Do atheist believe that the whole universe is created out of nothing?

Do atheist believe that the whole universe is created out of nothing?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    actually research the big bang instead of saying "nothing"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But do they believe that the Big Bang just happened suddenly out of nothing

      • 4 weeks ago
        Radiochan

        no
        the term "big bang" was used as a pejorative by scientists who hated the theory on many levels, not least because it was originally formulated by a catholic priest

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You didn’t answer the question

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He did, he literally said "no"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So a particle just existed and then one day boom?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >um...do your research
      Why do leftoids always say this and pretend it's an argument?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They’re telling you that you don’t understand the subject matter, which is true.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Modern cosmology points to the universe having a beginning though

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a theist and I believe the universe was created out of nothing lolsp80

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Do atheist believe that the whole universe is created out of nothing?
    We are in a simulation created by fourth dimensional beings. We're in a constant rebirth and death, marked by the big bang, the restart of the simulation. By taking DMT/Ayahuasca you can see our creators and enter into the fourth dimension and we can also observe our universes creation and our own human birth/creation, we are essentially observing time in a full non-linear way.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, we don't believe in nothing. Even the emptiest vacuum has stuff in it.
    Virtual particles are constantly generated from and collapse into the vacuum field, all particles that compose matter are fluctuations.
    Nothing is eternal, stability is temporary. Nothing is inert, everything changes. There was no creation, only transformation.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and you were accidentally created out of billions of years of chance interactions from rocks.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    atheists say they don't believe in anything, but they'll also say that trans rights are unquestionable.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It wasn't created.

      christroony hands posted this

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you believe in a sky israelite then you must also believe that the sky israelite created trannies.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No I don't.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >atheists say they don't believe in anything
      no they don't

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        can you speak for all atheists in what they believe then?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Chud's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a chud mentioning trannies or blacks approaches 1.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ctrl + f "black"
        >1 of 1

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the sense that we don't believe it was "created" at all

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that would make you a science cultist then

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No that's what theists believe.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, they also believe that we are evolved from fish with legs.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    https://i.imgur.com/Mtbpnuh.jpeg

    Yes, they also believe that we are evolved from fish with legs.

    >fish with legs
    homies never heard of amphibians
    Your religion even categorized them as fish, they are Kosher to eat during Lent because they swim in water, your ancestor would have enjoyed their frog legs during sacred days.
    Those are the "fish with legs" you act couldn't exist, you only think of them as different to fishes because you had a secular biology education. For all instance and purposes Bats are also birds in a christian world.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frogs aren't kosher tho???

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I believe the universe never had a "creation point" because causality can't be proven.

    • 4 weeks ago
      20

      Without causality all possible things would exist, including God, who if he has any preferences such that he prefers some of things to other things would impose causality on the universe. Look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F7bcjGArkrA

      So by rejecting causality, you MUST affirm theism!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your post is typical of Christian sophistry:
        >well if X then that would mean Y which means god!
        >checkmate atheists!
        You fricking idiot

        • 4 weeks ago
          20

          >well if X then that would mean Y which means god!
          Yes anon this is called proving something lol. "If X then Y, if Y then Z. X therefore Z" is very very basic logic.

          Creation is not a possible thing without causality, so God would mean something else in this case.

          >Creation is not a possible thing without causality
          If it's even logically possible for an omnipotent being to exist, then that would be one of the things that exists, since like it proved A L L possible things would exist!
          And an omnipotent being, uniquely, would be the only sort of thing that could impose new universals like causality.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If it's even logically possible for an omnipotent being to exist
            It's not and you're effectively saying nothing at all.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >It's not
            Why's that? Unless there's a logical contradiction within the concept itself, then it is logically possible. Omnipotence is defined as being able to instantiate all states of affairs that it's logically possible to instantiate, and those are logically possible by definition, so there's nothing that can be logically impossible about omnipotence.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can an omnipotent create a rock they couldn't lift?

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >Can an omnipotent create a rock they couldn't lift?
            For sure! The Father could create a rock and the Son could incarnate in a form without the physical strength to lift it. Indeed there were many such rocks while the Son was on Earth

            The infinite can't interact with the finite. It's a logical impossibility. But I like how you just completely sidestepped the problem of causality.

            >The infinite can't interact with the finite. It's a logical impossibility
            There's no such thing as "the infinite" since infinities are, themselves, logical impossibilities. Look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W4_OXMCswKU the moment you allow for infinities you introduce mathematical contradictions into your system

            >But I like how you just completely sidestepped the problem of causality.
            All you said was "It's not and you're effectively saying nothing at all"; you may have forgotten to elaborate on the perceived problem of causality in this scenario

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >For sure!
            Can't lift it, not omnipotent.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >Can't lift it, not omnipotent
            God can lift it, the Father could easily lift the rock

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can't create specified rock, not omnipotent.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no such thing as "the infinite"
            So then there's no such thing as an omnipotent being.

            >All you said was "It's not and you're effectively saying nothing at all"
            I'm referring to my original post in the thread

            I believe the universe never had a "creation point" because causality can't be proven.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >So then there's no such thing as an omnipotent being
            How do you figure? An omnipotent being wouldn't have actual infinities among the things that it could make

            >I'm referring to my original post in the thread
            Ah I see. My point was essentially that you've got a dichotomy with "causality can't be proven": either things need a cause to exist, in which case only an omnipotent being can bring them from nothing, or things don't need a cause to exist, in which case everything would exist including an omnipotent being. Either way you get God existing

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you figure?
            Omnipotence is a type of infinity. An omnipotent being can't interact with us, unless the omnipotence is being referred to metaphorically.

            >or things don't need a cause to exist, in which case everything would exist
            This doesn't follow. Rather, everything that exists always has; there's no "outside" of existence, no beginning or end. The closest thing to a god then would be the universe itself, i.e. everything, i.e. pantheism, and you're free to worship this everything if you're morally inclined to do so, but it's not necessary to regard it as a god.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >Omnipotence is a type of infinity
            How so?

            >An omnipotent being can't interact with us
            This seems like an odd position to take - couldn't it speak to us by creating sound waves and show us things by creating photons?

            >This doesn't follow
            It does! Look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F7bcjGArkrA

            >everything that exists always has; there's no "outside" of existence, no beginning or end.
            That seems just plainly false, your very experience of reading this very reply began moments ago and will end in a few moments as well

            Can't create specified rock, not omnipotent.

            You said a rock God can't lift. When God the Son was incarnate, God the Son didn't have the physical strength to lift Ayers Rock. So that is a rock about which the two statements "God created this rock" and "God cannot lift this rock" are both true.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How so?
            To be all-powerful would require infinite power.

            >That seems just plainly false
            Then you don't really understand what the absence of causality means. There's no beginning or end without causality. Time and causal relations are subjective.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >To be all-powerful would require infinite power
            In what way?

            >Then you don't really understand what the absence of causality means. There's no beginning or end without causality.
            If that's the case then it's easy to prove causality since you experience of reading this reply that just began is about to end

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In what way?
            What would "all-powerful" even mean with a finite amount of power lol?

            >If that's the case then it's easy to prove causality
            It's not, since an observation does not prove anything. Given this, I choose to believe that causality most likely is manufactured by our brains.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >What would "all-powerful" even mean with a finite amount of power lol?
            It would mean that talking about it like something you could measure in units doesn't fit very well. It isn't like a liquid that you can pour into a beaker and see how many omnipotence units there are in milliliters. It would just be the single fact that He can instantiate all states of affairs that it's logically possible to instantiate.

            >an observation does not prove anything
            It absolutely does in our conversation! An observation is, itself, something that begins and ends.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It would just be the single fact that He can instantiate all states of affairs that it's logically possible to instantiate.
            Sounds like your god is anthropomorphic in nature, since "logic" means something different to different species.

            >It absolutely does in our conversation!
            It does not. Thinking does not prove a thought. That we think we observe causality does not prove causality at all.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >Sounds like your god is anthropomorphic in nature, since "logic" means something different to different species.
            "Logically possible" means something permissible under the laws of logic. Which, when it boils down to it, means things that aren't self-contradictory.

            >Thinking does not prove a thought.
            I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's transparently obvious to anybody that experiences have beginnings and ends. Case in point: your experience of reading this reply for the first time has just ended.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not sure what you mean by this.
            Experience isn't proof of anything. That's what I mean.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >Experience isn't proof of anything. That's what I mean.
            How is it not proof of beginnings and ends if your experience of reading this post just began and now ends?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You said a rock God can't lift.
            Yes, I did. Either he can't create it and is thus not omnipotent or he can and then can't lift it and is thus not omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence is self contradictory.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            At this point you're just repeating some script you read or heard. Are you going to actually engage with what I've said to you?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you going to actually engage with what I've said to you?
            I did. Not my fault if it makes you seethe.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Finitism Anon

            Your responses so far:
            "Can't lift it, not omnipotent."
            "Can't create specified rock, not omnipotent."
            "Yes, I did. Either he can't create it and is thus not omnipotent or he can and then can't lift it and is thus not omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence is self contradictory."

            It's one-liners from a script, not actual engagement.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can an omnipotent create a rock that it couldn't then lift? No? Not omnipotent.
            Is it THAT difficult to understand?

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            Just can't deviate from the script, eh? Asked and answered:

            https://i.imgur.com/X78VgMg.png

            >Can an omnipotent create a rock they couldn't lift?
            For sure! The Father could create a rock and the Son could incarnate in a form without the physical strength to lift it. Indeed there were many such rocks while the Son was on Earth

            [...]
            >The infinite can't interact with the finite. It's a logical impossibility
            There's no such thing as "the infinite" since infinities are, themselves, logical impossibilities. Look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W4_OXMCswKU the moment you allow for infinities you introduce mathematical contradictions into your system

            >But I like how you just completely sidestepped the problem of causality.
            All you said was "It's not and you're effectively saying nothing at all"; you may have forgotten to elaborate on the perceived problem of causality in this scenario

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So he can't lift it. Not omnipotent.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            I know atheists tend to be the type who just parrot ideas without really understanding them but I've rarely seen it on such clear display with you and your script.
            Asked and answered already:

            https://i.imgur.com/ohdzRlc.gif

            >Can't lift it, not omnipotent
            God can lift it, the Father could easily lift the rock

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So he can't create the specified rock. Not omnipotent.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            When someone just endlessly repeats themselves even when directly answered, I count it as a concession. Are you conceding anon?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession. It's awesome winning yet another debate with zero effort.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh redditcession
            >taking internet fights serious
            >passive agressive tone
            Let me guess, leftist homosexual too?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >loses argument
            >"L-LEFTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY REEEEEEEEEEEE"

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            I didn't post that

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So he can't create the specified rock. Not omnipotent.

            I accept your concession. It's awesome winning yet another debate with zero effort.

            Hopes this helps with your understanding of how God works

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            Sorry

            https://i.imgur.com/OPDNya1.png

            Your responses so far:
            "Can't lift it, not omnipotent."
            "Can't create specified rock, not omnipotent."
            "Yes, I did. Either he can't create it and is thus not omnipotent or he can and then can't lift it and is thus not omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence is self contradictory."

            It's one-liners from a script, not actual engagement.

            was posted by me, left my name on from a different thread

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            infinites are not "inherently contradicting". The numbers R for example are well-defined, see Cauchy construction.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The infinite can't interact with the finite. It's a logical impossibility. But I like how you just completely sidestepped the problem of causality.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Problems is that "logic" is not a set in stone thing, but has evolved over millennia. So what is logical depends on what subjective standard you're using.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't prove anything, it's pure sophistry.
            >Without causality all possible things would exist
            Nah. It's possible that things aren't caused and are instead coincidental, without all possible things existing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            20

            >It's possible that things aren't caused and are instead coincidental
            What's your response to what the vid said about how that actually isn't possible?

            To help illustrate why all possible things would exist, have you ever seen The Terminator?

            Remember how, in the end after Sarah Connor kills the Terminator in the factory, its revealed that the fight took place inside a Cyberdyne Systems building?

            So, according to the movie, Terminators existed without an ultimate source. The Terminators were built because one went back in time and told Cyberdyne Systems how to build a Terminator. One went back in time and told them how to build Terminators because Cyberdyne built Terminators. And Cyberdyne built Terminators because...

            So you couldn't say what the ultimate cause of their existence is, they just sort-of popped into being.

            But in such a scenario, what's stopping anything else from just popping into being? What's preventing, say, mutants existing because one went back in time and told a scientist how to make mutants, who then later go back in time and become the mutants that told him in the first place?

            There's no reason for one to happen over the other. If one can happen, they all can happen.

            So you’d wind up with an infinite number of things.

            There’s really no to avoid this. Afterall, its not like there could be some sort of law that prevented things from popping from nothing, since a law couldn't even effect something until it exists.

            So there could be, by definition, nothing that would stop anything from existing. It couldn't be coincidental, since there's nothing to be the object of a coincidence.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Creation is not a possible thing without causality, so God would mean something else in this case.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We can't prove how the universe came into existence.
    >That means MY God in my book written by bronze age desert tribes KNOWS.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist here, the answer is:

    W E
    D O N ' T
    K N O W
    Y E T

    We need to do more scientific research.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But we Christians know! LE DADDY israelite DID IT!!!
      Whaddya think of that, redditheist???

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >we just DON'T KNOW that raping children is bad
    >so I'm gonna continue raping children while ignoring any argument against it
    normal troon logic

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Catholic* logic

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists have no beliefs they just arbitrarily move through whatever opinions maximize their freedom without producing too much cognitive dissonance.

    Atheists barely exist, they are like water flowing the easiest way to the lowliest place.

    Atheists are not to be trusted around children or in times of great trial. Pedo clergy are stealth atheists like most modern Christian clergy.

    A God fearing man would not dare harm a child.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Pedo clergy are stealth atheists
      lmao

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yes

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What all that should tell you is that faith doesn't actually make a difference at all. It's all genetics. There are some atheists who are atheists because it's logically the more comprehensible position given what information we currently have, but who are more dutiful and loving than some Christians, and this is entirely due to genetics. What banner you raise above your head or what color of cloth you wrap around your head doesn't actually make a fricking lick of difference in the end.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      L O L
      O
      L

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I am not Catholic and will not be held accountable for their sick bullshit. Frick off atheist. You guys love pedo priests, it lets you hate religion with ease and pretend like your sexuality is not also in grave disorder.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh maybe a Protestant will be more to your liking mayhaps.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The Judge thought that he was a good Christian and gave him 1/6th of his deserved sentence

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Forgot pic

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pedos are drawn to institutions were they easily get access to children, which more often than not religion institutions because people have blind faith in their authority. It's not a coincidence that many cults have weird sexual things going on behind the scenes, because that's what the cult leader is really after.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Do atheist believe that the whole universe is created out of nothing
    Religtards believe a israelite in the sky was created out of nothing. Since we have evidence of the universe and none for a sky israelite, the default hypothesis is atheism.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Got any proof abiogenesis happened?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes
      we are alive

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Okay, but both genesis and abiogenesis prove that. So prove abiogenesis and not just make a statement.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What would convince you abiogenesis happened. What piece of evidence would you like that would make you change your mind?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Show me your best proof. I am openly asking. If you just point to our existence, than that is just a fallacy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not that anon. However if you can't figure out what would count as evidence capable of changing your mind then you aren't a rational person.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fine. Can you prove RNA is able to replicate itself? Can replicating/metabolizing molecules become life forms? Is there evidence of the formation of molecules more complex than amino acids? A way for complex organic molecules to a life form?

            >if I don't draw a clear line I can just keep moving the goalposts ad infinitum
            I'd rather you not

            Then you don't believe in anything if you are assuming that I am moving the goalpost when I made my point clear. You can't point to our existence as proof that abiogenesis happened. That is not proof in of itself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you don't believe in anything if you recognize the pattern my kind derail debates with
            I might be just a goy, but I see right through you

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stop moving thee goal posts and answer the question. Prove abiogenesis.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Can you prove RNA is able to replicate itself?
            I don't know if it can or can't.
            >Can replicating/metabolizing molecules become life forms?
            Probably if you put two tires and bike frame in a box and shake it around for long enough the law of entropy dictates at some point you will make a bike.
            >Is there evidence of the formation of molecules more complex than amino acids?
            Strictly speaking, yes because more complex molecules exist.
            >A way for complex organic molecules to a life form?
            1. The possibility of life
            2. Entropy in a closed system i.e the earth
            We have both these things so that provides a way for life to form

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, you are being somewhat honest with this point. As of now, there is no mechanism for RNA building blocks to develop into full RNA. So you can't postulate that RNA then transformed into DNA through replication as there is no first cause. Even if RNA did spontaneously assemble, it is just information and would require enzymes to read it, while being contained within a cell to allow for the process of replication.
            >Probably if you put two tires and bike frame in a box and shake it around for long enough the law of entropy dictates at some point you will make a bike.
            Okay, now start calculating the odds required. It is not favorable for even a single protein to emerge in favorable conditions, let alone DNA.
            >Strictly speaking, yes because more complex molecules exist.
            That isn't proof of the formation of molecules more complex than amino acids. That is just a statement, again. Where is the process?
            You don't know the real possibility of life, and how unfavorable it actually is. Or the very premise that you need a single-celled organism that can reproduce AND does so before it is destroyed.

            https://i.imgur.com/rXrTI82.gif

            >this confuses the uneducated american christian

            Okay, you have organic compounds, but nothing that can be constituted as a complex molecules like amino acids.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >now start calculating the odds required
            Doesn't matter. The universe is massive there are ~70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe and our universe has been here for 13~ billion years. The odds of some molecules making something that can self improve aren't THAT low.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >organic compounds
            >amino acids
            b***h you forgot to do your homeworks? The organic compounds in question ARE amino acids : glycine, α-alanine, β-alanine, aspartic acid and α-aminobutyric acid

            Or were you trying to say "proteins"? No need to make some complex shit for primitive life, simple chains do the trick. Chains from witch other amino acids attack and detach from, here you go coding and replication. Primitive RNA is born

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if I don't draw a clear line I can just keep moving the goalposts ad infinitum
            I'd rather you not

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes
      we are alive

      What an butthole.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even if you accepted the premise of the universe coming from "nothing" to be ridiculous or whatever, why would it follow it being created by a neoplatonist fanfic version of an iron age levantine war deity?

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They don't care. Atheists have spiritual blindness which means that they are incapable of comprehending metaphysics. They just want to wallow in materialism until they die. Who can say whether or not they see God on their deathbeds?

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There isn't anything that unifies all atheists beyond not believing in the existence of deities. Your question is like asking "do pianists support the gold standard?".

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this confuses the uneducated american christian

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And what is voltage and amperage?
      >uneducated
      Shows that you merely replaced replaced god with govt and bible with official narrative.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, that is the doctrine of Creation Ex-nihilo that Christians adhere to.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Minime! Deus nihil non est.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Do atheist believe that the whole universe is created out of nothing?
    I don't attempt to explain it, you explain it by inventing a sky daddy that doesn't like when you jerk off

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Personally, I believe the universe came out of chaos. But I have no evidence for it. All evidence we do have is that there'd been a rapid expansion, which is commonly referred to as the "big bang".

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no, it happened when i banged your mom so hard they threw big on it

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The big bang is practically mythological. Atheism is just lazy. Deism is the true learned man's "faith"

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm atheist and I think deep time cosmology is a total joke and I'm not even a scientific realist anyway.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It wasn't "created"at all, it's always just been there
    >why?
    It just is
    >big bang
    Has literally nothing to do with anything being "created" out of "nothing"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Infinite past is humanly incomprehensible and you fricking know if you slithering worm

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Infinity in general is incomprehensible and yet we still know what 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+... = 2

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm an atheist, I believe that the Eternal Universe, electric universe model is correct. There was no "creation" let alone a beginning.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think about it because it doesn't concern me and there is no actual way for a human being to know

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *