Question to atheists

Try harder desu

>science is an "authority"
>laws of physics apply before the big bang

&humanitiesposting

Are you Catholic?
Not only is Big Bang a bad theory but probably stolen from heretics during the dark ages only to be hauled out by Jesuits recently and peddled with the massive Vatican propaganda apparatus.

As an atheist I believe the universe is probably beyond our comprehension at this point and maybe forever, it's fun to theorize so long as those theories are not tainted by religious back doors like Big Bang. If I had to guess, universe is and always has been, maybe breathes- expands and contracts!?

Remember, the Reformation and Renaissance happened because Black Death wiped out a lot of people, upended society and forced people to think for themselves again. With that came great pain but also great discoveries. As we slip back into another dark age, as the Vatican and Jesuits gain more control we can only hope for another plague to cleanse the earth and purge that repulsive abomination of control freaks, sodomites and psychopaths.

there was no before, the concept of time came with the universe

You're right that there aren't very strong theories to what happened before the Big Bang. Maybe it's a eternal cycle, maybe nothing at all. Honestly, the belief it has a sentient creator is probably just as arguable. But things start to fall apart when you give a creator other attributes like performing prayers, throwing lightning bolts, etc.

The absence of knowledge of a state before creation does not confirm a creator. I'd argue they're one and the same, everything else is a human construct.

>and science is the only absolute authority in the universe
Science is not a "authority" in the universe. Science is about determining the laws of nature, who are the 'actual' authorities in the universe. Its not writing the rules, its about finding out what the rules are.

>what came before the big bang? By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing.
Sceintific laws are theories devised by observation and experimentation, and since our tools for both are flawed, our theories are, naturally, flawed too and always applicable with the caveat of "Until we find something that contradicts it", if we had absolute knowledge about how everything works, we wouldn't need scientific methods, afterall.
So to answer your question, while there are a lot of theories about what might have been before the universe, by its very nature its difficult to the point of impossibiloity at this point to gather any actual information on what the universe was like in the inception of its current form, let alone what was before then. We don't know, we likely won't know for a long time and possibly will never know. Maybe Ex Nihilo creation is somehow possible, maybe the universe has never "started" and its infinitely cyclical and has always been there. If we could solve it, it wouldn't be a paradox.

You have nonidea what science is. Science claims no absolute authority on the premise that the absolute truth can't be answered. Science doesn't ask 'why' per se, but how? It asks questions and find answers in books, other people thoughts, nature, tests, and based on thefindings it forumulates new answers which, in turn, results in new questions. Never are they set in stone, they always can be questioned. The longer they endure questioning the more 'true' they become, but it is a practical truth. So we can fucking get on with our day without beeing stopped by people asking, but why huh, but whyyyyyy?

Religion is based on the premise of not asking questions per se, but giving answers to questions of which no one really has the answer to. People tell themselves that they can define god. But the moment you talk about god, he becomes undefinable. It is personal and diffrwnt for everyone. The christian definition of god has more and more been internalized. Spirituality or other beliefsystems have been introduced. (Influence of the way science asks questions?) Now, Islam is different. It is unpredicatable (as everything is), but still dominant in some regions of te world.

Either way, religion gives answers based on a single view, book, almost never changing (please hear my nuance: the fact that there is no ONE religion (in present oe in time), but multiple (that can 'die' or transform), contributes to the fact that religion is man made, it does not give an answer of origin, no one can answer those questions but yourself only for yourself). It claims it does, but its based on one maybe a couple books.

Scienc never stops reading, nor writing about what is reads, nor reading etc etc

Pick up a book (other than the bible), knowledge is cumulative.

Something must've been created from nothing, or something must've always existed, since things exist. You have to accept this whether you're religious or not.
I don't see any more reason to assume it was a deity rather than anything else.

>logic is right because i sed so
Stop tipping your fedora so hard, knowledge doesn't exist and science does not even flirt.
>presupposing all this nonsense
>It claims it does, but its based on one maybe a couple books.
False

>science is the only absolute authority in the universe,

You do realize that science is a methodology, not an authority, right?

>what came before the big bang?

In all likelihood, that will be forever impossible to determine, as whatever evidence and information pre-existed it was destroyed in cosmic expansion.

>By the very laws of science,

That phrase means nothing.

>something can't be created from nothing.

That is also apparently untrue, as bizarre as it may seem. Consider Hawking's work on black hole "evaporation".

>You do realize that science is a methodology, not an authority, right?
You must not know what Scientism is. It's basically science turned into a religion. It's similar to philosophical materialism in many aspects.

>By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing. How do you rectify this paradox?
But you believe your God didn't have a creator
Why is it so hard for you to believe the universe didn't have one?

Evidence doesn't exist.
>Consider Hawking's work on black hole "evaporation".
this fedora said so, so is true
>your god
*tips*

>But you believe your God didn't have a creator

Why would an eternal spirit being require a creator?

Because it violates all known scientific laws. Not theories, laws.

>science
>laws
jej

>before the big bang?
>implying traditional ideas of cause and effect apply

>"Scientism" is bad because it's a religion
I suppose that something being a "religion" is automatically a bad thing?

If knowledge doesn't exist everything you say is pointless. I don't belief this to be true.

And indeed, religion isn't based on 'maybe a couple of books'. Thats false. It is feeling, it is urge to know. But it cannot be known, knowledge does exist but, for now or forever, it is limited.

The worst of your comment is maybe that you think I wear fedora's. Now that slaps me in the face like a biatch.

Humanities was a mistake

Cause and effect don't happen.
Wrong. Knowledge doesn't exist.

>Knowledge doesn't exist.
How do you know?
What facts and evidence did you use to reason out and come to this conclusion?

I didn't, I chose it.

Evidence, facts, and reason do not exist.

Jesus said unbelievers were better than hypocrites. I don't claim to follow the doctrine, therefore am not bound by it.

However, there was something prior to the Big Bang, according to the theory, a singularity, try harder next time

Fair enough, arbitrarily choosing between options of statements is a valid form of self-expression.

Do these arbitrary statements form a system of ideas that others can evaluate and apply to their own lives?

>presupposing pragmatism
>'its a valid form of...'
Please stop posting.

Only opinions exists

>something can't be created from nothing
Who created God then?

Scientism is bad because it's lousy. not because it's a religion. I was just pointing out that it's hypocritical to act as though science is just a methodology when people don't treat it as such.

Ok then, lets' back up, I assume you object to my question

Is expressing an opinion not a valid form of self-expression?

>something can't be created from nothing
Think about the consequences of what this means.
Hint: The answer is not "God dunnit."

God is the Alpha and Omega. He's infinity.

The universe is the alpha and omega. It's infinity.

>If there is no god in any way shape or form and science is the only absolute authority in the universe
back2school (non-Muslim/American preferably)

>what came before the big bang?
Super-big bang. Memes aside: How the fuck am I supposed to know that?

>How do you rectify this paradox?
What paradox?

Oh yeah well! Super God comes before Alpha and goes past Omega, he's super Duper infinity +1 and he's my dad and I'm God too!

Atheists should be laughed out of every discussion, there is a reason why the rich and powerful do strange rituals at secluded places like Bohemian Grove.

Bohemian Groves are full of atheists though.

Now that is a good strawman.

God is infinity/pure actually.

So you're a pantheist?

Just like your waifu, right?

We don't know what happened yet.

In the same way people didn't understand where disease came from and thought it was a punishment from God.

There's always going to be new frontiers for science to try and figure out. It never makes the juvenile conclusion "God did it" correct.

An insult is not a fallacy.

>You must not know what Scientism is.

But nobody has mentioned scientism in the OP, nor did I in my post.

Beg pardon? Just because there is no evidence for something doesn't mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED PERIOD! We have no evidence concerning the real cause of the collapse of the Hittite Empire, and we likely never will. Saying that the Hittite Empire never collapsed, or that it never existed is nonetheless an absurd statement.

Yes, that is true, you retarded cunt.

He's baiting you just stop

Alex Jones?

The expansion of space itself is an example of something coming from nothing.

>peddled with the massive Vatican propaganda apparatus.
Actually, what's really ironic about the Big Bang is that the first great popularizer of it was an avowed atheist, Fred Hoyle, who went on a speaking tour attacking it for being "stealth creationism" until the theory got so much exposure that people began taking it seriously, and when observational evidence began compiling proving the theory, they kept the name as a giant "fuck you" to the guy who devoted his career to ridiculing the notion.

>religious back doors like Big Bang.
What is General Relativity?
What is Red-shift?
What is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and where does it come from?
What is Inflation theory?
How come we can measure more stellar activity in the past than in the present?
How come the further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us?
How come older stars have more light elements while younger stars have more heavy elements?
astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

It's not without its problems but 99.9% of scientists in a field relevant to astronomy accept the Lambda CDM model

>t I believe the universe is probably beyond our comprehension at this point and maybe forever, it's fun to theorize so long as those theories are not tainted by religious back doors like Big Bang.
Nonsense. The universe reveals itself to our senses. It behaves in ways that are predictable and testable. Whatever limitations we have on our ability to perceive the universe are related to scale.

>If I had to guess, universe is and always has been, maybe breathes- expands and contracts!?
but until we have evidence for such things they are base speculation and the only real answer is "we don't know"

>As we slip back into another dark age,
Fed largely by a rising tide of nationalism, anti-intellectualism, and militarism, not by competing beliefs in the physical sciences.

wait, are you OP? I can't tell.

Not OP, just somebody who has respect for the physical sciences, regardless of which religion (or lack there-of) they belong too

>regardless of which religion (or lack there-of) they* belong too
Their originator*

Prove it.

Space and time are interlinked, so "before the big bang" is like "south of the south pole."

The universe is matter and usable energy headed towards heat death.

There are no rational scientists or cosmologists who believe the universe is eternal.

Saying so don't make it so.

God revealed it already. Try to catch up.

Not an argument.

The truth does not argue with idiots. It just remains the truth, despite their foolish protestations.

Robert Caldwell would like to have a word with you.

>logic is right because i sed so

You came out swinging by saying someone else used a fallacy. Does logic only apply when it substantiates your spook?

zero content proddyposting all day long

Heat death doesn't mean the universe stops existing, it just means there is a net enthalpy balance and entropy becomes impossible due to a universal system reaching equilibrium.

>what came before the big bang?
We don't know.
>By the very laws of science, something can't be created from nothing.
We don't know if there was ever "nothing," and my guess is there probably wasn't.

Should also mention that it's thought that time started with the big bang, so we don't even know if it's correct to ask about a "before" the big pbang.

Fools tire me. Fools with idols who are also fools bore me.

Which has not happened, ergo the universe is not eternal.

Do try to keep up.

Quick read, saw nothing about an eternal universe, and a lot of babbling about "dark energy" and "dark matter".

>Make claim
>Get claim rebutted
>Try to ass your way out of it.

You don't even know who Caldwell is, do you?

In very, very simple terms

>The universe tends to expand
>The rate of expansion, as far as we can tell, is increasing, not decreasing.
>Therefore, we are unlikely to have either a big crunch, or a heat death.
>We don't know why this constant acceleration seems to be happening (and this is where the dark matter and energy comes in), but it does seem to be happening.

Big Rip is fundamentally inconsistent with Heat Death as final state models, and it would be eternal, just you'd have matter extremely (infinitely) far separated from other bits of matter.

The claim was that no rational scientist believes the universe is eternal.

Because they, unlike you, understand the folly of infinite regression.

You naming a fool who believes in dark energy and dark matter was irrelevant to that point.

I read your "quick terms" before I posted. The man's got nothing going on. He speculates that dark energy and dark matter exert pressure on the universe.

In other words, he's insane. His "Big Rip" has nothing to do with how old the universe is. And of course it's just a hypothesis, isn't it.

>>The universe tends to expand

Hey, try to catch up to 700 BC, would ya?

Isaiah 40:22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Space doesn't expand like a stretching curtain.

>The claim was that no rational scientist believes the universe is eternal.

Except I provided an example of a rational scientist who believes the universe is eternal. Your disagreement (sans understanding) of his theories does not make him a fool.

>His "Big Rip" has nothing to do with how old the universe is

Which in turn has nothing to do with, and I'm quoting your idiotic post a belief that the universe is eternal. Can't you fucking READ? Do you not know what these words mean? Because NEWSFLASH, eternal means something that will last forever. And guess what, if the Big Rip hypothesis is right, it will indeed last forever.

Please take a nap on some train tracks.

>what came before the big bang
A very dense point.
The big bang describes the expansion of the universe, not its origin.

>well where did that come from
How the hell should I know? The fact that I don't know doesn't mean a wizard did it.

...

It absolutely does. Read some Moshe Carmelli and try to follow his equations.

You know, so you don't sound so dumb next time.

I saw nothing in his works that said he believed the universe is eternal.

He is not a rational person, using "dark energy" and "dark matter" as though they were real.

Your 1 example failed.

You failed.

No, dipshit, eternal means it HAS always lasted forever, and WILL always last forever.

holy crap you didn't even know the meaning of the word "eternal" and you jumped on it like a dog on his own vomit.

No it doesn't. It purports to.

That fact that you think the head of a pin that necessarily contained all of the matter and energy of the universe just "popped" into existence from nothing disqualifies you to discuss anything more serious than the weather.

It absolutely doesn't.

>I saw nothing in his works that said he believed the universe is eternal.

Yes, we've already established you have trouble reading things and understanding them.

>He is not a rational person, using "dark energy" and "dark matter" as though they were real.

Once again, establishing illiteracy. Why don't you actually look up terms like "Baryonic" and get back to us in the 21st century?

>No, dipshit, eternal means it HAS always lasted forever, and WILL always last forever.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eternity
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eternal

I guess you know better than the guys at the OED, huh? Notice the "or"s in there.

>I disagree so your opinion doesn't count
Alrighty then. Enjoy your echo chamber.

>valid
Validity does not exist.
Knowledge doesn't exist.
Science is juvenile, you child.
Evidence doesn't exist. I mean, evidence of anything or for anything, in any possible form.
I never said that, you filthy dualist.

kek

Why don't you realize that everything is fields, and fields are not particles?

Again, try to catch up to, what, 500 BC with your Atomism nonsense?

And ffs read your own cites.

Used to refer to an everlasting or universal spirit, as represented by God.

Fuck off.

It's filled with angels singing.

lol why the fuck do you people even post here
is this a form of therapy for you
This is such a dumpsterfire of a board

why do people post things i dislike?

>Which has not happened, ergo the universe is not eternal.

Assume what has not happened cannot happen

Everything must be done a first time in order to happen

At one point everything had not happened

Therefore nothing can happen

Stupid logic. Murphy's Law and thermodynamics are not on your side.

>I never said that, you filthy dualist
Either logic is not a reliable system and you can dismiss it or 8t is a reliable system and you can use it. This is a reasonable dichotomy. You both attempted to use and dismiss logic, therefore you voided one of your own premises.