Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: Atheists, if you believe the universe was created by the big bang, what do you think came before?

Anonymous A started this discussion 6.1 years ago #6,937

Answer me that.

Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 39 seconds later[^] [v] #121,591

The lawn.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 10 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,608

> Christians, if you believe the universe was created by God, what do you think came before?

(Edited 50 seconds later.)

Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 52 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,609

Let me ask you this: who created God?

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 5 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,610

@121,591 (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
this

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,613

@121,608 (C)
@121,609 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
These.

Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,614

Who knows. It really doesn't matter, it would be nice to know, but no one does, until its figured out we have to be okay with that. Perhaps the remnants of a prior universe... maybe its just one long repeating process. I like that idea.

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 28 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,623

lol. You have the same problem, christfags.

advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,625

Who cares.

joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 59 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,626

@previous (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
Who cares how the Universe was formed? :|

advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 6.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,630

@previous ()
It doesn't affect either of our lives and we have no way of knowing at the time being.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,632

@121,608 (C)
That isn't an answer. Nice Red Herring tho.

(Edited 42 seconds later.)

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,634

@121,609 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Nice Red Herring.

Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,637

@121,610 (E)
@121,613 (F)
@121,623 (H)

*sigh*

See: Red herring

You are all avoiding the question and trying to misdirect by moving the attention to someone else.

I am asking about atheism, not Theism.

Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 6.1 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,639

@121,625 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
Obviously I do, for asking the question.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,643

This question applies to all beliefs, not just atheism.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,645

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yes, and I am asking about atheism specifically. If you read the title of this topic, you can see that.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,647

@previous (A)
Why though? Do you think that atheists will know any more than anyone else?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,649

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I'm curious how atheists rationalize their beliefs.

Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,653

Image went missing

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,658

Itt: compelling arguments

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,660

The atheist, master of reason and logic!
> red herring
> red herring
> red herring
> red herring
> red herring
> red herring
> red herring
> red herring
> dumb picture

Or not!

stal !nator.ccGk joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,664

Image went missing

TTEH replied with this 6.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,679

Hey Scatman.

Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,682

Chances are nobody here at MC knows nearly enough about the Big Bang to answer that question in enough depth. Generally, the answer to your question would be that nothing existed before the Big Bang.

I won't pretend to know, so I can't answer your question. But you should know better than to you presume science (or Atheists) think they have all the answers to life's questions. That's the beauty of science. How fucking boring would everything be if we had all the answers.

The thought that just 'nothing' existed before the Big Bang might seem absurd to you, it does to me, but the same holds true for Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any religion with a Creator - if God created us, then who created God? And on and on and on ad nauseam.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,683

@121,649 (A)
It's not a red herring if the question can apply to just about anything, and what theists believe is relevant to the question. If everyone can be categorized as either a theist or an atheist, and the question can apply equally to both, you can't just say that the question is limited only to atheists because that's who you are asking. By doing so, you're choosing to simply ignore half the argument to defend yourself. In other words, you're intentionally setting up the argument so that you can't be wrong, but that's not a fair argument. In fact, it's not a true argument at all.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,684

@121,682 (M)

> Chances are nobody here at MC knows nearly enough about the Big Bang to answer that question in enough depth.
Wait, I thought atheism, and science was about believing in things based on evidence, not because "someone said it". But if they just believe something because a scientist said it... that would be faith! Even logicians agree that "argument from authority" is a fallacy...
> Generally, the answer to your question would be that nothing existed before the Big Bang.
If nothing existed before the big bang, then where did it come from? Universes don't just "happen". It doesn't make much sense to say that matter came out of nowhere and just exploded, does it? Matter doesn't just appear.
> I won't pretend to know, so I can't answer your question. But you should know better than to you presume science (or Atheists) think they have all the answers to life's questions.
So they understand they don't know? And at the same time, claim to know?
> I don't know how the big bang works.
> but I'll believe in it anyway!
Funny, if you say that about god, they will laugh and say "where is the evidence?".
> That's the beauty of science. How fucking boring would everything be if we had all the answers.
Er, right.
> The thought that just 'nothing' existed before the Big Bang might seem absurd to you, it does to me, but the same holds true for Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any religion with a Creator - if God created us, then who created God? And on and on and on ad nauseam.
See: Red herring

I'm wondering why an atheist would believe something without seeing the evidence.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,685

Asking what came before the universe is like asking what's further north than the North Pole. I'm paraphrasing Stephen Hawking here.

Anonymous H replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,687

@121,684 (A)
At least it's better than thinking a magical omnipotent being came out of nowhere and did it.

Bracing for shitstorm.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,688

I haven't the slightest clue, and while I'd love to know the answer, I doubt I ever will. Once you start asking about what happened in a certain location "before" time began and before space existed, then at least linguistically speaking we start bordering on the paradoxical, if not the downright absurd. So basically the answer to this question from any honest atheist (unless he has access to some scientific knowledge no one else does) has to be "I don't know."

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,691

@121,683 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)

> It's not a red herring if the question can apply to just about anything
Yes, it is actually. We are talking about the atheist rationalization. Bringing up Theist explanations is irrelevant, and so it's a red herring- distracting from the real point.

> and what theists believe is relevant to the question.
The question is about atheists, not theists. Therefor: not relevant.
> If everyone can be categorized as either a theist or an atheist, and the question can apply equally to both
People can be categorized as either. The question can apply to both. However, I am not asking about theism.

Let me explain. If I want to talk about the US economy, and someone piped in about Greece's, that would be irrelevant.

"But!" they say, "Greece has an economy too, you can't deny that!"
Yes, Greece has an economy, and yes, theists have explanations, but for today, in this topic, we won't be talking about that.

Maybe if this were a "theist vs. atheist" discussion, we would, but it's not.

> you can't just say that the question is limited only to atheists because that's who you are asking.
I never said it only applies to atheists. I am aware theists hold views on this, but I am not talking about them, I am talking about atheists. If this were a "theist vs. atheist debate" we might, but it's not.
> By doing so, you're choosing to simply ignore half the argument to defend yourself.
I made no claim to defend.
> In other words, you're intentionally setting up the argument so that you can't be wrong
I have not made a claim to be right, or wrong about.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,693

@121,687 (H)
That is not a defense of your claim for the Big Bang, that is a Red Herring- A fallacy.

Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 6.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,696

Instead of skimming my post, and making assumptions...


Read the OP. I made no theistic claim. I am asking how atheists justify a belief of theirs.

If you cannot answer, do not sink to throwing Red Herrings.

Either post you rationalization, or admit you have none.

(Edited 8 seconds later.)

Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,697

Image went missing

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,698

@121,691 (A)
In your example where the discussion is about American economics and someone wants to bring up Greek economics, that is not a red herring because there are plenty of things about Greek economics that could relate to American economics. By falsing claiming that it's a red herring, you're simply trying to bar the other person from using comparisons and analogies altogether, and that's not a fair argument.
You're doing the same thing here. Since the discussion is about how atheists rationalize it, and the only other type of people are theists, how theists rationalize it is completely relevant to how atheists rationalize it.

Anonymous M replied with this 6.1 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,699

> Wait, I thought atheism, and science was about believing in things based on evidence, not because "someone said it". But if they just believe something because a scientist said it... that would be faith! Even logicians agree that "argument from authority" is a fallacy...
I'm guessing you accept gravity, general relativity and the laws of thermodynamics, right? Well have you ever seen the evidence for these things? Personally reviewed and checked over the facts, before coming to an informed decision? Thought not. I know enough about the Big Bang, not enough to give you the kind of answer you're looking for, most likely because there is no correct answer as of yet.
> If nothing existed before the big bang, then where did it come from? Universes don't just "happen". It doesn't make much sense to say that matter came out of nowhere and just exploded, does it? Matter doesn't just appear.
Quantum physiсs lesson 1: on the sсale of atoms and moleсules, the rules of сause and effeсt are suspended. Lol.
> So they understand they don't know? And at the same time, claim to know?
Who claims to know what happened before the Big Bang? We can make assumptions, but I'm guessing it will be a long time before we can do so with any degree of certainty.
> Funny, if you say that about god, they will laugh and say "where is the evidence?".
I did not say "I don't know how the big bang works", I'm saying "I don't know, nor does anyone, what happened before the Big Bang". Stop purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, troll.
> > The thought that just 'nothing' existed before the Big Bang might seem absurd to you, it does to me, but the same holds true for Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any religion with a Creator - if God created us, then who created God? And on and on and on ad nauseam.
> > See: Red herring
Cute! Scatman doesn't understanding what Red herring means. :3
I'm wondering why an atheist would believe something without seeing the evidence.
See: I'm guessing you accept gravity, general relativity and the laws of thermodynamics, right? Well have you ever seen the evidence for these things? Personally reviewed and checked over the facts, before coming to an informed decision?

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

cydia.myrepospace.com/ube replied with this 6.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,709

@121,632 (A)
u mad cuz im rite

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,711

Please Read.



@121,698 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)

> You're doing the same thing here. Since the discussion is about how atheists rationalize it, and the only other type of people are theists
Disbelief in god does not necessitate belief in the Big Bang. The two are often together, but not required.

An atheist could make a point completely destroying the theistic argument, and not made one step to prove the Big Bang. Assuming god does not exist, we still have an open question: What created the universe. You may say Big Bang, another atheist might give the Theravada Buddhist explanation.

Because, in the utmost extreme destruction of the theistic argument would not advance the Big Bang theory, it is irrelevant.

To push this further, if you wish we can assume that there is no god. This thread can exist a hypothetical": That no god exists.

I hope by doing this we can stop getting distracted by this, and instead focus on the question I asked.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,715

@121,683 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Broseph I usually respect you, but that was just yet another red herring.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,717

@121,709 (cydia.myrepospace.com/ube)
See @121,711 (A)
If you would like, we can assume god does not exist. I am fine with this assumption, for the sake of argument.

Now please, why do you believe the big bang?

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,718

@121,699 (M)
I believe in gravity, because I can experience it.

As for the other two, I am not a physicist. I do not understand what they are, nor do I claim they are true.

(Edited 49 seconds later.)

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 29 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,725

@121,711 (A)
I never said that belief in God means you can't believe in the big bang. My point is that atheist and theist are two sides to the same coin. You can't say that the argument is relevant to atheism but irrelevant to theism. If you truly believed that theism was completely irrelevant to the question, you wouldn't have used the term "atheist" in your question at all. You would have simply asked "What do you think came before the big bang?" or "How do you believe the universe was created?" If you didn't want God to be used as an answer, you could have simply said "Please keep the answers secular and don't just say 'god did it'" or something like that. But instead, you specifically said "Atheists", and even though you don't make any direct argument for theism, you attack atheism throughout the thread in an attempt to justify your obvious belief for theism by "proving" atheism wrong just because atheists can't tell you what came before the big bang. What you're trying to do is very obvious, and when people tried to call you out on it, you tried to act like theism was completely irrelevant to the discussion. Anything relevant to atheism is also relevant to theism. There is no denying that, because if there is no theism then there is no atheism. Either make your question relevant to both or make your question relevant to neither, but don't play this stupid little game you're playing if you expect to get serious answers.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,732

@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Good god science, as I said: we can assume god does not exist in this thread. Because it is so irrelevant to my actual question. If you would like to base your argument on the non-existance of god, please do so. I will not put up a fight there.

This whole line of attacks resulted in no proof for the big bang. What does that tell us? It was a complete Red Herring.

You cannot claim the point was not a red herring when we can obviously see it had no effect on your argument.

If it was a real, relevant, point then we would be further along. Some basis you could build on for your argument. And yet it looks like all it was, was a sideshow- a cop-out.

> I can't actually back up the Big bang... I'll just attack what theism!
And yet when I play along, still nothing.

Now that we are done with theism (because I agree, no god exists!) let's continue...

What proof is there that the big bang was the first thing?

(Edited 5 minutes later.)

Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,734

Before the big bang came what we are currently headed toward; absolute expansion (or whatever it's called). This is where the universe stretched to its maximum (the effects of the big bang slowed to a stop), and a gravity at the centre of existence regained control over everything. The big bang was the moment where the gravity pulled all matter into itself into a superdense mass. There was no "first" big bang. Your question is like asking somebody to find the beginning of a circle. It's impossible.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,737

@OP reposts things from Reddit?

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,748

@121,732 (A)
OK, then you acknowledge that it's irrelevant to atheism/theism. Moving on.

Like I said above, paraphrasing Stephen Hawking, asking what came before the big bang is like asking what is further north than the North Pole. The big bang is the beginning and nothing came before it. People have a hard time accepting this for two reasons. One is because they then imagine that nothing existed infinitely into the past, and then for some reason the big bang happened. This reasoning is flawed because there is no past. Before the big bang, space and time do not exist, and if time does not exist, there is no past. The second reason people have a hard time accepting this is because they have a hard time accepting that something came from nothing. Either one of two thing happened: either something came from nothing at some point, or everything exists infinitely into the past. Both of these ideas have their problems, so you might as well just take your pick. No matter what explanation one tries to come up with for what might have "caused" the big bang, there's still the question of what caused the thing that caused it, or why does the thing that caused it exist? At the end of the day, I guess you just have to accept that existance exists and it had to start somewhere. For existance to not exist would not make a lot of sense at all. It's mind-numbing either way.

Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,752

That there was no beginning ever makes more sense than a beginning from nothing.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,761

@121,734 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
So you're saying that the universe will not continue to expand forever? The expansion will slow down and slow down until the effects of gravity are greater than the effects of expansion, and the entire universe will eventually collapse into a singularity and the process will begin all over again? If so, the process you describe is the theory known as "the big crunch." However, the debate between whether the universe will continue to expand forever or eventually slow down and collapse has already been settled. Scientists say that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down and is in fact accelerating. The consensus now is that the universe will continue to expand until everything is stretched so thin that the universe will go through what is called "heat death."
The other problem with the theory that it's cyclical is that that would mean that existance exists infinitely into the past, and that also creates problems.

I believe that there are many universes, some with different rules than others. The ones with rules that don't work or create paradoxes quickly destroy themselves, while the universes with more stable and logical rules tend to last longer. This causes a sort of natural selection of universes. Our own universe is one of the more stable ones, since it has existed long enough to eventually support life and will continue to exist long after. Our universe's flaw, however, is that its continuous expansion will eventually cause its heat death.

Nimj joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,770

Image went missingOP is a Red herring

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 52 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,771

@previous (Nimj)
Better than being a porcupine.

r04r joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,772

OP is trying to hard.

OP if you believe some guy is sitting in the clouds you should see a psychiatrist.

Minichan does not support insanity. Do not further press this issue, or we'll be forced to remedy the situation.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 34 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,773

@previous (r04r)
r04r wants sharia lawl

Nimj replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,774

@121,772 (r04r)
Do you mean you'll be forced to be a bitch who has proved herself to be incapable of holding a moderation position but holds it merely because she can code? go ahead
be a bitch
see if i care

r04r replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 second later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,775

@121,773 (A)
I am warning you.

r04r double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 28 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,776

@121,774 (Nimj)
I shall. Thank you for your permission.

(Edited 38 seconds later.)

Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 17 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,777

Image went missing@121,761 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Heat death will not happen.

I like the theory of cycles, though. Certainly, immediately after the big bang, people (let's pretend they existed) would have also said "oh, look, the universe is expanding at an alarming rate, heat death will be upon us very soon". Where we are is in the accelerating phase before gravity takes over. Look at a square function, for example, and assume that we are a tiny point on the upward slope. By all logic, our tangent points towards a continuation of a linear function, and that the universe will keep expanding continually. It would take a being outside who could observe billions of years' worth of signs to determine that we are in fact moving cyclically and are simply heading toward the high point of existence.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 51 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,779

@121,775 (r04r)
> I am warning you a porcupine.

Take your Jainist extremism and GTFO my thread.

Nimj replied with this 6.1 years ago, 24 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,780

@121,776 (r04r)
lol
youre ok r63r

except i hate you

r04r replied with this 6.1 years ago, 47 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,781

@121,779 (A)
> Jainism is an Indian religion that prescribes pacifism and a path of non-violence towards all living beings.

I do not see how this applies here.

r04r double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 19 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,782

@121,780 (Nimj)
I hate you too.

I really do <3

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 58 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,783

@121,781 (r04r)
Exactly. This is what makes you extreme! You are much to violent.

I will not be silenced!

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,786

is r04r trolling or is she srs?

r04r replied with this 6.1 years ago, 17 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,787

@121,783 (A)
That's nice. Definitely keep on typing, then.

Either way, have a cookie.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 9 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,788

@121,786 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
r04r wants to prosecute people for their region.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,790

@121,787 (r04r)

> Either way, have a cookie.
I just want one cookie. That of an unbanned poaster. But this religious desecration is threatening that.

r04r replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,794

@previous (A)
Maybe you'll have a baked cookie instead.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,795

@121,788 (A)
Really?


Can we stay on topic? So far the answers to OP's question have been:

1. What does X believe about this topic? (not an answer).
2. I believe in something that can never be proven.
3. I believe in something that can be proven, just not right now.

r04r replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,797

@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
2 & 3 do not appear to be formatted as questions

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 second later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,798

@121,795 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
Alright. I have to say tho, that my opposition is full of porcupines.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 52 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,799

@121,797 (r04r)
No they are answers to my original question he's saying.

Something else my opposition brought up:
> *porcupine sounds*
I'm not sure exactly what this means, though, as I don't speak porcupine.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 18 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,800

@121,797 (r04r)

#1 is in error for being formatted as a question.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,801

@121,777 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
I see what you're saying, but if that were the case the expansion would not be accelerating. The rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing, not decreasing. Unless by "square function" you actually meant "sinusoid function" where the rate of acceleration is constantly changing as well. That could make sense, but if that were case, one would think that all the scientists who claim to support heat death would have taken that into consideration and ruled it out somehow. I could be wrong, and maybe that haven't thought of that, but I assume they have since the big crunch seems to be mostly rejected in the scientific community now. Everyone seems to be saying heat death.

Also, the idea of everything existing infinitely into the past in a cyclical pattern still has its problems.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 38 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,802

Proof god exists: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4472004596147265716#

r04r replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,803

@121,800 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
oic. I only had 4 or 5 hours of sleep, don't hate on me.

@previous (A)
...

Fuck. Everything I believed just went void. You have me convinced.

Spread the word. God exists.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,807

@121,797 (r04r)
That's because they're answers. (Edit: I see that that has already been pointed out now.)

Also, you're my favorite moderator. Thanks for all the improvements and added features to the site.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 5 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,808

@121,803 (r04r)
inb4 atheists say "SEE MONKEYS HOLD BANANAS WE MUST BE MONKEYS"

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 56 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,809

@121,807 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)

> Also, you're my favorite moderator. Thanks for all the improvements and added features to the site.

Haha, when I first read that I thought you said:

> fuck me r04r

but then I reread it, and that's what it said.

r04r replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,810

@121,808 (A)
I am agreeing with you. Why the hate?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 40 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,811

@previous (r04r)
no no, man, i'm glad you are on the right side now. but it's something the abtheists would say.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,812

@121,808 (A)
Right, because that's the reasoning behind the science of human evolution and it has nothing to do with all the DNA and fossil evidence.

green joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,814

Big crunch.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,815

@121,812 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
*facepalm*

now u just trollin

Nimj replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,817

@121,782 (r04r)
Glad to hear it :')

Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 30 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,818

Image went missing@121,801 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Ayeah, sinusoid function was my intention. You're making arguments from authority now, but I'm not really making arguments at all. Scientists probably dismissed it as one of those things that cannot be known, if they considered it at all.

Anywho, I am interested in other reasons against a cyclic existence, if you have them. It's the only thing that seems to make sense regarding the big bang and what came before it.

What if, assuming heat death, the dormant energy of the universe were knocked out of alignment, perhaps by a stray rock from another universe (we once thought that there was only one galaxy), and that is what triggers a big bang. This would allow for continual expansion and such. I dunno, I'm just throwing ideas around now, since I've lost already, sort of.

Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,824

@121,802 (A)
Well, shit. I'll be attending church thrice weekly from now on.

Syntax joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 12 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,843

I go with the flow of Einstein. Pre big bang the universe existed or consisted of particles smaller then subatomic particles and time stood still. Currently many scientists believe they will be able to one day recreate on a small scale this event in the labs, or at least in a device like they have at CERN.

I do try and keep up with the theories yet r falling behind because I am working hard on understanding the math theory behind string theory and that is a real challenge. I make my living with Math but String takes me past my limits - just as I think I am there I try a parameter change and run up against a brick wall. Getting there is very slow. Fun but frustrating.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 7 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,844

@121,818 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
You're right, scientists might have dismissed it simply because it cannot be known, but then again, maybe they didn't and they know something we don't that brought them to the conclusion that it will continue to expand to heat death. I would like to see more on the subject of the universe as a sine wave function. The sine function would fit with a cyclical model.

Anyway, physicists just say that a universe that exists infinitely into the past creates paradoxes and doesn't seem to make sense. But like I said earlier, no matter which side you take, there are going to be things that don't make sense when it comes to trying to answer the question of why existence exists. For me, Stephen Hawking's explanation makes the most sense, especially once you get used to the idea, and he knows more about this stuff than any of us. Yes, I know that's argument by authority to some extent, but you can't always argue by pure logic alone. We have to rely on authority in scientific discussion because we can't be expected to build everything from the ground up every time we want to discuss something. It's good to not automatically assume that something is right just because it is an authority, but in the scientific community, it often is, even if it is a technical logical fallacy to assume so. The rule of thumb is that the authority is correct until proven otherwise.

Anonymous C replied with this 6.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,850

@121,717 (A)

> Now please, why do you believe the big bang?

Who said I believe in the big bang?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,855

@previous (C)
You are posting in a thread titled "Atheists, if you believe the universe was created by the big bang, what do you think came before?"

Meowth replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,859

@previous (A)
I know. I'm loling.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,863

@previous (Meowth)
God is srs.biz bud

Meowth replied with this 6.1 years ago, 29 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,864

@previous (A)
I respect that it is for some people.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 30 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,865

@121,850 (C)
What do you believe then?

Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,866

@121,844 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Aye, but finding out what scientists think would require tiresome research. I'm pretty sure that physicists are uncomfortable with the idea of infinity itself, as scientists prefer to be able to trace everything down to an origin.

@121,843 (Syntax)
> Pre big bang the universe existed or consisted of particles smaller then subatomic particles and time stood still.
See, that's sort of what I was trying to convey with this,

(@121,818 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
> What if, assuming heat death, the dormant energy of the universe were knocked out of alignment, perhaps by a stray rock from another universe (we once thought that there was only one galaxy), and that is what triggers a big bang. This would allow for continual expansion and such. I dunno, I'm just throwing ideas around now, since I've lost already, sort of.)

except that our universe was the subatomic particles. In this sense of cyclical universes, rather than a compression at the end of a time, the universe explodes and a new, much larger (to us) universe is created. It takes into consideration the question "what happens after heat death?"

Syntax replied with this 6.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,876

@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
Current theory that does tie into String Theory = Is that the particles before the big bang- and keep in mind time was standing still according to Einstein. The particles were wayyyyyyyy smaller then subatomic particles. Subatomic particles generate heat which does not work if time is standing still.

String theory consists only of particles so small they cannot be measured in size and the theory currently is that we will never be able to measure or even see traces of them. A few very few scientists feel it may be possible to find traces of these ultra small particles. They do have names for many of these.

Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,885

@previous (Syntax)
Size is relative, so it is not unreasonable to say that a supremely small universe was in those sub-sub-subatomic particles, and that universe reached heat death? Or am I missing something?

Isn't heat death where everything balances out and life comes to a stop? If there is nothing left to observe it, then surely time would stop?

Meowth replied with this 6.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,891

@121,865 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
To me, it's just one of those unexplained things that happen.

green replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,896

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,899

@121,885 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say in that first part, but in the second part, yes, that's the idea. Basically the universe has a set amount of matter/particles in it, but it's continuously expanding, so all the stuff in the universe is getting thinner and thinner. Eventually, everything gets so thinned out that atoms begin to break apart into just protons, neutrons, and electrons, then those particles expand to the point that they're just quarks, then quarks expand until they're just "strings", and I'm not sure what happens after that. I dunno if the strings would just be there, or if they too would disintegrate somehow, but as Syntax pointed out, they're barely there to begin with. So yes, the idea is that once the universe reaches that point, time and space pretty much cease to exist and the universe is essentially dead.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,900

@121,891 (Meowth)
What is just one of those unexplained things that happen?

Syntax replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,922

@121,885 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)

> Size is relative, so it is not unreasonable to say that a supremely small universe was in those sub-sub-subatomic particles, and that universe reached heat death? Or am I missing something?
>
> Isn't heat death where everything balances out and life comes to a stop? If there is nothing left to observe it, then surely time would stop?

The question is a great one and at this momento on tyme there is a problem - Not all questions have current solutions. A great book and easy read is Black Holes & Time Warps by Kip Thorne. Forward by Stephen Hawking

So my understanding is (verified by lots of supercomputers and lots of scientists and I had to look this number up Approximately 10 −37 seconds after the Big Bang is all we currently have as multiple proofs of the Big Bang and no proofs with math to back them up before the 10 -37 number.

Einstein's theory holds for time stopped and those unique particles which most are predicted so far and very few found. Some may be waves of energy of a form so far not measured and that books author is busy at Cal Tech working on a huge instrument LIGO to find the Gravity wave, one of many on paper yet so far not measured. The moment of is speculated to be Ultra hot and ultra dense, similar Maybe to a black hole. Its the before that moment that has multiple theories with so far no math or real science to back it up.

So Einsteins theory for the moment is all that we have to go on and again that is time stopped and no heat and then? and the then is how long before the heat and density? Lots to discover.

What I like best about Einsteins methods are the in his mind thought experiments. No lab work and just his brain. He did fail to create a unified field theory (A "theory of everything") yet tried the rest of his working life.
@121,885 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)

Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 29 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,933

Image went missing> MC arguing about physics
> mfw
From quickly skimming it, it looks doughty better than most some other threads about that topic though~

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 8 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,054

@previous (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
> loli
> reading lolita
ohlol

(Edited 23 seconds later.)

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,058

She is just the cutest @121,933 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)

Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,061

@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
I'm cuter.
@122,054 (A)
She has good taste.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 52 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,062

@122,058 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
Dude, creepy.

@121,933 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
I know, right? Threads like this are my favorite. They distinguish us from other chans.
"Dat level of discourse."

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 8 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,063

@122,058 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
This.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,069

@122,061 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
I've always wanted to see a pic of you

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 6.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,078

@122,062 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I'm all for your discourse when it's used against such obvious trolls, it actually tires them out.

Syntax replied with this 6.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,083

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
One thing I know about Trolls, they never tire out. Some may die from accidents, natural death, or self implosion ..and another will cum along to take that Trolls place and even steal the name/handle/

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,087

@122,069 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
There is a(n obscene) pic of him floating around.

No, you don't.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 6.1 years ago, 12 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,103

@122,083 (Syntax)
Note how the OP has given up responding to Broseph. His sheer wall-of-texting tired him out.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 27 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,104

negi is not.Nega@122,087 (A)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,107

@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
wat

Syntax replied with this 6.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,118

@121,772 (r04r)

> OP is trying to hard.
>
> OP if you believe some guy is sitting in the clouds you should see a psychiatrist.
>
> Minichan does not support insanity. Do not further press this issue, or we'll be forced to remedy the situation.

I R going to steal this and file on my Stickie application on desk top.

if you believe some guy is sitting in the clouds you should see a psychiatrist.

Good enough to be trade marked

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous W joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,126

@121,632 (A)
Fuck off with that "Red Herring" bullshit.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,135

@previous (W)
If they don't commit the fallacy, I won't call them out on it.

Anonymous W replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,141

@previous (A)
Whatever, troll.

Anonymous H replied with this 6.1 years ago, 40 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,144

@122,135 (A)
Choke on a dick.

Anonymous X joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,151

A singularity, of course.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 27 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,229

@122,141 (W)
> commit fallacy
> whine when called out on it
> call OP troll
10/10

Anonymous X replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,235

@previous (A)

Hello OP. Could you be so kind as to answer my (serious answer) post as well instead of arguing with trolls? Lol :) It is probably a better use of your time.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,243

@122,151 (X)
And how do you know it was not a plurality? Neither has been proven.

Anonymous X replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,251

@previous (A)

It is simply what I think based on what I have read on the subject. It could or could not have been a 'plurality' (although I have to admit I'm not sure what one of those is), but a singularity makes the most sense in the context of the theory. Once a better theory comes along I will of course, change my mind. however, that theory has not yet come.

Syntax replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,256

@122,243 (A)
There are multiple proofs of singularity using Super computers. Accuracy recently verified with the last Hubble science package and new NASA Science space missions. All relate to that 10 -37 number and lots on WWW about. Busy with work at momento and super nice day here so that research is currently left up to you to disprove and yes show us Plurality plausibility.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,263

@122,251 (X)
The singularity idea is so flawed though. How do you explain that only omichronic waves (waves in upwards of (grahams number) plank units in length) can only exist if a plurality exists/existed.

Are we to assume that these do not exist, even against all evidence?

Then we have to wonder about logic consistence, and origin of the laws. A plurality always explains, through reverse observation, where these might have originated from, unlike a singularity.

Stephen Hawking himself admitted a plurality is more likely when he measures instrinsic wave functions with his fluxatronic capacitor telescope.

Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,266

Well this thread went to shit...

Anonymous H replied with this 6.1 years ago, 15 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,293

@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It was supposed to. That's what the OP was aiming to do.

Anonymous X replied with this 6.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,305

@122,263 (A)

> How do you explain that only omichronic waves (waves in upwards of (grahams number) plank units in length) can only exist if a plurality exists/existed.

I can't, because I'm not a physicist. As long as the model is the accepted one, that is the one I will believe is the true one.

ltamake !3vZ7A06glM joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,309

@121,608 (C)

> > Christians, if you believe the universe was created by God, what do you think came before?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 13 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,321

@122,305 (X)
That sounds a lot like Faith.

protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 9 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,339

@122,293 (H)
QFT

Anonymous X replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,343

@122,321 (A)

Maybe it does. Is that a problem?

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,358

@122,321 (A)
Justifiable appeal to authority =/= faith

I have no idea why people are still taking this thread seriously.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 5 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,720

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> justifiable appeal to authority

:')

Benjiman joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,139

It's a stupid question to begin with, you say atheists like they are a religious group who all believe in the big bang theory. Being atheist means you do not believe in god and dogma's. It means you should only believe something if it is proven. Many atheists don't believe in the big bang theory, and don't know an answer. That probably the most intelligent thing to do because we may never know what happened so it's stupid to believe something and act like we know everything. I don't know why you idiots keep digging and digging till you find stupid questions that science hasn't found answers for because all you christians(and muslims, jews,...) have is a book written by humans that tells an unbelievable story that's misinterpreted and mistranslated over the years, and gives no proof whatsoever. Don't act like it's more stupid to believe in the big bang theory than in a god that has never showed himself in any way. At least the big bang theory has evidence. I am an atheist and I believe that big parts of the big bang theory are true because of the scientific evidence. I don't know what was before that, probably another kind of universe that we will never be able to describe 'cause of the lack of proof.
(Sorry for my english, i'm from belgium)

.mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,154

@previous (Benjiman)
That may excuse your English but it doesn't excuse your many fallacies.

Anonymous Z-4 joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,186

Befroe big bang there were small bangs ^^(that were created by god of course :p)

Anonymous Z-5 joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,187

@121,933 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
Ziggy.

Anonymous Z-6 joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,194

Image went missing@OP
I agree with the admin, if you believe in an invisible man in the sky you seriously should seek psychiatric help.

Anonymous J replied with this 6.1 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,202

@122,103 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Note how the OP has given up responding to Broseph. His sheer wall-of-texting tired him out.
Lol'd.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,236

@122,358 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)

> Justifiable fallacy
LOL XD

Anonymous J replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,239

@previous (A)
> XD
Faggot.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,351

@123,236 (A)
Lol take a logic course bud. Not every appeal to authority is fallacious.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,353

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Logic is unchanging. Appeal to authority is always fallacious. It is always possible that an authority is wrong or lying. There is no authority that is incapable of lying.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,369

@previous (A)
Of course an appeal to authority isn't an absolute guarantee of truth. If you demand absolute certainty before claiming to know something then you can know that you exist (maybe) and that's it. If you lower the standard of when you can claim to know something to when you are reasonably sure that it is true then it is not fallacious to appeal to an authority.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,376

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If you are going to put your faith into someone, why a scientist? Why not a theologian?

Anonymous Z-7 joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,381

*sigh* may I suggest OP A Brief History of Time? As funny as it is watching him show off his list of fallacies, it's equally disturbing how ridiculous he's being. He has made clear he has very little real scientific understanding of what he's trying to argue about. His defence consists mainly of screaming about fallacies. Rather than attempt to cement your own illogical beliefs by arguing with people from fucking Minichan, why not go fucking read up on this shit yourself?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,383

@previous (Z-7)

*sigh* may I suggest Anonymous Z-7 The Holy Bible? As funny as it is watching him show off his examples of fallacies, it's equally disturbing how ridiculous he's being. He has made clear he has very little real metaphysical understanding of what he's trying to argue about. His defence consists mainly of screaming fallacies. Rather than attempt to cement your own illogical beliefs by arguing with people from fucking Minichan, why not go fucking read up on this shit yourself?

Anonymous Z-7 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,386

@previous (A)
I'm convinced you didn't actually read back what you put, as it made zero fucking sense.

> anonymous A
Oh wait, that's why!

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,388

@previous (Z-7)

> I'm convinced you didn't actually read back what you put, as it made zero fucking sense.
LOL your own argument doesn't make sense to you. I suggest you take a few deep breaths and turn off the computer.

protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 6.1 years ago, 5 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,389

OP is Scatman using his old shtick.

Rape.

Anonymous Z-7 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,390

@123,388 (A)
> own argument
> change key points, obfuscating original flow
> mfw

Also, you never graced me with an actual response <3

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,391

@123,389 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
No, I am not scatman.

> Rape
You shouldn't make fun of rape victim's acey.

vocalon !!jdS+H4VgV joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,392

guaranteed_replies.exe

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6.1 years ago, 14 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,393

@123,376 (A)
Faith =\= believing a claim that is not 100% undeniably self-evidently true. If that is the case then every claim other than "I exist" requires faith to make which makes the word "faith" meaningless.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 4 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,394

Externally hosted image@123,390 (Z-7)
> throw a few ad hominem attacks
> wonder why you didn't get a serious reply
durr

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,395

@123,393 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
While our own observations may not be true, it is not overreaching to operate as if they are. It is when we start believing things that we have not observed, or that we do not understand, that it becomes faith.

Maybe this would be more understandable if an xtian said the same thing to you. They could say believing the bible/quran/olive garden menu/torah is not faith, any more than anything else (besides "cogito ergo sum") is faith.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 6.1 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,396

@123,394 (A)
Why did you stop replying to Broseph?

Anonymous Z-7 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,398

@123,394 (A)
> be the boy who cried 'fallacy'
> expect to get taken seriously
Durr.

Anonymous Z-7 double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,399

@123,396 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
This

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,401

@123,396 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
e tries to win arguments by posting lines and lines of quasi-relevant points, and in order to keep up the conversation you have to reply to each half-baked idea. With all the concurrent discussion that go on with talking to him, he pretends there was some point in there, when actually there was none. It's a lot of time, and nothing is accomplished. He tries to overwhelm, with shit. I do not debate like this.

When he stops the filibusters I will talk to him.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,402

@123,398 (Z-7)
4th time I've had to mention this, and I'm sure it will get ignored again:

Don't like being called out on your fallacies? Don't make them!

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,404

@123,395 (A)
No. It's not faith to believe in something that you have not personally experienced. Take gravity. General relativity tells us that gravity is matter warping the fabric of space-time. Have you ever personally seen space-time being warped? No you haven't. Does that mean it takes faith to believe that space-time is being warped? No, unless turrets using a new definition of the word "faith". I'm at work and posting on my phone aol sorry if my replies seem curt or incomplete.

Anonymous Z-7 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,405

@123,401 (A)
He's actually giving well-thought out, sensible replies. He's taking your pseudo-trolling seriously and actually giving real responses to answer you, and you're ignoring him in favour of keeping an argument going.

Anonymous Z-7 double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,406

@123,402 (A)
You're such a master debater -swoons-.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,408

@123,404 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)

> No. It's not faith to believe in something that you have not personally experienced.
> Take gravity.
> something that you have not personally experienced
> gravity
10/10!
> General relativity tells us that gravity is matter warping the fabric of space-time. Have you ever personally seen space-time being warped? No you haven't.
I am fall to the ground when I jump. Things are held to the ground by gravity. I believe that much.

The bending of space-time? Might be true, might not. I don't claim to know how the universe works, I am not a physicist. So I do not go around claiming space-time is warped because of gravity. I don't go around claiming it isn't either

Your example doesn't work well at all.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,409

@123,405 (Z-7)

You, however, are just throwing around ad-hominems. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, then don't bother posting.

Get some sleep.

Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 6.1 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,412

@123,406 (Z-7)
Stop. You are not a good troll. You may think you are, but you are not. this is a serious discussion, and your shit-tier trolling amuses no one.

protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 6.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,421

@previous (A)
> shit-tier trolling

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,424

@123,408 (A)
So basically you're ignorant of all scientific knowledge we've gained since the death of Newton 400 years ago. Fantastic. And you are trying to learn that knowledge by asking the users of minichan. Good luck on your task. I'd recommend reading Hawking's A Brief History of Time. He deals with the question in your OP several times.

replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,429

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> ignorant of all scientific knowledge
He's a Christian. What do you expect?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,438

@123,421 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
> 171 replies
> 205 views
Orly?

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 6.1 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,472

@123,401 (A)
So then he's beaten you then, basically. Oh dear. If your argument is true, you should be able to win in a debate no matter how quasi his arguments are.

Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,478

mfw i when i got first post with the truth

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,485

@123,472 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
If you read what he's saying he's actually agreeing with me.

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,505

@previous (A)
Just keep telling yourself that, bud.


OP, do you know anything at all about the big bang? Do you understand why we understand the universe is expanding (Which means it would have to have a point to expand from)?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,511

@previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)
Some guy named doppler made up some shit about why trains sound the way they do, so in the future his satanist buddies could convince people that blue stuff was flying away.

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,516

@previous (A)
So why do trains sound the way they do? And explain why there's a red shift in all things we observe in space. If you're going to say they're wrong, you have to give a reason why and explain how you can answer for those things which are answered by doppler effect.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,523

@previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)
It's all part of the atheist conspiracy. They do all this bullshit and then pretend that we can visit the moon.

There is so much evidence we didn't, too. The moon gives off light, and it looked a hell of a lot like they were on Earth. Of course no one cares, they just want to believe it no matter how accurate it is.

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,526

@previous (A)
you didn't answer my question. saying it's part of a conspiracy answers nothing. The Doppler effect, however, does answer things. Since you're convinced it's wrong though, please provide your theory which explains why the Doppler effect is false and which answers what the Doppler effect answers.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,528

@previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)
There is no proof.

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,529

@previous (A)
Answer my question.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,530

@previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)
i just did

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,533

@previous (A)
you're saying the doppler effect is false, even though it explains exactly why trains sound different depending if they're coming towards you or away from you (sound waves are compressed or stretched, altering the sound you hear). If the doppler effect is actually false, you have to provide an alternate explanation which can prove the doppler effect false and explain the phenomenon which it answers. Just saying it's wrong isn't good enough.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,535

@previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)
Space is not a train.

I cannot buya ticket and ride through space.

Some stars on that ^ side of the universe are blue.

Others on that v side are red.

It's how it works.

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,539

@previous (A)
The doppler effect applies to all wave, including light. I used the train example because that's one you used previously.

Why are those ^ blue?
why are those v red?

and why, more importantly, can the Doppler effect explain why when it's wrong (according to you)?

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,552

Don't forget to answer my questions in @previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2) , OP.

In addition, I encourage you (and everyone else here) to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
Maybe you'll learn something.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,565

*sigh* how hard is this?

Logic and reason are completely irrational.

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,574

@previous (A)
If logic and reason are irrational, what is the benchmark for 'rational'? It's one thing to say something, and quite another to actually provide an explanation as to how.

And you never answered my questions in @123,539 (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2). If you're as correct as you make yourself out to be, answering them should be no issue.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,579

@previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)
Because if we evolved from monkey's why don't I like bananas?

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,586

@previous (A)
1. the monkey/banana thing is played up by various fictitious sources.
2. The theory of evolution never says we evolved from monkeys. Try again, bud.

And you never answered my questions in @123,539 (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2). If you're as correct as you make yourself out to be, answering them should be no issue.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,654

@previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)
Except that I don't like bananas! If we didn't evolve from monkeys, what did we evolve from? Spiders? LOL!

We didn't evolve from spiders.

[email protected])k7=9 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,659

@previous (A)
Monkeys are our primates - we both share a common ancestor. We did not evolve from them. :|

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,664

@123,654 (A)
You're using an appeal to ridicule fallacy <3 http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,669

@previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)
> any use of fallacy means the author is irrevocably wrong

OP just lost the thread.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,685

@123,664 (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)
Ridicule is not a fallacy. Fallacies are incorrect arguments, meant to prove a point, that don't. I never said "Your wrong because I ridiculed you" or anything similar. I didn't even say it supported my claim.

However you claim that the authority on the subject is supporting evidence.

that's the difference.

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,688

@previous (A)
Your argument was an attempt to ridicule the theory of evolution, thus making it an incorrect argument. <3 Now go away, your trolling is getting worse as time passes.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,695

@previous (Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2)

My trolling? That sounds like ridicule!

According to you, any ridicule is an argument, so I guess you made a fallacy!

0/10 bud, come back when you are ready to have a real discussion.

Pont_champlain !29VjXEDWP2 replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,703

@previous (A)
Ridicule is not a fallacy when it is factual, that's where I was right about your trolling <3

and that has no semblance to anything at all close to a response.

TTEH !penisGseqs replied with this 6.1 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,707

200 GET

Anonymous Z-9 joined in and replied with this 6.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,714

@previous (TTEH !penisGseqs)
nice get bro.

protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 6.1 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,749

@123,685 (A)
Irrevocable, bud. You lost.

Syntax replied with this 6.1 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,759

Externally hosted image@122,263 (A)

> Stephen Hawking himself admitted a plurality is more likely when he measures instrinsic wave functions >with his fluxatronic capacitor telescope.

Late to this party of Troll Topic and it sure ended up as Shitposting did it not!

Suggest OP take his fluxatronic capacitor telescope and shouve it all the way up where that sun don't shine.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,774

@previous (Syntax)
I've done the experiment myself. When the flux capacitor is running on 9x magnification you can clearly see that Yoran particles and the Eejit particles.

This proves plurality.

Syntax replied with this 6.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,780

@previous (A)
One last comment cause much to busy to feed piggy in zoo.

dats it byyyyyyyyyyyzzzzzz Troll

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,787

@previous (Syntax)
:D

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,814

MC how do I troll thee? Let me count the ways...

protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 6.1 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,842

@previous (A)
> trying so fucking hard

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 6.1 years ago, 10 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #124,470

While our own observations may not be true, it is not overreaching to operate as if they are. It is when we start believing things that we have not observed, or that we do not understand, that it becomes faith.

Maybe this would be more understandable if an xtian said the same thing to you. They could say believing the bible/quran/olive garden menu/torah is not faith, any more than anything else (besides "cogito ergo sum") is faith.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 6.1 years ago, 54 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #124,472

OP actually won the debate, and then out-trolled everyone. Good job.
:
[upload]

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting, also keep in mind you can minify URLs using MiniURL and generate image macros using MiniMacro.