I literally don't understand how people can view this v

people choose happy safe feelings over reality, it's pretty easy to understand

>>728440545

I don't get it though. I want to know what is real more than feelings.

Why do other people not?

>>728440443
Religion is outside the realm of logic, it is very emotional. You can't use logic and reason to convince people that are convinced of something outside of it.

Actually very easy to understand why religious people wont be convinced by that video.

>>728440691
You are dangerously close to being as narrow minded as religious nuts, not everyone thinks and reason the same.

Rogan is normie tier philosophy

>>728440799

I'm sorry I'm trying to be as open minded as I can.

>not everyone thinks and reason the same.

Why is this?

>>728440691
Because they're democrats

>>728440691
some people have the ability to get lost in happy social constructs, actually most people, that's really what being healthy is, being able to just be happy and not think too much, happiness is overrated and shouldn't be the entire goal of your life, it's hedonistic

>>728440884
Because we all have different brains.

File: 32f852c079bb9492d441922e603c67df.jpg (62KB, 496x501px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 496x501px

>>728440443
M'Lady

I don't think "how bad God is" should even come up in the debate of whether or not he is real.

>>728441896
hilarious post
op btfo forever

File: 666bec6e-c83b-4f5c-a1b2-1103293dcbe9.png (513KB, 520x522px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 520x522px

>>728440443
People's opinions shift and change as well. Today's atheist is tommorow's Hare Krishna.

I'm a Hindu and frankly it's pretty irrelevant to me whether it's literally correct or not. I reject Rationalism (not rational thinking aspect of it, but the idea that humans are capable of understanding literally everything) in favor of Absurdism, the idea that there are walls that we in our present state are simply incapable of overcoming.

I don't think necessarily that God is sitting on a cloud choosing who goes to heaven or hell or even that you were good, but not great, so you get to be a cow. (That's just Hindu bullshit.)

But I do think that there is a strong possibility that as we are to bacteria, something (what we would consider God/s) is to us.

In my expierance, people who are atheist are generally that way because they want to be rather than logically arrived at it.

I really dont see a lot of differance between them and Christians afraid of Hell other than the political repercussions that come from their respective beliefs.

>>728440800
>normie
>philosopher
Pick just 1.

Normal these days = willfully ignorant, and anti-intellectul. Look at ghetto trap culture and how huge it is. It's dumb as shit, repetitive, and easily digestible if you're fucking retarded or fucked up or both. But it's huge and extremely popular. Just one example

>>728440443
>Joe Rogan

that weed degenarate

kys fag

>>728440443
>Discovering Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Freud in 2017
>only in america

>>728443477
yeah those people probably watch Joe Rogan

>>728441896
LOL
Atheists are so cringe

I watched that video a little.

I was like. Ok this is again atheists being know-it-all faggots like they always are.

I you have never died.

How the fuck do you know what is after death?

How do you say that all religions are the same?

When i am in 21 religions that are so different, its like they are from another planet.

The video is stupid, thats my opinion.

>>728440443
>why I'm still religious
>scientific reasons
>part one
Let's take the most widely accepted atheistic origins hypothesis, and break it down. (big bang). The basic crux of it is the idea that at one point all matter (so energy too), was stagnate, and that it by necessity for the idea to function ALWAYS existed. Now here's where there is a problem with the idea. Once you say something always existed, you impose an infinity value to it, and when you're talking about time, then you're saying that it happened infinitely backwards on a timeline. Well there's a problem with that, since big bang requires a cause, and effect relationship. So let's say that matter did suddenly react, and that reaction led to a chain of events that concluded in what we call the big bang. Well the problem is, since times beginning is infinitely moving backwards, then there is no start point.
>Part two
Now there's two ways to get around this paradox. You either A: assume that time was created when the big bang happened, but this is not only somewhat dubious, as with general relativity we know that there is a direct relation with space,time, and matter, so right off the bat it's a bit shaky, but for the sake of the argument let's say that's true.
>part 3
Now so here is the problem with saying time was created with the big bang. When you state this, you're stating that there was a point, at which time was nonexistent, and thus irrelevant. In this sate the normal rules of causality go out the widow, so you're confirming that something intelligent, or no, could actually create itself.
>Part 4
Now the other way around this is to state, that some event along the infinite timeline was introduced by outside forces, of some unknown origins, or nature. Well here's the problem with that. By assuming this, you've created an entire new conundrum, that would, also have to be explained, and would suffer the exact same problems with finding a logical answer.

>>728445966
>>728440443
Sorry for that kind of long winded response, but I would like you to notice, that not all of us, are just bible thumping simpletons.

>>728445966
Time is a part of unified space-time, dummy. Learn some actual science before writing your manifesto.

>>728445966
1.
No atheist would claim it always existed, just that we have a bunch of evidence of what happened just after the big bang. No one knows what caused it or if there even was a before to it.
2. Okay let's follow that argument.
3. Here we get back to that no one has a chance of knowing what preceded the big bang. You're talking creation as if that is a forgone conclusion, emergence might be a better term and no we don't know what it emerged from.
4. That is the cool thing about science though, the chase of finding out how things work.

>>728446866
Actually I'm the one presenting a logical scientific argument, and you're the one assuming, that I'm just saying that "creation happened". I'm saying that there is enough to question the theory to not consider it set fact.

>>728447271
Well good, I'm for people who keep asking questions.
Sorry for assuming.

>>728447271
>logical scientific argument

You literally know nothing about science. Science isn't some pseudo-rational language form that lends authority to your meaningless babble. Science is a method in which all ideas are attacked mercilessly through experiment by people who want to prove these ideas wrong. Only those ideas that cannot be proven wrong by any known experiment get to become part of scientific theory. What you're doing is meaningless wank.

>>728447714
You're unable to understand it, so you're saying it's unscientific. That's foolish, and simple minded. Not to mention dead wrong. Very little of any origin theory comes from anything other than logical deduction.

>>728447891
>Very little of any origin theory comes from anything other than logical deduction.

That's entirely false. As I said, you don't even understand the essential (inductive) nature of science. Cosmology and astrophysics are not Milesian metaphysics.

>>728447891
>>728447446
,also to both of you. While I'm not saying big bang is total bunk, the simple fact that it does have massive holes when it comes to basic logical deduction, means that it's just as invalid as any other theory that doesn't have enough evidence to support itself when it comes under a tiny degree of scrutiny.

>>728448153
Cosmology is almost entirely logical deduction, as is astrophysics.

>>728448163
>>728448271
Ok, well, enjoy your Time Cube-tier theorizing because everyone else in the world will be laughing at you.

>>728448153
Also you're trying to disprove my theory based on scientific knowledge you clearly don't have. If you actually did, you might be able to produce an effective argument against it that wasn't entirely in the realm of ad hominem

>>728448409
Once again, another "i don't have an answer so I'll call him an idiot."

Now this is not all of you, but if the shoe fits, wear it. A lot of atheist out there, assume that because they adopt atheism, that gives them an automatic degree in physics, biology, and cosmology, and I hate to tell you this, but that's simply not the case.

>>728448459
>>728448540
It's YOUR job to present testable predictions based on your theory if you want to do actual science.

>>728448702
Which, you can't produce either (despite the requisite resources), otherwise your theory couldn't have been contradicted by simple logical deduction.

>>728445061
He said they are all different. Trying watching with the open mind thing

>>728448702
All of your theories are based off of pure observation, and reasoning, as are mine.

Also to point out something else that makes this argument even more comical from the wanna be "scientist" here. You literally created a thread telling religious people to be open minded, but the moment one presents something explained with logic, and reason, you act as if your entire world has been butt raped by a mongol horde.

>>728448837
>>728448953
Every testable prediction that can be derived from current models have held up to observation.

https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

If you want to offer a competing theory, present your testable predictions and show how they are derived from your theory. Otherwise, fuck off back to kookyville with your tail tucked between your legs.

Your next post should either list these predictions or admit your foolishness.

>>728445966
>there is a direct relation with space,time, and matter, so right off the bat it's a bit shaky
That's actually why many scientists believe time was created with the big bang. The only constant is the speed of causality. Time changes in relation to matter (which was created with the big bang) and energy (which was released in huge amounts in the big bang). Given that, it's not much of a stretch to say that time, like space, was created in the big bang - not that I agree.

>Well the problem is, since times beginning is infinitely moving backwards, then there is no start point.

I think you might try approaching this another way. Instead of calling this a paradox, follow it through:

>If there was a causal chain we call the big bang, time must have existed for it to transpire.
>If time existed before the causal chain, then somewhere in the span of time something must have been the first step of the causal chain, or the causal chain is infinite
>If something started the causal chain spontaneously, then it is beyond our understanding of the universe and thus is a mute point
>If the causal chain is infinite, then what sort of infinite is it? Circular, low order? high order?
>Whatever you choose, there is a way to represent it mathematically, and it can be understood analogously. Where is the paradox?

>>728449192
You literally just posted a video, who's main point of evidence is that the universe is expanding, and called it proof of big bang. That's absolutely silly, and nothing in the video isn't also explainable by millions of other possibilities. How do I know? I've seen that video like five times.

>>728449388
Still waiting for testable predictions derived from your "scientific" theory.

>>728449341
>Which I also contested in the theory, but you left that part out.
>You literally just described the final problem I presented, as creating another problem.

Isn't this a fucking MMA commentator?

>>728449479
>still waiting for testable predictions, your theory's had 50 years to prove.

>>728449582
You'll need to be more specific, what other problem am I creating? My point is that I see no paradox.

>>728449729
The problem of introducing an outside influence. That creates an entire new event chain which must be explained.

>>728449824
Oh, you mean the problem I called a >mute point ?

>>728449341
It's also not a moot point. If you're saying it's beyond your understanding, you're using the same out that you hate for religious theories to use.

>>728440443
>I literally don't understand how people can view this video with an open mind and stay religious.

When you get older you'll understand, son.

>>728449686
That's what I thought. You're no different than a creationist. You don't even understand the elementary methods of what you're trying to critique. You've merely created a silly story that uses terms borrowed from legitimate science, as though using the magic words will make your silly ideas powerful. This is why primitive religions belong in the dustbin of history along with the other caveman cultures.

>>728449958
I don't hate when religious theories point out where our understanding ends. It's reasonable to have clear boundaries of certainty. I'm saying that something that is unable to be explained is not a paradox.

>>728450013
You've yet to present one, even one iota of anything to actually discount what I said, and once again you're using simple insult to back your supposed enlightened argument.

>>728450156
Actually, he's calling you uninformed because you have not address his primary criticism: that you act like your personal brand of pseudo-science is in fact science. I still haven't seen a good rebuttal from you.

>>728450084
When you combine it when the fact, that it's one of the few ways to get around infinite time, then yes it is a paradox, because then you create another undefinable cause, and effect relationship.

>>728450330
Then you've either not read anything in the thread, or you've thoroughly planted your head in your ass. I'm not presenting an actual theory, I'm presenting a rebuttal to big bang theory.

>>728440443

Yet this guy actually believes Big Foot exists. Seriously.

>>728450331
Not necessarily. Because it's beyond our understanding, there is no such requirement. For something beyond causality itself to be able to create causality doesn't mean it has to have done it more than once.

More importantly though, where are you trying to "get around" infinite time? That's not a paradox either. If time was a circle that eventually led to the big bang all over again, it would be infinite, and it would be rather easy to understand too.

>>728450330
I have zero clue as to the meaning of everything, nor do I claim to. What I am saying is that not a single person here, has yet to actually explain a single one of the faults I pointed out in big bang theory.

>>728450572
Which totally violates every law of thermodynamics, but sure whatever, and once again. When you say something is "beyond our understanding", you're using the same out that every other theory uses. With that I could say, a giant tuna fish created the universe, but it's beyond our understand.

>>728450777
It doesn't?
Please, show me a law of thermodynamics it violates. I'll wait.

>>728449995
nice rebuttal, faggot

>>728450591
>>728450591
I've seen several explanations. What you mean to say is that you haven't understood any.

> You call your ideas science when they are just guesses
> Unlike science you provide 0 experimental or cor relational evidence for your claims
> Your claims have also been questioned on the grounds of logic
> You called several properties of time a paradox, when in fact they were not
Those are just the last two explanations.

>>728450887
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXRFQBad1Hs

>>728450928
I already told you how they where a paradox, like at least five times over, and no, you can't test the entire universe. So fuckin sue me on that one. How in the world are you suppose to test a state at witch time doesn't apply? I'm fairly certain the people backing bigbang haven't seeing as how that would be kinda impossible.

>>728451208
You allahu akbars really can't admit when you're wrong, can you? You just get angrier and angrier as the modern world makes it more and more obvious how ignorant you are.

>>728451933
That was an awesome rebuttal very enlightening.

>>728451019
You've entirely missed the point. I know the laws of thermodynamics. They say nothing regarding this. Let me give you an example.

Say, in trillions and trillions of years, when is spread to sparsity, some black holes reach a point that the matter inside them rips through space times, and creates a new singularity identical to the big big - where do the laws of thermodynamics prevent this? How about any of the other billion possibilities for infinite time?

You're staring at the face of the unknown and pretending to have answers. Before you can assert, you must test.

>>728451208
By the way, you can test properties inherent within the entire universe. We do it all the time. That's why math exists.

>>728451933
Also if idiots, who think their religious preference, makes them instant scientist, are the defining culture of the modern world, this is going to get very entertaining.

>>728452224
So, in addition to scientific methodology, proper use of commas is also something you know nothing about?

>>728440443
Using Joe Rogan as an authority on something like religion just makes you look like as much of an idiot as he is.

>>728452196
That would lead to another problem. Then you're stating that something, has shifted an expanding universe, into a shrinking universe, which doesn't make logical sense. Also mathematics is nothing, but logical deduction represented in a more precise way.

File: 1231_DD_bullying.jpg (43KB, 841x571px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 841x571px

>>728440443
>Literally

Millennial detected

Learn when to use an adverb.

>>728451933
I'm honestly disappointed. I find myself arguing with OP, despite being religious myself. The difference though, is that I don't make a personal religion out of pseudo-science. I let science guide my spiritual journey, and revel in the unknown, for it is the future of science.

>>728452391
Oh sue me, just about everyone in here has had at least a few grammatical errors. Once again another attempt to distract away from the discussion, because your view fails on merits.

>>728452196
Also with black holes dying, that's called Hawkings radiation, and even he's not sure about that, so it's not really something you can use to explain the theory if we're setting only 100% provable things as the standard for debate.

>>728452577
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the laws of thermodynamics don't forbid infinite time. I'm saying that infinite time is not inherently paradoxical - be it circular or otherwise. Just because you've deduced that this specific example is unlikely, that doesn't make time paradoxical. Even if you were to prove that infinite time was impossible, it wouldn't be a paradox. Having the property of being infinite does not conflict with any other property of time.

>>728452196
Black holes, also to an extent lend some credit to what I'm saying, and that is the fact that it may be plausible to have a state of undefined time, in which big bang, but also every other theory may be plausible.

>>728453069
Infinite time is not implausible, however for an event to take place on an infinite time line is.

>>728453069
>>728453207
What absurd nonsense

>>728453069
Also sense thermodynamics prove that there is a rest state of the universe, and you're taking into account that matter is closely linked with time, then you're saying that there would be a point at which time either stops, or alters in some dramatic way.

>>728453207
>for an event to take place on an infinite time line is implausible
Except time is defined by causality, which is the progression of one state to another, ie an event. If time is infinite, so is the number of events.

>>728440443
>Each religion is inconsistent with every other religion, which is why they're all wrong

Fucking stopped listening right there. Every nomadic, shamanistic, and even pagan religion has remarkably similar oral stories and written stories.

I'm not religious at all, but come the fuck on, atheists, don't spew bullshit and tip your fedoras if you don't fucking know what you're talking about.

my life changed when I stopped viewing humans as rational beings

sure we are able to be rational in a very limited scope but in general people are irrational more often than not.

>>728453362
The theory of relativity says much the same - again, not a paradox.

>>728440443
>Big bang

Opinion disregarded

>>728453397
Placing an event on a time line is an arbitrary practice. For a cause, and effect set of events to be on an infinite timeline, is implausible, as they have no real start or finish point, as time is expanding (not a good word for it) in all applicable directions.

>>728453486
I think a better way to express this sentiment might be that humans are more rationalizers than rational. Rational thought emerges from a part of the brain that often has little to do with a large number of decisions. It does, however, attempt to make sense of just about all of those decisions. Thus, we think rationally far more often than we act - and by act, I include things like producing speech.

God is real

>>728453723
>Placing an event on a time line is an arbitrary practice.
It depends on your definition of event. I was very specific. Events take place at a rate of C, the universal constant of causality.

>>728453408
Just because the myths are similar doesn't also mean they aren't incompatible.

Not very bright are you?

>>728453723
>>728453397
>Let me articulate that better.
If you try to place an event anywhere, you create an infinite "before", in which something had to lead to that, and then to that, and then forever onward. You run into an infinite question of what, caused what. Thus at some point, there had to have been a state which allowed for spontaneous creation.

>>728445966
1. The big bang is not an atheistic origin hypothesis. You can be an atheist and not think that the big bang happened, it's just that most of the reasoning for it not happening is derived from religion and so you are left with little reason if you are an atheist. Prove that the big bang didn't happen today and you are no closer in proving that god exists, which is what you have to do considering you are claiming that a god or gods exist. Atheists find this argument lacking; that is all. There is no atheistic claim. This argument is invalid.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. N/A

>>728454004
>>728454096
So for the sake of the argument, then yes big bang requires a state at which what we consider normal cause, and effect don't apply.

>>728454085
I hope all the atheists in the world fucking die.

I'd rather live in a World dominated by religion, any religion, than live in a World full of atheists.

He didn't even argue that God wasn't real, and instead argued that Religion itself is shit. Saying Religion itself is shit doesn't do a great job at arguing against the existence of God.

>>728454217
If your goal is to tell people not to have faith the burden of proof is on you. If someone else's goal is to convince you of the realism of their faith, then the burden of proof is on them.
I'm not here to evangelized, (proof of which is I haven't even stated my religion).

>>728454096
You're thinking of infinity in the wrong terms. Keep in mind that I'm talking about the fundamental unit of time. The magnitude of infinity this represents is in the order of say, all natural numbers. I'm also saying that for each of these units, there is a state that can be called an event. There are also an infinite number of these, in the same magnitude. We can think about this set of infinity as all even numbers.

Because both of these sets are the same magnitude of infinity, there will always be one to match the other 1:2,2:4,3:6,etc

What you are describing would be true if we were talking about a higher magnitude of infinity (like all real numbers).

>>728454701
It could be an infinite number of events, but an infinite number of events that would all require a cause, and effect.

>>728454701
That's what I'm arguing. If you don't have a cause for an event, then the event was spontaneous, which means that it was something that happened without any logical rymme or reason, which means that you had to of had a state in which time was not as we know it now.

File: 1486869409842.jpg (5KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 222x227px

Some literal whos on some autistic image board think they know and understand enough to deny the big bang theory.

>>728454903
Perhaps, if we had a reason to think so. I'm talking about something we've tested experimentally and proven mathematically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

>>728440443
They sound like idiots trying to sound smart.

>>728455075
>which means that you had to of had a state in which time was not as we know it now.
Or things in our universe can be manipulated from beyond the dimension of time.

>>728455152
Which once again may be true, or untrue, but it doesn't change the nature of the problem, which is that something did happen without any cause. This opens up the possibility of a plethora of theories.

>>728455358
Now that's an interesting idea isn't it?

>>728454536
You are close to correct, but I think you need to better understand the argument of burden of proof. Burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. The original claim is that god exists. Neither I or Krauss said or suggested that we know that god isn't real. We said there is no evidence and therefore no reason to believe in it. I am not required to present anything, we are simply waiting for proof to be presented.

File: 1392676984461.jpg (7KB, 283x255px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 283x255px

>>728455305
Lawrence Krauss has more brains in his prostate than your hillbilly has combined

>>728455524
Keep waiting then. I haven't the slightest interest in proving his existence. The most I'd be willing to even attempt to prove, is the plausibility of his existence.

>>728455642
Tends to happen when you always have your head up your ass.

>>728455392
I don't think it opens anything, the doors are staying open. The big bang never claimed to explain any more than it does, and the things it doesn't explain were being asked thousands of years ago.

It does give an interesting vantage point for would be modern philosophers to re adapt old ideas though.

File: 1378473408835.gif (2MB, 228x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 228x180px

>>728455746
Lawrence Krauss has is head up his ass? ok

>>728455837
Search where the prostate is. You're the one who said it, not me.

File: 1407602139758.jpg (22KB, 469x463px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 469x463px

>>728455746
Tell us about your astrophysics bona fides M'lady

>>728447271
And that's the beauty of science, it always opens up more questions than it answers.

The journey's more important than the destination, eh?

>>728440443
Replace every time he says "Religion" with "Islam" and he's 1000% correct.

It's the only religion still in the stone age with barbaric customs.

>>728455933
>>728455795
That's why I presented the idea. Simply to open things up. Personally I actually believe in big bang. I just don't think it's incontrovertible, and I don't see it as a contradiction to my faith.