[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 155 KB, 1500x1080, 060915_CMB_Timeline150-56a72b9c5f9b58b7d0e78855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15365903 No.15365903 [Reply] [Original]

If you believe in creationism, I've got one little task for you. That's all. One task. Show me the proof.

>> No.15365907

>>15365903
because by default we should be assuming the steady-state universe, creation is religious dogma, and wouldn't be in cosmology if not for this bias.

>> No.15365910

>>15365903
>If you believe there is life on other planets, I've got one little task for you. That's all. One task. Show me the proof.

>> No.15365913

>>15365910
Strawmanning already? Come on now anon

>> No.15365917

>religion vs science thread

>> No.15365924

>>15365903
their proof is the bible. it's an assertation of their understanding. religious people value traditional understandings. even if they are not confirmed by any of their own sensory knowledge.

>> No.15365931

>>15365903
Also prove that germs don't and never have caused disease symptoms

>> No.15365955
File: 7 KB, 215x234, download (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15365955

>>15365903
>>15365924
"But the bible said there was a moment of creation, so you see the einstein steady-state model must be abandoned"

>> No.15365971

big bang was literally proposed by a priest. its wrong anyways as shown by arp's work

>> No.15365972
File: 1.46 MB, 2289x1701, 1611312397491.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15365972

>>15365903
But will you actually research the proof or, like most pseudoskeptics never actually read the literature and just assume it can not be there, so there is no need to read it? If so, you are as dogmatic as religious people. If not, know that one NDE researcher said that he does not know anyone who has read the literature on NDEs who has not been convinced by it. And NDErs talk about God running the afterlife and that the universe was created (and is one in beyond trillions upon trillions in the multiverse).

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.

>> No.15365980

>>15365972
near death experience
the lowest a person could be in terms of cognitive ability aside from actually dead. we are now taking this as a source for how we should interpret our lives.

>> No.15365990

>>15365972
also, how would you interpret an afterlife as existing from the information given to you by people who aren't dead? that doesn't even make logical sense.

>> No.15365996

>>15365903
You know I was meditating on some of the most recent results of the JWST and how it is proving fancy PhD astrophysicists wrong. They saw galaxies so far and so old and so mature it seems to turn all current theories inside out. I think any intelligent and honest observer will admit that the more we learn and the better our technology gets....well it never fails to prove how little we truly know and how easy it is for us all to make mistakes when dealing with systems so large and beyond comprehension as the universe itself. By the definition of the Cosmological Horizon we can't even be sure if we can view 90% of the Universe or 0.000001% of the Universe.

I'm sorry but I study space and physics every chance I get, almost every day. The more I learn and the more I think, the more God seems to be the pivot point of all equations. Maybe that's what eludes the fancy PhDs, the humble admission that God might be the true theory of everything. But they seem blinded by their hubris. Oh well.

>> No.15366003

>>15365996
Sorry, I should have written Abrahamism. Creationism isn't really falsifiable.

>> No.15366008

>>15365971
>its wrong anyways as shown by arp's work
False

>> No.15366020

experience. I'm not engaged, but it seems too creepy. if the Universe was merely dead matter then, I mean we wouldn't be here, but there's this experience, and it's individual, an individual awareness, I think there's no explanation to it

>> No.15366024

>>15365972
While NDEs can be fascinating and deeply moving experiences, it's important to be cautious about drawing conclusions about the nature of the afterlife or the existence of God based solely on them.

First, NDEs are subjective experiences and can vary widely depending on the individual's cultural background, personal beliefs, and other factors. It's possible that the reported experiences of NDErs reflect their own expectations and beliefs about what the afterlife should be like, rather than an objective reality.

Second, while it's true that some NDErs report encountering God or a divine presence, this does not necessarily prove the existence of God. One possible explanation for these experiences is that they reflect a natural human tendency to seek comfort and meaning in times of crisis or extreme stress.

Finally, even if NDEs do provide evidence for an afterlife, it does not necessarily follow that this afterlife is synonymous with heaven or that belief in God is necessary for a positive afterlife experience. There are a wide variety of religious and spiritual beliefs about the afterlife, and it's important to respect the diversity of perspectives on this topic.

Ultimately, while NDEs can be powerful and transformative experiences, it's important to approach them with a critical and open-minded perspective, rather than jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality based on anecdotal evidence.

>> No.15366032

>>15365972
They may be convinced by deep NDEs exist but that in no way translates to any substantial proof.

Dmt levels in the brain peak tenfold in a near-death state, which coupled with low brain activity can lead to psychedelic effects.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01424/full

> found a significant overlap in nearly all of the NDE phenomenological features when comparing DMT-induced NDEs with a matched group of ‘actual’ NDE experiencers.

DMT marks all the same measures used to score NDEs.

No crazy proof of anything but still a better explanation than the existence of some afterlife

>> No.15366034

>>15365996
>hubris
Declaring that your preferred religion is absolutely correct and anyone who doubts it is merely being arrogant is the apex of humility.

>> No.15366077

>>15365924
>even if they are not confirmed by any of their own sensory knowledge.
What about when they are?

>> No.15366088

>>15365903
Big bang doesn't disprove creationism, I still believe "something" made a conscious decision to create our local universe.

>> No.15366096

>>15366088
Imagine what kind of extraterrestrial life can exist in that scenario

>> No.15366105

>>15366088
the big bang is creationism, just on the scale of the cosmos.
The idea of a point of creation is a christian idea.
The big bang is a theory born of bias towards this christian idea in response to the Einstein Static Model of the universe and findings by Edwin Hubble at the time.

>> No.15366108

>>15366077
provide an example

>> No.15366110

>>15366105
I'm glad at least one person had the wisdom to BTFO Einstein and his schizophrenic views back then. If only more people had.

>> No.15366113

>>15366108
The miracle at Fatima.

>> No.15366117

>>15366110
this is the worst take ive seen today

>> No.15366122

>>15366113
NTA but you'd have to be over a century old for that to be confirmed by your own sensory knowledge. Post wrinkles.

>> No.15366124

>>15366105
all religions share the idea of a beginning, its not a "christian" thing. what a dumb take

>> No.15366125

>>15366122
Fatima occurred only 10 years before LeMaitre proposed Big Bang cosmology.

>> No.15366130

>>15365903
you consider our world appearing out of nowhere by pure coincidence to be a more logical explanation?

>> No.15366132

>>15366125
I see your point, thanks for clarifying.

>> No.15366134

>>15366124
not even close.
buddhism for instance the dharma is eternal,
but yeah its only the third or fourth most common religion in the world

>> No.15366136

>>15366113
explain how this supports the adoption of a religious understanding

>> No.15366189

>>15366096
Our universe could be inside an ancient black hole of another universe, that's what I like to believe.
Whatever gave it space is the mystery.
Maybe at a certain point during the black hole era of another universe a black hole gets so big it erupts and creates new space, using the singularity as the seed for energy in that universe.

>> No.15366194

>>15366189
a black hole could create a new spacetime within spacetime. like a local spacetime that potentially has SOL > c. Think about it. c could just be that you're pushing out the shwardschild radius of the blackhole enclosing our local spacetime

>> No.15366418

>>15366136
A valid and widely documented miracle of Christianity corroborated even by atheist and anti-religious attendees is very good empirical evidence for a religious worldview.

>> No.15366473

>>15366418
it's a miniscule amount of contradictory information regarding the appearance of the sun. how does this offer any support to religious understandings?

>> No.15366541

>>15366024
Obvious ChatGPT generation, invalid

>> No.15366546

>>15365917

>> No.15366576

>>15365903
You've been shown the proof. The onus of belief is on you. I can't believe for you. Ignorance is a choice, you're free to choose it.
>>15365917
Religion and science are the same thing. Not sure why they are put at odds. Only brainlets and pedantics separate them.