Question to atheists

>>2575176
They have faith that a physicist will one day be able to solve the metaphysical problem of existence. In the meantime they adhere to a hedonistic philosophy that is unfulfilling to all but economically secure narcissists

File: dealspider.gif (2MB, 428x228px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 428x228px

>>2575176
>>2575198
samefag
also something is created from nothing all the time

>>2575176
This bitch doesn't know about my quantum

>>2575206
>samefag
Sad that a fallacy (an incorrect one at that) is the first "argument" you resort to
>also something is created from nothing all the time
Got any examples or just talking out your ass?

>>2575217
the fact that assuming that just because we dont see something happen it must be caused by a omnipotent entity is absurd and reductio ad absurdum is a thing

>>2575229
So you don't have any examples. Okay. Because it literally does not and can not happen.
Interesting.

>>2575176
Every sentence in this post outs you as someone with subnormal intelligence, OP. You should probably just stay away from philosophy and politics.

"Nothing" is not just empty space. nothing entails a lack of physics therefore the physical law that says something cannot come from nothing is not in place and the universe was free to come about

>>2575242
lrn2 logic

>>2575176
Try harder desu

File: 1484347418316.gif (344KB, 400x221px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 400x221px

>>2575176
>science is an "authority"
>laws of physics apply before the big bang

&humanitiesposting

File: GoodJesuitBadJesuit.jpg (233KB, 1200x1756px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1200x1756px

>>2575176
Are you Catholic?
Not only is Big Bang a bad theory but probably stolen from heretics during the dark ages only to be hauled out by Jesuits recently and peddled with the massive Vatican propaganda apparatus.

As an atheist I believe the universe is probably beyond our comprehension at this point and maybe forever, it's fun to theorize so long as those theories are not tainted by religious back doors like Big Bang. If I had to guess, universe is and always has been, maybe breathes- expands and contracts!?

Remember, the Reformation and Renaissance happened because Black Death wiped out a lot of people, upended society and forced people to think for themselves again. With that came great pain but also great discoveries. As we slip back into another dark age, as the Vatican and Jesuits gain more control we can only hope for another plague to cleanse the earth and purge that repulsive abomination of control freaks, sodomites and psychopaths.

there was no before, the concept of time came with the universe

>>2575176
You're right that there aren't very strong theories to what happened before the Big Bang. Maybe it's a eternal cycle, maybe nothing at all. Honestly, the belief it has a sentient creator is probably just as arguable. But things start to fall apart when you give a creator other attributes like performing prayers, throwing lightning bolts, etc.

>>2575176
The absence of knowledge of a state before creation does not confirm a creator. I'd argue they're one and the same, everything else is a human construct.

>>2575176
>and science is the only absolute authority in the universe
Science is not a "authority" in the universe. Science is about determining the laws of nature, who are the 'actual' authorities in the universe. Its not writing the rules, its about finding out what the rules are.

>what came before the big bang? By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing.
Sceintific laws are theories devised by observation and experimentation, and since our tools for both are flawed, our theories are, naturally, flawed too and always applicable with the caveat of "Until we find something that contradicts it", if we had absolute knowledge about how everything works, we wouldn't need scientific methods, afterall.
So to answer your question, while there are a lot of theories about what might have been before the universe, by its very nature its difficult to the point of impossibiloity at this point to gather any actual information on what the universe was like in the inception of its current form, let alone what was before then. We don't know, we likely won't know for a long time and possibly will never know. Maybe Ex Nihilo creation is somehow possible, maybe the universe has never "started" and its infinitely cyclical and has always been there. If we could solve it, it wouldn't be a paradox.

>>2575176
You have nonidea what science is. Science claims no absolute authority on the premise that the absolute truth can't be answered. Science doesn't ask 'why' per se, but how? It asks questions and find answers in books, other people thoughts, nature, tests, and based on thefindings it forumulates new answers which, in turn, results in new questions. Never are they set in stone, they always can be questioned. The longer they endure questioning the more 'true' they become, but it is a practical truth. So we can fucking get on with our day without beeing stopped by people asking, but why huh, but whyyyyyy?

Religion is based on the premise of not asking questions per se, but giving answers to questions of which no one really has the answer to. People tell themselves that they can define god. But the moment you talk about god, he becomes undefinable. It is personal and diffrwnt for everyone. The christian definition of god has more and more been internalized. Spirituality or other beliefsystems have been introduced. (Influence of the way science asks questions?) Now, Islam is different. It is unpredicatable (as everything is), but still dominant in some regions of te world.

Either way, religion gives answers based on a single view, book, almost never changing (please hear my nuance: the fact that there is no ONE religion (in present oe in time), but multiple (that can 'die' or transform), contributes to the fact that religion is man made, it does not give an answer of origin, no one can answer those questions but yourself only for yourself). It claims it does, but its based on one maybe a couple books.

Scienc never stops reading, nor writing about what is reads, nor reading etc etc

Pick up a book (other than the bible), knowledge is cumulative.

>>2575176
Something must've been created from nothing, or something must've always existed, since things exist. You have to accept this whether you're religious or not.
I don't see any more reason to assume it was a deity rather than anything else.

>>2575258
>logic is right because i sed so
>>2575514
Stop tipping your fedora so hard, knowledge doesn't exist and science does not even flirt.
>presupposing all this nonsense
>It claims it does, but its based on one maybe a couple books.
False

>>2575176

>science is the only absolute authority in the universe,

You do realize that science is a methodology, not an authority, right?

>what came before the big bang?

In all likelihood, that will be forever impossible to determine, as whatever evidence and information pre-existed it was destroyed in cosmic expansion.

>By the very laws of science,

That phrase means nothing.

>something can't be created from nothing.

That is also apparently untrue, as bizarre as it may seem. Consider Hawking's work on black hole "evaporation".

>>2577157
>You do realize that science is a methodology, not an authority, right?
You must not know what Scientism is. It's basically science turned into a religion. It's similar to philosophical materialism in many aspects.

>>2575176
>By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing. How do you rectify this paradox?
But you believe your God didn't have a creator
Why is it so hard for you to believe the universe didn't have one?

>>2577157
Evidence doesn't exist.
>Consider Hawking's work on black hole "evaporation".
this fedora said so, so is true
>>2577169
>your god
*tips*

>>2577169
>But you believe your God didn't have a creator

Why would an eternal spirit being require a creator?

Because it violates all known scientific laws. Not theories, laws.

>>2577181
>science
>laws
jej

>>2575176
>before the big bang?
>implying traditional ideas of cause and effect apply

File: chen.png (141KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 512x512px

>>2577168
>"Scientism" is bad because it's a religion
I suppose that something being a "religion" is automatically a bad thing?

>>2577153
If knowledge doesn't exist everything you say is pointless. I don't belief this to be true.

And indeed, religion isn't based on 'maybe a couple of books'. Thats false. It is feeling, it is urge to know. But it cannot be known, knowledge does exist but, for now or forever, it is limited.

The worst of your comment is maybe that you think I wear fedora's. Now that slaps me in the face like a biatch.

Humanities was a mistake

>>2577244
Cause and effect don't happen.
>>2577315
Wrong. Knowledge doesn't exist.

File: wojack idea guy.jpg (24KB, 242x244px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 242x244px

>>2577327
>Knowledge doesn't exist.
How do you know?
What facts and evidence did you use to reason out and come to this conclusion?

>>2577336
I didn't, I chose it.

Evidence, facts, and reason do not exist.

>>2575176

Jesus said unbelievers were better than hypocrites. I don't claim to follow the doctrine, therefore am not bound by it.

File: IMG_0752.png (33KB, 1020x426px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1020x426px

>>2575176
However, there was something prior to the Big Bang, according to the theory, a singularity, try harder next time

>>2577350
Fair enough, arbitrarily choosing between options of statements is a valid form of self-expression.

Do these arbitrary statements form a system of ideas that others can evaluate and apply to their own lives?

>>2577364
>presupposing pragmatism
>'its a valid form of...'
Please stop posting.

File: well memed.jpg (27KB, 272x265px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 272x265px

>>2577350
Only opinions exists

File: AVGN6.png (430KB, 409x519px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 409x519px

>>2575176
>something can't be created from nothing
Who created God then?

>>2577268
Scientism is bad because it's lousy. not because it's a religion. I was just pointing out that it's hypocritical to act as though science is just a methodology when people don't treat it as such.

>>2577369
Ok then, lets' back up, I assume you object to my question

Is expressing an opinion not a valid form of self-expression?

>something can't be created from nothing
Think about the consequences of what this means.
Hint: The answer is not "God dunnit."

>>2577374
God is the Alpha and Omega. He's infinity.

>>2577399
The universe is the alpha and omega. It's infinity.

>>2575176
>If there is no god in any way shape or form and science is the only absolute authority in the universe
back2school (non-Muslim/American preferably)

>what came before the big bang?
Super-big bang. Memes aside: How the fuck am I supposed to know that?

>How do you rectify this paradox?
What paradox?

>>2577399
Oh yeah well! Super God comes before Alpha and goes past Omega, he's super Duper infinity +1 and he's my dad and I'm God too!

Atheists should be laughed out of every discussion, there is a reason why the rich and powerful do strange rituals at secluded places like Bohemian Grove.

>>2577439
Bohemian Groves are full of atheists though.

>>2577168
Now that is a good strawman.

>>2577424
God is infinity/pure actually.

>>2577405
So you're a pantheist?

>>2577494
Just like your waifu, right?

>>2575176

We don't know what happened yet.

In the same way people didn't understand where disease came from and thought it was a punishment from God.

There's always going to be new frontiers for science to try and figure out. It never makes the juvenile conclusion "God did it" correct.

>>2575217
An insult is not a fallacy.

>>2577168

>You must not know what Scientism is.

But nobody has mentioned scientism in the OP, nor did I in my post.

>>2577175

Beg pardon? Just because there is no evidence for something doesn't mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED PERIOD! We have no evidence concerning the real cause of the collapse of the Hittite Empire, and we likely never will. Saying that the Hittite Empire never collapsed, or that it never existed is nonetheless an absurd statement.

>>2578023

Yes, that is true, you retarded cunt.

>>2577379
He's baiting you just stop

>>2577439
Alex Jones?

>>2575217
The expansion of space itself is an example of something coming from nothing.

File: 1361756764571.jpg (1MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2848px

>>2575286
>peddled with the massive Vatican propaganda apparatus.
Actually, what's really ironic about the Big Bang is that the first great popularizer of it was an avowed atheist, Fred Hoyle, who went on a speaking tour attacking it for being "stealth creationism" until the theory got so much exposure that people began taking it seriously, and when observational evidence began compiling proving the theory, they kept the name as a giant "fuck you" to the guy who devoted his career to ridiculing the notion.

>religious back doors like Big Bang.
What is General Relativity?
What is Red-shift?
What is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and where does it come from?
What is Inflation theory?
How come we can measure more stellar activity in the past than in the present?
How come the further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us?
How come older stars have more light elements while younger stars have more heavy elements?
http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

It's not without its problems but 99.9% of scientists in a field relevant to astronomy accept the Lambda CDM model

>t I believe the universe is probably beyond our comprehension at this point and maybe forever, it's fun to theorize so long as those theories are not tainted by religious back doors like Big Bang.
Nonsense. The universe reveals itself to our senses. It behaves in ways that are predictable and testable. Whatever limitations we have on our ability to perceive the universe are related to scale.

>If I had to guess, universe is and always has been, maybe breathes- expands and contracts!?
but until we have evidence for such things they are base speculation and the only real answer is "we don't know"

>As we slip back into another dark age,
Fed largely by a rising tide of nationalism, anti-intellectualism, and militarism, not by competing beliefs in the physical sciences.

>>2578459
wait, are you OP? I can't tell.

>>2578481
Not OP, just somebody who has respect for the physical sciences, regardless of which religion (or lack there-of) they belong too

>>2578497
>regardless of which religion (or lack there-of) they* belong too
Their originator*

>>2577494
Prove it.

Space and time are interlinked, so "before the big bang" is like "south of the south pole."

>>2577405
The universe is matter and usable energy headed towards heat death.

There are no rational scientists or cosmologists who believe the universe is eternal.

Saying so don't make it so.

>>2578588
God revealed it already. Try to catch up.

>>2578670
Not an argument.

>>2578673
The truth does not argue with idiots. It just remains the truth, despite their foolish protestations.

>>2578669
Robert Caldwell would like to have a word with you.

>>2577153
>logic is right because i sed so

You came out swinging by saying someone else used a fallacy. Does logic only apply when it substantiates your spook?

>>2578702
zero content proddyposting all day long

>>2578669
Heat death doesn't mean the universe stops existing, it just means there is a net enthalpy balance and entropy becomes impossible due to a universal system reaching equilibrium.

>>2575176
>what came before the big bang?
We don't know.
>By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing.
We don't know if there was ever "nothing," and my guess is there probably wasn't.

>>2578738
Should also mention that it's thought that time started with the big bang, so we don't even know if it's correct to ask about a "before" the big pbang.

>>2578713
Fools tire me. Fools with idols who are also fools bore me.

>>2578737
Which has not happened, ergo the universe is not eternal.

Do try to keep up.

>>2578713
Quick read, saw nothing about an eternal universe, and a lot of babbling about "dark energy" and "dark matter".

>>2578754

>Make claim
>Get claim rebutted
>Try to ass your way out of it.

You don't even know who Caldwell is, do you?

>>2578765

In very, very simple terms

>The universe tends to expand
>The rate of expansion, as far as we can tell, is increasing, not decreasing.
>Therefore, we are unlikely to have either a big crunch, or a heat death.
>We don't know why this constant acceleration seems to be happening (and this is where the dark matter and energy comes in), but it does seem to be happening.

Big Rip is fundamentally inconsistent with Heat Death as final state models, and it would be eternal, just you'd have matter extremely (infinitely) far separated from other bits of matter.

>>2578783
The claim was that no rational scientist believes the universe is eternal.

Because they, unlike you, understand the folly of infinite regression.

You naming a fool who believes in dark energy and dark matter was irrelevant to that point.

I read your "quick terms" before I posted. The man's got nothing going on. He speculates that dark energy and dark matter exert pressure on the universe.

In other words, he's insane. His "Big Rip" has nothing to do with how old the universe is. And of course it's just a hypothesis, isn't it.

>>2578783
>>The universe tends to expand

Hey, try to catch up to 700 BC, would ya?

Isaiah 40:22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

>>2578798
Space doesn't expand like a stretching curtain.

>>2578792
>The claim was that no rational scientist believes the universe is eternal.

Except I provided an example of a rational scientist who believes the universe is eternal. Your disagreement (sans understanding) of his theories does not make him a fool.

>His "Big Rip" has nothing to do with how old the universe is

Which in turn has nothing to do with, and I'm quoting your idiotic post a belief that the universe is eternal. Can't you fucking READ? Do you not know what these words mean? Because NEWSFLASH, eternal means something that will last forever. And guess what, if the Big Rip hypothesis is right, it will indeed last forever.

Please take a nap on some train tracks.

File: 1447028399505.jpg (119KB, 777x656px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 777x656px

>what came before the big bang
A very dense point.
The big bang describes the expansion of the universe, not its origin.

>well where did that come from
How the hell should I know? The fact that I don't know doesn't mean a wizard did it.

File: 1221950279796s.jpg (3KB, 89x126px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 89x126px

>>2578798

>>2578802
It absolutely does. Read some Moshe Carmelli and try to follow his equations.

You know, so you don't sound so dumb next time.

>>2578810
I saw nothing in his works that said he believed the universe is eternal.

He is not a rational person, using "dark energy" and "dark matter" as though they were real.

Your 1 example failed.

You failed.

>>2578810
No, dipshit, eternal means it HAS always lasted forever, and WILL always last forever.

holy crap you didn't even know the meaning of the word "eternal" and you jumped on it like a dog on his own vomit.

>>2578813
No it doesn't. It purports to.

That fact that you think the head of a pin that necessarily contained all of the matter and energy of the universe just "popped" into existence from nothing disqualifies you to discuss anything more serious than the weather.

>>2578824
It absolutely doesn't.

>>2578828
>I saw nothing in his works that said he believed the universe is eternal.

Yes, we've already established you have trouble reading things and understanding them.

>He is not a rational person, using "dark energy" and "dark matter" as though they were real.

Once again, establishing illiteracy. Why don't you actually look up terms like "Baryonic" and get back to us in the 21st century?

>>2578834

>No, dipshit, eternal means it HAS always lasted forever, and WILL always last forever.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eternity
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eternal

I guess you know better than the guys at the OED, huh? Notice the "or"s in there.

File: 1454368917439.png (273KB, 520x307px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 520x307px

>>2578837
>I disagree so your opinion doesn't count
Alrighty then. Enjoy your echo chamber.

>>2577379
>valid
Validity does not exist.
>>2577657
Knowledge doesn't exist.
Science is juvenile, you child.
>>2578045
Evidence doesn't exist. I mean, evidence of anything or for anything, in any possible form.
>>2578723
I never said that, you filthy dualist.

>>2578866
kek

Why don't you realize that everything is fields, and fields are not particles?

Again, try to catch up to, what, 500 BC with your Atomism nonsense?

And ffs read your own cites.

Used to refer to an everlasting or universal spirit, as represented by God.

>>2578907
Fuck off.

>>2578869
It's filled with angels singing.

>>2578907
>>2578916
lol why the fuck do you people even post here
is this a form of therapy for you
This is such a dumpsterfire of a board

>>2578959
why do people post things i dislike?

>>2578756
>Which has not happened, ergo the universe is not eternal.

Assume what has not happened cannot happen

Everything must be done a first time in order to happen

At one point everything had not happened

Therefore nothing can happen

Stupid logic. Murphy's Law and thermodynamics are not on your side.

>>2578907
>I never said that, you filthy dualist
Either logic is not a reliable system and you can dismiss it or 8t is a reliable system and you can use it. This is a reasonable dichotomy. You both attempted to use and dismiss logic, therefore you voided one of your own premises.

>>2575176
Big Bang 101

General crux of the theory is that all matter was compressed at a single point and then exploded outward (thus 'big bang'). I'm no expert so I don't know all the intricate theories about what came before but even so if there WERE a deity before the big-bang it either no longer or exists or hasn't seen fit to reveal itself to us.

>>2579007
>it's reasonable
You're presupposing logic.
>attempt to use
Doesn't void anything, I'm merely speaking your language.

>>2579019
Big bang didn't happen, sorry.

God reveals himself in every moment.

>>2579248
>himself
kek

>>2579268
?
Capitalization is optional, and frankly I just forgot because I'm not a neckbeard that is meticulous with every post made on an anime imageboard.

>>2579279
I just find it funny that God has a gender.

>>2575176

Science and rationality are not authorities —they are methods. They seem to do a better job of predicting the future than anything else humans have tried.

Science's answer to the question of what was "before" the big bang or why the universe exists is: "We don't know, but it is better to honestly not know than to invent a theory and believe in it without evidence."

>>2579284
He, for a long while, was used as a gender-neutral pronoun.
>>2579289
Science is wrong and irrelevant.
Why is evidence good? muh me-mes?
>prediction is good
muh me-mes?
fucking Letzter Mensch

>>2579291
>He, for a long while, was used as a gender-neutral pronoun.
Relevance?

>>2579293
Him is the possessive form of 'he'.
Himself is the reflective form of 'him'.
Are you actually illiterate?

>>2579303
No?

>>2579303
Also you mean reflexive

File: 57b.jpg (705KB, 800x7200px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 800x7200px

>>2575176
You can straight fuck off. Even if the Universe has an Architect, it's still irrelevant.

And surely as fuck doesn't add credibility to people who have a very distinct characteristic of not doing what they preach themselves.

>>2577181
>Why would an eternal spirit being require a creator?

Then what you supposed "eternal spirit being" was doing before creating a universe? Jerking himself off?

>>2579303
>hates logic
>cares deeply about gender pronouns

kek

>>2579307
I did.
>>2579893
Again, speaking your language.

>>2578106
>expansion is an addition to former self

kek.
stay ignorant pleb.

> something can't be created from nothing
> but who created God?
> he is eternal XD
Nothing really stops atheists from using the same cheap trick and say that laws also always existed.

>>2579284
Of course, otherwise he couldn't be their sky daddy.

>>2575176
God

>>2581323
Laws don't exist.

>Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
>The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
>He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
>Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

>>2575176
>If there is no god in any way shape or form
Nobody said that. The claim is that there is no God as defined by theists. You can have the initial singularity or whatever be "god", its almost there.

>and science is the only absolute authority in the universe
Nobody said that either, science doesn't account for bravery, love, aesthetics, and so on.

>what came before the big bang
Not 4chan post material, but there is knowledge of what came before it, up until the very earliest grain.

>something can't be created from nothing
It wasn't created from nothing, and energy can in fact turn to matter, with massive amounts. We recently experimented on that in Switzerland.

>god exist because everything must have a start
>hurr durr god exist and nothing preludes him

>everything must have have a start
>hurr durr begining of universe will be found by scientist in future i hope lol

LMAO PLEBS.

>>2575391
Neither does it disprove the existence of a creator.
Thats why religious people get triggered by smug atheists.
While science does make our lives better its stupid to replace relgion with it after all science is just a tool to improve our lives nothing more.

>>2575176
>By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing.
QED tells you to fuck off.

>>2581787
>While science does make our lives better
No it doesn't, it makes them worse each passing moment.

>>2581810
You're a fucking hypocrite. If you really believe that, smash the computer you're using to pieces and go life in the woods.

>>2581822
>redditor doesn't understand slavery

>>2581832

I hardly think cheeseburgers have anything to do with it.

>>2581744
Well, that means that there is no such law that something can't be created from nothing. Nice rebuttal. ~_~

>>2581787
Religious people are also smug shits that have nothing but their delusions. That is why agnosticism is much more correct than both positions.

>>2581925
Nothing exists.

>>2581935
Agnosticism is childish fencesitting and actual delusion. Back to /b/

>>2581949
Yes, and it made God non-existant.

>>2575176
I don't know, but I'm not going to pretend to know that a God did it. Also there's no way of affirming God doesn't exist, I just don't see the evidence for him right now

>>2581954
Wrong.

>>2581952
>if you dont pick a or b you are a child.

>>2575176
Question to christians.

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK ITS POSSIBLE FOR HUMANS TO KNOW WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE BEFORE THEY KNEW WHAT DNA WAS?

>>2581968
Wrong is just another name for Right

>>2581983
god give them answers

>>2581978
Agnosticism is picking a or b, it's just being a child about it.
hur im so humble n smart
>>2581983
DNA doesn't exist, it's ideological nonsense.

>>2582171
>DNA doenst exist
Then how do you exist?

File: 1490040931965.jpg (54KB, 433x469px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 433x469px

>>2582181
>muh ideologu determines existence

>>2582171
>DNA doesn't exist, it's ideological nonsense.
has to be b8

>>2582194
anything that rejects muh ideology must be b8 NOBODY COULD DISAGREE WITH ME IM SO SMART

>>2582171
if dna doesn't exist, how do my mother know that i am adopted?

>>2577134
>Something must've been created from nothing, or something must've always existed, since things exist. You have to accept this whether you're religious or not.
How could anyone avoid this result?
After all, if existence ever began, it began from nothing (because if it began from something it was not the beginning of existence)
So either there was a beginning from nothing or there was no beginning
I don't understand why people act as if believing in God can somehow get them around this dilemma

>>2581935
what are the arguments for agnosticism?

>>2582556
The undeniable fact that you can not know anything for sure.

>>2577374
>Still no actual answer

Religioncucks are pathetic

>>2575176
>If there is no god in any way shape or form
yes
>science is the only absolute authority in the universe
nope
>what came before the big bang?
Nothing since big bang began time
>By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing. How do you rectify this paradox?
Quantum fluctuation

>>2575176
One time I looked in my fridge and there was nothing in it and then later I came and looked and there was a soda in there. I cannot explain how it got there, therefore it must have been God.

>>2582567
The real answer is Super God. Demiurge was created by being far more perfect than he was.

>>2582564
that's the dumbest argument i've ever heard

File: 29b0646fdaa3bb885323f74145b4ea34.jpg (25KB, 397x303px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 397x303px

>>2575176
>If there is no god in any way shape or form and science is the only absolute authority in the universe, what came before the big bang? By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing. How do you rectify this paradox?
1) This isn't a law.

2) We don't know, and we're coo wid dat.

Though the current cosmology holds that "nothing" much like "infinity" is a fictional human construct that exists mathematically, but is not present in the materium.

Science also readily admits there are some things that are forever beyond its purvy. The origins of the universe may not be one of them. It is not the final authority on anything. It is, instead, a tool for the ongoing exploration as to the interactions of material mechanisms. As it makes no judgements beyond what works and what doesn't, fundamental axioms (such as reasons for use of the tool) must be sourced in other disciplines.

>come back to this thread after a day
>people are still responding to the "nothing is real unless i say its real" bait
Why?

>>2582570
>>what came before the big bang?
>Nothing since big bang began time
how do you know that if time didn't exist before the big bang nothing did?
are you aware that this commits you to the view that the big bang was the beginning of existence from nothing?

>>By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing. How do you rectify this paradox?
>Quantum fluctuation
how is that supposed to work?

>>2582637
>how is that supposed to work?
NTG, but if you have an hour to kill, and can stand the introduction from atheist-man, for the definitive pop-sci answer to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

Long story short, spoiler, "nothing" doesn't exist. (Yes, I know, I mean there is no instance of "nothing" in the universe - it's a fictional thing. There is always potentiality.)

But, cosmology gets turned on its head pretty regularly, so who knows what new observations will lead to in another two or three decades.

>>2582673
> "nothing" doesn't exist
I guess it wasn't named nothing for nothing after all.

>>2582686
I tried to avoid stepping in that...

>>2582686
Oddly, this was one of the primary arguments against the Church in the early days. Some proto-scientists demonstrated that vacuums exist with liquid, and the Church railed against the idea, as "there can be no place without God".

Turns out they were sorta right, but this is also what gives you a universe from "nothing".

File: 1489633397006.png (1MB, 857x1202px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 857x1202px

Religion is just a government without borders that applies an imaginary big brother to spook mouth breathers into doing the right thing.

Religion will always beat science in a debate because it requires science to step down to its level of magical made up lala nonsense of which it will always win at.

>>2582673
>introduction from atheist-man
everyone has watched that video
i saw it as a teenage atheist, even read the book
krauss is a literal anti-intellectual, proudly and aggressively ignorant of all the relevant metaphysical issues
that's what you find out when you grow out of your adolescent neo-positivist atheist phase

>"nothing" doesn't exist.
>There is always potentiality.
right, so it is not true that "Nothing came before the big bang since big bang began time" and it is not true that "quantum fluctuations" resolve the paradox of the beginning of existence from nothing
instead you are just denying that there ever was a beginning, and contradicting yourself in the process
got it

>>2582743
Well, Krauss is pop-sci, perhaps one tier above NDT and two above BNtSG, but even if he weren't, metaphysics isn't his privy. That's philosophy.

>so it is not true that "Nothing came before the big bang since big bang began time" and it is not true that "quantum fluctuations" resolve the paradox of the beginning of existence from nothing
You are confusing me with someone else. Entropy is but one arrow of time.

Current cosmology doesn't claim to know with any certainty as to what came before the big bang, as mathematics breaks down at singularities. It does declare that universes can be created from potentiality, however. It, in some cases, goes on to theoretically describe how one could go about artificially creating new universes - though they'd be moving away from your own at the speed of light, so you'd have a hell of a time verifying you succeeded, but this feature does allow for the possibility of universes popping into existence all the damned time (though more likely under certain extreme conditions, more apt to be present at the end stage of a Big Rip and the like).

But as a lot of this is currently non-testable, it goes under the category of future theoretical science, and not true science, for now. The scientific position is really, "We don't know". (Hell, science doesn't currently know how ~90% of the mass of the universe really works - it just has various unproven ideas.)

...and I do find that position somewhat more agreeable, than one that claims to know with certainty.

>>2582737
t. le reddit man