>this is what atheists actually believe

>>138912144
What's your point?

>>138912751
faggot

>>138912144
if you really think about it the expansion of the universe through time is really like a cock slowly twitching erect, filling a condom. is this our purpose among these stars? are we the cosmic sperm of the infinite planetoids? only more time will tell, i assure you

>>138912144
It is a theory. It isn't proven, but since you hate it so much do you have a better theory OP?

>>138912144
And what do you believe fuck face.....sky daddy did it all? Fucking Jew slave

>>138912144
>actually believing anything

here anon try this mind bleach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs26qv6C-38

I think it's correct, but if you think "quantum fluctuations" is a valid explanation then you need to get your head out of your ass

>>138913255
In the beginning................god.
From everlasting to everlasting.

>>138912144
the universe is a party popper

weird.
am i an atheist?...i don't believe in god.
i know god.


you want god?
keep eating mushrooms until you get god.

keep looking outwards idiot.
it's inside.

>>138912144
You got a better explanation that doesn't involve sand niggers and a bronze age book?

Athiests are idiots. Of course Jesus created it. He said he did.

>>138913560
God can be an explanation, but I think you cannot claim supernatural intelligence created the universe without evidence.

My theory is that the universe exists forever, but because we as humans interpret time, as everything having a beginning and an end, it has an illusion of a beginning. I happen to believe that our universe will go on forever.

File: 1502934518338-int.jpg (59KB, 496x501px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 496x501px

>keep eating mushrooms until you get god.

>>138912144
this shit is consistent with religion you fuck. why are there so many shills posting slide threads now?

>>138912144
>>138912144
Not really, that isn't a very good representation of the big bang or the expansion of the universe.

The purpose of this pic is to look cool and show the universe at various points of time.

You forgot to include the Big Crunch..

>>138913919
thats what all that eternity talk is about.
it's eternal life ;)

yeah we die. we molt our bodies.

what we are does not die.
it rides the lightning.

>>138913919
>will go on forever
What about the second law of thermodynamics fag

File: 249249942.jpg (19KB, 385x383px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 385x383px

>>138913560
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>138913919
You can't have evidence from within the system for something that happened outside of the system. There is never going to be empiricle evidence, that's why it's called faith. Science won't ever be able to get to what happened before space and time booted up. In other words, those in side the finite system will never understand the infinite system. We have to live comfortably with uncertainty.

File: Richard Dawkins 3.png (138KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1600x900px

This is what King Fedora actually teaches his millions of fedora followers.

it makes sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_metastability_event

>>138912144
OK, and what RATIONAL argument do you have against this picture ?

>>138914243
It's part of the ruleset set forth at the initiation of our system

>>138914848
If it exists, it's technically part of existence, and therefore part of the system. There's no "outside of existence." Moron.

Could anyone who understands the big bang a bit weigh in on this? I don't understand if the emptiness of space itself was meant to be compressed into the dot or if that came out too? Or was it like a small little ball of matter in the emptiness of black space?

>>138913560
>hurr durr I have absolutely no idea must mean le god meme did it

Cool god of the gaps faggot.

>>138914848

eh once we understand how quantum mechanics works with classical mechanics it will paint a better picture. we still may be in a metastable universe, which if so, would mean that another "big bang" will happen and birth another universe, at a lower, more stable state. it may never happen or it may take so long to happen that it doesn't matter.. but it's possible.

File: 1410827289627.jpg (12KB, 380x250px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 380x250px

>it's an uneducated stupid white males debate astronomical physics and the origins of the universe episode

Leave it to the Jews and get back to what you're actually good at, providing daughters for Jamal.

>>138915196

it's both. see >>138914931.

basically, there was a "universe" before which was in an unstable state. think of a tub with a plug in it. you fill it up with the plug, and the water stays. when you remove the plug the water wants to go down, to a more stable state. this is what likely happened. there's no way to tell how many prior universes were before ours (some may have not lasted longer than a few seconds) but eventually, they kept going "down" to a more stable state to create the universe as we know it today.

this is a simply analogy to complex math so don't take it for granted

>>138912144
Why does everything space related have the shape of a cock?

>>138915131

His name was jesus christ and you didn't believe him then and you wouldn't believe him now. It is still about faith.

>>138912144
>atheists must believe in the big bang
kek

>>138912144
Interesting. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but when they did the Hubble XDF scan between 2003 and 2004, they estimated a galaxy in the picture to be 13.2 billion years old, correct? 450 million years younger than the "Big Bang."

So, then I ask Atheist some simple questions:

If that galaxy is that far away and that old, does that make use all newfags?

Would that not mean that the "Big Bang" happened somewhere beyond that galaxy from us (or at least within about 20 degrees +/- that galaxy if centered in the photo)?

Why didn't we do a XDF in the opposite direction, or in the Cardinal directions + Up and Down?

Are we that conceited that we believe we know where we exist in the universe from one series of images?

Please.

>>138913255

Hypotheses are ideas as to how something is/was/will be/works/etc.

Theories are hypotheses that are well supported by empirical evidence.

Also, OP is trolling.

>>138913560

That's not a scientific theory, because, based only on belief, it can not be falsified or verified.

Did all you losers ACTUALLY miss the whole joke? Are you really THIS dense?

The fucking dark ages meme, and y'all go on tipping fedoras and shit.

>>138912144
The evidence supports it tbqh.

File: 400px-Mecanismo_de_Higgs_PH.png (202KB, 400x392px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 400x392px

The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle called the Higgs boson, which the field uses to continuously interact with other particles.

>>138915673
Cheers for dumbing it down. One thing which might help me understand it a bit better is if you would be so kind as to define universe and what exactly makes it unstable compared to ours.

>>138915743

Every man is the son of God, but you can't build a system of authority around that so lolnope it was just that one guy, submit or die

I believe in the big bang theory, God said bang, and it happened

>>138915966
So then I ask Abrahamic fag some siimple questions:

Do you really believe in sky people and a big immortal bearded man surrounded by fat babies with wings?

Do you realize that Christianity is just an offshoot of Judaism, and that Christcucks are just Jews who don't run banks?

>>138913905

So if I start stating I created it now in 2000 years idiots will believe me too?

>>138913560
>god
Which one?

>>138912144
Because it's consistent with our observations, and because we can't see further back than 13.7 billion years, and so on and so forth.
We have a very good reason for believing in the Big Bang.

File: hqdefault.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>138915966
>>138915969
>>138916070
>>138916413
so many god damn unnecessary newlines.

File: 18nywt.jpg (84KB, 500x634px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x634px

>>138912144
Ridiculous

>>138913919
Supernatural entities have infinite complexity.

>>138915196
Imagine an uninflated balloon, spackled with random paint, and bunched up incredibly tight.
Now imagine blowing it up; not only does the balloon expand outwards, but the pain specks on it also move away from each other.
More importantly, there's no "center" from which all the paint is moving away from on the surface of the balloon; it's a 2d image embedded in 3d space.

Now, imagine space-time to be the balloon, and matter to be the paint. Space itself expands, and matter with it; it's just that space is 3d, not 2d.

One of the major theories for the "end of the universe" is something called the Big Chill; basically, the rate at which space-time expands is speeding up; over time, this means that galaxies will get farther and farther away from each other, until only those which are gravitationally bound (for us, that being the Laniakea supercluster), while everything else dissapears over the cosmological event horizon (so far away that space is expanding faster than light).

Another possibility based on this is the Big Rip, where if the expansion of space is even greater than we first assumed, it will not only cause superclusters to be torn away from each other, but individual galaxies as well. As time goes on, soon even solar systems will be pulled apart, and then planets from stars, and eventually the expansion of space would overpower the force of gravity (breaking apart planetary bodies and stars), electromagnetism (breaking apart matter and molecules), and the nuclear forces (breaking apart atoms), resulting in a cold void of lonely elementary particles.

On the flipside, should the expansion of space slow down, or even reverse, it's entirely possible that the reverse will happen; the universe will collate again, and collapse in on itself, possibly into another singularity.

The universe being stable and eternal is unlikely.

>>138912144

science fags are fucking retarded. the universe expanding from nothing for no reason is literally the most counter-intuitive hypothesis one could come up with

>>138915131
Our system has a definable beginning. Therefore it is finite. A finite system cannot initiate itself. This would mean that the constitutes of the system would already have to have existed at the beginning of the system, therefore if the constitutes already existed, it wouldn't be the beginning. The constitutes of the system must have be created outside the system. That which was outside the system, which created our system cannot be finite, or else you get infinite regress. Who created the system which created the system etc. Therefore the system which created the finite system (our universe) must be infinite(god). The big bang theory was rejected heavily by atheists for this reason because it logically implied an creator (everlasting system), look it up.

File: 1503522462262.jpg (37KB, 448x412px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 448x412px

I'm an atheist and that is not what I believe.

>>138912144
Sure looks like a breath to me.

>>138917173

What do you believe then? The only two hypothesis possible are either the universe expanded from nothing for no reason, or some transcendent God figure created this

>>138912999
Severely underrated.

> The Big Space Fuck

File: dakota.jpg (90KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1280x1024px

>>138916174
Southern europeans are not white

>>138912999

checked. condom theory confirmed

>>138917173
Kekism is not atheism. It is paganism.

>>138917148
>prime mover
No

It's basic statistics, anon; given an eternity, even events with an infinitesimal probability are guaranteed to happen.

>>138917148
But a finite system can reinitiate itself. The idea you have of god (initiator of the system) may well be something that exists outside of the system of the universe creating energetic disturbances in the void beyond our universe. It need not be sentient, or even know you exist, much less give two fucks about you.

>>138912144
>atheists think the dark ages happened before stars formed
wow... what retards

>>138916565
The everlasting one who initiated the system. Technically it's ineffable. Both our heads would explode, and anyone reading this thread's head would also explode if it was expressed. Potentially, the whole system (universe) would end.

>>138912144
quantum fluctuations is an interesting phenomenon. you're bound to end up with a super energetic, Big Bang state emerging spontaneously, it's just really, really fucking unlikely. good thing that there was an infinite, timeless interval before the Universe - it had to happen eventually.
anthropic principle and shit, it must've happened because we're here to observe it, neat how nature does that

File: b (16).png (76KB, 1357x446px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1357x446px

>>138912144
>this is what atheists actually believe

this is what Christians actually believe

>>138917148
>axiomic linguistics
Great way to discover physical truths.
You sound like some theologian trying to prove God's existence

>>138917148

>Our system has a definable beginning.

Only because we define the point where our measurements begin (or end) as the beginning

The discussion of the big bang doesn't describe how the universe formed. It's just an incredibly articulated description of what the universe is. The question of how is unanswerable.

File: 460-_815599.jpg (28KB, 254x359px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 254x359px

>>138912999

>>138912144
This picture does negate the existence or importance of God.

I'm pagan and I believe this. Because unlike the Cholesterol-clogged 'muricans I have an open mind when it comes to religious beliefs and science.

This is actually what atheists with incomplete (((scientific understanding))) believe.

But there are atheists with more refined theories, like perhaps Subquantum Kinetics by Paul A. LaViolette

File: IMG_0241.jpg (73KB, 1024x599px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x599px

Pffft duh

File: 1498410058884.gif (4MB, 700x488px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 700x488px

I think the question really is whether or not you believe the universe does itself on purpose

>>138917943
> it had to happen eventually.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

>>138915743
>It is still about faith.
But why? It's almost as if god is warhammer-tier demon that feeds on idiots' thought energy. Lying demon.

>>138912144
The truth is that there was something in the beginning that transformed itself into Universe

>>138918548
that's a sweet gravity bong
>>138918801
look nigger, technically, you can walk through brick walls. On 1 try out of a gorillion, all the particles you are made of will just happen to tunnel through without resistance.
quantum states with almost infinite energy can also theoretically emerge spontaneously.
there is no time outside the Universe, so it doesn't matter how unlikely it was or how long it took, if it could happen, it happened.

>>138917741
>It need not be sentient, or even know you exist, much less give two fucks about you.
I would acknowledge that the initiator of the system might not have an opinion either way with regard to the outcome of the system. This was a common hitchens argument he would use when the debate went down the course this one has taken. That would be where faith would come in, and apologetics for a particular faith, which is more than I wish to get into.

I was simply arguing for the logical necessity of our finite (finite in that it has a definite beginning where space and time were initiated) system having an initiator.

>>138912144
That has literally nothing to do with atheism

>>138912999
Best comparison yet.
>The prophylactic process.

>>138918112
Space and time have a definable beginning, if you've got evidence for something before that I would be extremely interested in it. I am skeptical, but open minded.

>>138912144
Big Bang theory is crypto-(((theism))) It was invented by a Jesuit after all. It isn't atheist at all and it's freaking full of holes.
Steady state theory is redpilled.

>>138919985
This; consider the following analogy:
You're throwing darts at a dartboard, assume the probability of hitting any given area is proportional to the ratio of it to the overall dartboard's area.
Actually hitting the dartboard has a probability of 1; hitting the left half is .5; hitting the bottom right quadrant is .25, etc.
The probability of hitting any given point on the dartboard is 0, points have no area, and thus the ratio of their area over the board's area is 0, and thus the probability is 0.
Obviously, even though the set of this event has a probability of 0, it is a non-empty set. Even more obviously, whenever you throw a dart, it WILL hit a point, even though the point it ended up hitting had a probability of getting of 0.

So, now that we've established that the probability of hitting any given point is 0, and also that a single point (even if it can't be described with a finite representation) is hit with every throw despite that probability of 0, we can assume that, given infinite throws, you will eventually hit a given point.

TL;DR: Even events with 0 probability of occurring will occur at least once given infinite attempts.

>>138912144
>this is what cosmologist actually hypothesize.
There, fixed it for you.

Why are theists always the most bone-jarringly retarded fuckwits on the planet?

>>138918110
That's the only way I, being a part of this finite system (our universe), can get at something like what initiated our system. You can't discover physical truths about the infinite system which initiated our finite system. We can't access, or describe the ruleset or laws of the infinite system from within the finite system. That's part of what gödel was on about.

A lot of religious people believe that, or parts of it, too.

>>138912144
based & redpilled individuals don't believe in (((Their))) gods. Yes, you believe in angels and jesus n' shit, so y'all ain't monotheistic.

>>138921181
Oh, and of course, we're working with an idealized dart that has an infinitesimally fine tip, but you get the idea.

>>138912144
Dis nigga don't know WTF he's talking about!!!!

Makes more sense than any religious bullshit Ive garden. Bring me a better argument anon

>>138916460
Only if you get enough attention; best to start a cult that will worship you till the end.

>>138917609
>given an eternity
We have no evidence that eternity is part of the ruleset of our system. It's abstract.

>>138917923
>The everlasting one
Willy Wonka had a chewing gum of that name. Are your gods named after chewing gum?

>>138912999
>999
checked

>>138920478

I was only saying that asserting a starting point for this "system" at the point where we can't or don't know how to look further, doesn't necessarily mean it actually started there in any meaningful sense
It makes more sense, at least to me, that whatever existed before the big bang is the same thing as exists after, just in a different form

>>138921181
I do, but why are you explaining basic infinity shit to me
at least use cool examples like banach-tarski paradox or something

>>138922577
I wasn't explaining it to you, I was building onto your post for other anons.

>seriously expecting me to post something like Banach-Tarski when half of /pol/ probably can't even do derivatives

Why do many Christians on this board (or at least a vocal minority) seem to spend so much energy on trying to "debunk" or "mock" atheists? Do they honestly feel they will change one's opinions on the origin of the universe through the power of the holy shitpost? Or are they just butthurt?
Or is there a third option I'm not getting?

>>138912144
Atheism is a lack of belief in made-up horseshit, which IS what Christianity is. Both Christianity and Islam sprang up at the exact time that Jews arrived or were present in Europe and Arabia. It's our eternal enemy's lies, used to control people.

>>138912144
Atheists are loco. They think life can come from non-life.

>>138912144
I don't "believe" in the big bang.
I accept that it's the most logical explanation we have thus far.
Christians need to realize that when they claim atheists believe something, they're projecting their faith in God on scientific positions.
The difference between faith and reason is that faith requires belief, reason requires evidence.
It's like this:
Christian gets irrefutable proof that God doesn't exist, their faith would demand that they continue to believe, despite evidence to the contrary.
Atheist gets irrefutable proof that the big bang is false, their reason would demand that they accept the new information and adjust their scientific worldview to accommodate the new data.
Two entirely different situations.

>>138917470
Truth. Because we're all fucked in the end.

>>138917148
>Our system has a definable beginning.
No it doesn't. Our hypothesis of the inflationary universe begins with all the atoms of the universe already in existence. It is the starting point for the theory, not the starting point for the universe.

>Therefore it is finite.
We can't know if we're observing an infinite system or not. No one is stupid enough to make that "finite" claim, except you of course.

>A finite system cannot initiate itself.
All the atoms of the universe in one tiny super dense spot breaks nearly every law of physics, but you're convinced that the rules of logic remain unaffected? That's exponentially autistic.

>This would mean that the constitutes of the system would already have to have existed at the beginning of the system, therefore if the constitutes already existed, it wouldn't be the beginning. The constitutes of the system must have be created outside the system.
The constitutes of the constitutes babble? You're not taking you meds, are you?


>That which was outside the system, which created our system cannot be finite, or else you get infinite regress. Who created the system which created the system etc.
Who created the gods that created the system? We already know that men create gods.

>Therefore the system which created the finite system (our universe) must be infinite(god).


>The big bang theory was rejected heavily by atheists for this reason because it logically implied an creator (everlasting system), look it up.
You're making that up. Cosmological expansion does not imply a creator. That claim was just the deformed swipes at reasoning made by irrational theists. Atheism - non belief in your made up gods - has nothing to do with science.

In fact the opposite is true. Religious nutjobs were outraged over the big bang and refused to accept it as a practical explanation of the radiation belt and red shift because it explains without the need for supernatural fairies sprinkling pixie dust.

>>138912999
AT LAST I TRULY SEE

>>138912751
fpbp

sage

>>138912144
brrraaappp.

>>138915336
>Cool god of the gaps faggot
The gaps have to do with gaps in knowledge about the ruleset of that which is IN the finite system (our universe). I am arguing about something totally different. I am talking about the logical necessity for an everlasting system (god) which initiated the finite system (our universe) wherein there exist a ruleset (laws of physics) which we have an incomplete knowledge (gaps) of.

>>138912144
Looks a lot like one of those female condoms.

>>138922796
How do you keep your faith in Atheism though when it's so obviously flawed?

>>138912751
>What's your point?
The point is they don't have anymore plausible answers about creation than religion.

>>138923199
>They think life can come from non-life.
Where did your gods lives come from?

On our planet, elements naturally form l-shaped proteins, the building blocks of RNA. All life on this planet is carbon based and coded by DNA sequences. And when we die, some of us go back to sedimentary rock to begin the cycle again.

>>138924197
>faith in Atheism
We get what you're saying, but it's a shame you're not bright enough to be embarrassed by your bone-jarring ignorance. Here's your syllogism

>Religion (faith) is shit
>Atheism is religion (faith)
>Religion (faith) is shit
>Therefore atheism is shit, too.

Congratulations, you're an idiot!

>>138914908
>King Fedora actually teaches his millions of fedora followers.
For a minute I was confused because I thought you were talking about pic related

>>138914021
not gonna happen. Really its that the big bang is still going on and we;re just in a spot that "cooled off" so to speak.

File: IMG_1803.jpg (166KB, 598x900px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 598x900px

>>138912144
nig·gard·ly
adjective
1.
not generous; stingy.
"serving out the rations with a niggardly hand

File: BigBang.jpg (42KB, 690x358px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 690x358px

>>13891214
Jesus you really are fucking dumb

>>138915966
>So, then I ask Atheist some simple questions:
Why don't you ask an astrophysicist? Because you really don't want an answer? Why would you ask an atheist a question about something that is unrelated to atheism? Are you really that retarded? Do you not know the difference between non-belief and the science of cosmology? Did you finish grade school? Are you really that irretrievably stupid?

File: lemaitre-and-einstein.jpg (28KB, 315x209px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 315x209px

OP can't stop losing this week

>>138924745
You didnt answer though,how do you keep strong faith in such a flawed religion like Atheism?

>>138925422

seriously like what IQ do you need to understand that stuff in the background

like entry level, IQ floor etc. of 145 or what

File: muh Earth is flat and 6000 years old.jpg (6KB, 202x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 202x250px

>>138912144
No, that's what theists believe if they aren't fucking retards. I bet you're one of those assoles that takes every piece of religious text literally because you lack the capacity to interpret it yourself and come to the most logical conclusion. Every culture prays to the same thing. This thing is God. Religion is simply an extension of our awareness of God in which we combine local traditions with behaviors and thoughts which we believe will please the creator, or the Allvater as my ancestors called him. There is no such thing as polytheism by the way, because all of those gods are a part of the same divine realm, sort of like the holy trinity in Christianity. You and the atheist fedora tippers would benefit from understanding this. The Allvater created this universe through the big bang or a similar event.

Reasonable third position masterrace, nigger.

File: atheism-theism-venn-diagram.png (16KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x240px

>>138925792
>You didnt answer though
I answered precisely and succinctly, but you were too tragically fucktarded to understand it.

>how do you keep strong faith
Atheism is an absence of faith. When your IQ rises in to the double digits, you might understand.

>in such a flawed religion like Atheism?
I agree with you that all religions are deeply flawed and irrational, just like their followers.

>>138926144
To understand it? Just be reasonably intelligent (within a standard deviation of 100) and be decent at reading and doing math.

To invent/discover it? Work with a few other dozen dozen sufficiently intelligent men over a few decades, while also being sufficiently intelligent yourself.

>>138916174

Higgs Bosom is not a particle it's a reaction that is produced by other two particles as in 1+1=2(higgs bosom) That's why what they are peddling to us as Higgs Boson has only been proved to Sigma3 and not Sig5 like they are supposed to. Don't be an idiot, stop believing every shit they bring you on the plate.

>>138924293

Why is life defined only as biological chemistry, separating out the forces that enable the chemistry? It seems an arbitrary cutoff

it's not what atheists believe, it's what we know as a species via observation. and it's not much, we don't know very much.

is making up answers for the things we don't know supposed to be better than just admitting that we don't know?

>>138926457
Absense of faith requires undeniable proof. Either you have proof God doesn't exist (thus no faith) or you are actually this ignorant of your own religion.

>>138926657
>discover
Dont imply there is any proof of any of that. Cosmology is a meme. Your baseless untestable theory is as good as theirs.

>>138927227
>Why is life defined only as biological chemistry,
Because we chucked out all the ridiculous bits and rubbish - the fairies, the supernatural beings, the life-giving leprechauns, etc.

>separating out the forces that enable the chemistry?
Is there a tiny gap somewhere in there where your gods still exist? Hallelujah! But the problem still is that that theists have a 3000 year reputation for Making Shit Up. And they do it for the absolutely worst of reasons - to prey on the fears and ignorance of decent people to control their lives.

So even if you tell us your gods of the incredibly shrinking gaps is benevolent, the historical probabilities that you're lying and your motives are treacherous are nearly 100%.

>>138912144
>>138912751

A FUCKING BUTTPLUG

File: dankey kang.png (1MB, 1280x832px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x832px

>>138912144

File: atheist babies.jpg (45KB, 500x399px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x399px

>>138927818
>Absense of faith requires undeniable proof.
Uh, no. Were you born believing in gods? What did you have before you had faith? Atheism is the default position. It's what you had before you attended weekly indoctrinations to contrive your "faith".

>>138926657

>standard deviation of 100
>reasonably intelligent
>decent at reading and doing math
>sufficiently intelligent men
>few decades

... you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

>>138927818
>Either you have proof God doesn't exist (thus no faith)
If you never prove your gods exist, then what do I have to disprove?


>or you are actually this ignorant of your own religion.
It seems you're profoundly ignorant of what atheism is.

Our brains and skulls have evolved in ways that strongly promote the ability to reason, however we can "suspend disbelief" to engage in brief flights of fantasy. We needed our imaginations to be able to hypothize and plan ahead. We needed to be able to speculate on the movements of herds, etc. Irrational thinking has some utility for very short periods and our brains are well suited for it. However, we are not meant to suspend our disbelief for long periods of time. Living in delusions and daydreams would have been the fastest path to Darwinian death.

Your irrational beliefs for extended periods are having a profound and deleterious effect on your brain's chemistry. Holding mutually exclusive concepts without question or scrutiny creates a harmful cognitive dissonance. The long term strain of this deliberate dissonance damages your ability to think rationally.

It even causes insane beliebers to spout patently ridiculous nonsense like, "The universe was created by a magic sky daddy" and "Atheism is a religion", etc.

Atheism is only the non-belief in made-up gods. Any other definition is falsified, and a clear symptom of severe brain damage.

>>138925704
>jews were behind the (((big bang)))
Why am I not surprised?

File: 00c.png (24KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 625x626px

>>138928461
>muh "NOBODY IS BORN A RAYCIST" argument used in religious context

Fuck this, I'm out, gettin' too retarded for me now.

>>138928178

I'm arguing more in favor of a view where you don't divide the cosmic process into distinct parts that are somehow separate from each other, so that life can't be narrowed down to just one aspect of the totality. That the whole system as such is life itself. Some might call that system God, but if so then everyone and everything is God

Reminder that mankind cannot survive dark matter acceleration and were all gonna fucking die.

>>138928165
>Dont imply there is any proof of any of that.
Cosmic background microwave radiation.

>>138928716
A standard deviation from 100, you fucktard.
Math isn't that hard if you actually pay attention and study; you don't need to be a genius.
Math builds upon itself fairly well; if you can comprehend multivariate calculus, you can probably do reasonably well with the mathematics of theoretical physics.
Yes, most science isn't done by the occasional serendipitous Eureka Moment, but rather by the gradual build up of many men working together over years.

>>138930225
Life isn't -just- organic life, but organic life is the only thing we've encountered thus far that could be considered life.
For example, Silicon based life.

Not a biologist, by the way, but generally life, at it's most base, is defined as:
>being capable to respond and adapt to stimulus from its environment
>able to grow over a period of time (takes in more energy than it expends)
>able to reproduce

File: bucket_of_shit.jpg-300x260[1].jpg (11KB, 300x260px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x260px

>>138922768
>Or is there a third option I'm not getting
Beliefs are irrational. Our imaginations can produce a wide range of entertaining, comforting and terrifying ideas.

Our evidence, knowledge, science, facts, logic reasoning are all rational.

What you always see:
Theists and believer desperately trying to make their irrational fictions seem rational

What you never see:
A scientist who says the data doesn't make sense in the analysis so he'll just throw in a supernatural being to make the explanation square.

You can pour all the ice cream you want into a bucket of shit and it's still a bucket of shit. But if you get the tiniest drop of shit in a bucket of ice cream, it's 100% ruined.

In this respect, science is ice cream and religion is shit. No amount of science is going to ever make religion any less shit. But the tiniest drop of fantasy, supernatural being or fallacy torpedoes the most earnest science.

That's why they incessantly attack atheism. They desperately want to bring it down to their shit-tier level of shit bucket.

>>138928165
This bitch doesn't know about big bang nucleosynthesis!

>>138926457
>Athiesm is the abscence of faith
Yet, you believe that a human's perception of the universe is entirely correct? Science is evaluating and questioning the world around us, what if we don't possess the capability of understanding the universe to its full extent? Think of ants, surely they can't explain their existence.

It takes a lot of faith to trust that humans possess the senses and mental strength required to fully understand the universe.

>>138912144
No. Dark energy and dark matter are complete bullshit. They were invented to defend a failed GR theory. Einstein was wrong.

>>138930732

>childish, foolish, ignorant spergout right in the first line addressed to me

guess where I stopped reading the rest of your drivel you disgusting filthy fat fucking faggot, you angry 12 year old chubster, you

>>138931882
Do you honestly believe there's no fundamental difference in the intelligence possessed by humans compared to that by ants?
Humans may have better senses than ants, but that's not what is important; what's important is that we have the capability to ask questions and to think abstractly.

Given enough time, even a flatlander would be able to hypothesize the existence of the third dimension.

>>138928461
>>138928757
Simple. You either have:
1. Faith
2. Proof
pick only one.
>>138930732
I agree that cosmic background radiation, along with proton decay, suggest a genesis style creation event of sorts. Beyond that cosmologists have empty untestable theories, aka suppositions.

>>138932256
>"you fucktard", in response to an incredibly stupid misrepresantation of what I said
>in response to a post which, I quote, said "... you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about."
>a sperg out
If you can't handle someone using mean words when you say something stupid, anon, don't curse in the first place.

I apologize if "within a standard deviation of 100" was ambiguous, but don't act like you're free of fault when your entire post was literally:
>quote
>quote
>quote
Lol wrong;
and in this case, followed immediately by a string of pathetic insults.

>>138912144

Bros, bros, there is nothing bizarre about cosmology.

>things were denser therefore hotter

That is all that it is. From a hot and dense fluid we got the primordial light elements and after the cosmic microwave background. The gravity did the rest in assembling the matter to form galaxies and clusters.

Not a big deal at all. It is much more complicated and absurd to come to an explanation for a stationary universe.

>>138930225
>everyone and everything is God
It's too broad a definition to have any meaning.
Science is about observing the universe to see how it is. If the universe is amenable to life, and we believe it is, then we should find the building blocks for life everywhere and we do. Oxygen-rich space outside the heliosphere. Water on other planets. Carbon hydrogen nitrogen phosphorus, sodium and oxygen are found on all our local planets and some of their moons.

Religion has us believing that we are trapped on this tiny sliver of the Earth's crust, imprisoned until their gods arrive again one day. In fact, when Galileo spoke in support of Copernicus' heliocentric theory the Church put him under house arrest.

Never again.

>>138932745
You should get a grip on reality, your comments are incoherent.

File: 2e8.jpg (92KB, 829x589px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 829x589px

>>138932459
It's impossible to have Proof without Faith. Proofs don't exist without believing in first principles. Believing in First Principles requires Faith.

>>138932421
>implying
Yes, we have the ability to ask questions and think abstractly, but what if it takes more than that to fully explain the development of our universe and life.

What's stopping the idea that there can theoretically exist things more advanced than humans.
People don't have the ability to see 16 different primary colors, but mantis shrimp do. Humans may simply be too primitive an organism to explain everything there is in this universe

>>138932745

lmao guys imagine being this butthurt, dedicating an entire novel's worth of post just to satisfy some petty need for vengeance

guess which post of yours went unread again :)

>>138932956
>incoherent
Not in the slightest. What part of any of that is incoherent to anyone with a working fluency in English?

File: 1458246423159.gif (1MB, 291x229px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 291x229px

>>138912144
>this is what atheists actually believe

>>138913905
why would the son of God need to lie?

>>138928165

Bro, there is plenty of proof.

Check primordial nucleossynthesis, cosmic microwave background, recessive velocity of supernovas and cefeidas.

One may argue about what caused the Big Bang, that actually nobody knows and any idea is just a speculation.

But there is no doubt that the Universe was in a denser and much hotter state in the past and got cooler by kinematical expansion. No believing on that is equivalente to flat-earth theories.

The future is also an incognita, since nobody knows the nature of dark energy and if it is going to expand forever.

File: 1491606.png (88KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 700x700px

>>138932459
>Simple. You either have:
>1. Faith
>2. Proof
>pick only one
If your ability to reason wasn't so badly damaged, you'd know that your choice of two wrong answers is called the "False Dichotomy Fallacy". That's probably the same set of bad choices they give you when they sign you up for your "faith", but I'd much rather have the right answer and no faith.

Btw, did you ever prove your gods exist? Until you do, you haven't given me anything to disprove.

>>138933282
Why wouldn't he?

File: JOY2.png (614KB, 620x774px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 620x774px

>>138914908
Richard dawkins is the westboro baptist of athiesm

>>138932459
>aka suppositions.
Scientists have suppositions. You only have suppositories.

>>138912999
>filling a condom
Do you put condom on over your flaccid penis and then let it become erect and fillyhe condom out? Do you ever get bubbles or air trapped in it?

God damn these threads. It triggered me. I pondered death and started to grt anxiety. Shut it down. Now I come back

>>138933317
but all that stuff you mentioned, where did it originate? are you claiming it was infinite?

>>138932793
Formulate a testable theory... Oh wait
>>138932863
Galileo deserved much worse than house arrest though. He was unable to show no records or observations, he just looked through a scope and proceded to rant and rave without any proof or independently verifiable methods. His was the cold fusion "discovery" of the day. He was basically "that guy". Then he defamed the pope which should have merited a death sentence. How are you this ignorant of science history? It's like your entire education is from r/atheism

>>138933210
wow - you are dumb huh

>>138933077
>but what if it takes more than that to fully explain the development of our universe and life.
Then we're screwed, but there's no reason or evidence to consider the possibility besides a passing "what if".

>What's stopping the idea that there can theoretically exist things more advanced than humans.
Nothing at all, but there's no reason to believe that there's some unbreachable firmament of knowledge that can't be crossed by empirical reason.

>People don't have the ability to see 16 different primary colors, but mantis shrimp do. Humans may simply be too primitive an organism to explain everything there is in this universe
Right, we can't see in 16 different primary colors, but we can build machines that can. Not only can we build machines that see the entirety of the visual spectrum, but the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum as well.
The point of this being that, through technology, Humans can bootstrap themselves to perceive and comprehend things that we are naturally incapable of perceiving and comprehending.

>>138933191
>6, maybe 7 half lines
>a full novel
>calling out someone for being a double-digit mouthbreather is "petty vengeance"
Uh huh, sure thing.

>>138933033
>It's impossible to have Proof without Faith.
Proof based on faith doesn't meet the evidentiary standard of anything.

>Proofs don't exist without believing in first principles. Believing in First Principles requires Faith.
Wow, you really are brain damaged. I apologize for being so mean, I swear I didn't know you were really like that. I was kidding at first, but you really are quite retarded.

>believe
I don't think you understand how science works

>>138933033
So then he has faith in Atheism. That's my point. And i'm a follower of Christs btw, tip your own hat.
>>138933191
>>138933208
Yeah, i couldnt read it either. He's incoherent. Unhinged.
>>138933317
The extent of knowledge as i've said suggests a genesis style creation event. Beyond that is pure suppositions and conjecture. You have no feasible testable theories. Cosmology is a meme

>atheists, the youtube comment section
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWJyDaXDpo

>>138934760
>atheists expressing their based political beliefs part 2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TENxtDv0JzM

>>138933789

I don't understand your complain. Cosmology is a phenomenological model. People built the whole system based on observations.

Please, please, just check Edwin Hubble. He was an astronomer. Hubble found out about the expansion of the universe by observing stars and galaxies.

It was not Einstein, a theoretician. who created the big bang theory. It was an observer, an astronomer.

Really, call modern cosmology just a "theory" that lacks proof is one of the dumbest things you can do. I will just assume you didn't have scientific education and neither attended a stem field faculty.

>>138934672
>Yeah, i couldnt read it either. He's incoherent. Unhinged.
You're really doing this, anon? You seemed at least marginally interested in having a discussion without being an absolute asshole about it.
But please, please, tell me where I'm incoherent, or else I'll just assumed (and probably rightly so), that you're trying to get a rise out of me. If that's the case, it's working.

>>138934672
>The extent of knowledge as i've said suggests a genesis style creation event.

This right here is where you go off the rails. You're imposing intuitive methods on science, and that just doesn't work. The scientific method, and the mathematics used, show that our brains must go against the grain to figure out how things REALLY work.

If you logic was sound, planes would not fly, because aerodynamics is counter-intuitive until proven with math.

>>138933482
I assume you realize you provided no proof, thus admit your devout beliefs in Atheism are faith based. You are such a brainlet.
>your pic
falsely assumes atheism isnt a faith based religion.
>>138933667
Until you formulate a working theory to empirically test your theory, it is meme tier science. Any bum off the street can create an equally valid theory.

>>138934672
>responding to the wrong comment.

>>138933773

There is no clue in the observations about what originated the universe. We just know that it was a very hot and dense state and in an accelerated expansion.


We have data to tells us what happened up to when the universe was hot enough to create elements by nuclear fusion. Before that we know by extrapolation using data from colliders so we know what must have happened. But up to a point, before that not only don't have data but also even the theories we have cannot make predictions.

>>138933773

About if the universe is infinite, we actually don't know. We observe an universe that expands until where we can see. beyond that point (beyond our horizont), we don't know what exists if something exists at all.

There is a limit to what we can see because the velocity of light is not infinite, so there is a limit to what we can observe and what we observe is quite similar, but beyong that, no clue.

>>138913560
You just sound like a complete retard, I swear to God I've met more Christians who actually made sense than you faggot. Lmao

>>138935144

>bloviated bullshit upon narcissistic retardation etc. etc.

don't even reply to this guy folks. obviously a stupid pre-teen LARP-ing as John Nash or something

>>138935301
>Faith in Atheism

And you call other people a brainlet. That's projection. Atheism is a rejection of "Faith", which is defined as "Belief without Evidence". Science puts numbers to paper, and then tests to ascertain the truth of it. In the scientific model it goes like this:

>Formulate theory - test to disprove- is it disproven? - If yes rewrite and retest. If no, publish for others to test

In your religious mind:

> Formulate theory - test to prove positive - does it fit to [insert holy text here]? - if yes, publish. If no, bin it and say nothing

The ironic thing is, if aliens were to descend to Earth, these so-called atheists would be the first to bow down and worship them. Just like in the days of Noah.
Atheists were/are the original religious nutjobs as stated in the bible.

>>138933773
>but all that stuff you mentioned, where did it originate?

Where did the universe come from? According to the Big Bang, from a singularity which randomly expanded at a rapid rate.

What came before that, i.e. what led to the singularity? Nonsensical question. You're asking about time before time.

And I don't mean nonsensical as in "ridiculous," I mean without sense. You can't talk about time before time as much as you could talk about a square triangle.

Very existence. is proof that a creator.exe is running.

>>138934940
Hubble had reproducible observation and basic theories. Todays cosmologist decides to reinvent GR and new forms of matter because he's bad at math. LIGO was just the last straw, they are all a joke.
>>138935144
Calm yourself down.
>>138935149
>stop requiring cosmologists to have empirical results and testable theories
Conjecture and Supposition. Meme science.

>>138934672

>The extent of knowledge as i've said suggests a genesis style creation event. Beyond that is pure suppositions and conjecture. You have no feasible testable theories. Cosmology is a meme

That is very stupid. We have data and know cosmology up to a point, beyong that there is no data and no clue.

But so as gravity. We know and tested gravity up to a certain distance, Giga parsec at most, and 11 cm at least, beyond this limits we don't know how gravity works. Is gravity a meme? Of course no. That is how science works, you ignorante, we create pieces of models valid up to some point, until an experimental brings more data, then the models expand to cover more phase space. That doesnt mean that the theory was wrong, it was just incomplete, but it was the best that people could do with the available data at that time.

Modern cosmology is not complete. We don't know what is dark matter and dark energy, neither what triggered the initial expansion. But we already know a lot, and by observations, not by some crazy scientist babling untestable theories.

It's impossible to be an atheist when you realize the Earth is flat.
The flat Earth is the final red pill.

>>138912144
And an invisible sky wizard who hates you makes more sense? Okay.

>>138936399
>Intentional non-argument

Cosmology requires the scientific method just like any of the other sciences and revises as new knowledge proven by the numbers unearths. Make an argument next time.

>>138915969
>Theories are hypotheses that are well supported by empirical evidence.
I always like it when people say I have a theory when it's actually a hypothesis.

>>138912144
I don't see a problem with it.

>god started the quantum fluctuations

>>138936399

>Hubble had reproducible observation and basic theories. Todays cosmologist decides to reinvent GR and new forms of matter because he's bad at math. LIGO was just the last straw, they are all a joke.

Modifications of GR is a way to solve the questions about Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Of course that there are thousands of crazy theories aboud dm and de, that is what phd students do, they create new theories to explain things that we don't understand yet.

And LIGO has nothing to do with Cosmology. It is a detector of gravitational waves emitted by colliding black holes.

You may complain about the money expend in basic science, that is one good point to talk, but to say that moder cosmology is a meme, is very stupid and show how ignorant you are in the subject and also about the scientific method.

>Quantum fluctuations in a false vacuum = Universe
>That faith tho
Atheists

>>138912144
youre missing a lot of shit in between, all of the crushed rocks from all of the pressure created water

>>138936315
>You're asking about time before time.
It brings up a fun question to ponder though. What could we use to measure that time before time? I doubt we'll have anything close to answers about that any time soon, if ever, though.

>>138928461
>t. kike

File: what a star REALLY looks like.webm (436KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 640x360px

>space is real

lel

File: Arcturus Real Star.webm (960KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 640x360px

>>138937142

File: real stars not what nasa said.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>138937176

>>138936399
Y-M fields predict many different of fundamental particles and these particles have been experimentally verified. Baryons, Hadrons, Mesons, Leptons, and Quarks have been observed. GR hasn't been redefined. It doesn't matter how bad at math Einstein was; Hilbert and Klein literally generated the Lagrangian for Einstein as a special case of Reimannian Geometry. The """Einstein""" Lagrangian hasn't changed since.

File: rainbow star.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>138937217

>>138937142
>>138937176
>>138937217
>>138937289

what is this?

>>138912144
Pretty strange shit happens in the universe when we're not looking. Check out the proven "quantum entanglement" it's pretty off the wall shit but they proved it with a light experiment.

>>138937495
Someone zooming in on stars with a lot of atmospheric turbulence.

>>138937495
First one kind of sort of looks like ball lightning
Second and fourth ones looks like a glowstick or light being spun around real quickly.
No idea what the third one might be.

In any case, they're all interesting, especially the first one since it pans out to show the windowframe they're filming from.

>he fell for the dark energy and dark matter meme

Dark energy and dark matter are complete surrender. They are made up, invisible nonsense rivaling the Ether in absurdity.

pro tip:
The modern secular theories for a creatorless universe fail hard. Dark matter and energy are mythical inventions pulled out of thin air to correct a failed theory.

Tell me, do you believe everything they tell you?

>>138937751
Are people actually that retarded?

>>138937495
>>138937864
And >>138937751 too, which is far, far more likely than ball lightning for the first, especially since there's no storms in the sky whatsoever.

>>138937944
Checked. And have you read this thread? Yes. Yes they are that retarded.

>>138937926
Science doesn't require belief though, there is empirical evidence to back modern theories on some of the biggest questions of our universe. The way you use those buzzwords shows me you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>138937926
>Dark matter and energy are mythical inventions pulled out of thin air to correct a failed theory.
But they're not; they're basically just names and hypothesis given to unexplained or unexpected variables and constants in the mathematics describing modern physics.

For example; why galaxies have the shape they do, despite not having enough visible matter for that shape to occur under current theories. One such explanation are weakly interacting massive particles that make up the remaining mass deficit; hypothetical matter that cannot be conventionally observed, but still affects other matter by gravity.

>>138937944
Yeah. Twinkling stars can be seen with a naked eye, and there is even a nursery rhyme for them. But give any retard a cheap camera and they think they have uncovered a massive conspiracy when they zoom into an obscured and very far away object.

>>138912144
Atheism is the easiest religion to troll.

>>138938410
Cameras can only zoom so far, in fact a high energy light source could potentially destroy a camera by overloading some of its electrical components so even if it was possible to image a far away star like our sun it would probably destroy the camera too.

>>138928178
> to prey on the fears and ignorance of decent people to control their lives
Christianity provided me with a good sense of community and civic involvement
I'm sorry you didn't find that side of the faith, but know that it exists

>>138938722
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_telescope

>>138938830
Why do you need Christianity to develop those things? If you were a worthy human being wouldn't you be able to find those things on your own?

>>138912144
But biblical stories are just a remash of earlier stories anyway, you know as much as everyone else on the planet

>>138938131
... empirical evidence for phenomena that by definition is invisible and undetectable?

The big bang theory fails hard: matter will never ever condense into planets and stars from a gaseous nebula without adding some. dark energy and dark matter to fix it. that is literally what the darkies are.
now excuse me while I give your mom my big bang darkie

>>138938925
Well if they can't figure out the basics of science, I'm quite sure they're a bit too [unabashedly retarded] to develop morality that isn't backed by the threat of something that can kill them without retaliation.

File: zerogplane.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>138939313

>>138933687
lol how else would you do it

>>138938314
Zero evidence. I'm embarrassed for you. This is science-cringe. Dark matter / energy are simply tools to fix theories that do not work. zero. fucking. evidence.

>>138939236
It's not undetectable though, if it were it wouldn't be credible evidence. We have methods of examining background radiation and other types of signals that point to some type of big bang event. We don't understand enough about matter to be able to say that it could never "condense" like you say; we didn't even have direct evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson until a few years ago.

File: POPES AUDIENCE HALL.jpg (188KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1200x798px

>>138912144
>>138937142
>>138933210
>>138933812

First step, make everyone believe heliocentricity and infinite universe, making one's life seem relatively meaningless.

Second step, satiate and distract most of the population with consumerism and useless things, to keep their minds from pondering and actually moving society forward.

Third step, sexual revolution; rampant sex and degeneracy helps break apart the family unit.

Fourth step (current step), trans-humanism, say there's no such thing as being straight (notice all mainstream netflix shows have transgenders in main romantic roles), all religions are worthless / should be one, technology/robots will integrate with and subdue us, etc etc. End goal, we are all the same, united in our sameness. Pope Francis has stated one of his favorite books is a book all about transhumanism.
...
???

5. Satan profits!!!


All of these things are meant to distort the natural order of things, all meant to bastardize and mock God's authenticity and organic truths.

>>138938867
Do you not notice the distortion caused by the window?

This is also relevant for what you're trying to get at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxhxL1LzKww
>inb4 >Vsauce
Yes, I know, but it's actually a fairly well put together explanation.

File: unnamed.jpg (461B, 170x170px) Image search: [Google]

461B, 170x170px

atheist believe that the universe came out of this.

>>138935556
how do we know that the early universe behaved anything like the inside of a collider tho?

File: flatearth.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>138939647
???

>>138939457
"Hey, there's an unexplained constant that keeps popping up in all of our mathematical models for theories that work, what should we do?"
"How about we propose a plausible explanation for it and try to find some proof thereof, rather than tearing down everything that otherwise work?"

Do you know why they're called "Dark", anon? It's because scientists know they don't know what they are; they have close to zero clue what they could be, except that they're unexplained forces that show up in their otherwise working models.

>>138936210
>proof
>faith
Pick one. Make a choice.
>>138936442
>up to a point
You've blown past that point decades ago. Meme territory is where you are.
>until an experiment brings more data
Start here brainlet.
>>138936698
>cosmology requires the scientific method
HAHAHAHAHA *breathes* HAHAHAHAHA
>>138936829
Modifying GR to suit your imprecision of measure and pulling new forms of matter out of your ass makes you and your entire field of study a joke. Cosmology is a meme beyond even String Theory at this point.
>>138937286
These collider experiments dont have any concrete results. They are just renaming previously discover particles at different energy states at this point. This "science" yields invible results that waste precious research funds away from viable fields of study.

File: f15e08b3795e44f0854dbcef352a4d02.jpg (38KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 540x540px

>>138939647

>>138912144
>there are people in this world who believe ex nihilo creation
Pretty sad desu
>HURR DUMB CHRISTIANS BELIEVE A SKY MAN MADE THE WORLD BUT ACTUALLY IT COME FROM NOTHING RANDOMLY

>>138939546
>muh higgs boson

Oh yes we do have real evidence that matter would absofuckinglutely not condense. Conservation of Energy, much?! Gravity is weak as fuck and will never overcome the kinetic energy latent in a blob of gas in space. It is really that simple. The whole bigbang nonsense simply fails unless you allow for made up nonsense.
>inb4 'but the gas in space will cool off :DDDDD

>>138940081
this guy, he gets it. it's really that simple.

>>138940097
You're the reason we have to dumb down science and math in schools

>>138939925
>Pick one. Make a choice.
I picked proof long ago, that's why I'm an atheist.

>Non arguments
>t.arrogant brainlet

>>138912144
There is no proof of universal expansion or contraction, therefore, big bang theory is hypothetical at best.

>>138912144
Observable universe is 92 Billion Light Years, or a radius of 46 Billion Light Years
Universe is 13.8 Billion Years Old
Speed of light, according to relativity, is the fastest anything can go
So, either:
>Universe is much older than 13.8 and the Big Bang didn't create everything everywhere
>We're part of a multiverse and two universes "collided"
>Whole things a hoax and some bitched grabbed an apple when she wasn't supposed to

>>138938314
>why galaxies have the shape they do, despite not having enough visible matter for that shape to occur under current theories

The only visible matter are stars.
And only big ones.
You would not believe how many brown dwarf stars they have found over the past few years near our solar system.
Plus black holes are not visible
Planets are not visible
asteroids are not visible
any random atoms are not visible.
And we knew about all that stuff and we knew we could not see before dark matter and dark energy was even considered.

This shit was objectively stupid retarded even before it was thought up!

>>138939822
What's the field of view and lens type on that camera, anon?

>>138940009
Yes, anon; given a small enough arc of a circle, it will appear to be a straight line.

>>138940106
As the Earth rotates, light from the sun will naturally have to pass through more atmosphere to reach the same position than it would at noon. That, combined with likely atmospheric lensing, would cause the decrease in luminosity shown.

>>138912144
Isn't the Jesus is the son of god meant to dispell all the god created the world bs. Jesus was saying god is inside you. It's in your heart or mind as some would say. God is a state of mind. Jesus demonstrated that accepting god is helping the poor and doing the right thing. Not arguing with science and being a faggot on the internet.

>>138939457
I agree, dark energy/matter is a stop gap, a place holder to fix mass calculations made in error. Yet they proclaim it as a ground breaking discory while they silently rewrite GR to fix a mistake. This is the snowflake generations science .
>>138939715
Too much volume. They think 0D space converted to 3D/time also. Crazy people, blind.

File: 1426714233527.jpg (44KB, 1000x1255px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1000x1255px

>>138940291

hahaha seen the bubbles before in shots but this is priceless, man. Thanks

>>138924257
>system based on empiric evidence
>not plausible
>???

>>138939901
Sorry, these are not 'working models.' If you allow me to invent invisible, undetectable phenomena to 'correct otherwise working models' then literally ANY and every model ever works! One simple makes things up to work around the fail!

Big bang theory has been demonstrably falsified. Look up the 'ether' theory. Ether was a similar construct to these 'dark' things. Ether 'fixed' old, failing theories and was conveniently, by theory, undetectable. Sound familiar?

The 'dark" in dark matter means that these types of theoretical matter or energy simply cannot be detected by mere mortals!! How convenient :^)

>>138912144
we live in a simulation

>>138940511
It's all semitic myth-making in the end

>>138940631
>Jesus was saying god is inside you
You don't speak for Jesus fool, that is not what he said. That part of "god" is called love and is certainly from a physical being as also described by Jesus, quit paraphrasing shit you haven't even read.

>>138940511
The universe expands faster than the speed of light because the further two points are apart the more expansion can happen between them.
We don't know how big the universe is, we only know the size of the observable universe because the light of the universe past that is slower than the rate of expansion, so it never reaches us.

>>138940253
>i have proof God doesn't exist
EXTRA! EXTRA !
ANON THATS AMAZING !
care to tell?

>>138940229
>not an argument
>ad hominen

I graciously accept your surrender. If you only knew the grades I got...

>>138912144
Obvious slide thread.
Sage

>>138940533
>The only visible matter are stars.
Nope
>And only big ones.
Nope
>You would not believe how many brown dwarf stars they have found over the past few years near our solar system.
Brown dwarfs are less than a tenth of a solar mass, anon.
>Plus black holes are not visible
They are not visible, but they are observable; in the same way that the effects of black holes can be measured, so too can the hypothetical dark matter (except, unlike black holes, it purportedly does not interact with light)
>Planets are not visible
It doesn't matter if they are or not, their combined mass is negligible.
>asteroids are not visible
Even more negligible than planets.
>any random atoms are not visible.
Even more negligible than asteroids.
>And we knew about all that stuff and we knew we could not see before dark matter and dark energy was even considered.
All of that, at the time, were considered dark bodies. Obviously we can detect them now, and it's entirely possible that we just haven't developed the instruments to perceive the remaining mass, but that's not a hole in the hypothesis.

>>138940858
But they're not making anything up, anon! They're not adding anything in to make the model work, the missing things themselves are predicted by the model!
>The 'dark" in dark matter means that these types of theoretical matter or energy simply cannot be detected by mere mortals!! How convenient
Except, should the hypothesis prove to be true, we are observing them; they just don't interact with light. If they were truly undetectable, then they wouldn't even have a gravitic affect on visible matter.

>>138912999
This makes the most sense. We're basically God's jizz.

Let's not lie to ourselves. We don't know where the universe came from and we probably never will. The absence of evidence is not evidence of God, but neither is it evidence of absence.
I think that a creator makes more sense and I stand by this. If I'm wrong..oh well. If the atheist is wrong well that may fuck him up later on.
Don't agree with me then reeeeeee!

>>138913919
>you cannot claim supernatural intelligence created the universe without evidence

Atheists often say there's no evidence for God. But what do you mean by "evidence"?

In a criminal trial, both the prosecution and the defense address themselves to the exact same evidence -- the blood, the gloves, the footprints, etc. The *same* evidence for both, they simply *interpret it differently*.

The Prosecution: The blood on the carpet is from the cut to the killer's finger which he acquired when he was slicing his victim's neck.

The Defense: No, the blood on the carpet was planted there as part of a conspiracy by the police (and that cut on the defendant's finger was perfectly innocent, from a glass that broke in his hand not a knife).

Now consider Richard Dawkins' remarks in the Preface to The Blind Watchmaker:

>"The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up."

The complexity of living organisms is thus evidence -- evidence that "cries out for an explanation," according to Dawkins.

Dawkins' book addresses itself to William Paley's watchmaker argument, "the best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design,' always the most influential of the arguments for the existence of a God" (p. 4).

Dawkins does not claim that Paley has no evidence. He acknowledges that Paley has plenty of evidence. Rather, Dawkins simply interprets the exact same body of evidence that Paley addressed himself to differently.

Paley's design becomes Dawkins' *apparent* design. Where Paley says the evidence of design in nature demonstrates a Creator, Dawkins says no, the evidence demonstrates the truth of evolution.

But both Dawkins and Paley look to the same body of evidence to make their respective arguments.

>>138912144
Look at the beginning, what do you think jewgod meant when xe said "let there be light"

File: DHXd2NKUQAAh9hr.jpg (25KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x600px

>>138941222
Sure. Lack of any evidence whatsoever for your almighty being. The being who deigned that his chosen people would be desert dwelling goat fuckers.

>>138941405
>I think that a creator makes more sense
honestly, the ideas aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest.

File: GetMePregersWhiteMan.png (322KB, 613x637px)

322KB, 613x637px

>>138940511
Was Eve even told not to take the Fruit?
I thought only Adam was forbidden
And was forbidden before Eve even existed.

Eve did nothing wrong!!!
But yeah she was a bitch though.

>>138941201
But here's the thing, and it's why I don't think the universe is 13.8 Billion years old (I personally think it's much older)

They will tell you objects can't surpass the speed of light, but that dark matter can. They tried to explain expansion and a reaction to massive pulls from an unknown force, but that force not only exists outside and pulls us (the great attractor) but also is everywhere within.

Dark matter is kinda a place holder for science to "prove" the Big Bang as an origin of the universe when neither it nor the bang itself are that well known.

>>138941344
We see zero evidence for dark matter/energy. A 'theory' not matching empirical observation DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE FOR UNOBSERVABLES! Zero. Evidence.

Instead of admitting their precious creation-myth is wrong, they make things up to retrofit the evidence to the theory.

>But Anon, dark matter MUST exist because otherwise our theories are wrong! See, that constitutes evidence XD

baka

>>138912999
fucking checkED my nigé

also i think we are just a manifestation of vibrating energy. consciousness is only existent because of communication which vibrates between two beings and can fade out if not stoked. point being string theory makes some sense but past that we can't comprehend infinity and that will forever be the gate keeper to THE ANSWER.

>>138941871
So you dont in fact have proof? Shocker. Well that defaults you to faith. And a strange depressing faith it is. Why not instead just accept God's love anon?

>>138942396
Because prove your god, goatfucker. Been waiting for years.

>>138942148
>A 'theory' not matching empirical observation DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE FOR UNOBSERVABLES! Zero. Evidence.
Except the theory does work, even though it has that unexplained variable.

Here, have a relevant example.

>Huh; the orbit of Uranus is really weird for some reason, as if there were another planetary body besides Neptune affecting it
>nobody's seen anything out that far, and as far as we know, there's nothing there
>oh look, I found Pluto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Discovery

The theory predicted something that had not been empirically observed based upon other observations, and upon closer inspection, it actually existed.

>>138942514
Thar sounds really depressing anon. Even Newton was a devout Christian.

>>138941344
>>138941344
They are not visible, but they are observable

How are they abservabel anon?
How are they observabe?
Observabe how?

Could it be gee i don;t know gravetational?
You know the same observation that galaxies hold together by a measurable amount of gravity...

Holy shit!!!
It is almost as if we are observing gravitational pull by non-visible mass....JUST LIKE FUCKING BLACK HOLES!!!

>>138915196
Space is not actually empty. The uncertainty principal states that we can never know a particle's true position and speed at the same time. If space were really empty, then we would know it's speed and position at the same time which is not possible. Therefore, space is actually filled with particle fluctuations.

>>138915673
There was no universe before because there was no time before because time is a dimension of our universe. We live in space-time. Without the space of our universe there is no time.

>>138928354

dank

>>138912144
It's quite simple really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGUNkFf4_6k

http://inters.org/pio-xii-lemaitre
This is always an ironic claim. The Big Bang theory was the creation of a Catholic priest. It was thought to prove the existence of God. But L' Maitre insisted Pope Pius NOT make it official Catholic teaching, in that, SCIENCE IS NEVER FINAL. It is always empirical.

>>138942517

You completely ignored what I was saying: I said that there. is. zero. evidence. for. dark matter / energy.

You bring up some anecdotal evidence regarding something disturbing Uranus's motion...
But that is pure anecdotal and pretty weak at that. For every 'uranus' story that has a happy ending (oh look we found pluto) there are a million failed theories that have been relegated to the dust bin of history.

Just admit it: you fell for the dark energy meme.

To put it another way: lets take your Uranus story, but imagine if they never found Pluto. They send satellites and scour the heavens with Hubbles and veritably prove that there is nothing observable where Pluto should be. You would then say that there is an invisible Pluto there, it cannot be seen, it is totally invisible to all manner of detect, except, conveniently, in the manner in which it fixes the broken theory.

Look up Ether. Also, look up 'falsifiable.'

>>138942775
That would be a good explanation, except for the lack of other effects traditionally associated with black holes.
No accretion disks or polar jets. (if they were active)
No extreme gravitational lensing (if inactive)

>>138917033
Everyone knows that space expands at a decreasing rate with rate needed to fight off the force of gravity being the limit.

>>138912144
>an unexplained explosion from infinite density and zero dimension shot into one direction
ok
Then what put the fucking point of origin there?

>>138941230
I'm sure your political science classes are rough

>>138912144
So do some Christians. The difference is atheists refuse to believe it's not unlikely this thing is directed or that there is consciousness outside of this thing, because and only because if this were true, it would imply they are deserving of what they get. It's equivalent to looking at the edge of existence and concluding there is no consciousness on the other side because it didn't give you what you want.

>>138943125
>To put it another way: lets take your Uranus story, but imagine if they never found Pluto. They send satellites and scour the heavens with Hubbles and veritably prove that there is nothing observable where Pluto should be. You would then say that there is an invisible Pluto there, it cannot be seen, it is totally invisible to all manner of detect, except, conveniently, in the manner in which it fixes the broken theory.
In that case, there would be a major discrepancy. Presumably this anomaly would still be localized to where there could still be an "invisible pluto"; that would be more of an indication that something really, REALLY weird is going on, and not that orbital mechanics as they were currently understood were wrong.

Yes, science discard theory and hypothesis if evidence contradicts it, but at the same time, it is not a good idea to do so without caution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't exactly scoured the entirety of the galaxy yet, have we?

>>138943163
I hope you're right, anon; it would be terrible to be stuck with only the rest of the supercluster forever.
How do you explain the objects that have already redshifted pasted the cosmological event horizon, then? The expansion beat the force of gravity between us and them; when's the actual cut off?

>>138912144
It is not belief...it is empirical evidence through observation.
Have you seen your man in the sky lately?

>>138943412
Sorry sweetie, I studied big boy major. Engineering, one of the harder ones. Also... hate to admit it... but I understood the math, too. As in acing some of my math finals. Bet you are the type who likes to play 'physics' with out the math. I'd also wager you are the type who likes to play 'theoretical physics,' but who does not like to actually get one's hands dirty doing actual, real science in a laboratory.

See, true science makes a BIG fucking distinction between repeatable experiments, in the present, in a laboratory and...

Phenomena that is light years away and will never be directly observable

Phenomena that happened billions of years in the past.

Do, please, insult me again, my simple minded friend. You amuse me.

>>138913379
Interesting

>>138912144
And why can't Christians believe in this exactly?

>>138943701
>not that orbital mechanics as they were currently understood were wrong.

So according to you, nothing is falsifiable. Weak sauce. I'm going over to the trap thread

>>138939637

>>138943755
What's the fundamental difference in observing something that happened a thousand light years away and something that happened eight light minutes away?

What's the difference between observing something that happened eight light minutes away and something that happened an infinitesimal fraction of a light second away?

>>138943755
man no one is going to listen to you blattering about how much smarter you are than someone else

>>138943932
Oh, of course it could have been falsifiable, but that's not the point.
If the scientists then pinpointed the exact location of where invisible-pluto was, put a satellite in orbit, and ruled out all other possibilities for orbital anomalies, then they'd almost assuredly say "Theres something here that's completely invisible and cannot be interacted with, but still produces gravity. This is really weird and we should investigate more" as opposed to "There's this really weird anomaly in our theory that we can't interact with, but we've managed to isolate its position and put a satellite into orbit around the not-thing... let's throw out our theories because obviously they're not right if they make something like this exist."

>>138943849
Because they can't understand it or just refuse to learn about it.

>>138943849
Hilarious. The Big Bang theory was the creation of a Catholic priest. Catchup?

>>138944303
>Yes, science discard theory and hypothesis if evidence contradicts it, but at the same time, it is not a good idea to do so without caution.

BUWAHHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>138943980
SIGH

Nothing, nothing is different...

WHO TF /CUM/ HERE??

ROLL CALL