A guy at my uni was trying to convince me that god doesn't exist and that Big bang was the start of the universe. (I don't support creationist theories but I can't help to question big bang)
How does coming from a lava egg sound more logical then being designed by a higher spiritual entity?
>>73723128
>How does coming from a lava egg sound more logical then being designed by a higher spiritual entity?
No one really cares about that. It's all about sex, women, gays, how to structure society, how to deal with foreigners, etc.
But instead of saying "I support gays and abortion" they come up with "God doesn't exist"
>>73723128
The data says we came from a lava egg
>>73723833
>the data that assumes the existence of the lava egg exists proves that the lava egg exists
What the fuck is a lava egg
>>73723979
With the laws of physics theres no other way to interpret the data. The universe is expanding outwards so if you go backwards in time all the mass of the universe was at one single point
>>73723989
Hes referring to the early stages of the universe were all matter was like in this super heated soup
The universe came out of nothing in a split second.
And no
no, that does not make any fucking sense at all. But what dictates that the wonky physics at the beginning of the universe has to make sense to humans?
>>73723128
Not sure how to help you there, but there are discrepancies in our current understanding of the big bang.
For example, there should have been equal parts matter and antimatter that formed shortly after the big bang. This should have annihilated each other and left the universe as empty space.
This isn't the case though. Barring the little understood properties of antimatter as it pertains to gravity and attraction to matter, we can assume a force acted upon the universe in order to disrupt the homogeneity of antimatter and matter.
However since the big bang contains our entire universe, we can assume this force originated from outside our universe, or if you subscribe to Superstring theory, an extra dimensional space. (5th-11th)
Hope that helps.
>>73723128
They are both equally logical.
>>73724395
this.
only christfags, kikes and mudslimes have the audacity and arrogance to claim their 2000 year old kike books can give us the answers to the universe.
>>73723128
If you want to get philosophical, the notion of a god is not incompatible with the big bang, because you can always just say god made the big bang happen. It's kind of a fruitless discussion to have.
And as far as I can figure, our actual understanding of the big bang is very limited. It seems like the kind of thing where we can probably expect to throw a lot of our current ideas out the window in a relatively near future, as we gain more information and learn more about it. Questioning the big bang is something that I suspect a lot of very intelligent people are doing on a daily basis, trying to figure out how it all fits together.
>>73724863
This right here is the only acceptable response.
Keep aiming for greater understanding regardless of ideological beliefs.
>>73723128
1, You cannot prove something doesn't exist. Any atheist should be able to admit that.
2, The Big Bang Theory is backed by evidence from cosmic background radiation. It's there and you can watch it as static on an old TV if you are interested.
3, The lava egg is logical, its the birth of existence. The real question is who kick started the big bang. Without a deity, who created the egg which spawned existence?
4, Anybody that believes the Earth is 5,000 years old is a twat.
There is a creator. However all religions get it wrong. For all we know the creator is an AI programmed to run complex simulations.
no one knows for sure
/thread
>>73724195
Then why are we approaching Andromeda?
>>73725912
Its the only exception because of gravity
>>73725912
Gravity dominates over the expansion of the universe on small scales.
>>73723128
There is evidence for the big bang. Positing God is just adding a level of complication that isn't necessary. It would be like adding magic to describe tidal action.
>>73727263
>>73727356
Pretty much. As the universe became cool enough for atoms to form, matter would move slower than the speed of expansion. Early on it was because of the universal speed limit of light. Later on, as elements started bunching together to form proto stars and gas clouds, the collective gravity would slow it even further and alter the original trajectories of the energy, which became atoms, which became stars.
We can assume the space between Andromeda and our milky way is expanding slower than the speed of light, and whatever forces acted upon each of the galaxies allowed our trajectories to intersect.
>>73725429
>who kick started the big bang. Without a deity, who created the egg which spawned existence?
Why 'who' not 'what'?
>>73723128
Grow a few plants, take clippings, clone them, then you may realize that life is a force with vigor.
Life is the universe's way of discovering and understanding itself.
Any human trying to conceptualize "god", is like an amoeba trying to conceptualize a McDLT.
Anyone who says they have the answers is full of shit, especially if they ever ask for money.
>>73723128
I like the theory that the universe is like a breathing entity.
We keep hearing the universe is ever expanding, and that's well and all.
But at some point it has to reverse. Think of the big bang as just some lingering moment between an inhale(contraction) and an exhale(expansion).
>>73723128
Ask him please by what wonder the Universe, not only was created incredibly complex yet coherent out of pure randomness, but also keeps existing with its laws. I mean, if there's no superior and coherent mind to organize it, there's no reason at all that the electrical tensions that bind the atoms' particles don't suddenly disappear, that a photon doesn't get a mass out of nowhere or that 2+2 don't start equaling 5.
The fact that is Universe is understandable means it's somehow fit to meet a logic, and thence obeys to one.
>>73729938
Read into the big crunch theory, you'd like it.
The gist is that eventually gravity becomes a much stronger force and reverses expansion until another big bang happens.
If our current expansion continues then we would experience a long, slow, heat death of the universe.
Not a fan of that theory.
>>73730132
I'm lead to believe that if Superstring theory is correct, the highest dimensional plane is sentient or conscious in order to avoid paradoxes.
>>73730249
>Not a fan of that theory.
That is the measure of science.
>>73730132
Couldn't it be that we, as citizens of this universe assume all the things we see are logical because they are consistent with this universe and nothing more?
