What are the other contending theories for how the universe began besides big bang and god?
>>16478174That it always existed. The universe has no beginning or end.
>>16478174You're not getting any replies because you're a catposter. This is a canine board
>>16478174
>>16478174Simulation theory
>>16478541In that theory no one should suffer consequences of their actions because muh coding.
>>16478174ouroboros multiverse
>>16478174Zero Ontology. The universe contains zero information, so everything is in a sense nothingness.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJUhttps://qualiacomputing.com/2015/11/18/why-does-anything-exist/
>>16478174Various theories on why reality exists:https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/
>>16478174The big bang is not a theory of how the universe started, but how an existing universe expanded.By the kalam cosmological argument, there must be a creator to our universe. This is outside the realm of science since it's not falsifiable, but it still logically follows from rational reasoning (math is also not scientific but we still think of it as rigorous).
>>16478174>>16480066>Why is there something, rather than nothing?Why should we expect there to be nothing? This question assumes nothing is "default" or "normal" but we have no reason to believe this.
When I think about this it makes me anxious so I'm just not going to think about it.
>>16480136Because all our physics theories imply that something cannot come from nothing (reason 1), and our logical tools tell us that everything we observe is contingent on something else, so we also require an agent that is not contingent on anything else at some point, that is NOT our universe or inside it (reason 2).We have extremely good reasons to believe that there should be nothing instead of something by default, unless...
>>16480277>all our physics theories imply that something cannot come from nothingExcept that we exist, and presumably if nothing were the default state and that were true, we wouldn't, so one of those two things is false.>our logical tools tell us that everything we observe is contingent on something elseExcept some hypothetical miracle basic thing that somehow must exist even though we can't observe or imagine it.I don't see any good reasons here, just extrapolating models well beyond the scope of their intended use or utility.Usually when confronted with an observation that invalidates a model, we would prefer to reject the model or at least acknowledge its limitations. But for some reason when it comes to the most obvious observation possible, nope the universe must be wrong.
it was me
>>16478541Besides god. Retard
>>16478174"Electric/plasma universe theory" doesnt believe in the big bang.It thinks the electromagnetic force accounts for gravity, dark matter, dark energy. And it also thinks (due to axial tilts) earth was once a moon of saturn, and saturn was a brown dwarf captured by the sun.
>>16480306You mean this shit?
>>16480282I don't have to argue with bad faith actors
The great vortex.The idea that it's just a simulation caused by a twirling vortex were trapped in that provides all the necessary source for us to experience a universe.
Last ThursdayismThe entire universe was created last Thursday in its current condition with all our memories etc.That's also why I always wake up with a brutal headache on Fridays, that and the vodka
Barkon, king of sci ismThe theory that this universe revolves around the king of sci and all matter and hope belongs to him. His blood is the reason we can all SEE, and that we should thank him.
>>16478174>begginingAnd thet's where you are wrong kiddo!It was always there.
>>16480136>This question assumes nothing is "default" or "normal" but we have no reason to believe this.I believe it because when I put everything down, I am holding nothing which is the default since my hands aren't grasping anything by default, I have to put effort into holding something else. inb4: but u hold da airNo, the air holds me.
>>16480277>Because all our physics theories imply that something cannot come from nothingNo, they don't, physics says forces can come from nothing via vacuum fluctuation and casimir effects.
Every theory on how universe "began" is incredibly low IQ religious cope.
>>16486085Retard nothing ain't a thing, it's no thing. You can't hold it.
>>16486087And this physics is false. So what?
>>16486088Intelligence quotes are for the weak minded.
>>16486089Yea and atom literally means the smallest you can divide matter, but that turned out not to be true too.Nothing means the additive element which is something that is necessary for anything else to have a stable existence.Both my hands are unclenched, I can't possibly be holding anything else other than nothing, you being entirely dishonest since you know for a fact that you see nothing with your own two ears.
>>16486094-clenches ass cheeks and poops on you-Retard.
>>16486091So the thing you say it implies isn't true and all you can really do is conceded and say you don't like physics now.
>>16486092nice deflection, low IQ concession accepted
>>16486095Yes and you can only poop until nothing comes out, the only way you can know you are officially done pooping is when nothing starts coming out of your gaping butthole.
>>16486098>likeBut nothing doesn't ever come out
>>16486096Your post make no sense.>>16486097Didn't read.
>>16486102Nothing is anti to something, it's supposed to be used in reduction and assimilation
>>16486104'There's nothing there' is acceptable if one knows nothing is not actually there
>>16486104>reductionIf something can reduce to nothing, that doesn't make nothingness the antithesis of somethingness, it makes it the smallest possible amount of somethingness.
>>16486100Yea it tracks that you are completely full of shit and shit never stops leaking from your holes.What is your diaper budget do you know diaperfu?
>>16486108Nothing is not actually there retard, it's no thing. It doesn't have thingness to refer to or represent anything. AnY """tHiNg"""
>>16486112>Nothing is not actually thereYes it is, there is literally nothing in my unclenched hand, you can see literally nothing with your own two ears.
>>16486114
>>16486102Your brain has no capability for contextualization.You can't coherently say physics is false while still depending on all our physics theories for your own argument.
>>16486117I literally just attached nothing to this post because I don't need to substitute logic with silly pictures.
>>16486118I depend on nothing. I stated my theory that the universe began due to a great vortex swirled into existence by another civilization.
>>16486119-farts in your mouf-
>>16486122That doesn't make sense outside of just some retard who doesn't understand what began means trying to kick the can.
>>16486124-accepts your concession-
>>16486127-farts in your mouf-
>>16486126Things don't just begin without causes.
>>16486129Except of course advanced civilizations.
>>16486129(Watch how retarded the reply to this will be)
>>16486130Hauh? What?
>>16486129Where is the beginning of a circle and what causes that spot to be the beginning rather than any other spot on the circle?
>>16486135You drawing it/mapping it outYou're a nincumpoop
>>16486133>>16486122
>>16486135You and I are not the same breed of human, you are an NPC retard actor and I am a living intelligent being. Who's right?
>>16486137A circle can easily be stamped in whole, try again.
>>16486142>durr me da real human cuz me cant think beyond simple namecall
>>16486144Then it depends on your reference frame
>>16486151Then beginnings are only local relative illusions, they aren't actual universal truths and don't need cause.
>>16486157There are ways things can happen without cause. But the universe was definitely CA-USED.
>>16478414>there are "scientists" that genuinely believe matter is just created out of thin air
>>16486167>>16486167Such as it rests under a case that will determine it's existence.
>>16486172>There are scientistsFalse. There are no scientists on this planet. Only a few renegade great thinkers and Barkon the greatest thinker in existence.
>>16486176The toy is either knitted together from scratch or it comes as itself as a calling to some paradox.
What's the matter? Why did the replies slow? Did I scare you off? I suppose high intelligence is intimidating to your egos
>>16486176"scientists"
>>16486186
>>16486172Yea, matter isn't conserved, so most scientists understand the concept of pair-particle creation.
>>16486167>But the universe was definitely CA-USED.But your only evidence was that things need to be caused, since you abandoned that rationale, why only the universe needs to be caused?
>>16478174The universe wasn't created. It doesn't exist.
ITT: fags addressing the points of other fag in congestinal poop
>>16486228AKA illusive poop
>>16480277>Because all our physics theories imply that something cannot come from nothingNo they don't say anything about that, we just haven't observed it>our logical tools tell us that everything we observe is contingent on something elseThe world doesn't bend to our logic, its the opposite
