Why

[Anonymous No.9965875]

Almost (((14 billion years ago))) nothing exploded into something. And from that nothing came everything. Personally I don't believe the human mind that exists now can ever comprehend how anything came to exist, we just simply aren't physically able to understand how something can come from nothing, it's unnatural. But obviously perfectly natural.

If there ever was truly nothing, which at one point has to have been true, how can something randomly appear? How can we ever have existed? Doesn't that mean right now we don't actually exist?

To me this is one of the only questions in the world to actually have value, how do you think we really came to be?

How do you think we came to be here?

[Anonymous No.9965879]

Don't have kids.

[Anonymous No.9965884]

Something can not come from nothing.

/thread

[Anonymous No.9965885]

>>9965875
The Big Bang theory is almost a religion tier explanation for how the universe came to be. I’m not saying it’s not the best explanation, but it relies on a shitload of speculation.

I doubt we’ll ever know how or why it happened, or what was before it.

[Anonymous No.9965887]

>>9965875

It makes more sense to say that the universe simply always has been, and always will be. How do you get to the conclusion that there was at some point, nothing?

[Anonymous No.9965892]

Bumping to hear OP's LSD fueled response.

[Anonymous No.9965895]

>>9965887
Edwin Hubble through observations in the telescope proved that galaxies are moving away from us, leading to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning.

[Anonymous No.9965898]

>>9965887
That’s just guessing you idiot

[Anonymous No.9965903]

>>9965895
>>9965898

I'm the idiot..? Objects in space move with regard to reference points, in this case two galaxies using each other as the reference point. In an infinitely vast universe, there could be a third object so far away that we could not measure it with any technology. Humans make me sick...

[Anonymous No.9965904]

>>9965895
That doesn't point to it at any point having been nothing - contrary to popular belief, this is not something big bang theory attempts to do.

>>9965884
Due to causality, or time, each event begats another, yes... But what begat causality? What begat time?

It does get to be rather tiresome trying to argue about a time before time.

I suppose there's the standard popsci answer, that never satisfies anyone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

But really, it maybe that nothing, like infinity, is an entirely human concept that does not and has never existed in reality.

[Anonymous No.9965905]

>>9965903
I said that saying that the universe had always been there is guessing

Totally baseless

[Anonymous No.9965906]

>>9965903
It's not two galaxies, brainlet. All the galaxies are moving away from us. In fact, the farther away, the faster they are moving away from us.

[Anonymous No.9965910]

>>9965906
Not him, but all that tells you is that the universe used to be smaller.

[Anonymous No.9965912]

>>9965904

I'm not arguing perception, rather probability.

>>9965905

Something coming from nothing is simply unscientific, you're on the wrong board mister. >>>/x/

>>9965906
>>9965910


Holy fuck the ignorance... The quantity of objects in this equation doesn't change anything. That third mass some un-measurable distance from anything we could currently observe would perceive those galaxies moving away from ours as moving towards theirs. In that exact galaxy, there's probably some asshole very similar to you, debating the same garbage.

[Anonymous No.9965932]

>>9965912
>That third mass some un-measurable distance from anything we could currently observe would perceive those galaxies moving away from ours as moving towards theirs.
That's not how it works - everyone, everywhere, would observe all galaxies outside their local cluster as accelerating away from them, the further away, the greater that acceleration, at a predictable rate. That's why it's called "universal expansion".

All that tells you is all this crap used to be much closer together and in far less space, and, given what we know about atomic limits, not in its current form. It does not, at any point, get you to where you can say "there was nothing", especially considering we know the consequence of having more than 3 solar masses squeezed into space about the size of the moon, isn't nothing, it's a singularity, and there's no practical limit to what you can stuff into one of those, especially in an equally contracted space with no other mass in it.

There is no "nothing" in the big bang model.

[Anonymous No.9965953]

>>9965932

Thanks for being a bit more scientific, though there are still cracks in this post. Let me break it down some...

> There is us, and the masses around us we can observe/measure
> There is us, and the masses far away from us which we cannot observe
> The probability of those far away masses observing universal expansion is equal to the probability that they are observing universal deflation

Your explanation is the equivalent of living in Antartica, observing snow, and concluding that there must be snowfall in every part of the world.

[Anonymous No.9965963]

>>9965932

Picture we are in galaxy "A" with green masses demonstrating expansion. Galaxies B & C are so far we cannot see them even with our most powerful telescopes. The possibility of this situation actually happening is great, especially after ruling out the "nothingness" theory that op beshat on this board. Each of the galaxies and their green masses would perceive a closing of distance between each other cluster, respectively. So... It does work that way champ.

> PS: Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way
> ???
> !!!

[Anonymous No.9965970]

>>9965953
The Big Bang was an explosion *of* space, not an explosion *in* space. So, the Big Bang was very different from any explosion we are accustomed to and it does not need to have a central point.

If the Big Bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space, we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.

It is important to stress that other observations support the view that there is no centre to the universe, at least insofar as observations can reach. The fact that the universe is expanding uniformly would not rule out the possibility that there is some denser, hotter place that might be called the centre, but careful studies of the distribution and motion of galaxies confirm that it is homogeneous on the largest scales we can see, with no sign of a special point to call the centre.

Physics throughout the universe should remain the same - there's no way to definitively prove that, of course, but there's, thus far, no evidence to contradict it.

[Anonymous No.9965972]

>andromeda is on a collision course with milky way
And??? Universal expansion can exist with gravity. One doesn’t negate the other

[Anonymous No.9965973]

>>9965972
Dunno who you are quoting - but gravity could negate the expansion of the universe - there just isn't enough of it. Something we didn't figure out for sure until recently - used to be "Big Crunch" was seriously considered a possibility.

[Anonymous No.9965974]

I'm going to work, you all ruined my day

[Anonymous No.9965979]

>>9965970
>cosmic microwave background radiation
literally just noise

how the fuck they speculate on an inflaton and such like anyway when there's no theory of quantum gravity

[Anonymous No.9965983]

>>9965963
> PS: Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way
Andromeda is part of our local cluster, as are all the other handful of blue shifted galaxies. Gravity binds us locally - same reason universal expansion doesn't drag us away from the sun. However, beyond a certain point, space is expanding too quickly for gravity to catch up, ever. Of the ~200 billion galaxies we've observed, less than a 100 are blue shifted at all, and they are all orbiting in our local group.

In less than 100 billion years, we will no longer be able to observe any of the galaxies that haven't merged with ours (and before then, the CMB will no longer be visible). We're already looking at galaxies so red shifted that we can only be looking at their "shadows".

[Anonymous No.9965985]

>>9965979
It's an impenetrable wall of plasma that appears in all directions. If it was "random noise" it wouldn't be opaque at light and uniformly appearing at a specific distance.

[Anonymous No.9965989]

>>9965985
It's a meme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Low_multipoles_and_other_anomalies

Just lol. The particle physics Standard Model is the most accurate scientific theory ever produced and contradicts a fundamental constant of """physical""" cosmology by 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is the probably least accurate prediction in the history of all science. Hell even Archimedes correctly guesstimated the approximate order of the number of nucleons within the cosmic horizon.

[Anonymous No.9965992]

>>9965973
Quoting this spas sorry >>9965963

[Anonymous No.9965995]

>>9965989
>Claims it doesn't exist
>Links thing literally analyzing it
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9965997]

>>9965995
I'm saying they p-hacked the hell out of an extremely small variance to derive the desired result. Further contradictions to the theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cosmic_structures#List_of_largest_structures
See top 5.

[Anonymous No.9966000]

>>9965997
>Doesn't understand the difference between hubble diameter and observable radius.

[Anonymous No.9966013]

>>9966000
yeah it's rock solid stuff all right
>156 billion light-years
>This figure was obtained by doubling 78 billion light-years on the assumption that it is a radius.[44] Because 78 billion light-years is already a diameter (the original paper by Cornish et al. says, "By extending the search to all possible orientations, we will be able to exclude the possibility that we live in a universe smaller than 24 Gpc in diameter," and 24 Gpc is 78 billion light-years),[39] the doubled figure is incorrect. This figure was very widely reported.[44][45][46] A press release from Montana State University–Bozeman, where Cornish works as an astrophysicist, noted the error when discussing a story that had appeared in Discover magazine, saying "Discover mistakenly reported that the universe was 156 billion light-years wide, thinking that 78 billion was the radius of the universe instead of its diameter."[47] As noted above, 78 billion was also incorrect.
>180 billion light-years
>This estimate combines the erroneous 156-billion-light-year figure with evidence that the M33 Galaxy is actually fifteen percent farther away than previous estimates and that, therefore, the Hubble constant is fifteen percent smaller.[48] The 180-billion figure is obtained by adding 15% to 156 billion light-years.

[Anonymous No.9966031]

Something can come from nothing, we know this now.

[Anonymous No.9966035]

>>9965875
>nothing exploded into something
↑ the Homer Simpson model of cosmogenesis

[Anonymous No.9966036]

>>9966031
>we know this
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.9966038]

>>9966036
"We" is anyone who bothers keeping up with current research.

[Anonymous No.9966039]

>>9965989
>It's a meme.
Lrn2meme fgt pls

[Anonymous No.9966043]

>>9966038
>anyone who bothers others by claiming
>to be keeping up with current research
FTFY

[Anonymous No.9966088]

>>9966039
Don't you think it's a little suspicious chaotic inflationary models were based on amplifying white noise?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314004985

[Anonymous No.9966266]

>>9965875
Since theres alot of shit posting here then i wanna say thank you OP for this thread!

First off this is really interesting. Secondly it is like everything that has an begining also has an end. Then if so then how deep is space, is it infinous? I think i got a strong theory. Since i thought of this exact thing before. So i made up a few hypotesis about it. Lets say space and time has always existed and is therefore eternal to all existence. So space can therefore be infinitly huge. And there is no begining of time. And then comes another purpose. Matter. Emerged from nothing. And ultimately the core becomes so unstable that it explodes into stars and galaxies. To ultimately bring life. But where did the core come from? Nobody can tell. Only thing i can say is that it had a purpose. It held the building blocks to ultimately create life. But it needed to be hell of a big mass of matter to succeed it's purpose. And for that to become human is really a drop in the ocean coincident. Makes us very very very rare. So rare that were maybe the only intelligent life form in the universe. It's so strange that you can say that there is something godly over it. But that is just a conspiracy. The closest i can say is that there is something eternal. Life is just a paradox with purpose. One thing is that it is immensly beautiful when you learn to see it. Makes me want to live forever. Makes everything sufferable.

TLDR time and space is eternal. Matter is energy. And so are we. Then who made us? If there is no god then nobody would know ever. Is the same with then who made god. The answer is nothing. But it could be something. Trippy? Tbh don't let yourself be confused. Because that's how bibles are made. To confuse the confused abit more. That's not what life is about. It would only bring misserability. Instead try to search Nirvana. Because the answer is within you. God is within you. You are eternal. Now go make me happy.

E=mc2 eternal energy happened. Only god know

[Anonymous No.9966281]

>>9965875
>believe
take your philosophical gibberish somewhere like church where it belongs.

[Anonymous No.9966322]

Everything has a reason a purpose and a meaning. Even what comes before the big bang. God made it that way. But what's the begining of the begining. It's like the universe is like a seed, it only need water then it grows. And for that to happen you need force. Makes at least me a believer in higher forces. Maybe there is an entity of sentient being behind void space. Maybe theres not. Well, at least were here to make the party startin'. The earth is very beautiful. The only question i have is how to fullfill your destiny. Maybe it is to make the world a better place. Maybe it is having a child. At least we know that everything needs to get nourishment. In the right porportions. What a beautiful place it would be if everyone just did right. Were not here to fight over this place anymore at least. Some people just find it to easy to hate and not love. They have an unpure ego. It is actually so bad that i have issues with trusting anyone at all. They think they love but they don't love anything but themselves. It's kind of frightning when you think of all the weapons we have. It is devistating. Check for moral. The world is crazy and insane. Still i love it. Not what's bad in it, but what's good. No wonder you can go mad in it even with good intuition. But madness provoke madness. But that's a lesson. Whatever would last longest. Fucking sharing oxygen with these bastards. Be brave and stay strong. Try to remove your ego. Then you see what i mean. Just sharing wisdom.

[Anonymous No.9966324]

>>9966322
>God made it that way

[Anonymous No.9966343]

>>9965875
The obvious answer is that it wasn't literally "nothing". It was also something.

The unsettling implication of this is that there is such a thing as infinity, existing in some hard-to-grasp form.

Is this any easier to grasp? I'm not sure.

[Anonymous No.9966356]

>>9965904
>what begat causality
Look up loop quantum gravity. The universe likely was incredibly dense but not literally "infinitely" dense at the singularity. The singularity is likely simply the point at which the universe can get no smaller so it must expand. Does this mean the "big bounce" is what begat current inflation? Who knows? This would also imply that the universe is "eternal" and time is an illusion coming as a consequence of inflation. What does THAT "mean"? Again, who knows?

[Anonymous No.9966694]

>>9965970

You can't find the center because Earth is the center.

[Anonymous No.9966695]

>>9966694
every point is equally the center you retarded mongoloid

[Anonymous No.9966698]

>>9966695

You can't have more than one center, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9966705]

>>9966698
you're too dumb to understand so i wont bother trying to explain to you why everywhere is simultaneously equally the center of the universe.

[Anonymous No.9966751]

>>9966705

No, try

[Anonymous No.9967658]

Can someone explain why there is matter. How did that come to be? I also mean mass. But matter and mass is the same sort of right?

My thesis is that gravitational forces in space plus magnetism etc provokes a vacuum between space and dark matter that somehow currents hydrogen to appear in space. Some sort of binding forces makes it possible for mass to just appear randomly through out space. This force must have it's origins from the earliest begining. It equals matter, time, anti matter, gravity, magnetism, heat, mass and energy. All these forces combined makes the universe to what it is. So my question is what the hell happened with the big bang. How do you start with empty space and end up with such colossal amounts of hydrogen and energy which appeared within the core of the big bang? Things cannot just appear from nothing? You can say that it did but there is an immense force behind it all. This bothers me. I think also that space has maybe had earlier moments where alot of powerful things happened like cosmological storms and explotions in it immense origins. I wonder what put mass into the universe. Did it start with mass or space? It says that black holes can consume anything that comes near it. That it is an opening for another dimension. So could same way happen the other way? That this space suddenly get matter from another dimension? It's amazing that all this gave the outspring for life. Especially intelligent life forms. The chances and the odds. Even in a billion billions of years. Still no one knows what made the universe. Anyway it's amazing that we are where we are even without knowing. Without believing in any supreme power that rules the universe or made it. Dosen't mean there are no eternal forces messing around up here. But if one lead leads to another then why isn't it a god. Next up is what made god. Then were onto the real deal and that's that everything that has an begining also has an end. Except time and space. Will we ever know.

[Anonymous No.9967673]

>>9965875
as an organic and natural vessel... is the brain even able to comprehend things that could not exist in the universe?

but then.... does it mean everything a human can think of is possible somewhere somehow?

[Anonymous No.9967690]

On the first day god decided to take a big shit and thus the universe was born. On the second day he didn't feel like cleaning up the mess so he just left it, just like we put off cleaning behind the toilet until the fucking black mold hits. We are the black mold that spawned from god's dank ass shit.

[Anonymous No.9967972]

>>9967658
Most mass in matter we commonly interact with is created by massless particles traveling at the speed of light in a bound fashion. Most of the mass of protons and neutrons is the result of the dance of particles bound within them, which have their probabilities bound into a range by the force they exert on one another, providing a local clock (said forces also propagating at the speed of light). This is why they resist acceleration, and why nothing with mass can reach the speed of light, and why only things with mass have "proper time".

Or the popsci version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKzgpt4HBU

[Anonymous No.9967978]

>>9967673
>as an organic and natural vessel... is the brain even able to comprehend things that could not exist in the universe?
>What is fiction?
Yes, obviously. Though imagination is limited as it works by syntheses, be it of observations (unicorns) or concepts (math). Someone who has never seen nor heard of a horned animal or a horse, will never imagine a unicorn. (Mods, please do not mistake this for a brony post - though the fact the thread exists does rather suggest you are sleeping.)

[Anonymous No.9967988]

>>9967658
>>9967972
>How did that come to be?
As it for how it came to be, the idea is unification energy released by the bigbang seperated out into individual forces as space expanded ahead of it and cooled, allowing the potentials within them to interact upon one another in varying ways, bringing about the standard model of particle physics, allowing them to create bonds of simple matter (hydrogen/helium). The mass that resulted in turn brought the simplest atoms together, recombining it into heavier elements, mostly inside stars, which through collisions and the death throes of their explosions, released their creations - rinse and repeat.

Or for the really short version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs

[Anonymous No.9969294]

>>9966322
>Just sharing wisdom
you blew it in the end. Nice message though.

[Anonymous No.9969299]

>>9965875
From nothing, comes nothing.

Anyone who does not believe in a Creator will be sadly mistaken.

[Anonymous No.9969302]

>>9967988
Where did the variability / asymmetry of it, emanate from?

[Anonymous No.9969304]

>>9967972
>massless particles
Do you even read your own posts?

[Anonymous No.9970293]

>>9969304
Gluons and photons are are both massless particles.

[Anonymous No.9970312]

>>9969302
The reigning theory is that a quantum mechanical regime reigned at the beginning introducing the homogenizing effect of an inflaton field, with quantum fluctuations which became the seeds for the nonuniformity at 10^-5 level in the CMB plot.

These seeds are the ones that started the gravitational regions which became clusters of galaxies, galaxies and stars.

Coupled with this there is a cascade theory which seems plausible. On the fringe you'll hear things like other universal membranes interfering with our own (though I think they ruled that out).

Practically speaking, when taken as a whole, the universe (and even the GMB) is very close to uniform, so these minor differences (which are the only reason there are different things), are rather magnified from our perspective. Those images of the CMB are the equivalent of going into Google Earth and turning the mountain height factor to max.

[Anonymous No.9970417]

>>9965875

Wasn't nothing.

Just as nuclear fission and fusion is a chain reaction, so is whatever that created all this mess.

[Anonymous No.9970450]

>>9967972
what do you mean 'or the popsci version' i've watched that video before and your post is just a restatement of what he said in it

[Anonymous No.9970462]

>>9970450
Ya mean what the post ya linked said? As it alludes to nothing that the Anon it was responding to said, save the answer the first few of that torrent of claims and questions.

It explains the point in more detail with visualizations, in a short and abridged fashion. The non-popsci version would involve a whole lotta math and papers, or at least a much longer lecture that'd require a background that included said to understand, but the basic facts would more or less match up, as PBS Spacetime is generally not *bad* pop-sci.

[Anonymous No.9970473]

>>9970462
no i meant what the video host said. You wrote out the same things as in the video and then said "or, here is the popsci version" like the video is at a lower level than what you wrote, but it's the same level

[Anonymous No.9970482]

>>9970473
Popular science, when it's just abridged and digested, but nonetheless as close to correct as possible, and it also prevents giving you just enough rope to hang yourself with by addressing the pitfalls this partial knowledge might lead to, isn't bad. If anything, the video is at a higher level than those few sentences I posted - didn't mean to suggest otherwise, only that it isn't a scientific paper or any such.

[Anonymous No.9972331]

>>9966088
>chaotic inflationary models were based on data
Oh how suspicious is that, faggot?

[Anonymous No.9972349]

>>9972331
if the model is based on noise the data is probably what?

[HughAndEverett No.9972354]

Go read the boltzman brain

[Anonymous No.9972379]

>>9972354
How many holes are there in torus-Earth?

[Anonymous No.9972388]

>>9972349
A giant wall of plasma equidistant in all directions makes for a fuckload of "noise".

[Anonymous No.9972946]

>>9965983
>In less than 100 billion years, we will no longer be able to observe any of the galaxies that haven't merged with ours
why is that?

[Anonymous No.9972951]

>>9972946
Cuz space is expanding that quickly, and only accelerating.

[Anonymous No.9972984]

>>9972951
so there's evidence that galaxies are moving at FTL speed away from us?

[Anonymous No.9972989]

>>9965884
>I have never heard of quantum physics in my life

[Anonymous No.9972993]

>>9972984
Space is expanding, nothing's moving

[Anonymous No.9972994]

>>9965885
Not at all. Big Bang cosmology is irrefutable fact, and our lack of knowledge about what could hypothetically predate it is irrelevant to this.

[Anonymous No.9972999]

>>9972946
They’ll be too far away for their photons to ever reach us, due to the spacetime in between us expanding.

[Anonymous No.9973001]

>>9972993
how fast is it expanding compared to light speed?

[Anonymous No.9973009]

>>9972994
>Big Bang cosmology is irrefutable fact

[Anonymous No.9973016]

>>9972993
whats the difference anyway?

[Anonymous No.9973031]

>>9972984
>>9973001
Faster, apparently - space, unlike everything in it, isn't restricted to the speed of light. It's about 68 km/s per megaparsec of distance, meaning quite a bit of the universe is already beyond the point where light can reach back to us. (Conservative guestimates suggesting that what lays beyond is 250 times the size of the observable universe, but that's weighing a lot of blurry factors together.)

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-fast-universe.html

https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5476

[Anonymous No.9973038]

>>9973009
Yep. It’s possible that the Big Bang was the next episode after a Big Crunch, or is the asshole of a black hole, or a magical fairy cast a spell and brought it into existence, but it is now irrefutable that the universe’s earliest moments were hot, dense, much smaller than it is now, and that it then expanded.

[Anonymous No.9973043]

>>9973038

The big bang theory is a metaphysical idea. "Observational evidence" that "supports" it is not scientific at all, it's simply measuring electromagnetic radiation in a certain way, and then interpreting (twisting) the observation/data in a way that supports the retarded "theory".

Because it is a metaphysical idea, it is constructed using other metaphysical constructs such as "time" or "spacetime". Neither of these things are actually physical and therefore cannot be used in a scientific theory.

Also, who came up with the big bang theory if you don't mind?

[Anonymous No.9973052]

>>9973043
Nope. Big Bang cosmology is a model of the universe’s development in which the universe expanded from a hot, dense state 13.8 billion years ago, though the timescale could hypothetically change with the general idea remaining the same. This idea was posited due to the redshift of distant galaxies and the predicted existence of the cosmic microwave background was later confirmed. It has nothing to do with metaphysics, sorry. You’re a liar, and it is irrelevant who came up with the idea.

[Anonymous No.9973059]

>>9965875
You see kids quantum field variations are actually not something. Even though the entire concept that a system that allows for quantum field variations is laughably absurd to the point that even a child should know it's bullshit, this is what mass autism and fetishization of established equations gets you. No need for a scientific revolution here, just keep charging down the path established by other mediocre "scientists" decades ago until you've worn out their math like the mong you are. God I hate modern academia

[Anonymous No.9973061]

>>9973059
Even though the entire concept that a system that allows for quantum field variations could be nothing*

[Anonymous No.9973066]

>>9973052
subquantum kinetics btfo's this bullshit

[Anonymous No.9973072]

>>9973052
>This idea was posited due to the redshift of distant galaxies and the predicted existence of the cosmic microwave background was later confirmed.
When was the theory proposed, and when was "galactic redshift" confirmed?

>You’re a liar, and it is irrelevant who came up with the idea.
I just want to check you know who came up with it, what was their name?

[Anonymous No.9973079]

>>9965875
It’s impossible for there to be nothing. Some thing has always existed, but it must be outside of time. Anyone who believes *this* universe has existed forever is retarded. Infinite regress blocks that shit.

[Anonymous No.9973085]

>>9973072
>When was the theory proposed, and when was "galactic redshift" confirmed?

1927 and 1912 respectively.

>I just want to check you know who came up with it, what was their name?

George Lemaitre. It is irrelevant who came up with the idea, sweetie, so dunno what you’re trying to say. :-)

[Anonymous No.9973087]

>>9973079
Anything outside of time can never do anything since it’s outside of cause-and-effect and changing or doing anything whatsoever, so no,

[Anonymous No.9973090]

>>9973085
>1927
Correct.
>1912
Strange, wasn't it 1929 when Hubble "concluded" the galaxies were drifting apart?

>George Lemaitre. It is irrelevant who came up with the idea, sweetie, so dunno what you’re trying to say. :-)
Correct - was Georges a creationist? I can't remember.

[Anonymous No.9973091]

>>9973087
>he doesn’t know that reality is unchanging

[Anonymous No.9973098]

prime numbers my dude

[Anonymous No.9973100]

>>9973090
>Strange, wasn't it 1929 when Hubble "concluded" the galaxies were drifting apart?

Yes, but the redshift had already been discovered in 1912 by Vesto Slipher, and he continued to make these observations for a number of years.

[Anonymous No.9973103]

>>9973090
>Correct - was Georges a creationist? I can't remember.

Yes, its a stain on his character. Congrats on making a non-point about the personal beliefs of a scientist that died decades ago?

[Anonymous No.9973108]

>>9973090
Something tells me your whole argument relied on evidence for the Big Bang being discovered after the idea was proposed and you don’t know what to do now that you know that is untrue.

[Anonymous No.9973117]

>>9973100
>Vesto Slipher
So the expanding universe idea was not concocted in 1929?

>>9973103
My point is that the big bang theory is not incompatible with creationist theory, do you agree with this?

[Anonymous No.9973120]

>>9973108
>The Belgian astronomer and Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed on theoretical grounds that the universe is expanding, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble.
Are you disagreeing with this?

[Anonymous No.9973126]

>>9973117
>So the expanding universe idea was not concocted in 1929?

Yes, actually. While the Hubble Constant was not formulated until the late 20’s, observatories had already discovered that space was seemingly growing, stretching the wavelengths of photons arriving from distant stars, and the knowledge that this could occur existed since the 1800’s because, you know, Doppler effect and light is a wave.

>My point is that the big bang theory is not incompatible with creationist theory, do you agree with this?

Of course not. Christians and Muslims and Jews can simply wave their hand and assume God caused the Big Bang somehow and go about their lives, no problem with that, which is why it is mystifying that so many crawl out of the woodwork with strictly literal interpretations.

[Anonymous No.9973130]

>>9973120
Edwin Hubble formulated the Hubble Constant using his own data and Vesto Slipher’s measurements, yes.

[Anonymous No.9973140]

>>9973126
>Yes, actually. While the Hubble Constant was not formulated until the late 20’s, observatories had already discovered that space was seemingly growing, stretching the wavelengths of photons arriving from distant stars, and the knowledge that this could occur existed since the 1800’s because, you know, Doppler effect and light is a wave.
So why is Hubble credited with observationally confirming this expansion if it was already confirmed? Wasn't "redshift" considered to be caused by temperature before Hubble?

>Of course not. Christians and Muslims and Jews can simply wave their hand and assume God caused the Big Bang somehow and go about their lives, no problem with that, which is why it is mystifying that so many crawl out of the woodwork with strictly literal interpretations.
Yes, and God causing the big bang is an infinite regress, because what created God? But this infinite regress also applies to the big bang without a "God", because there always has to be a "before". Hence why the big bang is metaphysically illogical and impossible.

[Anonymous No.9973151]

>>9973130
Did Georges Lemaître conjure up his idea of the big bang using Vesto's measurements?

[Anonymous No.9973164]

>>9973140
>So why is Hubble credited with observationally confirming this expansion if it was already confirmed? Wasn't "redshift" considered to be caused by temperature before Hubble?

It’s simply one of those “science myths”, like the idea that evolution did not exist as a concept prior to Darwin. Both Hippolyte Fizeau and William Huggins discovered stellar redshifts due to the Doppler effect in the 1800’s. But, like how Darwin took the title of being the “evolution guy” for discovering a mechanism for evolution, Hubble took the title of “Redshift Guy” for formulating the Hubble constant, not to demean either of their achievements.

>Yes, and God causing the big bang is an infinite regress, because what created God? But this infinite regress also applies to the big bang without a "God", because there always has to be a "before". Hence why the big bang is metaphysically illogical and impossible.

“Before” time is effectively meaningless. Have you considered the possibility that causality just doesn’t apply at all scales and conditions?

[Anonymous No.9973170]

>>9965875
short answer: God

long answer: just delve into philosphy (ignoring the german """philosophers""") and this is literally the only adequate answer. Physyshits will just keep moving the goalpost into more and more elaborate non-sequiturs. Atheists are braindead retards who will go into an argument about the meaning of nothingness and their lack of belief for hours on end, leading the discussion to fuck all. Agnostics dunno, and literally every civilization since the dawn of man has come up with this answer (and not because they were stupid, mankind has always had smart people and it was those people asking these questions and coming to these conclusions). Bricks don't lay themselves and from nothing comes nothing, ergo there is only one answer and it relies on appealing to a higher power, what we call GOD. You may not like it, but its your choice whether you take this red-pill or not.

[Anonymous No.9973172]

>>9965906
Ur a niddiot.a niddiot.

[Anonymous No.9973176]

>>9973170
I wanna know what you think God is, other than being a prime mover. What are his properties?

[Anonymous No.9973180]

>>9973151
>Did Georges Lemaître conjure up his idea of the big bang using Vesto's measurements?

He does mention “recent observations” but i don’t see a specific citation on any.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1931MNRAS..91..483L

[Anonymous No.9973181]

>>9973170
/pol/tard jumps in and starts shitting on the floor.
Virtual particles come from nowhere, disproving your claim something can’t come from nothing.

[Anonymous No.9973187]

>>9973181
Doesn’t space have to exist first? Or time? Space isn’t nothingness

[Anonymous No.9973189]

>>9973187
Correct. Spacetime is a four dimensional manifold in which the dramas of particles play out. We don’t know where it comes from, no one does, so “DUR GOD DID IT” is a meaningless assertion.

[Anonymous No.9973191]

>>9973164
>It’s simply one of those “science myths”, like the idea that evolution did not exist as a concept prior to Darwin. Both Hippolyte Fizeau and William Huggins discovered stellar redshifts due to the Doppler effect in the 1800’s. But, like how Darwin took the title of being the “evolution guy” for discovering a mechanism for evolution, Hubble took the title of “Redshift Guy” for formulating the Hubble constant, not to demean either of their achievements.
So are you claiming that Georges Lemaître came up with the big bang theory due to the discovery of stellar red shifts before 1927?

>“Before” time is effectively meaningless. Have you considered the possibility that causality just doesn’t apply at all scales and conditions?
I'd go a step further and say that "time" doesn't exist in reality, only the illusion of it due to the way we experience and describe reality with language (past/present/future).

If you believe in the big bang then you have to live in a causative reality, you can't start saying that causality doesn't apply at all scales and conditions because then you're allowing a God to exist in your theory. You cannot get away from creationism.

I theorise that nothing is created, everything just is. No beginning and no end. Infinite.

[Anonymous No.9973199]

>>9973189
Yeah, we do know where it comes from. Non-existence is most true when there is existence, because then, non-existence doesn’t exists, and existence does exist. If non-existence ever “existed,” it would be true that non-existence exists, and truth would exist, which would contradict non-existence. Truth requires that something exists. So whatever satisfies this condition simply has the property of existing.

[Anonymous No.9973208]

>>9973180
That was written in 1931

[Anonymous No.9973211]

>>9973079
>It’s impossible for there to be nothing
why?

[Anonymous No.9973214]

>>9973176
Interestingly the prime mover actually has some properties inherent to it which come from being a prime mover. Such as: indivisible, perfect, and beautiful (according to Aristotle), describable only in regards to itself (being perfect), etc. Literally God. A lot like the christian one but much less personal and more deistic considering the framework of the first-cause/prime-mover argument.

>>9973189
> Physyshits will just keep moving the goalpost into more and more elaborate non-sequiturs
Your non-sequitur doesn't disprove the necessity for a higher power, it just validates my earlier point about the shitty rebuttals. Tell me, where did the manifold come from?

>>9973199
>...who will go into an argument about the meaning of nothingness...leading the discussion to fuck all
proving my point as well

[Anonymous No.9973221]

>>9973211
Nothing can’t be. It can only not be. What is not, is not. What is, is.

[Anonymous No.9973225]

>>9973221
and yet here we are, talking...

[Anonymous No.9973227]

>>9973214
Tell me, if logic is used to understand God, then what can we say about the relationship between logic and God? Doesn’t the former affirm the latter? If God’s existence is logical, then logic is superior to God, or God is logic.

[Anonymous No.9973245]

>>9973227
Something tells me you have ulterior motives, are you sure you want the answer or do you just want something to argue about?

[Anonymous No.9973255]

>>9973245
I just want you to specify what God is. To me, the word is meaningless. If we depend on logic to understand existence, then it must be the case that logic preceded existence. But I wouldn’t simply call this God. It’s always seemed funny to me that God existed for a reason that he himself did not cause. There is an explanation for why God needs no cause, but doesn’t that explanation reveal a cause for God’s existence? It seems many people never consider this, and I’d like to see people discuss it more.

[Anonymous No.9973280]

>>9973208
No, it was written in 1927 in a journal in Belgium, the translation is from 1931. It didn’t attract any attention at first because few people read it outside of the country.

>So are you claiming that Georges Lemaître came up with the big bang theory due to the discovery of stellar red shifts before 1927?

Seems so, since he references the fact most galaxies seem to be retreating from us.

>I'd go a step further and say that "time" doesn't exist in reality, only the illusion of it due to the way we experience and describe reality with language (past/present/future).
If you believe in the big bang then you have to live in a causative reality, you can't start saying that causality doesn't apply at all scales and conditions because then you're allowing a God to exist in your theory. You cannot get away from creationism.
I theorise that nothing is created, everything just is. No beginning and no end. Infinite.

Nah it’s quite easy to get away from the baseless claim that some magical being made reality. Prove it.

[Anonymous No.9973282]

>>9973227

> if logic is used to understand God, then what can we say about the relationship between logic and God?
That logic can be used to deduce whether something is one way or another, without logic necessarily superseding that something or being a part of it.
For instance, if a car (the truth) is in one of three boxes (three possible answers) and each box has a truth statement written on it (the evidence of existence itself, such as 'nihlo ex nihlo', turtle stack, etc) that we can deduce whether the car does or does not exist within a box or not.
Does that mean logic is needed for the car to exist? Does that mean logic is part of the car?

Logic is a tool we use to find the truth, it is not itself the truth.
God is Truth because God is perfect.
Now on to the interesting part:
>>9973255
>To me, the word is meaningless.
to each their own.

>It’s always seemed funny to me that God existed for a reason that he himself did not cause.
if "God" is not the prime mover and was himself caused by another mover, then that mover is the prime mover. We've just gone further back on the chain of cause. It therefore necessitates that God/Prime-mover needs to be self-causing/actual/complete/perfect, a cause which is self-actualized.

>If we depend on logic to understand existence, then it must be the case that logic preceded existence.
or it could be the case that logic is the tool we use to understand existence, rather than an entity unto itself. Mostly because without human minds logic is nothing more than word

>There is an explanation for why God needs no cause, but doesn’t that explanation reveal a cause for God’s existence?
i wouldn't think so. Again, we aren't really creating/causing anything, just explaining it with the tools he have at our disposal. Logic/Reason/Philosophy is the best tool we have so unless we find something better the entire discussion really just ends with an appeal to a higher power. We're stuck on that answer whether we like it or not.

[Anonymous No.9973288]

>>9973280
>everything just is
the unthinking mans answer to all of life's questions.

[Anonymous No.9973295]

>>9966036
Don't be a fuckin asshole faggot

[Anonymous No.9973326]

If you assume nothing can come from nothing there must be an uncreated creator at the start of the chain. That's being presumably created the universe for fun or something because I don't know why on earth a god would need to create anything. So we're all here to amuse god I suppose.

[Anonymous No.9973343]

>>9973326
I once asked a creationist the reason and they actually had a pretty interesting answer:
>God created us for our sake

[Anonymous No.9973376]

>>9965875
pic related already solved this issue, now when are we going to start asking the real questions, like how to become transcendent or how to remove the rights of women globally.

[Anonymous No.9973384]

>>9973326
>>9973343
God creates by necessity. He isn’t God until he creates.

[Anonymous No.9973388]

>>9973376
>or how to remove the rights of women globally.
THIS

[Anonymous No.9973432]

>>9965875
>If there ever was truly nothing, which at one point has to have been true
Seems like a stretch to me. I don't see why that has to be true.

[Anonymous No.9973469]

>>9966031
Post proof of this. I'm pretty current on news I'd say, and I haven't heard of anything that has invalidated the laws of thermodynamics. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[Anonymous No.9973979]

>>9973469
Not him, but there is no scientific claim that something came from nothing in big bang theory. It doesn't cover anything "before time", nor before the singularity (or really, even the singularity itself).

Closest you get to this, is the potential of the idea of the quantum vacuum potential being the cause of the event, but some would argue that a potential something, is still something. (Even if quantum potentials, or even particles, are not objects as we traditionally think of them.)

Current cosmology comes closer to saying there is no such thing as truly "nothing" (thus the universe is technically eternal), but even there, hasn't closed the book on the subject.

So whenever you hear the argument, "Something can't come from nothing", in regards to modern cosmological genesis theory, know that you are hearing an ontological scarecrow. One that the religious and angry anti-establishment folks have been using since Saint Anselm, back in the 10th century.

[Anonymous No.9974192]

>>9973469
>thermodynamics
A law of the universe. If there was nothing then it wouldn't apply.

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9974195]

>>9965875
Nothing is not a thing.

You can't be something from nothing.

[Anonymous No.9974394]

>>9965875
So let me get this straight.
>Almost (((14 billion years ago))) nothing exploded into something.
Based on no empirical evidence...
>Personally I don't believe the human mind that exists now can ever comprehend how anything came to exist, we just simply aren't physically able to understand how something can come from nothing, it's unnatural.
Yet despite this you are still sure that nothingness indeed was a state or cause of the universe?
>If there ever was truly nothing, which at one point has to have been true, how can something randomly appear?
That's a question that answers itself. It can't.
>I observed and reified nothing
>I was in nothing to observe it, I am obviously not nothing
>I, a thing was in nothing, which is no thing.
You can't even make it word in a basic sentence without making yourself look like a baseless mediator for some secularized belief system. "In the beginning nothing created something", you may as well just assign a god or deity to this nothingness since there's no other logical way it works.

You have two choices:
1. For absolutely no reason, a random cause appeared and started motion in the universe. Everything in the universe is limited and based off the magnitude of this one event happening, it's cause lies in the realm of God or some deity/being that has the capacity to spontaneously make the necessary ingredients for a universe. Why a deity or God? You have nothing else to fall back on that's why. How can you or anything be a fraction of a universe with a denominator of "0"?
2. The universe is a never ending nor beginning chain of effects of which some turn into the cause of more effects. With no beginning or end, obviously we can most assuredly and safely assume your quote:
>Personally I don't believe the human mind that exists now can ever comprehend how anything came to exist
There is no limits to the speculation of contemplating existence because if it never starts or stops then there is no limits to begin with!

[Anonymous No.9974410]

>>9965875
>Personally I don't believe the human mind that exists now can ever comprehend how anything came to exist, we just simply aren't physically able to understand how something can come from nothing, it's unnatural. But obviously perfectly natural.
>what is Turing completeness

[Anonymous No.9974427]

>>9972989
Even then quantum phenomena comes from something that exists

[Anonymous No.9974490]

>>9974427
Not always necessarily...