>it just fucking happened, alright?!
>>17071036> smugjak.pngWho. Made. God?
>>17071041a bigger god
>>17071036I strapped myself with a suicide vest knowing that the universe did it first.
>>17071036I still favor tired light
>>17071036Yeah, but why?
>>17071101wrong question
>>17071046>a bigger godThat 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.
>>17071041god 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 nothingNo, that's actually a lot less insane.
>>17071314t. christ cuck
>>17071341>t. christ cuckUhh... ok. Thanks for identifying?
>>17071073Reminder 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.
>>17071036Science:>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.
>>17071376more like>Science: Trans women are real women, take the vaccine bigot
>>17071381Sadly 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 -dIt just happened.
>>17071046roflllllllllllll
>>17071036it did just happen ok? now stfu you goat fuck
why this kind of thread attract pol idiots?
>>17071474Could 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.
>>17071041so 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.
>>17071654Go 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 existingIt 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!
>>17071698What 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.
>>17071699It 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 botSee >>17071654. I was able to predict your entire pattern of behavior from your first post.
>>17071704You already admitted you think nothing isn't a thing.
>>17071708>the bot breaks and starts responding incoherently
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."
>>17071713Oh so it is a thing?
>>17071718>psychotically ill biobot becomes less and less coherentDelicious.
>>17071723Either it's a thing or it's not. Just pick one of these two options.
>>17071725All my posts correctly point out that nothing is not a thing. Your psychotic illness is causing you to devolve into incoherence.
>>17071036It 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
>>17071732If 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 loopingThe 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?
>it's the wrath of the invisible sky man, okay!?
>>17071769That'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.
>>17071779Says 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"
>>17071788And 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 oneOk.>so this moment in time would never be reachedWhy not? This doesn't directly follow.
>>17071852If 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.
>>17071885In 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.
>>17071297The universe always existed.
>>17071895Is 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.
>>17071899Yeah. So?
>>17071894The "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.
>>17071913I'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.
>>17071913I 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 truthHow 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.
>>17071900The 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 senseif "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>>17071384You 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?:Oinfinite catalog spam of this kind of thread btw, thanks janjans
>>17071738black 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.
>>17072392you 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>weAre 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.
>>17071036kek
>>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.
>>17071036if you have a technology beyond what humans can comprehend, it means you're god.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKdfReE0qds&ra=m
>>17071041the attribute of matter and energy needing creation doesnt apply to God because God is beyond matter and energy. false equivalence
>>17071376Reddit: 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
>>17071714America 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_N02aVCfbo6Christianity 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.
>>17071046godzilla
>>17071101Because nature abhors the lack of a vacuum.
You brainlets are hilarious to me>SCIENTIFIC DOCTRINE IS BAD>NO RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE IS BAD >AHHHHYeah, ever consider you're both correct?
>>17073529Yup.
>>17072517This 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.
>>17071895God 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. >>17071073I 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>Perhapsand also>This is incorrectcitation?>you are thinking time is necessary for changeno, 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 truediscourse 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?
>>17074662All 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-timeAnything 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-timeWhy do you keep failing?
>>17074289>quantum and field effects simultaneously occurwhat 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
>>17074669That' 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.
>>17074674Too bad absolute retards like you weren't around in Newton's time to tell him how wrong he was with his brainrot.Imbecile.
>>17074661Yes, 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.>>17074671Again, 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.
