[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
In this thread it was established that there...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /his/ - History & Humanities

Thread replies: 204
Thread images: 43
In this thread it was established that there must be a predicate for scientific nothing (referred to as void in the Bible): >>632478

It was established that philosophical nothing (absolute vacuum) as a predicate would be incoherent, so it must be another predicate.

So what we're talking about is a predicate to reality. What can we say about this predicate? First of all, we know it did not just "give birth" to reality, but actively sustains it
>>635489

Secondly, we know it is a power beyond anything we can comprehend.

Thirdly, we know it isn't subject to time or space, and isn't material (not even the stuff, the energy, that comprises void). So it is completely abstract. Now, what are some wholly abstract things? Well, there are numbers. There are actually a lot of things besides that. But running through everything, the only abstract which could accomplish something on its own would have to be a form of Geist. Therefore we are talking about an agency. There is another indication of this: if the predicate did not have agency, then reality would always have existed, and therefore we would be in heat death already, because if there were no agency then reality would be be to the predicate as frozen water is upon a freezing temperature; if that temperature always was, then the water would always have been frozen. But instead we are talking about something with the capacity to endow reality, but which did not always endow reality, which is indicative of agency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wm4RlnnaOU

Orthodox FAQ for Catholics, Protestants, atheists, Muslims, Jews and liberals, plus reading list: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
>>
>>637821
I never seen this icon before.

Saved.
>>
>>637821

Isn't it forbidden to make yourself a eunuch? Why have you turned into a trap then, Constantine?
>>
I find it incredible I know it's a Constantine thread before even opening it.
>>
>>637924

Well it does have his name at the top, even before you open it.
>>
>>637920
Yes, it's absolutely a no-no.
>>
File: 1406873152244.jpg (15 KB, 200x200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1406873152244.jpg
15 KB, 200x200
>>637920
is that canon
>>
>>637962
Yes.

Especially the second question :^)
>>
>>637994
Constantine's real name is Elizabeth but she said she didn't want to use it because people would think she's an attentionwhore.
>>
believe whatever you want about a first cause buddy you are still no closer to convincing me that a magic jew rose from the dead
>>
>>638002
But more importantly, is she like Yerin?
>>
>>638004
I'm just laying the argument for God right now. I'll make a thread about Christ's Resurrection later this week.
>>
>>638011
>it will take you a week to dream up some gibberish that justifies a dead man walking around and talking to people
you might as well tell us now I doubt seven days are going to make much of a difference
>>
>>638020
I don't want the arguments divided too much right now. I'm focusing on one at a time.
>>
>>637821
>First of all, we know it did not just "give birth" to reality, but actively sustains it
You didn't actually prove anything, someone just said so because it fit their intended outcome and you repeated it because it fits your intended outcome. The universe does not appear to run on Aristotle's physics, much less his metaphysics, and continuing to repeat conclusions based on them doesn't actually contribute to accurate understanding.
>>
>>638054
Aristotle thought the universe always existed.

It is by nature a predicate, not just a cause. Because causation requires time, whereas time itself is derived from the predicate.
>>
>>637821
>First of all, we know it did not just "give birth" to reality, but actively sustains it
>Secondly, we know it is a power beyond anything we can comprehend.
>Thirdly, we know it isn't subject to time or space, and isn't material

You have a strange idea what the word "know" means.
>>
>>638076
I'm referring to what was already established over the course of the thread I linked
>>
File: 1408142610782.png (175 KB, 311x255) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1408142610782.png
175 KB, 311x255
>>638085

You seem to have a strange idea what that thread can be said to have authoritatively 'established'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNzlfYJaaCg
>>
>>638118
Before we proceed further, are you accepting the premise of God? Just not the premise that God is eternal?
>>
File: meatballs.jpg (152 KB, 740x469) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
meatballs.jpg
152 KB, 740x469
>>638161
>Before we proceed further, are you accepting the premise of God?

Obviously not.
>>
>>638173
Then your question is in bad faith, because if I give an answer to explain the existence of God, you can simply retort with, "God doesn't real!" So your question about "What's explains God?" is not, in good faith, any argument against the existence of God.
>>
>>638173
The flying spaghetti monster, by the way, is not a sensible explanation for the predicate of reality, since he is material.
>>
>>638196

You misunderstand the FSM, he is the meaning of "To Be". Near and far at the same time, why you cannot accurately describe him as a being at all, that is a category error.

>>638184

>Then your question is in bad faith,

I haven't asked any questions.
>>
>>638210
>You misunderstand the FSM, he is the meaning of "To Be". Near and far at the same time, why you cannot accurately describe him as a being at all, that is a category error.
Is he material, yes or no?

>I haven't asked any questions.
You linked a video asking "whence God?" as an argument
>>
>>638219
>Is he material, yes or no?

He is pure spirit, and made of meatballs and spaghetti at the same time.

>You linked a video asking "whence God?" as an argument

'Twas a mere rhetorical question by Sagan that he answered himself.
>>
>>638250
>He is pure spirit, and made of meatballs and spaghetti at the same time.
Is he identical to the predicate we've been describing? If so, we can call him FSM from now on if that would please you, it really doesn't matter.

>'Twas a mere rhetorical question by Sagan that he answered himself.
But he didn't answer it, at least with the most reasonable explanation: the predicate, is unlimited by universal laws, meaning he is infinite. Meaning, if he exists, it is logically necessary that he has no source, since infinity is the alpha and the omega. An unlimited being, by logical necessity.

As for the idea that the universe always existed, if that were the case, we'd already be in heat death.
>>
>>638266
>Is he identical to the predicate we've been describing? If so, we can call him FSM from now on if that would please you, it really doesn't matter.

I think of the FSM as strange, if you think you have fully understood him then you have gone wrong. The FSM cannot be understood by the human mind.

>But he didn't answer it, at least with the most reasonable explanation: the predicate, is unlimited by universal laws, meaning he is infinite. Meaning, if he exists, it is logically necessary that he has no source, since infinity is the alpha and the omega. An unlimited being, by logical necessity.

Randomly asserting something that as far as we can tell is made up always existed is "the most reasonable explanation" is just an assertion. Just skip another step and say the Universe always existed. Even heat death does not mean all matter stops existing and it is hardly a solidly proven and accepted theory.
>>
>>637958

but if my balls cause me to sin, wouldn't it be better to for me to remove them so that I can have eternal life without my balls rather than eternal torment with them?
>>
>>638315
Heath death would mean everything stopped moving. Which has not happened.

>>638325
It would be better for you to grow a pair and stand up to sin.
>>
>>638336
>Heath death would mean everything stopped moving. Which has not happened.

You are trying to use an unproven and controversial theory as a proven fact to prove your religious beliefs. And while I am not a Physicist my limited understanding of current theory is that the entire Universe could have come from nothing but a quantum vacuum.
>>
>>638381
The quantum vacuum is "void" from the OP.
>>
>>638434
That is, understand that a "quantum vacuum" is not an *absolute* vacuum. It is called "nothing" scientifically, but not philosophically. So to distinguish I refer to scientific nothing as "void" and philosophical nothing as "absolute vacuum".
>>
>>637821
I don't think you understand the words you are using.

Nothing is not a scientific term as you are trying to claim. It's just a lingustic construct. If I say there is 'nothing' in my refrigerator it doesn't mean there are no particles in it. It just means the only food in there is pork and I'm not allowed to eat it or G-d will smite me.

So your entire post is based on failing to understand what the word 'nothing' means.

You than talk about 'reality' again showing you haven't the faintest clue what the word means. Reality is everything. Anything that 'endows' something is within reality.

Also Jesus is burning in hell and the Jews did nothing wrong.
>>
>>638434

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state
>>
>>638454
>>638450
>>
>>638466
Right, it's not an absolute vacuum, because it contains ambient energy. An absolute vacuum would not contain any energy.
>>
>>638477

And you have no evidence your concept of an absolute vacuum ever has existed or ever will exist.
>>
>>638520
I never said it did. My whole point is that scientific void could not have come from an absolute vacuum.
>>
>>638527

And the whole point is that absolute vacuum could well never have existed. There could always have been 'something' so there is no need to insert a poorly defined 'predicate' or, and let's really be honest, a God that turned himself into a Rabbi on a stick.
>>
>>638574
Watch him claim the resurrection proves it.
>>
>>638574
Since absolute vacuum ("nothing") is not a viable predicate, we have to find out what is a predicate. Because void had a predicate. If void did not have a predicate, then it always existed. And if void always existed, then the universe would have always existed as well, since you can't fraction infinity. And if the universe always existed, it would be shut down by entropy by now.

So we look at the alternative predicate, and thus far it's just been a matter of finding out what exactly that predicate is.
>>
>>638527
>I never said it did. My whole point is that scientific void could not have come from an absolute vacuum.

we absolutely don't know that, we cant just assume causality as we know it has any bearing on what happens in that predicate state.
>>
>>638588
It's logically impossible for an absolute vacuum to predicate anything.
>>
>>638602
again your assuming causality, there is no reason to believe that there was that sort of clear casualty before time and space as we understand them.
>>
>>638587

You are back to using an unproven scientific theory (heat death) as evidence of religious beliefs. Even given heat death (something that is not proven) being true then heat death does not rule out a quantum vacuum.

In short, there could always have been 'something'.

And let's be honest, the real thing you are trying to do here is prove that the 'predicate' was a magic Palestinian zombie.
>>
>>638616
No, I'm assuming predication, you don't need causality for that.
>>
>>638626
>heat death does not rule out a quantum vacuum.
We're talking about what the quantum vacuum is predicated upon.

>In short, there could always have been 'something'.
Nope, at least not if we're going to accept Second Law of Thermodynamics as part and parcel to the universe.

>And let's be honest, the real thing you are trying to do here is prove that the 'predicate' was a magic Palestinian zombie.
Is this meant to be an argument?
>>
>>638638
>We're talking about what the quantum vacuum is predicated upon.

A quantum vacuum is not predicated upon an ill-defined concept of God.

>Is this meant to be an argument?

It is cutting to the heart of your real argument and we know it.
>>
>>638685
>A quantum vacuum is not predicated upon an ill-defined concept of God.
Well, what do you think it is predicated on? Surely not nothing (an absolute vacuum)?

>It is cutting to the heart of your real argument and we know it.
It's cutting to the heart of my motive, not my argument.
>>
>>638746
>Well, what do you think it is predicated on? Surely not nothing (an absolute vacuum)?

You've been told already, your concept of an absolute vacuum may never has existed. Heat Death doesn't suggest an absolute vacuum, even if it were an asolute proven fact.

'Something' may always have existed. Most certainly it is more likely "my God has always existed" it doesn't need to be 'predicated' on anything, let alone your God.

>It's cutting to the heart of my motive, not my argument.

And, again, let's be honest, if you were honestly making your case that "the Second Law of Thermondynamics proves that Jesus is God and walked on water" then you would take that shit to /sci/ and get laughed at.
>>
There isn't necessarily any reason the universe existed before t=0. "Always" could easily be a meaningless cultural term like "nothing", and just as the closest thing to the "nothing" concept is a vacuum which isn't actually "nothing" at all, it could be that the closest thing to the "always/eternal" construct is "~14 billion years." After all, reality does not conform to language, language merely describes it with variable accuracy.
>>
>>638783
>Heat Death doesn't suggest an absolute vacuum, even if it were an asolute proven fact.
I never said it did, geez. I'm not arguing for an absolute vacuum predicate at all.

>'Something' may always have existed.
Such as?

>>638797
We're talking about an absolute vacuum vs. a quantum vacuum. "Nothing" here is might mean either one, but we are making a distinction, we don't have to use the term "nothing" if you'd rather not.
>>
>>638817
>Such as?

I have no need to come up with a concept better than 'something' when you are arguing for an ill-defined concept such as 'god', especially when that really means a flying carpenter from the early Roman Empire.
>>
>>638817
The term itself isn't relevant so much as the construct. Whatever term you are using, be it "nothing" or "geflouplorps", you are using it to describe "less" of something than a quantum vaccum. While it's a valid hypothetidal construct, it could lack any actual physical meaning.
>>
that poor old constantine fellow
>>
>>638863
Nah, he's entertaining as fuck, Hiro won't ever create a /rel/ to exile the religionfags but at least I'll get to watch the most autistic tripfag in a while.
>>
>>637821
do you have the rest of that series of icons?
>>
File: 1381996536603.png (173 KB, 345x345) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1381996536603.png
173 KB, 345x345
>>638863
reminder that constantine is a qt trap
>>
>>638836
There's nothing ill defined about what's been worked out so far itt

>>638837
Then you'd agree that the idea of the universe coming from nothing, as in an absolute vacuum, is incoherent?

>>638877
Just google "creation icon"
>>
>>638919
A philosophical vacuum may or may not be physically possible. The spontaneous generation that occurs within quantum vacuums suggests that a spontaneous start to the universe is not impossible given the scale of the singularity.
>>
File: LseoW.jpg (49 KB, 720x543) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
LseoW.jpg
49 KB, 720x543
>>638919
>There's nothing ill defined about what's been worked out so far itt

I'm not so sure it has been quite as well worked out as you hoped.

Not worked out at all might be a more accurate description.
>>
>>638931
Are you suggesting that quantum vacuums have always existed?
>>
>>637821
It's like a babby tier aping of (frankly quite babby tier himself) Aquinas
>>
>>639083
It's actually from Al-Ghazali.
>>
>>639071
In that "always" may be another hypothetical construct with no physical meaning, and the closest possibility to "always" is "since ~14 billion years ago."
>>
>>639083
what's less babby tier than Aquinas?
>>
File: 1451731215125.jpg (41 KB, 600x600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451731215125.jpg
41 KB, 600x600
>>639111
>Al-Ghazali

In other words someone that thought a magical paedophile flew up to Heaven on winged horse.
>>
>>639134
Then they came into being out of absolute vacuum?

>>639158
How the heck does this have anything remotely to do with the argument?
>>
>>639141
Sagan ring any bells?
>>
>>637821

Hey, Constantine, I wanted to thank you.

Per the thread here http://desustorage.org/his/thread/617293/#620679

I decided to give it a try.

I got in my room, and closed my eyes, and concentrated hard, saying to myself

>Constantine sucks big hairy donkey dicks

Three thousand times every day for three straight days.

In the last hour of the setting sun last evening, I had a feeling of great peace washing over me, and I had a holy vision of an effeminate man sucking a donkey's penis.

Constantine, I'm worried about you, you know the Good Lord doesn't condone bestiality. You should stop immediately.
>>
>>639167
No, again, because again absolute vacuums may not actually be a real thing.
>>
Thank you Constantine for engaging in conversation with these pieces of shit.

He makes an argument and they just throw ad hominems and "le Palestinian zombie lol xD"

Or they say shit like this "Well Constantine 'nothing' isn't a scientific concept so you're wrong lol babby tier argument xD"
>>
>>639183
Then it probably was *not* an absolute vacuum they came from, yes?

>>639200
If you don't love, you lose everything. A thousand volumes of argument with an ounce of hate are a loss for Christianity.
>>
>>639203
Yea but these people are obnoxious children (see: >>639180)
>>
>>639218
Matthew 5:22
>>
>>639200

Kek.

Poor old Constantine got BTFO on every serious argument AND roundly mocked for worshipping a Bronze Age war god.
>>
>>639203
>Then it probably was *not* an absolute vacuum they came from, yes?
I don't know about "probably." But what I'm disputing is that there has to be an antecedent at all. If the closest real approximation to "always" is "~14 billion years" and the closest real approximation to "nothing" actually contains an abundance of things, then the "how can something come from nothing?" question isn't one that has any basis in reality. It's a valid sequence of words that paints a coherent hypothetical, but it may have no basis in the actual fundamentals of reality.
>>
>>639227

But Matthew 2:23 is so much better.
>>
>>639234
>But what I'm disputing is that there has to be an antecedent at all.
Wouldn't a lack of any antecedent equate to an absolute vacuum?
>>
>>639269
>lack of any antecedent equate to an absolute vacuum?
I guess I need a more concrete definition of absolute vacuum here, or at least an explanation of what you mean.
>>
>>639300
Total absence of space, time, matter and energy.
>>
File: mc02o.jpg (65 KB, 480x360) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
mc02o.jpg
65 KB, 480x360
>>637821
Do you have any better idea??
>>
>>640446
is this better?
>>
>>640463
>>
>>637919
gfriend a shit
>>
>>640471
>Zues
>>
>>640475
No, Gfriend a cute, especially Yerin <3
>>
>>640463
>Isaiah 24:1 - Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
>Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them...

The only thing in here to suggest the earth is flat is perhaps the latter verse suggesting that all of earth is visible from a high enough mountain, but I don't think it means to say that Satan was literally pointing and Rome and then to China

>1 Chronicles 16:30 - Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
I can understand the interpretation but back in the day most people probably associated the earth "moving" with earthquakes and other catastrophes.

>1 Samuel 2:28 - And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel?
>2 Samuel 2:28 - So Joab blew a trumpet, and all the people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither fought they any more.
Literally neither of these verses even mention the word "pillar" what the fuck

>Joshua 10:13 - And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Again, while the implication is obvious, it could be saying that the earth's axis suddenly shifted or some shit. Not that that's hugely more plausible, but the verse doesn't explicitly state that the sun goes around the earth

Not enough room to paste the last two verses but all it states is that god created the stars and put them in the sky. It doesn't call the sky a dome
>>
>>640446
Did you look at any of the arguments I made? I'm not necessarily arguing to the whole Bible, just a particular conception of God. Making fun of me for being a Christian is not a decent rebuttal.
>>
>>638002
Wait
Constantine is a girl?
>>
>>637821
Why do you think it is impossible that there is no predicate for scientific nothing?
>>
>>641511
Because if it were around for an infinite time, it would have brought about the universe an infinitely long time ago, not 14 billion years ago.
>>
>>641188
For millennia, people study the bible and came up with those. Can you do better?
>>
>>641562
I think the anthropic principle is a simpler explanation here: had the nothing brought about the universe an infinitely long time ago, there wouldn't be us, asking this question.

Besides, this universe may not be the only one produced by the nothing. It may have produced an infinite number of universes, and, again, because ours is of a certain age, there are us, asking these questions.

Both variants are, it seems to me, simpler than the existence of a conscious force beyond time and space.
>>
>>641562
Also, I find the following Humean argument quite persuasive. By speaking about the origins of the Universe, we imply that it must have something that preceded it and that it could not have appeared from nothing (not from the physical vacuum, but from the absolute nothing).

However, we think that something does not appear from nothing only because all things that we have observed appear from something else. This does not, however, mean that this general rule obtained by means of induction is true in all cases. Our Universe (which is a thing as well) may as well be an exception.
>>
>>641490

Well as much of a "girl" as any trannsexual gets.
>>
>>641480
I'm not making fun of you, just pointing out that the Bible is NOT a valid theory. it' not even wrong.

If you have a valid theory let see it.
>>
>>637821

Is an absolute vacuum really what is implied by philosophical nothing? While it may not be practically possible for an absolute vacuum to form, it doesn't seem to be incompatible with the concepts of time and space, whereas the "time" before the big bang is.
>>
>>641777
Absolute vacuum still contains space in it.
>>
>>641480

See:
>>640471
>>
>>641743
Constantine is a transsexual?
>>
>>639303
If it lacks every single one of those, what is its definition? Even an absolute vacuum extrapolated from observable vacuums still has time and space.
>>
>>641714
>. It may have produced an infinite number of universes
Then they'd all be dead.
>>
>>641738
You'd still have to explain the existence of reality. If you say it has not explanation, then it would have existed forever, since the "no explanation* the universe would be predicated upon always existed.
>>
>>642429
Off topic but on sunday I was admitted as a catechumen into the orthodox church. Your posts played no small part in that decision. Thank you, Constantine
>>
>>642473
God bless you! Much love and I hope you have a blessed journey in joining the Body of Christ!
>>
File: Ilc_9yr_moll4096.jpg (1 MB, 4096x2048) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Ilc_9yr_moll4096.jpg
1 MB, 4096x2048
>>637821
>>632478
>>all matter came from literally nothing
>>all energy came from literally nothing
>>the universe came from literally nothing
>>the existence of the universe isn't logically necessary, so it must have brought itself into existence through a singularity
>>the singularity came from nothingness, it created itself
>>the universe is a self-contained, self-powering system unto itself
>>the universe sustains itself, completely abstracted from any other contextual force


God came from literally nothing
The existence of god isn't logically necessary, so it must have brought itself into existence through god
god came from nothingness, it created itself
god is a self-contained, self-powering system unto itself
god sustains itself, completely abstracted from any other contextual force

Is this any better?
>>
>>644886
>2016
>Making metaphysical claims based on perceived physical properties of the universe
>>
>>644896
>Making metaphysical claims

Who is making metaphysical claims anyway?
>>
>>644906
>>644886
Everything in this post is either a physical, logical, or metaphysical claim. The logic is faulty but that's what you've done.
>>
>>637821
Hey constantine can you tell me why God worked with Satan in order to kill Job's son?
>>
>>644978
learn to read please.
>>
>>645525
This graphic was made by atheists.
>>
>>642558
That sounds kinda cute. I want to be a catechumen but I'm too scared to tell my priest.

All I got so far are some Ortho magazines and a booklet detailing the Divine Liturgy.
>>
>>645525
I'm a Christian. I'm just letting you know that you can't derive metaphysical conclusions from physical premises, and that the way you've tried to do so is faulty largely because the metaphysical premises don't seem to follow from each other at all, and they naturally fail to follow from the physical premises. It just isn't a good argument for the existence of God.
>>
>>645618
>It just isn't a good argument for the existence of God.

Did someone, anyone try to make an argument for the existence of God?

Again, learn to read please. please.
You make Christian look bad.
>>
>>645571
Why do you say that? It seems sound. Everyone has observed the micro-water cycle during the summer cycles of rainstorms, but the proposed "macro"- water cycle proposed by Darwinist scientists has no evidence.
>>
>>637821
Something which is eternal and infinite.

The order of infinity, which many religions call God.
>>
>>645571
Don't over estimate christian.
>>
>>642364
It is defined by an absence of them.
>>
>>644886
>>638266
>But he didn't answer it, at least with the most reasonable explanation: the predicate, is unlimited by universal laws, meaning he is infinite. Meaning, if he exists, it is logically necessary that he has no source, since infinity is the alpha and the omega. An unlimited being, by logical necessity.
>As for the idea that the universe always existed, if that were the case, we'd already be in heat death.
>>
>constantine
>wolfshiem
pick one
>>
>>644886
>God came from literally nothing
wrong. The ancients got it right.
>>
>>647477
>>As for the idea that the universe always existed, if that were the case, we'd already be in heat death.
If the universe as it exists right now "always existed," we might be in heat death. However, again, if "always existed)/before the big bang has any actual meaning the universe was not in its current state, and the processes that currently occur did not necessarily then.
>>
If whatever was prior to before the big bang were eternal, then the universe would have been around as long as the predicate condition for it was--that is, forever. Unless of course that predicate had agency.
>>
>>647501
>>647512
>>
>>647512
>then the universe would have been around as long as the predicate condition for it was--that is, forever
Not necessarily. Quantum behaviour is random in certain specific contexts, such as in radioactive decay. Why one nuclei of an unstable species decays at a particular timepoint when its neighbor of the same species does not is up to random chance. Given the size scale of the singularity, if it existed for any amount of time before the current proposed age of the universe a similarly random event could have triggered expansion.
>>
>>647534
If they had been around for infinity, and their behavior had no agency, they would happened through the behavior necessary for the universe and infinity ago.
>>
>>647549
This is all the more crucial because if the quantum void is not limited by time, then it doesn't have to "cycle through" every possible variant, but comes to the one for the universe instantaneously, there is no time to wade through. So the universe would exist the moment the quantum vacuum existed, and if the quantum vacuum always existed, therefore so would the universe.
>>
>>647549
That's again assuming time flow "during" the singularity was like now, and "infinite" time previous is just an infinite number of modern years. Given that an abundance of mass in one location slows down time, time would be very strange if all the universe's mass was at a single point.
>>
I notice that many atheists claim that we have never observed anything 'begin to exist,' because everything is just a rearrangement of existing matter. Does this mean it is incoherent to say "I began to exist in the 9 months I spent in the womb" or "I did not exist 1 year before I was born"? It would have strange implications for personal identity if we were unable to say that we had not always existed.
>>
>>647568
No, see
>>647558

Infinity would be supra-time, beyond time. Time would be meaningless. Going from one sequence of actions to another, would be like going from point a to point b without space.
>>
>>647586
>Time would be meaningless
If you acknowledge that, why are so so hung up on applying post-Bang time logic to events "prior" to it, if such a thing existed?
>>
>>647593
I'm saying if the condition that bought about the big bang existed eternally, and had no agency, then the big bang would have not started 14 billion years ago, it would have started infinity ago. Since the big bang happened 14 billion years ago, the predicate is either only 14 billion years old, or has agency.
>>
Could it just not be that we're merely ignorant of the rest of the physical characteristics of the universe? Maybe humanity will learn them in time, but this is silly to go on a crusade trying to convince others or yourself of your faith.
>>
>>647613
This really doesn't address any of the points or premises though. If you object to a premise or a point, please state it and state why you object.
>>
>>647608
>it would have started infinity ago.
Yes, and I'm saying that time "before" the big bang, IF such a thing existed, would have such a different flow from time after it that statements like this might not actually hold. And this is assuming a concept like "always" or "infinitely ago" have meaning, assuming there even was a predicate to the singularity, etc.
>>
>>647624
There would be no flow of time. Or space. It would be the alpha and the omega, eternity, no progression, but always. But the universe hasn't always been around.

If there was no predicate to the singularity, that is the same as saying absolute vacuum is the predicate.
>>
>>647623
I object to you and your crusade. You're presuming to lay forth ideas and statements as facts, when you have been leading people down argument paths towards these statements. You don't know these things. You are repeating drivel from elsewhere. I don't presume to know anything, except that I don't know.
>>
>>647633
Which premise do you object to, in particular? Or do you object to them all (unlikely)?

Objecting to my agenda doesn't really invalidate anything here.
>>
>>647632
I feel like I'm repeating myself. You are throwing out a lot of terms like "always around" and "progression" like they have some obvious actual meaning in a pre-Big Bang context, whereas all current understanding does not support that at all.
>>
>>647636
There's nothing to invalidate. You've created a discussion on false pretenses and continue arguing in circular logic, with false dichotomies. It's not either/or. It can be neither.
>>
>>647639
They mean beyond time. Just like infinity is beyond number (unless you express it as a set, which we're not doing here, going by >>647568)

>>647644
Okay, well please point out the premise you think is a false pretense.
>>
>>647648
Don't ignore the rest of my statement. You are insisting on something with only the intention to lead people through trickery to respond to you in a certain way, when they actually take you seriously and try to discuss this. I don't. I see you for what you are.
>>
>>647658
Okay, well, I apologize. I don't mean to do that, it honestly wasn't my intent. Maybe you could illustrate the errors more precisely so I could correct them?
>>
>>644982
God allows Satan to test believers, but really what Job is about is being pious doesn't necessarily entail physical wealth, it could in fact entail having a much harder life. Satan will pick on you even more when you're pious. The more Godly you are, the more he wants to make you fall, but you have to preserve until the Restoration of All Things.

Job is actually about a lot more than even this, but that's some of what it is about.
>>
>>641792
Nope, it is a total absence of space, matter, time and energy.
>>
>>637821
>>638587
Can you elaborate on the premise that our universe must be eternal if a quantum vacuum is eternal? I think that this is where your line of reasoning is flawed. Btw, props on managing to compose yourself so well amidst a sea of mindless gibberish and downright hate.

First off, a perpetual state is not the same as eternal one. The latter describes an infinite series of spacial-temporal events, whereas the former describes a timeless state. If space and time (which are intertwined) arise from vacuum state, then that vacuum state is timeless, thus perpetual. And, according to modern relativity and thermodynamics, this spacetime is not an infinite series of events but rather a hypercube that extends from a minimal entropic state to a maximal one. Reality then would consist of a perpetual state out of which infinite spatial-temporal hypercubes. Though it might seem unfounded to you (which it's not), it certainly doesn't seem illogical.
>>
>>649265
>>647648

Thanks

It doesn't really matter each way you look at it. Whether you view it as a set, or more correctly, as timeless. If the universe is 14 billion years old, the quantum vacuum prior to it could not be timeless. If the quantum vacuum were timeless, then the universe would not have been created a specific length of time ago.
>>
>>649265
*out of which infinite hypercubes "extend" / inflate.

So we have good reason to believe that spacetime can arise from "vacuum energy," which means that not only is it not temporal but it's not spatial either. To try and then use philosophical terms like predicates and causality which require to spacetime to such an exotic, non-spatial-temporal quantum state, (especially in light of the countless non-sensible findings of observed quantum states) seems absolute insane to me. Surely, given you're prose and composure, you're not so ignorant to assume that your macro philosophy is cannon in regards to fundamental physics, not to mention physics outside spacetime.
>>
>>649273
I feel you glossed over what I said, which bothers me because you put in the time with the others.
What I'm trying to say with the hypercube bit is that the universe isn't actually 13 billion years old. It is a perpetual hypercube that extends for trillions of years, "ending" in maximal entropy. We are experiencing it at the 13 bill mark. The entirety of the universe exists in a perpetual state which inflated from a perpetual vacuum state.
>>
>>649313
And again, even if you find my claims to be unfounded, let us accept them for the sake of argument.

What is illogical about a perpetual vacuum state out of which infinite perpetual hypercubes extend?
>>
>>649296
Don't worry about random claims I made throughout this btw. Is it alright if you focus on my last claim? I feel it summarizes my argument.
>>
>>649325
question not claim
>>
File: 1210765729637.jpg (1 MB, 3000x2159) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1210765729637.jpg
1 MB, 3000x2159
tl;dr

>>647512
>before the big bang

Big bang created both space and _time_
"Before the big bang" imply time exist before big bang.

>>647608
>the big bang would have not started 14 billion years ago, it would have started infinity ago.

time began at big bang.

BTW, define "agency", some supernatural thing?
>>
>>647477
>alpha and the omega

the beginning and the end
therefore not infinite!

or it can mean anything.
>>
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time
>>
Stephen Hawking attended a Vatican Conference on cosmology in 1981:

"He [the pope] told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference - the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death!"

The subject of this thread is dishonest at best...
>>
>>649317
Well, if that were the case, the space-time of the universe would be unlimited, and we'd just be witnessing one moment out of literally infinite moments. Which is still incoherent, because anything/∞ equals zero. So there would be no space-time, since a million lightyears would not be distinct from a nanometer.

>>649745
>Big bang created both space and _time_
>"Before the big bang" imply time exist before big bang.
No, not if we're talking absolute vacuum, which means absence of both space and time.

>>650066
Stephen Hawking's theory is fundamentally a mind-game, he applies Achilles and the tortoise the boundary of reality.
>>
File: le sad tea party.png (43 KB, 768x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
le sad tea party.png
43 KB, 768x768
>>637821
DELET THIS

JESUS WAS NOT DEMIURGE OK
>>
>>650954
>>Big bang created both space and _time_
>>"Before the big bang" imply time exist before big bang.
>No, not if we're talking absolute vacuum, which means absence of both space and time.

If time started at big bang, asking what happen before (in time) is meaningless.
"absolute vacuum" or not, there was no before.
No such thing as time exist before time. got it?
So don't ask what happen during that non-existing time.
This is like division by zero, it's literally "undefined"

In any case, what make you think a hypothetical "absolute vacuum" have anything to do with big bang or reality at all?
>>
>>651595
Saying there was no time, space, matter or energy, is the same thing as saying there was an absolute vacuum.

My question is, if reality is predicated upon absolute vacuum which is timeless, which is reality only 14 billion years old? To say the absolute vacuum started 14 billion years ago would be incoherent, to say it started fifty trillion years ago would be incoherent, since an absolute vacuum is timeless. So no matter how long ago the universe started, there would be a problem. The universe starting 14 billion years ago, indicates the conditions required for it to exist are 14 billion years old. That there is no time before the universe existed is what makes the idea of it coming from nothing so incoherent, because the conditions that predicate reality would be TIMELESS
>>
>>651614
>To say the absolute vacuum started 14 billion years ago

who said that?

I say again:
In any case, what make you think a hypothetical "absolute vacuum" have anything to do with big bang or reality at all?
>>
>>651653
It predicated it. That is, it was the condition necessary for the big bang.
>>
File: 1210609545160.jpg (909 KB, 1739x1149) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1210609545160.jpg
909 KB, 1739x1149
>>651667
Are you inventing a new big bang theory?
If you are, please name it somethingelse.
Please write down the whole thing with prediction etc.
>>
>>651695
How am I inventing a new big bang theory? I'm simply saying that if the conditions which made the big bang possible were not limited by time, then the big bang would not have occurred a set time ago. Unless the conditions had an agency.
>>
>>651702
define "agency", some supernatural thing?
>>
>>651741
Well, but it this way, if the conditions that predicated reality were matterless, timeless, spaceless, etc. then they were wholly abstract. A number is an example of something wholly abstract. Now besides metaphysical consciousness, what wholly abstract thing is there which can effect things?
>>
>>651756
>>651756
You didn't answer my question.

Anyway, if you don't know how to make a rocket, you can always say god did it! But you don't have to.

Like a number, Big Bang is also an abstract concept.
It's possible Big Bang happen a lot, some more successful then other. We just don't know.

Overall, You are just saying you cannot believe there is no beginning! How can that be?

>>649902
>"if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be."

Did you read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time?
I read it a long time ago, i need to read it again.
>>
>>651891
>Overall, You are just saying you cannot believe there is no beginning!
I am saying the idea that there is no beginning is compatible with a universe which has been around for a limited period of time.
>>
>>651936
*incompatible
>>
>>651936
>>651939

What make you think that?
>>
>>650954
Okay how many fucking times do I have to say this. IT"S NOT UNLIMITED. IT'S NOT UNLIMITED. IT'S NOT UNLIMITED.
IT"S NOT UNLIMITED. IT'S NOT UNLIMITED. IT'S NOT UNLIMITED.
IT"S NOT UNLIMITED. IT'S NOT UNLIMITED. IT'S NOT UNLIMITED.

It's a fucking PERPETUAL HYPERCUBE extending a FINITE - NOT FUCKING INFINITE- duration from the big bang to heat death, at which point no events can occur within a state of maximal entropy. So you have a perpetual vacuum with a FINITE -NOT INFINITE- spatiotemporal hypercube inflated from its fluctuation.

Address my point PLEASE. This is the third time I'm making the same fucking one.
>>
>>651965

So bascially what you are saying is that is unlimited and infinite?
>>
>>651956
Because it's a logical contradiciton

>>651965
If that were the case, then the moments that have occurred post-heat death are timeless, and all time is in ratio to that.
>>
>>651936
>I am saying the idea that there is no beginning is compatible with a universe which has been around for a limited period of time.

>>652072
>Because it's a logical contradiciton

Which part of "Big bang created space-time" you don't understand??
Where is the contradiction?

You can say Time dilation looks funny to your eyes.
You can say anything outside Newtonian physics are incompatible with your brain.
You can say god does not play dice.
Physics don't care.
>>
This shit here is still up?
>>
Constantine explain me this

Acts 7:14
Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people.

vs

From original Pentateuch - the divine word of God.

Exodus 1:5
All those who were descendants of Jacob were seventy persons

Why is God wrong, considering the Saint Stephan was under the influence of Holy Spirit when he said that was wrote down - Was God wrong, forgot how to count?
>>
>>652845
Because the books they think as "god's words" were written by men. incompetent men.

< pic related.
>>
>>652868
No that would only invalidate the new testament, Torah is good.
>>
>>652072
holy. fucking. shit. IIITTSSS AAA FFIINNIITTEE HHYYPPEERRCCUUBBEE.

THERE ARE NO MOMENTS BEFORE OR AFTER IT, THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A FUCKING HYPERCUBE.

Dude, I cannot wrap my head around how coherent you are in nearly every other discussion here, but pants-on-head retarded when it comes to this point.

>the moments after a momentless void are timeless, and all time is in ratio to that

Hot fucking christ man....
>>
>>652072
>>653206

I know this sounds sarcastic, but in all seriousness I am trying my very hardest to wrap my head around how you could be missing this so hard? I'm not saying I'm right, but you're just straight up not addressing my rather simple point. Are you dodging or just fucking with me lol? I was so exited to see this thread with someone who seemed intellectually serious about this matter, and really wanted to has this point out. But christ on a stick man this is so bizarre.
>>
File: 2comander.jpg (152 KB, 875x393) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2comander.jpg
152 KB, 875x393
Exodus, chapter 20, verse 3 and 4.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath, or what is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them nor serve them: for I the Lord your God, am a jealous God, the iniquity of the fathers on the sons to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me "


The above text from the Bible - is the second commandment of God.
>>
The Sixth Commandment

"Thou shalt not kill" 2 Ex. 20,13
>>
>>653206
AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF FINITE PERPETUAL HYPERCUBES IN A PERPETUAL VACUUM
>>
Philosophy major here, just to make a point, please don't use ontological "void" to describe pure space without anything in it. Becouse it's not. Not-entity (which you refer as void) is that which is not anything. Which means it's also not space without anything in it. It's simply nothing. Okay? Thanks, bye.
>>
>>653431

(1:1) In a beginning created God the Heavens and the Earth. (1:2) And the earth was

a chaos and void, and darkness is on a surface of an abyss, and a spirit of God

vibrating on a surface of the waters. (1:3) And saying is God, "Become light!" And it

is becoming light. (1:4) And seeing is God the light, that it is good. And separating is

God between the light and between the darkness.
>>
>>653473
Source:
Modern Literal Torah Translation.
>>
>>649902
>>652675
>outright deny g-d
>le aliens are real

LOL what a retart XD
>>
>>653328
Art is idolatry following this logic. Same with photography. Well done idiot
>>
File: bigbangbigrip_1.jpg (248 KB, 1240x826) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
bigbangbigrip_1.jpg
248 KB, 1240x826
>>653431
>>653473
>In a beginning

God never claim to created space-time.
"In a beginning" is right not necessary "the" beginning.
>>
>>652915

Step #6 in the pic
>>652868
>>
>>652868
Absolutely brimming with historical inaccuracies. Especially 7.
>>
>>652868
also step 3. They would have passed it along in a game of telephone, they would have meticulously passed it down orally through priestly families; where the young generations would have the proper version drilled into their heads by their elders day after day, year after year.
>>
>>654306
wouldn't* have passed it along in a game of telephone
>>
File: Luther-Bueste.jpg (36 KB, 800x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Luther-Bueste.jpg
36 KB, 800x800
>>653328
idolatry
>>653998

google "Martin Luther bust"
You can buy them online!

For Christian doesn't know:
Martin Luther was a German professor of theology, composer, priest, former monk and a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation. Luther came to reject several teachings and practices of the Late Medieval Catholic Church.
>>
>>654360
Anyone who uses shit like Luther busts for prayer and worship is an idolater of the highest order. Though I've yet to meet such a person.
>>
>>654360
>making busts of Martin Luther
Idolatrous scum

>>654366
ALL DEPICTIONS OF ANYSORT ARE IDOLATRY!

Now, if you make a geometric shape and worship that, then okay!
>>
>>654360
Luther allows the depiction of Jesus, Mary and the Saints.
>>
File: image.jpg (834 KB, 3502x2341) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
834 KB, 3502x2341
>>654410
According to Prot logic, posting on an imageboard is idolatry. Alongside this pic
>>
File: manuscript.gif (14 KB, 586x408) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
manuscript.gif
14 KB, 586x408
>>652915
>>654299
>>654306
You need fixed bible canon.

"There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-40 BCE),[5] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.[6] The Pontifical Biblical Commission says that "the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament".[7]"
>>
File: 1366143911990.jpg (702 KB, 1024x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1366143911990.jpg
702 KB, 1024x768
>>654562
idolatry anime?
>>
File: image.jpg (2 MB, 4080x5922) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
2 MB, 4080x5922
>>654965
If you are Protestant, that is the case
Thread replies: 204
Thread images: 43
Thread DB ID: 504605



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.