The death of the universe

>Galactic empire

VENERATE THE IMMORTAL EMPEROR

Bro listen, bro like listen bro, God was like "wew senpai, I got everything" done, like bro don't you get it?

>God will fix it

>God
>fixing

God had to use Jesus to fix the fuck up of adam and eve.

says the christian lore

daily reminder that human sciences dont take entropy into account

What do you mean?
Physics and chemistry do all the time.
It's why we know the universe will slowly die.

No, the only thing Jesus fixed was getting everyone outta Limbo into Heaven.

lel

>What do you mean?
i think he meant humanities
plus entropy is only important in thermodynamic models and the larger scale of things. you don't need entropy model to hammer a nail into a wooden plank or send a rocket into space

heh

mild kek

>>This is what all of history leads up to

Read The Last Question by Asimov

It is not an exact blueprint of what I think will happen, but it presents the notion that technology is the process by which nature continually has prevented its own decay.

Sentient species among the stars with technology beyond our current comprehension may be able to mitigate, postpone, prevent or renew the larger Natural Disaster that is the Universe.

it's a short story by the way. guys

multivax.com/last_question.html

Great OP, shame the rest of the thread was so cancerous.

>said the cancerous lout

The two replies above you contribute directly to the thread whereas your post complaining about the thread does not.

No need to defend yourself. I know. I'm a faggot.

I don't find it to be.

Yes. It was depressing for a moment. Everything goes down the drain but that's long after you or your kids die.

>implying at the end of the universe there won't be a singular giant super-massive blackhole
>implying eventually everything will be sucked back into the black hole and eventually expelled creating another big bang
>implying this hasn't happened endlessly since forever
>implying this hasn't allowed for an infinite amount of universes to exists where a finite amount of possibilities are possible
>implying we haven't had this conversation before
>implying this isn't the most accurate representation of hell available

We never had this conversation.

So nothing exists forever, eh?

Shouldn't we be happy anything ever existed in the first place? And that we were lucky enough to be some of those things?

...

Shut up faggot, you don't know what you're dealing with.

he didn't literally rest. That is an expression to basically say that God was satisfied with his work and therefore pat himself on the shoulders

It amuses me that the Great Pyramid may still survive, as some bump in the sand long after mankind ends.

What difference does it make whether the Sun is going to boil the planet in a billion, a million, or even a thousand years?

We'll all be long gone, even if there is not a nuclear conflagration or environmental collapse...

>extreme global warming

Might as well have some fun till then, and postpone it as long as possible.

...

We're all pawns in the Demiurge's twisted game.

This is so cringe worthy

>50,000,000 years from now - Australia and Indonesia merge
OHOHOH
Over my dead body. Asutralia will never EVER share a land border with those curry gook boat cunts.

Knowing this means nothing.

Apart from the fact you and i and all the anons in this thread will be dead before even the first footnote listed will take place, humanity will probably be gone then too. Ergo all that will be left of us is our arcitecture and fucked up enviroment.

But you know what it really says? we spat in the face of the cold, harsh...BORING universe. Humanity is infinatly more intresting than a million years of say our solar system history.

We are a blight sure. You know what though? I wouldnt have it any other way.

We can become the galactic civilization, you just need to believe hard enough.

>OP will always be a faggot, even after multicellular life is impossible, the Milky Way has merged with a few other galaxies, and possibly all distances becoming infinite
A kek was had.

A God without limitations is a shitty mythology. They need term limits and laws they must obey.

>They need term limits and laws they must obey.
But then he wouldn't be God.

>They need term limits and laws they must obey
Then that defeats the purpose of the gods. I mean, if you have a pantheon those gods will usually still have the same effect as a single omnipotent one. The idea of god/s is all power. The idea of god, though, is continually shifting as our technology advances.

To me now a god is something who can create space, not life. (we will be creating life soon enough but the creation of physical space is simply something else).

(Read backwards) This was a really interesting exchange. It was like Theology on fast forward.

Good job anons.

To this I'd add that I do not claim to know what God is, but I've noticed that the concept of God seems abstract and superfluous, in that it is more of an ideological jar of infinite justification into which people can poor their own values.

In programming we call these arrays, or vectors, or Container objects.

God is humanity's first abstract Container object, and it proved to be the ultimate ideological tool.

Read "Satan" by Khalil Gibran for a good short story on the matter.

user no, God is what God is. And if God promises an infinity (yes, and infinity) of being comfy in Heaven, where entropy doesn't matter, why should it be contained.

>God is what God is.

This is the ideology you are pouring into the empty jar.

What empty jar? All that matters is that God in Heaven will make sure we'll be protected, that our spirits will never rot. That those in Hell (and of other faith) shall exist for until infinity.

The empty jar is God.

Everyone claims to know what it (God) is
what it (God) says
what it (God) wants

It starts off as a statement of self-evidence, sort of a Ciceroan "Nature has imprinted upon all minds the idea of God" sort of argument, but gradually has ideological tidbits tacked onto it for convenience.

One, culture, set of documents will say one thing about God or Gods, and another culture, set of documents, etc. will say another thing about God or Gods, and both will compel me to believe them with the utmost sincerity in a plain-as-day ideological gambit, so that my nebulous intangible afterlife consciousness, or whatever the bait is, (it has to be something infalsifiable, and made of neither matter nor energy, just like the God, you see, is the key) can be capital-S Saved, for eternity.

Both will compel me.
Both will insist that to choose the other means damnation.
It is a gambit, plain as day. It is meant to rally followers hear & now in the material world and ultimately has little to do with the next one.

That is not to dismiss that there are good values or stories to be had, or that some people need it, or that it's psychologically healthy or whatever, I don't claim to know that anymore than I claim to know what God is or isn't.

My sentiments sway between agnosticism, pantheism, and Atheism, admittedly totally based on my mood. I can barely trust myself, let alone others I see taking the gambit.

idk seems off. Especial the estimated time for the big rip. The calculation was hypothetical and gave 22 billion which is where 20 billion comes from, the real amount will either be significantly larger or non-existence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

All I see is some bullshit user. Tell me where the dead go, don't be like Constantine and her "Oh I don't know lel, you need to go out more, you need a girlfriend user teehee"

Shut up, edgelord

Excellent post.

>Tell me where the dead go
imagine you build a lego house out of many pieces.
after playing with it for a while, you take it apart again.
the pieces go back into the box.
where did the house go?
You then

*then asked the same question basically.

But I didn't. I'm asking where the soul is, and all I hear is nothin.

why must there be some magical part?
creatures are extremely interesting as is.

>nobody is confirming my bias therefore I am right
This better be bait.

>why must there be some magical part?
Why must there be nothingness in your heart?

I don't claim to know what happens to the soul, if there is one. Some claim it is like a record on file in that it can be saved. I don't know what this means precisely. I would hope it means I get to keep my personality, but this is at odds with various philosophical questions about the nature of personality, as well as the dogma of various faiths.

There is a self-aware computational feedback loop generated by my biology, is all I know for sure, and that the capacity of that feedback loop to generate thoughts and feelings can become at any moment hindered, damaged, or destroyed by the chemistry of the outside world.

My physical constituents, the lego bricks, as the other user said, get scattered, and may even be used to build a new "house" (i.e. consciousness) one day, but that consciousness will likely not remember me unless he is both sentient and technology has progressed to the point where it can enable him/her to remember me.

Still, I doubt. I don't claim to know what happens to the immaterial soul, because I don't know whether things can even "happen" to what is fundamentally defined as being outside the realm of things happening.

All we are is dust in the wind, as Kansas says.

why do you assume that?
I am capable of love and sadness without the need to root it in magic.

This will be the ultimate technological frontier. Defeating entropy. Is it possible? Engineering the very fabric of reality itself? Or will we have to move to another dimension?

Our understanding of physics is still likely quite rudimentary and we don't even know the bigger picture for sure yet. We have at best estimates made from a war-torn speck of dust in a sunbeam, the potential of other civilizations in the stars is our best ally, but we will likely fuck that up on a political level if we don't learn from our experiences here on Earth.

Most normies on earth don't even yet understand this is the real battle, so we have a ways to go.

user kiss me.
No homo.

If the universe literally came from """nothing""" and is receding back into """nothing"""

then why wouldn't it be birthed again?

Wrong.
We simply do not know YET where it came from.
Heat death means nothing but radiation, time and space, so not nothing.

What user is saying is that god is whatever you want him to be. He reflects your own beliefs and life.

>Where do the dead go
They die. They don't go anywhere.

>instead of talking about the interesting or depressing shit of the end of the universe idiots want to argue about religion

a scary thought is that the universe is cyclical, resetting itself at a certain point and there has never been a lifeform in an infinitely long time able to escape it or stop it

Every retard can talk about who his imaginary friend is.
Talking heat death takes atleast a minute of reading.
Guess what comes out top.
Welcome to planet Earth, enjoy your stay.

>infinitely long time able to escape it or stop it
This is the reason why life exists. A way to stop the cycle nature has been stuck in for an infinite amount of time.

Our only goal as humans beings could be considered the destruction of the universe. There is a quote by some scientists which said we are made of the universe and when we think of the stars we are essentially the universe thinking of itself to expand onto that the thing we do best is destroy - to an extent, so we could be the universes way out. An end of the cycle.

seconded,
although I personally equate Atheism with Nihilism so I cannot relate on that specific point. But good on you for being so candid and on point.

>equate Atheism with Nihilism
You have never listened to either of those then.

how so? I believe that existence is divine and therefore all of existence is God. To be an atheist would be to be a nihilist. What could you tell me about both that would change my mind?

So are you a pantheist?

>One of the strongest and most commonly raised objections to pantheism is that it is simply inappropriate to call the universe ‘God’. Thus Schopenhauer complains that “Pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism,” for “to call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world” (Schopenhauer 1851, I:114, II:99). It has been described as nothing more than ‘materialism grown sentimental,’ (Illingworth 1898, 69) while more recently Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion complains that “Pantheism is sexed-up Atheism” (Dawkins 2007, 40).

You honestly do not realize how wrong and condescending that is?
You are calling
>there is no God but life and the universe are awesome
the same as
>there is no point to anything so better to just kill ourselves

I actually like that everything would end like that. What not to love? Any echo of pain, any trace of evil, any bit of madness would gone. There is no heaven or hell, there is no great future. I like how everyone who tries to exploit people with all their believe in speculations would ultimately wrong at their believes, hopes and dreams. I like how real conclusion for everything is a neutral one and we live in the world where anyone and everything got the same kind of a challenging existential ending instead of whatever wishful thinking human being like to subscribe. It feels pretty optimistic to me.

I have described myself as a pantheist before, yes. But maybe I should have said that God is not just the material world. God is also the culmination of all intangible things such as consciousness. Furthermore God is a reference to this consciousness in a timeless way; the Alpha and Omega. So I think that Schopy isn't addressing my exact thinking on the matter, though he gets close. Dawkins is the most religious atheist around and is purposefully obtuse.

Im not trying to be condescending, just explain my thinking on the matter. Also
>there is no god...
Atheism,
> but life and the universe are awesome
subjective observation by you making your atheistic beliefs obvious.
AND
>there is no point to anything
Nihilism
>so better to just kill ourselves
also subjective though I too believe it is the logical outcome of Nihilism.

We would agree that life and the universe are awesome. I believe that God is truly Awe-inspiring and by being boundless simply could not be separate from anything. So I believe that the point to existence is God, and if you don't acknowledge that, the logical outcome is the same as Nihilism.

If you don't think that way, that's fine. But I do.

> To be an atheist would be to be a nihilist
It's other way around. God can literally erase all of what you done from existence at any second, just by the whim. You can say there is no accounts of him doing that, but you wouldn't know and he can, being all-powerful and unpredictable force. What is even a point of doing anything? God could change all your decisions or do all your accomplishments better than you. God can deny any fact and all of the laws by some bullshit miracle so our world is meaningless compared to him and God have not any reason to exist to he is meaningless just by definitions. Only nihilist could ever believe in God.

You are misusing both words to describe your personal feelings.
You try hard to come off tolerant but in reality you are showing immense ignorance to other people.
Try to listen without immediatly judging and preparing counterarguments that will only make sense to you.

if youre going to b8, you should at least be logically coherent.

impressive, never thought of it that way.

> I believe that the point to existence is God
This is trivial. What you basically say is that God is an existence, as you couldn't really separate it from anything. By saying that God is the point of existence, you just state that an existence is the point of an existence. From formal point of view it isn't nihilism, but what does this change? To say that life is meaning of life is really different from a statement that life has no meaning whatsoever?

which words, Nihilist and Atheist?
tell me how

I guess I would clarify by saying that experiencing God is the point of existence. Its the same kind of thing that Christians say about heaven being a place full of worshiping God.

>but life and the universe are awesome
>subjective observation by you making your atheistic beliefs obvious
and? why does it matter that that is a subjective observation? does that mean it has any less intrinsic value to that person?

Nothing about this is impressive

>experiencing God is the point of existence
how do you know this is the purpose of existence? besides that it seems quite circular. if God is the universe or all consciousness than you "experience" God just by existing, so existing itself is to experience God. this is basically saying that point of existing is to exist

No, but it doesn't necessarily describe Atheism. user is essentially saying "I'm an Atheist and I'm Happy," to which I'm saying "If I was an Atheist I wouldn't be"

>my subjective opinion is objective fact
>think what I want you to think
kek

>but it doesn't necessarily describe Atheism
but it describes what atheism is for most atheists. unless you have a chemical imbalance causing depression or an extraordinarily terrible life it's hard to be miserable just because you don't think a higher purpose or meaning exists

Dude....
If you were an Atheist the thing you claim to make you unhappy would not even bother you in the first place.
What kind of mental gymnastics are you pulling here?

It is, but to further clarify, it is the Awe-struck epiphany that is the pinnacle of existing. To say it outside of a moment of clarity seems truly mandane. It is circular, like the expansion and (possible?) contraction of the Universe. existing in a monotonous mundane life is experiencing existence, sure, and also necessary to provide the context in which enlightenment is possible. It is that awe-inspiring realization of being connected to the world around you (and of course God) that matters.