>>17071036
> smugjak.png
Who. Made. God?

>>17071041
a bigger god

File: gay.jpg (58 KB, 976x850)

58 KB JPG

>>17071036
I strapped myself with a suicide vest knowing that the universe did it first.

>>17071036
I still favor tired light

>>17071036
Yeah, but why?

>>17071101
wrong question

>>17071046
>a bigger god
That makes no sense. Maybe the big god is made of lots of smaller gods who are themselves made of smaller gods and so on. So God is emergent. That sounds like a scientific explanation.

>>17071041
god always existed which is even more insane than having the universe start from nothing then slowly growing somehow

>>17071297
>god always existed which is even more insane than having the universe start from nothing
No, that's actually a lot less insane.

>>17071314
t. christ cuck

>>17071341
>t. christ cuck
Uhh... ok. Thanks for identifying?

>>17071073
Reminder that after 100 years of searching there is no scattering process which could explain cosmological redshift.
And time dilation in supernovae and the CMB rule out tired light.

>>17071036
Science:
>Based on our current knowledge, this is what we can conclude, but there are still many details we don't know.
Religion:
>I literally know everything. My imaginary friend did it. If you don't believe me then you are stupid and I should probably kill you.

>>17071376
more like
>Science: Trans women are real women, take the vaccine bigot

>>17071381
Sadly modern scientific institutions have nothing to do with real science.
The entire global covid madness was the opposite of anything scientific. Somehow armies of doctors suddenly didn't understand how vaccines or masks or pcr tests work.

docker compose up -d
It just happened.

>>17071046
roflllllllllllll

>>17071036
it did just happen ok? now stfu you goat fuck

why this kind of thread attract pol idiots?

>>17071474
Could you just go back to plebbit and stop poisoning this site? No one talks like that here.

The reason reality exists is because it's simply impossible for nothing to exist. "Nothing" "existing" would be an oxymoron.

>>17071041
so is god a godlet? mogged by another bigger god? like the manlettism of gods?

>>17071585
>it's simply impossible for nothing to exist. "Nothing" "existing" would be an oxymoron.
Your post is proof that some people are biological LLMs with no true semantics.

>>17071654
Go ahead and explain how you think it's possible for nothing to exist. I'll wait.

>>17071692
"Nothing exists" is a manner of speaking, RetardGPT. It doesn't mean nothing is a thing that exists. It means everything is excluded from existing.

>>17071693
>It means everything is excluded from existing.
Which would mean nothingness would be in a state of existing. Nothingness would become a thing.

>>17071695
>Which would mean nothingness would be in a state of existing
It only means that to a word-"thinking" bot like you, because you can't get a grip on the meaning and have to refer back to the token which is a "thing" in your mind.

>>17071697
>it's not a thing because... it just isn't okay!

>>17071698
What thing are you referring to, mentally ill retard? The thing you're explicitly claiming doesn't exist as a thing? I agree. The contradiction is in your braindamaged thought process. "For every X, X doesn't exist" still holds true if 'nothing' doesn't exist.

>>17071699
It is a thing which is why if it were to exist there wouldn't be no things.

>>17071703
>mentally ill retard just loops its original mistake like a bot
See >>17071654. I was able to predict your entire pattern of behavior from your first post.

>>17071704
You already admitted you think nothing isn't a thing.

File: Screenshot 2026-10-10 at (...).png (352 KB, 560x377)

352 KB PNG

>>17071718

>>17071708
>the bot breaks and starts responding incoherently

File: 1000049597.jpg (89 KB, 750x500)

89 KB JPG

>>17071715 >>17074074

What I hate about American christcucks is their arrogance in ignorance. It's incredibly common.

Meanwhile here in Europe most christians are way more reasonable and go with "evolution is for reals huh? Well I guess that's what god intended".

>>17071714
>Meanwhile here in Europe most christians are way more reasonable and go with "evolution is for reals huh? Well I guess that's what god intended".
Just like they with "we need infinite brownshit immigration to sustain our economy huh? Well I guess that's what god intended."

>>17071713
Oh so it is a thing?

>>17071718
>psychotically ill biobot becomes less and less coherent
Delicious.

>>17071723
Either it's a thing or it's not. Just pick one of these two options.

>>17071725
All my posts correctly point out that nothing is not a thing. Your psychotic illness is causing you to devolve into incoherence.

File: 1765023294922.jpg (92 KB, 754x706)

92 KB JPG

>>17071767 >>17072383 >>17078526

>>17071036
It has happened infinite times and it will happen again infinite times. In fact, it's already happening infinite times as we speak.
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology

>>17071732
If it's not a thing then it cant exist.

>>17071742
>If it's not a thing then it cant exist.
Yes, mentally ill retard. We've already covered this. "Nothing exists" doesn't describe a situation where nothing is a thing that exists.

>>17071756
>the state of nothing existing isn't a thing because... it just isn't okay!

>>17071738
"Always existed" and "infinite past" make no sense. It's completely illogical. There must be a beginning.

>>17071766
>the broken bot is literally looping
The absolute state of this board. Gonna hide this 80 IQ thread now but this mindless automaton will 100% reply again.

>>17071767
>"Always existed" and "infinite past" make no sense.
Why not?

File: gettyimages-940296124-612x612.jpg (31 KB, 612x410)

31 KB JPG

>it's the wrath of the invisible sky man, okay!?

>>17071769
That's not how time works.

>>17071766
>an integer can't exist between 1 and 2 because... it just can't okay!
anon struggling to learn how definitions work.

>>17071715
>Just like they with "we need infinite brownshit immigration to sustain our economy huh? Well I guess that's what god intended."

That's idiots and traitors. And you are right many of them christians, bless their misguided souls I guess. But they weren't the instigators of this at all, it just makes sense they mostly go along with it because of their religious teachings.

>>17071779
Says who?

>>17071768
>but this mindless automaton will 100% reply again.
Translation: "please don't reply again because I can't explain how the state of nothing existing isn't a thing"

>>17071788
And infinite series of events had to happen before this one, so this moment in time would never be reached. In Penrose's CCC, there's a point where time flips or something and you go from "infinite future" to "finite past." Ok, so there's this cycle where you go from big bang to dark, cold, empty universe with no matter, and from that state another big bang happens. Something like that. But the cycle itself end/starts from a state where there is flat space filled with massless particles and quantum fields. Where did that come from in the first place?

>>17071804
>And infinite series of events had to happen before this one
Ok.

>so this moment in time would never be reached
Why not? This doesn't directly follow.

>>17071852
If time is linear, which it needn't be, then picking any arbitrary point on the timeline as the present means there is an impossible amount of time that must pass before reaching the present.

>>17071874
>picking any arbitrary point on the timeline as the present means there is an impossible amount of time that must pass before reaching the present.
This is only a problem if the present causally depends on everything that happened before, which isn't the case if you have these periodic hard resets. A logical timeline that extends infinitely in both directions is perfectly conceivable.

>>17071885
In this scenario time is cyclical. Any point in time would be like a point on a circle. Ok, but where did the circle come from?

>>17071892
>In this scenario time is cyclical.
Doesn't even have to be cyclical proper. If quantum randomness is an actual feature of reality, each iteration can play out differently.

>where did the circle come from?
I don't know. Why does it need to come from anywhere? It's not even clear at this point that "where did X come from" is always a valid question in physics, let alone metaphysics.

>>17071297
The universe always existed.

>>17071895
Is the universe natural? Does the principle of cause and effect apply universally in nature?

>>17071699
>"For every X, X doesn't exist"
That sentence is an X.

>>17071899
Yeah. So?

>>17071894
The "timeless" part of the CCC still has a flat space and quantum fields. Did those "always exist"? Yeah, "time has no meaning" in that state, but you should still be able to say that there was a past that looks like an expanding universe with an arrow of time happened. Otherwise how did that "timeless" state come about? I think these are valid questions.

>>17071913
I'm not arguing in favor of CCC in particular, but you're making assertions like:
>"Always existed" and "infinite past" make no sense.
... which I don't see how you can justify. The basic idea that the universe has always been around makes sense. It's just not particularly convincing.

>>17071913
I think speculating about this stuff is as reasonable as the greek philosophers speculating on the nature of matter, nice thinking exercise but it won't bring as much closer to truth, and if we landed at it by accident, we wouldn't know how to verify it. t=0 should be thought as nothing more than "the point at which and prior to which we have no idea what happened or even if 'prior' or 'happened' has any meaning". That's all there is to it, we have no tools to touch it.

>>17071920
>>17071920
>it won't bring as much closer to truth
How do you know?

>we have no tools to touch it.
Yes, you do. You just use the normal tool of making up an explanation that ties the loose ends elegantly and then exploring its ramifications.

>>17071900
The logic of the sentence is an X.

>>17071927
>The logic of the sentence is an X.
And? Am I speaking that sentence to you from the void? Good job figuring out that if there's nothing, there are no statements. Nothing doesn't model itself logically. Nothing is nothing.

>>17071036
>Science doesn't have the answer therefore [my] religion is correct

>>17071926
>reddit spacing

>>17071917
>The basic idea that the universe has always been around makes sense
if "always" encompasses all time and time started with the big bang then that statement is true.
you cannot really have time without an universe, can you? time is a measure of change. change of...what?

>>17071376
>>17071384
You can continue to live in your mind where these principles are upheld all you want, but that's not what "scientism" has turned into by now in the general population.
This
>I literally know everything. The experts said so. If you don't believe them then you are stupid and I should probably kill you.
is literally how Redditors think like

>I fucking hate science
>what is that, a science board?
:O
infinite catalog spam of this kind of thread btw, thanks janjans

File: file.png (2.39 MB, 1122x1200)

2.39 MB PNG

>it just fucking happened, alright?!

>>17071738
black holes

>>17071952
>psychotically ill retard

>>17071957
>you cannot really have time without an universe, can you?
Who knows? Maybe you can. Maybe time is metaphysical. Regardless, it doesn't challenge what I wrote in any way. Read it again.

>>17072392
you seem confused. there is no "time". we call time the measure of change. you need something for "time". you need something for the measure of change. change of what? if there's nothing? do you understand this?

this whole "who knows, maybe there is" shtick isn't the get out of jail free card you think it is, you can't just say it in any argument and expect it to hold. a lot of times it just doesn't make sense. like now

>>17072517
>there is no "time". we call time the measure of change
>we
Are your imaginary friends in the room with us right now?

>this whole "who knows, maybe there is ... you can't just say it in any argument and expect it to hold.
Sure I can. I don't know if time is metaphysical but you haven't ruled it out. Protip: trying to force a definition based on the consensus of some imaginary horde doesn't change the situation.

>>17072537
>In physics, time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.
If there is no clock to read, there is no time. If there is nothing, there is no time, because there is no change.
You seem seriously confused and magical and mystical thinking about physics.

>>17071036
kek

>>17072546
>In physics, time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.
Yeah? Why don't you show me who defines it that way and in what context?

>>17071341
>calls him a christcuck
>believes in ex nihilo but secularized

>>17072556
>Yeah? Why don't you show me who defines it that way and in what context?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics
>In physics, time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/College_Physics_1e_%28OpenStax%29/02%3A_Kinematics/2.03%3A_Time_Velocity_and_Speed
>As discussed in Physical Quantities and Units, the most fundamental physical quantities are defined by how they are measured. This is the case with time. Every measurement of time involves measuring a change in some physical quantity. It may be a number on a digital clock, a heartbeat, or the position of the Sun in the sky. In physics, the definition of time is simple—time is change, or the interval over which change occurs. It is impossible to know that time has passed unless something changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
>In physics, time is a fundamental concept to define other quantities, such as velocity. To avoid a circular definition,[15] time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads", specifically a count of repeating events such as the SI second.

>>17072556
>>17073528
>It is impossible to know that time has passed unless something changes.

>>17071036
if you have a technology beyond what humans can comprehend, it means you're god.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKdfReE0qds&ra=m

>>17071041
the attribute of matter and energy needing creation doesnt apply to God because God is beyond matter and energy. false equivalence

>>17071376
Reddit: science is always right hehe sorry I am allowed to be a porn addict and skip church
Everyone else: ignores the autist and goes on with their lives

>>17071714
America has a small minority offshoot of southern culture that has biblical literalism. It started sometime in the 1920s. Jews seek them out and plant a microphone in front of them and mock them but it’s all a propaganda effort.

https://youtu.be/XdkyLrDpaUg?si=hv-jy_N02aVCfbo6

Christianity has been supporting a metaphorical and even evolutionary idea since Plato and Augustine.
It’s dishonest straw manning to even go after these 90iq people like it represents everyone. The 90iqs don’t even care about it really they’re just confused by the whole thing.

>>17071046
godzilla

>>17071101
Because nature abhors the lack of a vacuum.

You brainlets are hilarious to me
>SCIENTIFIC DOCTRINE IS BAD
>NO RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE IS BAD
>AHHHH
Yeah, ever consider you're both correct?

>>17073529
Yup.

>>17072517
This is incorrect. you are thinking time is necessary for change as you are thinking about things in terms of our 3 dimensional space and matter and thus to travel from one state to another requires time, but for the fabric of reality perhaps that isn't necessary. Perhaps when you minimize time to 0, quantum (or some lower bound we don't understand) events happen spontaneously instead of over "time". Perhaps in a higher dimension these quantum and field effects simultaneously occur to form a singularity of sorts ejecting and creating matter and energy into our 3 dimensional universe which creates time as a function of it's own fabric along with the universe itself.

>>17071895
God is the universe

>>17071036
>>it just fucking happened, alright?!
I don't see the issue. I like the idea of a universe spontaneously developing out of nothing. Makes me feel at peace. Makes me feel hopeful that eons from now, when matter returns to the oblivion from whence it came, there will again be nothing, and a universe may start anew.


>>17071073
I like the imagery of a light particle, which has been travelling for millions of years, longing to rest. Of course, in his reference frame, it's taken no time at all, but that ruins the fun of imagination, right?

>>17074289
>perhaps
>Perhaps
>Perhaps
and also
>This is incorrect
citation?
>you are thinking time is necessary for change
no, I am saying we call time the measure of change. holy shit what's wrong with you?
>Perhaps when you minimize time to 0, quantum (or some lower bound we don't understand)
this is the most childish possible argument you can use in a debate, it's the most gorilla retarded one.
>woah bro what if all the stupidy I am saying is true? what about that huh? what if it's true
discourse on this board has gone to shit. and it's not about being antagonistic or trolling, that's fine, it's about the fucking quality of the arguments.
all the braindead /x/ schizoid fucks choose the simplest most idiotic way to debate, they go for the "but what if everything we know isn't real and my braindead idiotic idea is true, huh?"
like what the actual fucking fuck. you pieces of shit don't even have the most elementary grasp of physics and reality, you think time is the scifi slop netflix told you about in the fucking movies

>>17073528
>no actual source
>babby's first textbook
>no actual source
>"operationally defined"
Can you fail even harder?

>>17074662
All the time dimension thing is mathematical tomfoolery, there's no proof of such "dimension", we simply call time the measure of change in physics.
Has its own units:
https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/si-units-time

Anything apart from calling time the measure of change is pure speculation. Might as well call it God's gift or whatever, means about as much as anything else, other than it being a measure of change, and we're using it as such.
If you can prove time is "something" else, do show yourr work. Else throw you ideas in the same bin as the other coocoo ones.
At least mathlets have something to show for.

>>17074668
>si-units-time
Why do you keep failing?

>>17074289
>quantum and field effects simultaneously occur
what does cause and effect even matter in simultaneity? and why would you even get anything that is coherent? why only some things happening at once and not all the possible things? just because you can formulate some string of words, doesn't mean they have any actual meaning you know

>>17074669
That' the best we have in physics anon, we call time the measure of change and have a unit for it. That's it. Anything else is pure brainrot. And philosophy (which coincidentally is brainrot most of the times)
Not sure what you are asking for... There is nothing else as far as science is concerned, there's theories about it but no proofs for anything. As it stands...we really do call time the measure of change, and have units for it, and that's about it anon.
But you seem to have plenty of ideas about it, yet you have no work to support them.

>>17074674
Too bad absolute retards like you weren't around in Newton's time to tell him how wrong he was with his brainrot.

Imbecile.

>>17074661
Yes, perhaps is the word, unless you happen to have a definitive answer for us, we are waiting.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of time and reference frames.

>>17074671
Again, maybe that is just in our universe or the dimensions that we are used to and can understand. That doesn't mean that applies to all possible other dimensions.

>>17074818
>perhaps
>maybe
>>>/x/

>>17075000
Bros this guy has the answers to the origin of the universe!
We are all waiting man, can't wait to hear about it, this is exciting.

File: IMG_0761.jpg (480 KB, 1465x1037)

480 KB JPG

>>17077575

>>17071036
Trust us guys where going find that dark matter and dark energy one day to explain our whole theory built on a flawed foundation that gravity is the primary force that shapes the universe.

>>17071585
There must be somthing that perceives reality exists an observer.

>>17075784
>perceives
means interaction. thus any particle can be an "observer", if it interacts.
it's really that simple
I think basedentists have lost their fucking minds, most of them anyway

>>17075798
>basedentists
eat shit jannies

>>17072383
>built4bwc!

>>17074068
Reddit Derangement Syndrome

>>17077134
Christianity Derangement Syndrome

>>17071036
>it HAS to have an emotionally charged reason to make me feel safe

Nuh huh

>>17075780
And where is the alternative theory?

>it happened once and only once
>no it won't happen again, chud
>no you bigot time isn't cyclical, this universe will die a hecking heat death
>where did all that matter at the start of the Big Bang come from? Stop asking questions and get excited for the next (((expert))) factoid you fascist!

>>17071036
Yeah they named this event after the time I fucked your mom.

>>17071041
God made himself. If God is omnipotent, then he must possess this ability. Moreover, omnipotence precludes anything else creating him. Do not think any further, don't read your bible. Shut the fuck up and pay your tithes.

>>17071036
'how does something come out of nothing'

first you have to prove that every single natural phenomenon has had a beginning, which is beyond current scientific capabilities, how does God just appear out of nothing? that is called begging the question. You are asking for an exception to your non natural entity (supernatural entities have never been proven to exist) without even proving God exists.

The idea of a man in the sky or elsewhere designing everything that exists is cartoonish and mythological.

Deism makes a bit more sense, if you add natural selection and evolution instead of creationism though.

Even if God is necessarily real, how do you make the jump from that to ''my religion is true and it is the one true religion and all the other Gods are fake'' you cant.

>>17077840
Several of your objections misunderstand classical theism. The argument isn't that everything must have a cause except God, but that contingent things require an explanation(read more on why the universe is considered contigent), with God proposed as a necessary being that never began to exist. You can challenge whether such a being exists or whether the universe itself could be the ultimate explanation, but asking who created God doesn't address the actual argument. We also routinely infer things we cannot directly observe, and some of our most basic assumptions about consciousness, induction, other minds, and the foundations of reality remain philosophically debated. The fact that God hasn't been scientifically proven doesn't automatically make belief in God irrational; the question is whether there are good reasons to believe and whether those reasons withstand scrutiny. Nor does evolution contradict theism, since many Christians accept evolution while believing God sustains the natural order. Calling God a man in the sky also doesn't engage with classical theism, which doesn't conceive of God as a physical creature somewhere in the universe. You can read Aquinas, Leibniz or Platinga's works for actual proper theistic arguments that are not caricatures.

Pointing out that something isn't conclusively proven isn't the same as demonstrating that it's false. Much of your own worldview would crumble at such a strict philosophical standard.

>>17077668
where did those quotes come from?

>>17074280
Impossible. People who disagree with me a wrong about everything.

>>17071041
God isn't the universe so space-time and causality restrictions that apply to the universe don't apply to God

checkmate

File: 1792423185830.webm (272 KB, 894x500)

272 KB WEBM

>>17071041
creator is not a creature to be created

>>17071585
>it's simply impossible for nothing to exist
the billions of people that existed before us and have died don't exist anymore. their exact arrangement of atoms have all been scattered all across the planet.

>>17078032
>the billions of people that existed before us and have died don't exist anymore.
their atoms disappeared?

>>17078070
>moving the goalposts

>>17071585
>The reason reality exists is because it's simply impossible for nothing to exist. "Nothing" "existing" would be an oxymoron.

But why is absolute nothingness impossible? Saying that “nothing existing” is an oxymoron seems to confuse the absence of anything with nothingness being a thing that exists. You could argue that something must exist necessarily, but that’s a metaphysical claim that needs an argument, not something established by the definition of “nothing.” And even if you establish that something must exist, you still haven’t explained what that something is.

>>17078070
their atoms are irrelevant. nobody care who's atoms are who's. there's a perchances you smelled some molecules that came out of my ass, and incorporated them into your body. you're in small part made from my farts.
the particles themselves are irrelevant, what matters most is their arrangement

File: images.jpg (33 KB, 554x554)

33 KB JPG

>>17078133
>there's a good chance you've handled one of my ass pennies

>>17078100
You can run a definition against existence where reality has such as such necessary property or attribute. For instance, change is a universal condition of the universe. Nothing has no parts and cant change. Ergo its not a member of the universe.
That doesnt eliminate its possibility in some other sense though. Change is also unchanging and not part of the universe in the same sense.

>>17078378
>Anonymous 10/20/26(Tue)20:13:17No.17078
I think I can agree that nothingness wouldn't be part of a universe characterized by change, but that doesn't establish that absolute nothingness is impossible. If nothing means the complete absence of anything, it wouldn't be a member of the universe in the first place. You're showing that nothingness wouldn't have the properties of our universe, not that it couldn't be the case that nothing exists. And saying change is both changing and unchanging seems contradictory unless you're using those terms in different senses...

>>17078474
The universe of change is a different realm from that of unchanging beings. You could raise a contradiction if a universe encompasses particulars, universals, and types. Change is one of the goto specifically because the paradox demands a resolution. A similar instruction is performed with causality and a prime mover.

File: 1695445246113338.png (142 KB, 811x1049)

142 KB PNG

>>17071036
Yes, just like the first life form. Sometimes things just happen, OKAY???

>>17072013
>Yeah but those other experts who hold a different opinion? They should NOT be believed and they should probably lose their licenses and have a brick thrown through their window!

>>17071738
Yeah but... Where'd the first one come from?

>>17078526
We're on the other side of a Blackhole, propagated from another universe, which also appears like cell division. Perhaps we're just the first cell of a god to split off, or perhaps we're just sperm being made in its balls, and we'll be blasted onto Athena's tits soon. If you could do know about it, what would you even do, and why? Who's to say our universe and its iterations aren't just whatever "God" is, but just going through iterative lifecycles? Perhaps we are all just little bits of "God" who is having billions of simultaneous dreams to entertain himself; you might just be trolling yourself on the internet, and our bodies are nothing more than fingerpuppets for a god who doesn't know anyone but themselves?

>>17071297
Scientism doesn't even posit that the universe started from nothing.

>>17071767
Inside a foundationalist interpretation of truth.

>>17071874
Must pass since what? You're trying to measure the distance to a beginning anon said doesn't exist.

File: Jennie.jpg (81 KB, 736x1104)

81 KB JPG

>>17079010

Both the secular and the religious explanations regarding the origin of the universe are retarded.

>>17078991
Difference is that one of them is 100% trust me bro and the other you can actually participate in refining since it's based on precise data.

>>17079010
which precludes the idea that the data and the structure it represents is fallible, and we can't be having that.

>>17079020
it could be fallible but the assumption is that you can show it. If the universe is an illogical mess then it doesn't matter anyway, it is at least an attempt and the best idea we've had so far as you can see from the success of the same method in engineering and other sciences. The proof is in the pudding.

>>17079021
What does your heart tell you, Anon?

>>17079029
That we are in a world we don't understand, playing a game we don't understand for a reason we don't understand. All we can do is attempt to learn enough to make it suck less and keep each other afloat while doing so.
The rules we have learned so far point to a very mechanical and uncaring system with us and the animals inside it.

>>17071041
The only way God could be God is if it existed OUTSIDE of what we know as space and time. Such an existence can not be defined by beginning and end because those concepts are relative to OUR experience.

>>17071381
false

why do religious tards always shit up potentially interesting threads

>>17079080
Same as always, block scientific progress if it goes against their beliefs. Protect their drone army, one of them might get ideas...

>>17079070
Interesting history about God being "outside of space and time."
Before the Copernican revolution Christians thought God was literally in the sky, in the outermost celestial sphere. The birth of modern astronomy destroyed this model with facts and logic.

The theologians, greatly embarrassed, decided to permanently hide their God forever by positing that he is "outside of space and time." When one questions what this means, they mere say "it's incomprehensible to us."

File: mr-creosote.jpg (77 KB, 460x330)

77 KB JPG

>>17078976
Georges Lemaître had the idea that the universe was once one big atom that decayed into smaller atoms, which again decayed, and so on until it reached what we see today. Ok, he was wrong about the gradual decay part, but I don't think he was wrong about the Primeval Atom part.

Let's suppose that the center of a black hole is not occupied by a singularity, but by a large ball of neutronium frozen in time, basically a huge atomic nucleus. What if it gets too big for the black hole to hold it? It ate so much that it ripped open a whole new spacetime. It tunneled into a new universe. It did this through a single point so that it looked like a singularity blowing up. Yeah, it had so much energy and pressure built up that it "decayed" into a brazillian degree plasma instead of two daughter atoms, but the general idea of a "primeval atom" still holds.

So, there once was a black hole that swallowed a universe worth of shit. It collapsed a whole universe into itself to where all space and time ceased to exist for a bit. But it wasn't stable forever and some small part of it tunneled into a second quantum state. This created a little bit of spacetime, which started a chain reaction. BANG

>>17074289
>events happen spontaneously instead of over "time"
This makes no sense. For change to occur, time has to exist. Time is the ability of things to change. No time, no change.
>time is emergent
No, time allows emergence. No time, no emergence, even of time.
>block universe
Time is still the basis for change here.

>>17078976

you can never cross the event horizon of a black hole, because it shrinks under you as you fall towards it, because times goes all crazy.

https://youtu.be/kRIDi-no1BI

I mean from your perspective. which wouldn't last long anyway due to seriously weirdly high levels of radiation, and you'll eventually get ripped to atoms due to tidal forces when the hole is small enough

Atheistkeks defeated and btfo yet again. ChristCHADs, I almost feel bad for them at this point. Should we give them just ONE pity win?

File: 578735967532.gif (1.72 MB, 350x196)

1.72 MB GIF

>>17080329 >>17080813

>>17071036

File: 1614653809.jpg (153 KB, 800x450)

153 KB JPG

>>17080333

>>17080175
>the pain never stops

File: 65894036578934.jpg (50 KB, 640x331)

50 KB JPG

>>17080329

File: FSC.jpg (511 KB, 230x3346)

511 KB JPG

In the beginning the Pi quantity of the point particles, smallest foundational, fundamental Planck bottom layer magnetized +Red+Green+Blue+ / -red-green-blue- sided cubes were all attached together as a single piece, a singularity on an Aether grid track matrix.
Color and magnetism being the two forces that exist.

The Aether square track provides our first and cardinal directions of movement upon the grid of Forward/Backwards, Left/Right, Up/Down.
The Planck bottom layer grid track matrix Aether slop also separates and divides the infinity, provides a foundational layer to build from, maintains precise alignment and gives us a measurement starting of 1 size scale ratio for a cube/all cubes, 1 distance for a cube movement/all cubes movement, as all cubes move 1 Aether grid track distance, 1 movement time, all simultaneously in the universe at the same .....time....errr...Planck track cube appearance moment....giving us the wave function collapse......

Inside of the Fine Structure Constant (coupling constant) you will find the plans for a type of spinning machine I believe.
A singularity separator of some type.
If we look at the pre big bang state of the universe as the cubes connected together as a solid single part, a singularity piece, one giant black hole essentially, we can imagine the big bang event (hyperinflation energy insertion) itself being an impact causing separation, or an explosion from inside causing separation, or a bounce back from a previous state universe collapse causing separation.

But the plans and designs inside of the FSC indicate some type of spinning device.
A stirrer.
Something to blender milkshake the singularity and cause the big bang.
This is why atoms attempt to rotate/orbit, why planets and stars rotate, why galaxies rotate, why the toilet bowl flush has a handedness, and possibly local groups but the size and time scale is hard to look up to and see.
It was either seeded inside, manufactured inside, drilled in and spun

File: rythem.jpg (36 KB, 292x832)

36 KB JPG

https://youtu.be/nDWjWfLU2kQ?si=rmO9-eLOc8tmQ4vx

File: Artifact.jpg (173 KB, 1360x808)

173 KB JPG

https://youtu.be/k802qVfVSH4?si=NvG7SObsd_I7QeFF

>>17071036
you are still taking a leap of faith and presuming that it happened
your perception of reality could be an illusion and everything you perceive could be false

File: ass-to-ass.jpg (16 KB, 908x480)

16 KB JPG

>>17080175
hot

>>17077936
zhang et al

well OP. I can tell you, but you'd have to relearn everything, forget everything you know about anything and restart from first hand observations, yes it's created, we are part creator, and we aren't alone, MERT x.com/mass_energy_r_t

>>17071036
whether the universe was caused (space/time) by an uncaused cause or just always existed in infinite regress, we can infer the origins of reality are supernatural correct? also does time exist if there is no space? could there have been literally "nothing" for an an "undisclosed amount of time" then poof the cosmos begins?

>>17081067
>also does time exist if there is no space?
don't think so. time is the measure of change. with nothing changing there is no time.
without something time is nonsensical concept. valid for you as well. as long as you don't exist time doesn't exist. since there is no measure of change for you.

>>17081069
right then God was "created" as well, just by something not autonomous, hence the very explicit answer, "i am that i am", some kind of instaneously generated creative being that was already fully formed, this is very much likely a simulation, completely inexplicable

File: 18307-gettyimages-1353807(...).jpg (322 KB, 1200x627)

322 KB JPG

>>17081146 >>17081622

>>17079380
God could of existed before the existence of time and space and anything before that, god is concept for the reason of everything and yet we don't know what god's plan or purpose is. We don't know if god is "good" or "evil", we don't know fucking anything and it pisses me off.

>>17081143
>could of
Why do americans do this?

>>17081146
Because it might be true faggot, maybe he existed before existence could even created or conceptualized. God is the first observer and everyone else is a descendant of said observer.

>>17071899
Object vs metalanguage

File: 1791679462785893.jpg (19 KB, 335x450)

19 KB JPG

Nothing ever happened.

>>17081419
he meant that you should have wrote should've

>>17081587
>>17081146
sorry *could've or * could have

>>17071041
Her own God (recursively).

Reality began in a colossal explosion

>>17081143
>could of
that "of" you think you hear is actually 've, from shortened could have -> could've. it's not of, it's 've.

>>17071036
this except literally and unironically... or whatever

I have a bsc in physics and watch sixty symbols, so I know shit you don't

>>17081625
causality literally implies that the universe is impossible and non natural

>>17081634
define universe and natural

we don't know what happened before the big bang, we just know there was rapid expansion

>>17081634
category error

>>17081634
Causality isn't real

intrinsic redshift is true, expansion is false, age of universe is indeterminate

>>17072383
are a tragic intersection between nonsensical theory and misinterpretation of toroidal plasma structures

>>17081647
>define universe and natural
why, the standard definition suffices, causality is the only way we can convey comprehension, any other method is larping, its impossible, its non natural, defies physics, math even, believe or dont, idgaf lol
>>17082632
neither is comprehension

>>17082824
>defies physics
quantum physics?
>math even
stochastic events no math?

People who believe in inflation and the cosmological constant are retarded.
The universe definitionally expands at the speed of light, with its energy density monotonically decreasing such that its gravitational horizon exactly matches the diamatet of a black hole with the mass contained therein.
Rh=ct

>>17071036
>hmmmm it seems like theres too much gravitational effect in these areas, and too little in these other areas
>well our initial idea cant possibly be wrong, we built so much off it already!
One day, they will realize there was not 1 "singularity" or big bang