>matter can not be created or destroyed >the entire universe

>>727338762
the singularity was eternal

>>727338762
i believe "the big bang" is matter being sucked through a wormhole into a "new" universe

The universe didn't come from "nothing", it was a singularity.

File: electron-positron.png (72KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 2000x2000px

Matter is created and destroyed all the time you dumb fuck

HOLY FUCK, BOYS!

>>727338891
>>727339013
Please define singularity because I've heard different things from different people.

Don't take the b8

>>727338762
>matter cannot be created or destroyed
That's not what the law says, and the universe did not come from nothing. There was enough energy present to begin inflation, but no one knows yet how or why. We will all know why very soon though. Back to reading.

>>727338762
>I don't understand quantum physics, therefore god

>>727340030
>energy just existed out of nowhere

>>727340422
Nobody mentioned God, you illiterate moron.

>>727340534
I just said no one knows how or why; unless you have a conclusion to share with the rest of humanity. We will be able to see what happened before inflation though. Honestly depending on what we find out I may end it if this all just happens again in a different configuration.

>>727338762
The big bang does not describe everything coming from nothing.

The best speculation for the cycle the universe takes is more like this:

As time goes on matter in the universe expands outwardly from the initial explosion of the big bang.

However due to gravity, and limited space, things will eventually begin pulling together once more. Gravity affects ALL matter.

Black holes become danser, and the range of gravity increases, thus they can pull in even more matter. with more matter they become more dense, and it snowballs.

eventually all mater will be pulled into one area and it's own weight with crush it into a tiny point.

Then a chain reaction blows it all out again (the big bang) and the cycle repeats.

I'm not that smart, but I got a theory for all y'all.
Matter can't be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred to a new form.

My theory is this. Singularity was energy, which decayed into neutrinos in the first femtoseconds, and decayed and transformed into the blocks for atoms. Eventually, they got fused together, which is distinct from the initial energy transferred in decay

Mathematically speaking, do you guys think when "The Big Bang" happens again, everything will be the same?

You assume the laws of this universe existed before this universe came into existence. Why can't matter come from nothing when there isn't a rule stating otherwise?

>>727340925
Sounds good but please explain why is the espansion of the universe getting faster instead of slowing down? And that said how is it going to retract?

>>727341176
Gravity will put it back together.

File: Univseral_states.gif (8KB, 400x324px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 400x324px

>>727340925
So you are assuming that the universe is finite? Thats one of 3 possibilities

All matter and energy within the universe equates to zero. The universe including you and I is impossible not to exist. I'm sorry for all not maths, but you are all in the hell of existence because otherwise is simply no-existent. Welcome to maths. It is the only thing that has ever been. Enjoy your stay, or freak out I guess. Doesn't matter. We are here.

>>727340030
>we

>>727341531
it's a cycle just like every other system.
everything on earth and in nature works in these systems of building up and breaking down over and over

>>727341070
Do all firecrackers explode in the same way? There will always be variations when chaos is involved.
It will be the same in a sense that every forest is the same. It consists of trees.

>>727341919
>Scientists find out
>They publish it
>Everyone knows now
>You are part of the everyone group

>>727339020
>>727338891
/thread
sage goes in all fields, yadda yadda

>>727339020
>not understanding matter-energy duality

File: 1461303822399.jpg (38KB, 480x580px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x580px

>the universe couldn't have always existed, and it needs a creator

>god has always existed and didn't need to be created

>mfw

>>727342911
That barrel is not round, it is in fact, elliptical.

File: 1444642632074.jpg (10KB, 223x242px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 223x242px

>>727338762
It's energy that cannot... matter is created and destroyed all the time, anti-matter for example, however they leave behind ''pure energy'' which was not created.

>>727343045
Shut up faggot its clearly round.

>>727343147
WRONG. Look at the edges. Oh wait, there are none. BECAUSE IT IS AN OVAL. Take your useless nonsense back to /mlp/

>>727343143
matter is the same thing as energy, dumbass

matter is just a physical manifestation of the underlying energy that affects the time-space. just because you can't "see" anti-matter doesn't mean it's not matter, it's just a different manifestation of it. if you break an atom into quarks and shit, it's still matter.
>tl;dr E=mc^2

>>727339013
Where did the singularity come from?

the universe is shaped like a torus with the big bang and big crunch happening simultaneously in the same place. the centre of every black hole is the exact same time and place, the big crunch, as is only observable as 'future' (i.e. event horizon). the big bang is only observable as 'past'.

>>727343313
DID YOU JUST ASSUME THAT BARREL'S SHAPE?
[Triggers in barrel]

File: 1471552655202.jpg (47KB, 337x450px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 337x450px

>>727343440
DID YOU JUST ASSUME IT IDENTIFIES AS A BARREL?

>>727343348
>>Being this stupid.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

>>727342781
>universe could have always existed without a creator

>God can't possibly exist because I'm a closed minded atheist faggot

See I can play that game too.

virtual particles. created from nothing. matter annihilates everywhere in the universe. is op a faggot? you bet your momma's virginity!

>>727339139

Father Michael?

File: 1441542130812.jpg (16KB, 300x229px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x229px

>>727343348
>tl;dr E=mc^2
Randomly throws in an incomplete formula that goes against his point

>>727343578
It should identify as whatever the fuck it was born as.

File: 66DwL3Q.jpg (37KB, 500x405px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x405px

>>727342911
its not a barrel at all its a bunch of pixels on my monitor

>>727343348
>akschooallee
E^2 = mc^2 + pc^2
There's massless particles with energy (eg. photons) because they have momentum you fucking brainlet

>>727343996
HOW DAER YOU TEL IT WAT IT CAN AND CANT BEE?!?!?!?!?

>>727342911
>>727343045
>>727343147

blame the shitty artist that drew it.

File: FB_IMG_1489495717861.jpg (67KB, 500x676px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x676px

From what i can gather, after years of intense searching, matter doesnt exist. The philosopher, physicist, and clergy all agree.

The universe started as a singularity. (A singularity is an area of space so dense that even energy cannot escape) (Light can technically escape but I digress) So all energy that makes up all the matter we see today existed in a point that was less than an atom thick. (Please note, before the termed big bang, space/time didn't exist. Therefore allowing for an eternity for this to happen since time quite literally didn't exist.) Something broke the balance of this singularity and instead of staying collapsed, expanded rapidly. (Faster than the speed of light which is why we see the radioactive background.) Some hypothesis go around the idea that some sort of boson was created inside of the singularity and led to the expansion. Mostly since boson's seem to have very weird properties such as the higg's boson which determines mass inside the universe. Much like having a swimming pool and launching something through it.
Now onto the other part. Energy as we know it, cannot be created nor destroyed INSIDE of our universe. Please note, this is as far as we know. But there is also theoretical particles such as virtual particles that appear for a small amount of time, split apart, and crash back together destroying itself. Much like how matter and anti-matter collide but on a smaller scale. If these particles exist they break the laws of conservation of energy. (Matter is simply compressed energy) (Or if you go off string theory, compressed rings of energy that vibrate at different "frequencies" and then create different particles/effects in the universe.)
Now let's get to Lawrence Krauss's nothing. When we talk about nothing in quantum physics in today's scientific world, we don't mean nothing as people think about it today. Nothing is something. What we call nothingness is simply the lack of matter/energy, gravity, electromagnetism, and space-time. When you remove all these from an area of "space" you find there's "nothing" but that "nothing" is infact something.

>>727338762
God created matter so it cant be destroyed

God also created beings with the ability to evolve

File: asrtyuil894383e.png (174KB, 595x175px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 595x175px

>>727344132
things are not as they seem

>>727344233
No, I blame the blind retard who cant see that its round.

>>727344393
DAMN STRAIT. THAT BARRUL CAN BE WATEVER IT WANTS TO BE!

>>727344255
We don't fully understand this "nothing" yet. We don't understand a lot of things, such as theoretical particles that can travel faster than lightspeed, yet can fully exist in the universe. Dark matter, which we are only beginning to understand. Dark energy which we have no fucking clue of yet. Our mathematics break down before the event horizon of a black whole. We don't understand quantum tunneling, wormholes, and a shit ton of other stuff that is too long to list as of yet. Saying something is contradictory while also showing your own lack of knowledge about what you're talking about by using matter in place of energy in the law of the conservation of energy, just shows how little you have looked into this topic and are just spewing talking points from some other moron. Next time, how about talk to a quantum physicist before you make yourself look like a moron. <3

>>727344354

yet god can't/won't restore a limb to someone that has lost one. weird.

File: Laughing emoji.png (213KB, 412x306px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 412x306px

>>727343672
>Closed mined atheist faggot

So realizing that the existence of something higher is just bullshit made up by our species makes you a closed minded faggot?

You're pathetic if you believe in a god

>>727344050
There is no such thing as before the big bang. Time didn't exist until the universes started to expand. Your perception of time is the manmade measurement of celestial events. Time is movement.

>>727344255
>>727344718
For /b/tards, this is a surprising amount of thought.

File: 1444509398056.jpg (66KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x640px

>>727343348
>break an atom into quarks and shit
Apples and Banana's are quantum mechanics because potato
>>tl;dr E=mc^2

>>727345087
Thanks, I'm still a newfag so it isn't formatted well and is more just a spew onto the page, but it covers most of the things that people attempt to use when talking about "god" creating the universe or w/e else they believe in.

let me pose this question:

Unless you are the one who definitively answers the question, will knowing change your life at all?

>>727345387
Do you study physics anon? Second year theoretical here

File: 1488160432601.gif (171KB, 224x533px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 224x533px

We know there was a big bang because it's microwave signature is everywhere, blackbody radiation of about 0.235 meV is present everywhere in the universe, we have no other explanation for this phenomena than a massive explosion that happened "everywhere at once" billions of years ago. Space itself is literally still slightly warm from it, about 2.7 kelvin. But since there's stuff instead of nothing and empty space seems to be expanding since everything in the universe is always further away than the last time you checked unless it's so close to us our galaxy is pulling it toward itself. Because of the Doppler effect (for example a police car's siren sounds different coming toward you than moving away from you) how red a far away object is determines how fast it's moving away from us and things further away are, evidently by their extreme redness, moving faster away from us. We think this is the edge of the explosive wavefront, the big bang is still happening at the edge of the universe and stretching empty space right along with it. All of this requires such fantastic amounts of energy there's really nowhere else it could have been generated.

You could make the argument god initiated the big bang and designed the evolutionary process and probably should to remain culturally relevant. It's not a bad argument anyway, who else would be so intelligent they could design a universe that unfolds itself and creates beings to think about itself? If anything god is a scientist, he input the variables for the universe and is waiting patiently for his results. Why all the fireworks unless he wants to know something? Lonliness, how could he be lonely when he's inherently the only thing which existed before he created the universe? Why would a known outcome be interesting to him? Everything seems to suggest that god is not Laplace's demon, that determinism is false and thus, god himself, desires some kind of answer.

>>727344781
It's not a question about believing in a god or not. It's a question of if a god really does exist or not, even if one that humans never thought of so far and hasn't interacted with us. I never mentioned religion, I mentioned agnosticism vs atheism vs theism in the general sense of truth or fiction. The scientific stance SHOULD be agnosticism not atheism, and atheism is equally as logical (or illogical) as theism until there's proof one way or the other.

>>727345870
Not yet, I hope to start either this fall or next spring. I just have an easier time grasping the concepts than most people. Granted, trying to teach myself thermodynamics has been a bit troublesome.

>>727341176
No friction in space, my dude. I also assume things getting pulled towards each other would make them speed up.

>>727346170
You can't know if god exists or not, so why believe in something that is non-falsifiable?
Agnosticism is simply lacking knowledge. So you are either a gnostic atheist/theist or an agnostic atheist/theist. Gnostic meaning to have knowledge.
The logical stance is agnostic atheism because there is no proof/evidence of a deity/high being.

>>727346602
General theism is also not falsifiable though. There are infinite possibilities of what constitutes a god. There's only 1 possibility of no god which only holds true if all infinite possibilities of god are ALL false. If anything I would argue the logical stance is agnostic theism given that. You're talking a single possibility vs infinite.

>>727343424
this is the one

>>727346870
And my logic is the same logic as thinking aliens in general can exist. Given the extreme scale of the universe, it's extremely likely there's another planet out there with alien life. Given the sheer scale of the universe and possibly beyond, it's extremely likely a god exists, or at the very least, in my opinion, a lot more likely that none of the infinite possibilities of god exist

>>727346870
Um no. You are simply trying to play a semantics game here.
The logical stance is agnostic atheism because, wait for it......
none of those infinite possibilities of a god have even the slightest bit of evidence for their existence.
There is no evidence for unicorns either. But there's trillions of planets in the universe, so how could you say you don't believe in a unicorn just because you haven't seen evidence for it? What about all the possibilities for it to exist? So it's clearly the most logical step to believe in the existence of every mythical creature that has been and/or will be thought up.
See the leaps of logic yet?

>>727347269
And none of the 1 possibilities that constitute atheism have the slightest bit of evidence.

Your logic is exactly the same as taking a very difficult multivariable Calculus problem which asks to find the limit as all variables approach a certain point. Theism would be suspecting the limit does exist. A particular religion believes the limit actually is this certain point in those number of dimensions. An atheist believes the answer is the limit does not exist. Go ahead and tell your math teacher the answer is that it doesn't exist just because you think so with the same kind of logic used in atheism. I bet he laughs in your face and calls you stupid.

>>727347237
No. The reason why it's logical to believe that life could arise elsewhere in the universe, is because, we already have evidence of it arising. That's right everybody. We are under the definition of life. How amazing right? We are the evidence that shows that life can exist in the universe and since it happened once, it can happen again.
Yet there still is no evidence at all for a god. So you're basically using a false equivalence argument. It's actually extremely unlikely a god exist as science furthers it's understanding of the universe. A self creating universe is entirely possible. There's no need for a god, stop trying to shoehorn it into the universe when there's no evidence for it.

>>727347563
So you simply don't understand what atheism is. You seem to believe that atheism is the belief in no god. When in fact atheism is the lack of a belief in a god.
While the laymen might say what's the difference, the scholar would see that lacking belief in something doesn't mean you believe it not to exist.
I lack a belief in invisible leprechauns too. Should we say there's an infinite possibility for those to exist as well?
And now you're trying to bring math into this debate? Really? Math. The most accurate tool we have. The only thing in the entire universe that can even come to the full definition of proof.
Please just stop. You are basically just spewing apologetics at this point. It's actually really sad.

Steady state theory has been falsified.

Thus, the universe had a beginning.

OP solved. Time to move on.

>>727347958
You automatically lose for not addressing the actual arguments present and trying to insult. Math IS logic and thus has application towards ANY logic based question SUCH AS logically deciding the existence or nonexistence of god(s). For you to dismiss math in a logical argument proves your lack of logic.

/thread

>>727347958
>When in fact atheism is the lack of a belief in a god.

What percentage?

If 100%, then the "difference" in definitions is irrelevant.

If less than 100%, then the difference is merely padded with your subjective will. The whole "lack of" dodge is obsolete for this same reason. Atheists keep acting like it's still 2008.

>And now you're trying to bring math into this debate? Really? Math. The most accurate tool we have.

Mathematical platonism is still a thing. Math is not invented, but rather discovered. Math is nonfalsifiable.

>You are basically just spewing apologetics at this point. It's actually really sad.

A defense is somehow bad? That's all apologetics is, a defense. So, you don't want your opponents to defend themselves I take it?

File: 1477616432247.gif (971KB, 230x306px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 230x306px

>>727347602

This. Because you have to be alive to observe the universe there's no reason to apply the Copernican principle to our specific location in space. This is probably the most interesting planet in the galaxy. Oh, and faster than light travel is impossible, we're not going anywhere and aliens never meet each other. Ever.

Besides, earth girls are easy.

File: 1486885149485.jpg (81KB, 799x562px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 799x562px

>>727341176
Black energy

Between big spaces of nothing, there's not nothing, there's forces. Black energy is one of them, "what is black energy anon?"
Well, black energy is the opposite of gravity, it push out everything, and as the galaxies split from the rest, between them it appears clouds of this "black energy". That's why galaxies are going faster and faster

Big crunch has been denyed when this black energy came out. The theory more accurate is that galaxies will keep their direction until they freeze out, when there's no kind of energy, when everything becomes nothing, when all become still photons. Then, for any reason something will move again, will have heat again, and a chain reaction will happen, gravity will be a thing again, everything will move again, the great machine that the univerese is will start again, one of many times..

>>727348182
No. Just no. I addressed the arguments completely. You just don't want to admit I did.
You are attempting to claim that "math is logic" hahaha. No math is logical. Math isn't logic. Logic is a set of rules that apply to the universe and everything inside of it. These are not mathematically based. They are more theoretical and can mostly be proven in thought experiments.
You are trying to claim that because there's an infinite amount of possibilities of a god, there is a more likely chance for there to be one than for there not to be one. And yet you still don't understand the difference in anti-theism and atheism. One is the lack of a belief. The other is the belief that a god does not exist. You idiot.
Insults don't mean you automatically lose. That's a logical fallacy in and of itself. My entire argument didn't hinge on my insult so it's not an ad hominem.
Just because something has an infinite amount of possibilities doesn't mean that the infinite amount of possibilities is more likely. Because you are trying to basically bait and switch this argument. Claiming I'm arguing against math instead of arguing against your faulty logic.
Math is the only thing in the universe that can prove itself. Nothing compares to the accuracy of math. And attempting to latch that onto your illogical argument to give it some kind of credence is actually fucking pathetic. Your argument is so piss poor that you attempt to draw from the credence of math to try to support your argument. In the end though you basically just acted like a child who couldn't fucking handle the fact he lost the argument. Claiming victory when you are in fact celebrating defeat. A fool's feast indeed.

>>727348805
You came too late to this thread

>>727341176
>>727348805
huh, thanks astronofaggot

>>727348716
What do you mean what percentage? Atheism as an idea is the lack of a belief in a deity. Nothing more. We are not claiming a god does not exist, we claim that there is no evidence to support that a god exists so we disbelieve it. The same way you disbelieve in unicorns because there's evidence for them. You don't say that unicorns don't exist. You say "I lack the belief that a unicorn exists because I see no evidence of ones existence."

Wow nice semantics argument dude. Using falsify against math. Too bad I didn't say math is falsifiable. I said math is the only thing in the universe that falls under the definition of proof. It is the only thing that can be proven true in the universe. Not falsified which is "checking against experience." Now get out of here with your apologetics that simply rely on semantics.

No the reason apologetics is bad in this context, is because you are trying to defend something that can't be defended. Congrats, you are arguing that it's more logical to believe in a god than to lack a belief in a god. Good job idiot.

>>727348816
>You are attempting to claim that "math is logic" hahaha. No math is logical.

Logic itself is Boolean algebra. It is literally where Claude Shannon's IT originates.

Either try to get a refund on your tuition, or stop faking it online. You're making yourself look bad.

File: 1481748152087.jpg (44KB, 640x472px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x472px

>>727348716

It's just not a very good theory mainly because you're just pushing the question up one level - what created god? Meanwhile the psychological and sociological function of a god is obvious, it's forms conform to the society it's in, it continually updates itself for example the Christian god is now "everything and everyone maaaan *exhales weed*" instead of some kind of anthropomorphic shithead who looks like some kind of ultra-grandpa. Oh, and the political crap, for instance Christianity's popular form was almost entirely determined by Constantine so he could use it as the Roman state religion - it had the desirable quality of claiming his leadership came from god and was thus totally unquestionable even if he raped 500 babies.

Too many questions, too many obvious needs being served and everyone reacts to questioning it's truth as if the needs being served are what's threatened but even the most millitant atheist isn't telling you to stop being a part of the community or stop believing in your potential for moral good - which is what religions seem to actually do that's good for most people.

Fortunately morality isn't relative and is part of the human phenotype, that's why humans are as bad at being moral as they are at everything else. Anyone who says morality is either an edgelord or a fear-mongering Christfag pretending to be a legitimate anthropologist so they can "find" a culture in which morality appears to not follow the obvious phenotype so they can go "See! Morality comes from worshiping god!". It doesn't, it comes from the same place as cooked food, houses, cars and expertly performed birthday blowjobs.

>>727349494
>What do you mean what percentage?

"Lack of" connotes a volume or quantity of something that exists vs. something that doesn't

You're not even paying attention to the very terms you're using.

>>727349494
>We are not claiming a god does not exist, we claim that there is no evidence to support that a god exists so we disbelieve it.

Which contradicts a "lack of" evidence.

Why so dodgy?