientist, but I come on here because it's a fun read. Am I making any sense?

>>5202509
>That is, you cannot have an infinite amount of events occuring in the past.

Provide philosophical evidence for this.

>>5202547
You are my new favorite hero.
Fucking saved.

Are there any femanons on /sci/?

pls respond

>>5202555
>>5202547

pls go

>>5202534
You don't care and yet you show interest in science?
People in pursuit of science or knowledge should care and always be curious. Where ever the evidence leads them to, they must be open minded and not brush things aside if it makes them uncomfortable.

When the logical conclusion leads us to 2 options, either the first cause is nothing, or the first cause is God, then you or any one else must be open to investigation. Why are you afraid of the option God?

Apparently, you believe rather in 'nothing' as a cause of the universe (that is what it eventually boils down to) or you accept God as the prior cause of the universe. If it is the second option, then it is your obligation to come in terms with this reality.

Postponing this decision is cheating (we don't know the cause etc etc), either the cause is nothing or the cause is God.

Don't hide behind the face of 'we don't know'.

>>5202555
You are welcome.
I'm off, but i'll leave a piece of polemic here.

How to get gf?

>>5202581
Ah yes, the "Why can't I own a Canadian?" letter. Good times.

>>5202581

You are the worst kind of cancer.

>>5202588

>>5202580
>You don't care and yet you show interest in science?
If your claim is not falsifiable, then it is not science.

If your belief does not affect your other beliefs or actions, then it is vacuous.

That seems to be your position at the moment.

>>5202594

Not even religious. You're just a faggot.

>>5202594
Can atheism tell me how to get gf?

>>5202598
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief
or
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

>>5202581
>Romans 13
>1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.

>>5202598

If I get sex change surgery, can I get lesbian gf?

>>5202580
God is not a first cause, because the cause of God came before, and the cause of that came even earlier.

Either way it is infinite regression. It doesn't matter if "God" is a part of the chain, OR ALL OF THE CHAIN. The chain is still without beginning.

Wow, you can't even be an atheist who hates religion anymore without being associate with reddit anymore?

You know what? You guys are both faggots.

>>5202616
To clarify my actual point of that; I reject your premise of an infinite regression being impossible though other means but God.

>>5202629
Nietche was from Reddit, duuhh.

>>5202595
My claim is falsifiable.
If you can show that the universe came into existence from nothing,then the claim that God was the primal cause of the universe has been falsified.

Thus far, the claim that God is the prior cause of the universe is the most consistent and choherent claim of the two.

The prior cause of the universe is:
A) Nothing.
B) God.

If A true, then B is falsified.
If not A, then B.

>>5202598
No, you are.

>>5202643
>My claim is falsifiable.
>If you can show that the universe came into existence from nothing,then the claim that God was the primal cause of the universe has been falsified.
Give me an example falsifying observation that we might see. If you cannot do that, then the idea is not sufficiently well defined to even be meaningful.

>>5202643

Not that guy, but why are the options JUST "Nothing" and "God"?

How can I become alpha?

>>5202661
'cause he's an idiot.

>tfw the only women I ever talked to were tripfags on 4chan and they are probably men

>>5202598
>>5202673
take that cancer back to r9k, fit or b

>>5202677

>>>r/atheism

>>5202643
>If A true, then B is falsified.

Why? Why on earth is that?

I though God didn't need to obey basic logic. Care to make a list of which rules still apply? Clearly infinite regression is no problem for him, why is this?

>>5202682
linking that site.
Heretic!

>>5202677
But /r9k/, /fit/ and /b/ are normalfags. They don't undrestand my feels.

Why are women not attracted to intelligence?

>>5202696
back to krautcrap

>>5202720
Never been there. Can they help me find gf?

>>5202733

No more than we can.

>>5202696
>/r9k/
>/b/
>normal

>>5202643
You craigbots are rather persistent and boring beings.

>>5202753
Who can help me?

>>5202755
They are normalfags. Many of them had gfs.

>>5202755
>Implying "SQUATZ N OATZ" is normal

>>5202803

I bet you're a curlbro with mad gyno who does nothing but 'mire cardiobunnies instead of doing a respectable split. You probably don't even go ATG. You do crossfit and eat cheat meals every day. Your gainz are not natty and you think you're ottermode but you have no legs.

dyel?