How do you naturally create the universe?

Atoms clash and make molecules and stuff

>>130814908
Do churches really teach that the devil planted fossils to fool us?

>>130815265
How do you naturally create atoms?

>>130815458
particles crash into each other

>>130815451
even if they do a critical thinker can see right thru it

fucking kikes want a dumb down population

>>130815458
how do you naturally create god? oh right, you're delusional and lie about him.

>>130814908
>How do you naturally create the universe?

The universe has always existed. It's nonsense to speak of creating something that has always been there.

File: energy.png (3MB, 1494x1588px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1494x1588px

>>130815890

This.

>>130814908
Is it a trick question? Universe includes all natural things and it can't create itself so if it was created the creator is supernatural by definition.

>>130815890
Well why does it exist then?

>>130815842
>how do you naturally create god?
You dont
God is supernatural
>>130815890
where did it come from?
>>130815639
how do you naturally create particles

>>130816307

At some point you will reach a tautological answer. In other words, that is the way things are. There is nothing beyond everything. There is no veil to peek behind.

>>130816578
>where did it come from?

This is a nonsense question. You're just rephrasing the creation question. It has always been here, so we can't speak of where it comes from. Some questions cannot be answered because on a metaphysical level, they fail to make sense and, therefore, are not questions.

>>130815451
>When Did Dinosaurs Live?
>Evolutionists claim dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But it is important to realize that when they dig up a dinosaur bone it does not have a label attached showing its date. The Bible states that God made the land animals, including dinosaurs, on Day Six (Genesis 1:24–25), so they date from around 6,000 years ago.

>Dinosaurs and the Age of the Earth
>When someone finds a dinosaur bone, he gauges the depth of the bone in the sedimentary layers and then uses the date that is assigned to that depth. As Christians, we look at this same evidence: dinosaurs and the depth at which their bones are buried. Then we look at the biblical explanation of the geologic layers.

No, they generally don't say the devil planted fossils. Albiet, I do not see anything intrinsically wrong with that argument. If you believe in God, you believe in the Devil, who lies. Hiding bones would be a lie.

It's best to just believe in Jesus and let science do it's shit. Paleontology is a science that does not have any direct impact on anyone. So what, dinosaurs were on earth. Name me one medical, technological, or mechanical advancement that ever came from this knowledge. It's the "Art Collection" of the scientific world.

>>130816685
>There is nothing beyond everything.
how do you know?

>>130816903
>how do you know?

Well, at least you acknowledge that I do know. Logic is the ultimate justification.

" time began with the first event, then there never was a time when nothing existed, and so there was never any nothingness to pop out of. The existence of the universe – be its past finite or infinite – is explanatorily basic." --Roderick Long

https://aaeblog.com/2009/04/12/ten-answers-from-an-austro-athenian/

>>130817185
What does that have to do with logic?

File: 1437247843025.jpg (60KB, 600x571px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x571px

Read this https://pastebin.com/XGfzNagT

>>130817185
so you were you playing with semantics and avoiding the issue? ok

try it like this: what was the universe like the exact point before the lower entropy boundary was broken

>>130817320

"Let’s start with the atheist. Is there any sense in which even the atheist is committed to recognising the existence of some sort of supreme, eternal, non-material reality that transcends and underlies everything else? Yes, there is: namely, the logical structure of reality itself.

Thus so long as the theist means no more than this by “God,” the theist and the atheist don’t really disagree."

"It may be objected that the “reconciliation” I offer really favours the atheist over the theist. After all, what theist could be satisfied with a deity who is merely the logical structure of the universe? Yet in fact there is a venerable tradition of theists who proclaim precisely this. Thomas Aquinas, for example, proposed to solve the age-old questions “could God violate the laws of logic?” and “could God command something immoral?” by identifying God with Being and Goodness personified. Thus God is constrained by the laws of logic and morality, not because he is subject to them as to a higher power, but because they express his own nature, and he could not violate or alter them without ceasing to be God. Aquinas’ solution is, essentially, theological logicism; yet few would accuse Aquinas of having a watered-down or crypto-atheistic conception of deity. Why, then, shouldn’t theological logicism be acceptable to the theist?"


Notice how Roderick long uses "the logical structure of reality" and "the logical structure of the universe" interchangeably.

http://praxeology.net/unblog03-04.htm#02

>>130817463

You're missing the point.

See

>>130817852

It doesn't matter what form it took. There was something before the big bang to make it take place.

>>130817852
>Constrained by logic
>Goes to earth, does illogical shit like water into wine, coming back to life, and other party tricks

Lmao

>>130818045
I may be missing whatever point you are trying to make (which i dont think so, because i don't accept that the logical structure of reality is the same as the logical structure of the universe, reality being just the subset that is perceivable to us the way i see it); but you are missing the entire point what he meant by willfully refusing the question in favour of semantics

>>130818326
>>Goes to earth, does illogical shit like water into wine, coming back to life, and other party tricks
>>Lmao

>believes this shit literally
lmao

>>130818460
>The resurrection wasn't literal

So the event that all of Christianity depends on didn't happen?

>>130818460
>believes this shit literally
The guy you quoted did literally believe that tho

>>130816849
How do you know it's always been there? You think you know, but you really don't know shit. Which would explain the AnCap flag.

>>130818353
>but you are missing the entire point what he meant by willfully refusing the question in favour of semantics

No, we're talking about different facets of the universe. You're trying to reduce it to science when it's a philosophical question.

Also, it doesn't matter whether you accept the difference. It's Roderick Long that uses it interchangeably, so his point is as follows:

"Is there any sense in which even the atheist is committed to recognising the existence of some sort of supreme, eternal, non-material reality that transcends and underlies everything else? Yes, there is: namely, the logical structure of [the universe] itself."

Notice that this was in response to another person who asked what logic had to do with it. Science *relies* upon philosophy for its sense. Philosophy is literally the science of science itself. You can't ascertain the concept of scientific fact without knowing what it is and philosophy tells you that. This is why you're having such a problem understanding it: you're using the wrong science to try to explain it.

>>130818606
>The guy you quoted did literally believe that tho

I didn't quote Aquinas, but he was referenced. He wasn't always right, but in the sense where he was referenced, he is.

>>130818533
>So the event that all of Christianity depends on didn't happen?

That's kind of a side issue that detracts from the conversation.

>>130818831
>How do you know it's always been there? You think you know, but you really don't know shit.

See

>>130817185

>>130818895
>No, we're talking about different facets of the universe.

Yes you are willfully avoiding what he and the OP is really talking about, and introducing a distinct concept and trying to trick people into thinking you have something to say on-topic. Its sleight of hand. And i ask. Why? Are you just trying to sound smart?

And yes its a reducible matter. There is a branch of reductionist science that deals with the concept of universe that you are avoiding, and you seem utterly uninformed on said field.

You don't get to push your philosophy husbando unless there is a good reason for that, and you purposefully trying to trick people into discussing him is just weird.

>>130818045
>There was something before the big bang to make it take place.

Literally nonsensical to talk about.

Talking about time before time.

>>130819575
>Yes you are willfully avoiding what he and the OP is really talking about

No, I'm not. The concept of creation implies nonexistence beforehand. If the universe has always existed, then it's nonsense to ask if it was created.

>>130819667

That's precisely my point. The universe has always existed.

See

>>130817185

File: 1496935320326.jpg (105KB, 473x496px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 473x496px

This thread:
>the universe has always existed
Scientists:
>The universe is 16 billion years old, if it had existed forever it would have infinite entropy

>>130819754
>If the universe has always existed
A philosophical premise that you are trying to push as a sleight of hand, because the real matter OP is talking about is astrophysical, and the current manifestation of our universe (from an enthropic perspective) as a lower boundary condition and we know its age.

>>130814908
Have you ever made a video game?

You are the one programming the intelligence of your creations. You are the one making the physics,the worlds. The coloration. Etc etc.

My view on things is that if we can create worlds in little computers,the ultimate being in the end of all universes can create us.

Multiverses might as well be multiple saves.

>>130820032
the redditor trying to turn this into a philosophical discussion of what "creation" really means doesnt know shit about the second law

>>130815451
No. This is a push from the jews to make Christians look bad, just like the whole "flat earth" meme.

>>130820187
>A philosophical premise that you are trying to push as a sleight of hand

If it is slight of hand, then why isn't science capable to describe the first instant of the universe? There is a point that science cannot reach. This is the point we're trying to talk about, not the rest of it.

"Conditions were so extreme in the Planck Era that our current understanding of physics is inadequate to tell us much about them."

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/eraplanck.htm

>>130820032

>missing the point

See

>>130817185

>The existence of the universe – be its past finite or infinite – is explanatorily basic
>be its past finite or infinite
>time began at a first event

>>130820032
Scientist are trying to find things out they could never understand or apply. There is no way to prove its true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

>>130820771
>then why isn't science capable to describe the first instant of the universe? There is a point that science cannot reach

science isnt even able to FULLY describe the subatomic interactions that allow us to create electronic devices or, you know, stay alive; but that doesnt mean we can't create models that allow us to take advantage of what we DO understand and work from there.

If you want a modern, fairly non-technical account of where modern scientific thinking is on the matter, read Sean Carrol, or Lawrence Krause

>>130821034
Well it certainly isn't infinite

>>130819667
>X didn't exist before X existed
>Therefore asking why X exists is nonsense

>>130821458

>science

Cool detraction. You still haven't addressed the main points of your argument.

>read

That is a fantastic appeal to authority. You most likely lack the understanding to even comprehend the authors you're trying to push onto me. At least I can sit here and say I'm no physicist and probably wouldn't understand the science behind that aspect of the universe, BUT THAT IS BESIDE THE POINT!

>>130821519
>X didn't exist before X existed
>>Therefore asking why X exists is nonsense


It's more like X always existed, therefore asking about when x didn't exist is nonsense.

>>130821070
Says you, typing on a computing device and sending bits over a network to other computing devices, all created by aggregated scientific knowledge that on its original inception had little use or applicability outside theory

Why is this bullshit thread being replied to? Sage fuck off

>>130814908
How do you unnaturally create the universe?
It's an absurd distinction. Natural or unnatural whatever made the universe must be natural because it's part of reality.

>>130822082
but x DIDNT always exist.

>>130821951
>You still haven't addressed the main points of your argument.

The main point of my argument is that you are attempting to trick people into discussing philosophy

>>130821951
>appeal to authority

Oh so you are allowed to reference your husbando every other reply, and Aquinas; but if i mention an author now im in logical fallacy territory? Kek

>>130816869
What if dinosaurs were the evil that god flooded the earth to get rid of?

>>130822305
>but x DIDNT always exist.

Prove it. Oh, wait, you cant.

See
>>130817185
>If time began with the first event

>>130822449
>Oh so you are allowed to reference your husbando every other reply, and Aquinas; but if i mention an author now im in logical fallacy territory? Kek

You clearly don't know what the difference is between appeals to authority and citing your sources. I'm actually employing the arguments. You're telling me to read a book. Obviously, you've never received a formal education. Go to school.

>>130815451
Yeah, I think like 5 of them in the world do...

>>130823168
Im not telling you "read a book", as im not saying i cant discuss X with you unless you read the same books as me. Im telling that if you WANT to read on the matter, those are a good start. Read my post again if you think im making shit up now.

And yes, for all means and purposes citing your sources on philosophical musing is the same as appealing to authority, because there are never facts behind any of that.

>>130822082
>X exists for all times
>Therefore anything independent of time is nonsense

>>130818831
option 1) There's always been there. The universe exists and change. It just exists.

option 2) an invisible guy in the sky created everything

Look, please believe what you want. Belief in Jesus is a good trait that make you stronger and resilient against adversity. BUT PLEASE STOP BOTHERING EVERYONE ELSE. RELIGION IS PERSONAL, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.


bonus track:
RP on "time") Time is a human construct based on our capacity to remember a previous state of things. There's no "time" in the universe, just change.

>>130818606
>Things are only to be interpreted from the bible literally when I need to make a point
>Everything else surrounding a book written by people 500 years after the supposed son of god came to earth is completely and totally accurate though and you should read it and believe in it because sand people in the year 500 had nothing to gain from creating a belief system that controlled the masses

People wrote that book. People are flawed. People lie. cheat, steal, murder, rape, and oppress. That's our nature. You trust a book written by uneducated savages. Please.

>>130814908
No one really know how to even create universe m8.

Science can only go back to The Big Bang, but still looks for answeres for what was before.

>>130824042
It really depends on what time really is. And by this i mean, what is entropy really is on a large scale of things and if our current view of it is wrong.

If you like mutiversal theory, its entirely possible that time is intrinsically distinct on each blotch of "universe" out there

>>130824477
i think you meant to quote the guy referencing aquinas?

File: snip.png (35KB, 378x179px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 378x179px

>>130820736
>being a filthy round earther
fuckin plebs in this board baka

>>130816869
>when they dig up a dinosaur bone it does not have a label attached showing its date

>What is radiocarbon dating.

>>130814908
Looking for answers of creation on 4chizzle?

How about fuck you faggot who gives a shit.

Either something can come from nothing, which could also allow for God, Gods, The Force from Star Wars, etc.

or

Eternal Creative forces exist which can create something from nothing. (Most major religions preach a version of this one.)

Existence is a paradox anon. How is something able to come from nothing or how is something able to be eternal and creative?

Yet we are all here, i.e. something is going on.

>>130825475
fundies claim rc dating is unreliable and can be "gamed". see how he mentions the devil, they think people actively lie to try and push the satanic prehistory thing

you cant argue with someone who is convinced all that contradicts their dogma is a lie, because there is no argument to be made that isn't a lie to them

>>130825670
>How is something able to come from nothing or
If you want to get reductionist about it, quantum fluctuations

>>130826053
I can understand that they "don't belive in science", but it piss me off that they don't even do research to know their enemy and assume shit how sciencists work.