>big bang happened without a creator You're a high functioning

>creator happened without a creator

You're a high functioning retard if you think that something can be created from nothing

>exasperated and fatigued man . jpg

>>8764565
>something can be created from nothing
That is not what the Big Bang says

>>8764577
Why do people keep talking about a TV show like it has something to do with science?

can causation even hold outside the universe

/his/ is the dumbest board on this site.

>>8764575
>>8764577
>>8764584
>>8764591
>>8764596

Show me single case of something being created from nothing

>>8764613
I'm saying the Big Bang is not about something being created from nothing. Everything was already there, just in a different form.

>>8764565
>>8764613
>my definition of nothing is correct

>>8764620
Therefore god was always there you giant fggt <3

The theory is that when mass was created there was an equal amount of antimatter that was created, thus balancing the system

>>8764613
Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady technically created Big Bang Theory so you do have a solid point.

The sum of all mass/energy must = 0

>>8764634
That's why some greasy Jesuit was allowed to pull the shitty theory from the Vatican archives of stolen philosophical works and peddle it like his own. Universe is and always was, maybe it breaths like a lung, expands and contracts but there was no big bang.

>>8764650
How the he'll do you divide a non zero by a number and have it sequel zero?

>I'm a ghost inside a meatcage inside gods video game, inside gods house, ontop of a mountain in gods forest, on gods planet floating around gods sun and I'm made up of god pixels with a bitrate of 356 godbits per minute and he is watching me masturbate.

>>8764575
Wouldn't be God if that applied to him

>>8764684
So where did god come from? Christcucks don't realize the same arguments they apply to the universe apply to god. it doesn't solve the problem.

>>8764565
>>8764565
>Furthermore if you also think that random carnage can create something functional
>>8764565

It wasnt "random carnage" you dumb fuck. But that doesnt mean it needs a conscious creator . Maybe its here because its the only thing that can be here. Nothingness cant exist.

>>8764733
>Christcucks don't realize the same arguments they apply to the universe apply to god
They do not. It's the worst possible argument. "Where did God come from" is retarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

>>8764565
What if the theory that this is a simulated reality being controlled by smarter beings and all the science is made that way for us like in there world has no gravity and you can change one element into another without nuculer decay

>>8764758
They wasted a ton of processing power on simulating me jacking off for the past 10 years

>>8764754
"Who created God?" isn't an actual question. It's a rhetorical question and the point is "if God can exist without a cause, then by the same method the universe can exist without a cause"

>>8764793
Except for the fact that we know the universe is not eternal and had a beginning.

>B-But the Big Bang might not have been the beginning!

Doesn't matter. e know an infinite regression is a logical impossibility if we're to exist. There was a beginning whether it was the Big Bang event that created the universe we know today or a grahams number of past universes. Either way, it's not infinite.

Is god not "something"?

God had to have come from something as well.

It's more rational to believe that anything ordered (including a creator) spontaneously emerged from randomness.

>>8764798
Infinite regression isn't impossible.

>>8764798
How can we know for sure that infinity is impossible? It might be impossible within the logic of our own universe, which our minds evolved to understand, but it might not be impossible 'outside' the universe. or 'before' the universe. Really, trying to use logic to make metaphysical inferences about the basis of reality is hubris. Surely you see this.

>>8764613
Expansion. Of. The. Universe.

Literally every single second there is a new proof to the claim that something can come from nothing

(Space is space, not a nothing)

>>8764684
>universe cant just happen by chance
What about god?
>LOLOL DOESNT APPLY
If there can be an entity to which this doesn't apply, I see no reason why it should apply to exitstence itself. You guys are just cornering yourselves with this creator thing.

>>8764804
Doesnt Godel basically show that it is possible?

>>8764804
Yes it is and I can prove it. If your existence is predicated on reaching the end of an infinite regression then you will never exist. To understand this imagine that you get a computer to calculate pi. When it calculates the last digit you will begin your existence. How long does it take for you to exist? You never exist, because the 'end' is never reached. Hence if you claim you're the end result of an 'infinite' regress you cannot exist because that infinite regress is eternal, it never ends. You're basically arguing that you exist AND pi has infinite digits. You're contradicting yourself, it's one or the other, not both. If you exist pi is not infinite because the computer reached the last digit allowing you to exist, if pi really is infinite you should never exist. The exact same logic holds for an infinite regress of universes with no beginning.

File: Man-Laughing.jpg (53KB, 506x337px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 506x337px

>everyone is retarded in this thread and doesn't understand quantum symmetry and why nature doesn't like a void and always fills it with random crap.
>muh ghost in a meatcage, muh simulation, muh space daddy

ITT: brainlet stuff

>>8764813
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard

>>8764816
I accept your surrender.

>>8764813
See
>>8764813

Both are possible we can exist for a small period in an infinite poo of time

This is a troll thread. Luckily, /sci/ isn't as brainlet as I thought.

>>8764818
If you claim an infinite regress is true than an infinite number of universes and time have already passed. Which is impossible, as proven by the pi example. If infinite regress is true than your existence is predicated on an infinite number of universes before you having existed.

>>8764613
I would say the universe, but that wasn't created. :^)

>>8764565
how did the first "something" were created then ?

>>8764824
See this guy's explanataion: >>8764805

>>8764877
That's just handwaving the issue. "We can't know anything about whats outside the universe maaaaan, so don't even think about it". He doesn't make any argument for why an infinite regress would theoretically be possible outside of our universe other than just a shrug and saying "Who knows". It's essentially the same thing as saying God did it.

>>8764881
It's kind of hard to describe how something that is logically impossible is possible unless we do away with logic, which is just about as valid as assuming God did it. In fact it comes back to exactly the same thing. At this point I'm just repeating your post. Fuck it.

>>8764907
So you believe God exists?

>>8764813
Utterly faulty analogy. Infinite regression means there is no starting point. There is only a finite amount of time between any point in time and your existence though. Your analogy on the other hand has a starting point and and no end point. You will never reach the end of pi just as you will never reach the beginning of an infinite regression if you go backwards through time. That's all you can conclude from the analogy.

>>8764979
It's a thought experiment that shows if you theoretically regress back an infinite amount of time (or events if you want to be pedantic about time being an intrinsic property of our universe), then your existence is a logical impossibility. Your existence hinges on a starting point and a finite amount of time (or events) that has passed since that starting point. Otherwise you wouldn't exist.

>>8764989
Your thought experiment utterly fails. You are assuming there is a beginning to calculate time from when there is no such beginning. There is no point in time from which it took an infinite amount of time to get to this moment. Again, from what time did it take an infinite amount of time to get here? There isn't one.

>>8764989
Saying it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach this point in time is like saying there are an infinite amount of digits between the start of pi and the end of pi. This is false.

>>8765007
>There is no point in time from which it took an infinite amount of time to get to this moment
So there is no beginning, but only a finite amount of time has passed. Contradictory. Trying to dance around the issue by making contradictory statements doesn't work. You're just strengthening my point that infinite regress is a logical impossibility.

>>8765010
There is no end of pi, that's the point. If your existence is contingent on reaching the end of an infinitely long chain you will never exist. Period. There is no way around there. Infinite regress is not possible and the only people who argue it is are people who twist themselves into logical knots trying to make contradictory statements both true to avoid the inevitable discussion about the starting point.

>>8765022
>So there is no beginning, but only a finite amount of time has passed. Contradictory.
Finite amount of time passed FROM WHAT POINT? You're not very good at reading buddy. To calculate the passage of time you need a starting point and an end point. Any point in time in an infinite regression is a finite amount of time from the current moment. The only contradiction here is your continued assumption that an infinite regression has an ultimate beginning to calculate time from.

>>8765024
>There is no end of pi, that's the point. If your existence is contingent on reaching the end of an infinitely long chain you will never exist.
The existence of the current universe is not contingent on reaching the end of an infinitely long chain. There is no beginning from which an infinite amount of time had to pass to reach this point. Your argument is analogous to arguing that pi does not exist because its existence is contingent on reaching the last digit. There is no last digit, and there is no contingency upon it.

Infinite regression is clearly possible, and you don't even understand what it means, since you think it involves a beginning point.

>>8765022
You didn't answer the question. I'll rephrase it since you seem incapable of understanding it: does infinite regression involve a beginning infinitely far into the past, or not beginning at all?

Analogously, does pi have a last digit infinitely far away from the first, or no last digit at all?

>>8765022
Reading is an important life skill.

>>8765034
>There is no beginning from which an infinite amount of time had to pass to reach this point
Meaningless nonsense. Trying to say there is simultaneously no beginning point AND that there has only been finite time. These are contradictory positions. If one is true the other is not. Period. You're desperately wrapping yourself in bad logic to deny the obvious.

>>8765042
Pointless question. You're trying to define us as the beginning of a sequence of events and then reversing it to stretch infinitely far back into the past. Doesn't work like that. Every infinite we know of has a defined starting point. If you want to argue that point me to an infinite number we know of that has no defined starting point, then you might have an argument. Until then you're arguing nonsense.

File: infiniteregression.png (7KB, 865x285px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 865x285px

>>8765068
>Meaningless nonsense. Trying to say there is simultaneously no beginning point AND that there has only been finite time.
Finite amount of time from what point? You aren't making sense, and you aren't responding to the argument. You lose.

>>8765078
>Pointless question. You're trying to define us as the beginning of a sequence of events
Wrong.

>and then reversing it to stretch infinitely far back into the past.
Reversing what? Infinite regression means no beginning, time extending infinitely backwards. Your entire argument stems from a lack of understanding of what infinite regression means. Pi has no end and time has no beginning.

>Doesn't work like that. Every infinite we know of has a defined starting point.
Utter nonsense. The real number line has no starting point or endpoint. If you aren't going to argue in good faith and deal with what infinite regression is defined as, then fuck off.

>>8765079
It's reframing your perspective. The point of the example is that you're contingent on an infinite chain, then it's easy to see if you count forward the contingent thing will never exist you can apply that same logic BACKWARDS as well. You're desperately trying to wiggle out of the issue by contradicting yourself, so lets make it really simple.

Do you believe in infinite regression? Yes? Then why is is possible for us to exist if we can regress infinitely far back, if it's obvious to us that anything contingent from this point onwards on an infinite chain will never exist? It's the ultimate form of exceptionalism. The fact we cannot pinpoint an exact starting point in the past is IRRELEVANT. You're admitting our existence is contingent on an INFINITE CHAIN, that's what matters. You're trying to obfuscate by saying "uuuhhh there is no starting point" which is irrelevant

>>8765095
>Infinite regression means no beginning, time extending infinitely backwards
Yes and if we're contingent on an event happening after an infinite time we'll never exist. I'm glad you finally see your error and agree with me, took a while but the last turtle crosses the finish line

>>8765100
>The point of the example is that you're contingent on an infinite chain, then it's easy to see if you count forward the contingent thing will never exist
COUNT FORWARD FROM WHAT??? You continuously avoid answering this simple question, because it reveals the fault in your entire argument, which is that you assume a beginning to count from where none exists.

>You're admitting our existence is contingent on an INFINITE CHAIN
So what? You don't even understand your own argument. I'll explain it to you: It is impossible to be contingent on an infinite chain of events because this means an infinite amount of time would need to have passed. I then replied that in order to calculate the "amount of time passed" you would need a starting point to calculate from. You have already admitted there is no beginning to calculate passage of time from, yet laughably you do not see how this destroys your argument. You just keep repeating the same thing I have already debunked.

>>8765102
>Yes and if we're contingent on an event happening after an infinite time we'll never exist.
AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER WHAT? Answer the question already.

>>8765104
>It is impossible to be contingent on an infinite chain of events because this means an infinite amount of time would need to have passed
Yes. Thus a finite amount of time has passed, therefore there is a starting point. Now you're getting it. I'm proud of you buddy, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed but you're getting there!

>>8765111
>Yes. Thus a finite amount of time has passed
From what point? You do realize this phrase you keep repeating is not a full sentence right?

You keep ignoring my argument because you know you're wrong, you lost and you know it.

>>8765110
>AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER WHAT? Answer the question already.
Irrelevant. You're the one asserting there is an infinite regress. That's your issue to solve, not mine. I'm simply taking your statement to it's logical conclusion. If there is infinite amount of time in the past we can theoretically go back an infinite amount of time and work forwards from there. The exact point is not relevant to the argument at all, the fact you're so desperately trying to claim that we need a defined point to work from shows how flimsy your stance is. It's ok, you'll get there eventually and realize your whole argument is a house of cards.

File: PicRelated.png (32KB, 496x346px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 496x346px

>>8764565

>You're a high functioning retard if you think that something can be created from nothing

I used to always argue against the big bang as follows: Start with the non existent state of the universe

[math]\big|\psi\big\rangle=0~~[/math].

Then define an operator so that

[math]\hat\gamma\big|\psi\big\rangle\neq0~~[/math].

My implication was that this is obviously impossible bu I figured out how to do it as in pic related, explained in the link below. You just have to define [math]\hat\gamma[/math] as an appropriate projection operator. It looks trivial but it is surprising non-trivial, and even rises to level of novelty.

http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0234

>>8765114
No actually I'm amused you're refuting the existence of an infinite regress so well while continuing to assert it's a logical possibility. By all means continue to debunk your argument by pointing out it's absurdity.

>>8765117
oops

>>8764565

>You're a high functioning retard if you think that something can be created from nothing

I used to always argue against the big bang as follows: Start with the non existent state of the universe

[math]\big|\psi\big\rangle=0[/math].

Then define an operator so that

[math]\hat\gamma\big|\psi\big\rangle\neq0[/math].

My implication was that this is obviously impossible bu I figured out how to do it as in pic related, explained in the link below. You just have to define [math]\hat\gamma[/math] as an appropriate projection operator. It looks trivial but it is surprising non-trivial, and even rises to level of novelty.

http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0234

>>8765115
>Irrelevant. You're the one asserting there is an infinite regress. That's your issue to solve, not mine.
I'm asking you to explain what YOU said about infinite regression. You made a claim about infinite regression in order to argue against it, and that claim does not make sense. Admit it. Your argument fails.

>If there is infinite amount of time in the past we can theoretically go back an infinite amount of time and work forwards from there.
If we can theoretically go back an infinite amount of time, then why is going forward an infinite amount of time impossible? You just contradicted your own hackneyed argument again.

>>8765122
You failed to respond, again. You lost.

>>8765130
>I'm asking you to explain what YOU said about infinite regression
Actually you're the one asserting it could actually exist. I'm just pointing out that it's a logical impossibility and you've done a wonderful job helping it along by poking holes in your own argument by pointing out the entire concept is meaningless. Time cannot stretch infinitely back into the past. There must be a beginning.

But then you said there CAN be an infinite regression, but only if you turn your brain off and ignore the fact that without a beginning it again means we cannot exist. Thank you for demonstrating why infinite regress is incompatible with our existence.

>>8765137
Not the guy you were arguing with, but I'm chiming in with my own question. How is an infinite regress in time illogical?

>>8765137
>Actually you're the one asserting it could actually exist.
That doesn't respond to what I said. I'm arguing against your assertion of what infinite regression implies. You're continuing to obfuscate the argument with this nonsense.

You argued that infinite regression means "an infinite amount of time would have to pass". Yes or no?

This is not true because infinite regression would have to have a beginning for an infinite amount of time to pass from it. Therefore the above argument is faulty. Yes or no?

If you answer no to the former, you are a liar. If you answer no to the latter, you are illogical.

You have failed to argue a flaw in infinite regression, you lose.

>>8765141
Anything which is predicated on an infinite number of events occurring will never occur. We exist, therefore there have not been infinite events before us. Very simple.

File: fry.jpg (33KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x480px

Do you see that I did there? The fine feature is that the dual vector is not equal to zero because of the complex conjugation.

>>8765150
>Anything which is predicated on an infinite number of events occurring will never occur.
Why?

>>8765146
>because infinite regression would have to have a beginning
No it wouldn't. We could regress back to any point infinitely far back in time for the argument to be true. You're the one getting stuck in the mud about beginnings. You're the one asserting there have indeed been points in time infinitely far back, I'm just asking you to shift your perspective and understand what that entails.

>>8765154
I'll tell you when you finish counting to infinity.

>>8765161
>We could regress back to any point infinitely far back in time for the argument to be true.
There is no point infinitely far back in time. There are only points a finite amount of time away, stretching back with no end. You fail again. What a surprise. Do you think there are real numbers infinitely far away from 0 too?

>>8765168
>There is no point infinitely far back in time
I agree. There is no infinite regress. Thank you again for proving my point. It's hilarious how you keep doing this over and over. I can understand why you're getting frustrated while you try to support contradictory positions. Isn't it time to give it up and admit that infinite regress doesn't exist within reality?

>>8765172
>I agree. There is no infinite regress
That's not what infinite regress means. You're arguing against a strawman. Infinite regress means no beginning, not a beginning infinitely far back. You fail again, and you demonstrated it perfectly.

>>8765164
All time could just be (represented as) an infinite set containing all moments, including the one we're currently in, and all the ones to come, and all the ones that preceded us.

>>8765172
So you think that the natural numbers means there is a number infinitely far away from 0. You are really delusional if you don't see how obviously wrong you are.

>>8765181
Infinity doesn't exist within reality period. It's a concept, nothing more.

>>8765164
What event in the past do I start counting from?

File: set346jk98k8j79k89j78jd.png (120KB, 1576x882px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1576x882px

>>8765161
>>because infinite regression would have to have a beginning

>>8765182
I'm not talking about infinity, I'm talking about the natural numbers, or the real number line, which you analogized time to. Hypocrite.

>>8765182
So you think the concept of natural numbers means there is a number infinitely far away from 0? You think infinity is a natural number?

Time to go back to elementary school.

>>8765187
>I'm not talking about infinity
Actually you are. You're defending the idea of an infinite regress of time being something that actually exists. Crazy that you've held onto an indefensible position for this long.

>>8765190
There is no infinity. Doesn't exist. In any form.

>>8765191
So you admit your argument about infinite regression fails?

Because now you're just stating the conclusion without an argument. The universe is infinite, there is infinite matter, and infinite regression, and no magic sky man. You lost.

>>8765194
There probably is infinity, it's the simplest answer. I'm glad you abandoned your faulty argument and are now just falling back to dogmatic idiocy.

>>8765199
You destroyed your own argument and still cling to the idea that time goes back infinitely far into the past? Sad.

>>8765205
How did I destroy my own argument? Go ahead and write out the argument logically, you delusional moron.

>>8765201
I explained it as simply as I could and it still flew over your head. I think it's pointless unless you take some math classes and understand the issue a bit deeper. I can't be your personal tutor, I can guide you to the water but if you refuse to drink because you don't like the answer there isn't much more I can do.

File: haha.jpg (41KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 562x437px

>>8765205
Come on say it!

>DURR an infinite amount of time passed from... HURR

Oh why won't you say it? Because you know it's wrong! And it's making you so mad!

>>8765212
I debunked it at every step. Instead of countering, you reverted to MUH INFINITY CANNOT EXIST BECAUSE I SAY SO

>>8765161
>>8765168
>>8765172
>>8765176
>>8765181
>>8765182

The chain of argument is right there for anyone to see. You lost and you know it.

>>8765207
>How did I destroy my own argument
Think about it. Use your brain. Time flows in one direction. What's the huge error you've made?

>>8765217
There's no logical argument anywhere in your post. Try again.

>>8765220
Ok, I need to hold your hand a bit more. If I had a time machine that could go backwards in time. How far could I go?

>>8765227
Only a finite amount of time. You must travel to a certain point in time. All points in time are a finite amount of time away from each other. Just as all real numbers are only a finite distance from each other. If you think there are real numbers infinitely far away from each other, go back to elementary school. I'm going to bed, I await your apology in the morning.

>>8765249
I accept your surrender. In the end you couldn't logically support your own position.

>>8765251
I didn't surrender moron. The real number line regresses infinitely. It has no beginning and no end. This doesn't mean it contains a point at infinity. You literal moron, learn basic math.

>>8765258
Yeah, yeah "It's turtles all the way down". I get it. Pseudoscience at it's best. Go to bed, maybe you'll think a bit more clearly when you're less upset at getting schooled.

>>8765264
No logical argument in your post. You lose, again! You're so mad right now.

>>8765269
You don't need logic to dismiss an argument that isn't based on logic. Infinite regress is not possible, thems the breaks.