Thread 23045667

How do atheist solve the issue of infinite regression that happens in the atheist worldview?

<Things are made of matter!
>What is matter made of?
<Out of atoms!
>What are atoms made of?
<Subatomic particles!
>What are subatomic particles made of?
<Strings/They are excitations of quantum fields!
>What are strings/quantum fields made of?

Where does it all start? Where does it end? In b4 le heckin big bang. All religious people have the view point that a God invented all of this to begin. How do atheist get to the root of this?

Atheist are retarded

>then God did it

Why even bother framing the question if this is what you're going to tack on at the end? You're anthropomorphizing some root cause to stroke your ego and make yourself feel more meaningful.

Science, they discover some algorithm, they are wrong all the time and each 10 years science is rewritten, they act like they invented the thing, if you don't believe in the new science paradigm which is wrong and will be replaced in 10 year you are a dumb

Sounds like a ((you)) problem.

>of
youre assigning physical values to non things, at which point language has becone irrelevant to the issue of origination where the problem issued is of consistency

>>23045667 (OP)
>>23045668

>>23045667 (OP)
>string theory
>real
kill yourself.

>>23045667 (OP)
>>What is matter made of?
><Out of atoms!
No.
Atoms are a theoretical concept in physics.
All mater is made out of Fields.

><Strings/They are excitations of quantum fields!
Basically, magic and magic bullshit.
Made up stuff.

>>23045667 (OP)
Picrel is me trying to fold up one of those windshield sunshade things

>>23045667 (OP)
What is the world made out of?
>God did it!

Okay.

>>23045676
Literally go corner-to-corner one way, and then corner-to-corner the other way.

It'll flip into itself.

> the issue of infinite regression
There isn't one.
The same stuff is modern physics that is talking about entropy. Entropy means everything should have fallen apart a long time ago.

The fact that nothing is falling apart means that "modern physicists" are wrong.
It also means there's a massive amount of energy exists in the universe that is everywhere.

>>23045667 (OP)
>infinite regression

see you have this thing called nothing and then you have everything now which is the quivalent of nothing

you just haven't wrapped your mind around it

>>23045667 (OP)
Atheism is a mental pacifier, not even a philosopy.

>>23045667 (OP)
Um .... HECKIN SCIENCE CHUD!!!

>>23045681
You immediately should conclude that some type of God or Creator exists:
>>23045679

why had god need to rest on the seventh day
i thought he created the subatomic particles and so on ? isnt "he" allmighty ?

>>23045667 (OP)
Wouldn't a God being be the most complex being imaginable if one existed? How would something so complex just exist without a cause?

Read some Plotinus niggers

>>23045667 (OP)
Thinking you've solved this problem by inventing an imaginary friend is hubris.
There is no solution! Deal with it.

>>23045667 (OP)
maybe there is a infinity of building blocks so small we can't ever see it all. even then matter can't come from nothing. someone created the universe

>>23045667 (OP)
> Where does it all start? Where does it end?
How do you know that it must have a start and end?

>>23045667 (OP)
The Mandelbrot Set is a glimpse into how our reality can showcase infinitely more complex smaller particles in real-time. We're in God's sandbox and scientists trying to unravel the secrets of the human brain or the mysteries of the universe are barely capable of scratching the surface with our limited understanding of dimensions of reality

>>23045667 (OP)
It always starts with movement and always end static

>>23045673
>gaytheist interprets things wrong because he's a retard and thinks he owned the christard
Many such cases. Be sure to tip your fedora.

>>23045688
> Simple matter is too complex to exist without without a creator. That's why the most complex being imaginable must just exist without a creator.
For some reason I'm not convinced.

>>23045667 (OP)
>lololol subatomic particles and strings
The fundamental flaw in an atheist believing in science they don’t actually comprehend because they’re fucking midwits who latch onto any tidbits that made them appear intelligent is inherent concession that the existence of strings mandates there be at least 11 dimensions to the universe. An 11th dimensional being would be a being we physically could not even comprehend the nature of, especially seeing as a 10th dimensional being already possesses omniscience and omnipotence and can exist at all future, past, and present space in the universe simultaneously and is essentially already God.

>>23045694
where did matter come from then?

>>23045667 (OP)
You already said it. The quantum field. There are some waves that cannot pass through each other. Those are called Fermions. We can't calculate anything smaller than the plank length. String theory is meant to explain those waves at that scale. There is nothing smaller

>>23045667 (OP)
how do holocaust truther explain the infinite regression

>where are the bodies
they got burned to ash
>where did the bones go
the bones were crushed
>where did the ash go
spread on fields and rivers
>why didn't you find it in the sediment layers of the river when you were looking?
antisemite

>>23045667 (OP)
It stems from the primordial truth of nothingness. How is anything expressed or discerned? By difference, contrast, duality. Nothingness is expressed by what it is not, i.e. the entire universe and all things over all time forever. There is nothing at the bottom of all this, an ineffable nothing that is not beheld by a world of infinite illusion, yet is paradoxically a structural element of the illusion, the space between words. You can spend your life cataloging and analyzing the 10,000 things, chasing the wind, or you can let it go and content yourself with the bare fact of being as such. There are no answers, only practices.

>>23045696
Matter is created from energy, which is a property of space itself. That's what E=mc^2 means. We don't really know why space is made up from energy

>>23045681
Christianity doesn’t kill the soul—it occupies it. It fills the space where real growth should happen. Not all of it. Just enough. Enough to prevent the rest from ever taking root.

Picture a person as an open vessel, full of hunger, contradiction, and raw potential. There's pain, confusion, regret—fuel for transformation. But instead of being forced to confront that darkness, to dig through it, to forge something true—they’re handed an answer. A savior. A system. And that answer expands to fill 90% of the space they could’ve grown into.

It offers forgiveness before they’ve understood their harm. Identity before they’ve built a self. Purpose before they’ve earned meaning. It quiets the very voices that would have led them into adulthood of the soul. It feels like redemption, but it’s really a premature resolution. A sedative, a crutch, a beautifully wrapped stalling mechanism.

That’s what makes it so effective. And so dangerous. It doesn’t destroy the person—it replaces the process. The real path—the slow, painful one where you confront your shadow, suffer your smallness, climb out of your illusions—is no longer needed. Jesus already did it. Just believe. Just accept.

So the person never breaks. Never rebuilds. Never truly sees. They become a walking template: filled, satisfied, obedient. The vessel is full, but it’s all substitute substance. Like spiritual foam. Dense. Hardened. Hollow.

And worst of all, they’ll fight to protect that 90%. Because now they think it is them.

>>23045701
We should all strive to be like Christ. He sets an example for how we should act and do unto others.
You're saying that the good example Christ sets for us is nothing more than spiritual foam, occupying the space where something else should grow?
So if Christ is a "waste of filler", what do you like to fill your soul with instead?
Hookers and blow?

>>23045687
i like bubbles

>>23045667 (OP)
Man who does not anoint himself God does not require all problems to be solved

Man who knows all problems are solved in his world view has anointed himself God..how do you contend with this?

The questions of physics you are arguing are not mutually exclusive to religious belief to begin with. So you have not posed a question to atheists but rather people who understand science and logical thoughts which you apparently reject.

>>23045702
Striving to be like Christ sounds noble, but in practice, it often just means imitating a sanitized myth—a perfect figure you’ll never become, instead of confronting who you actually are.

What I’m saying isn’t that “Christ is foam.” I’m saying that the way people use Christ—as a shortcut, a substitute, a bypass—is foam. They adopt his name like a mask, speak his words like scripts, and congratulate themselves for proximity to virtue instead of becoming anything.

It’s not Christ that’s hollow. It’s the way people hide behind him to avoid real growth, responsibility, or complexity. You don’t become good by staring at perfection—you become good by wrestling with your imperfection, owning it, and changing, painfully, over time.

As for what fills my soul? Reality. Accountability. Stillness. Thought. Doubt. Grief. Insight. Silence. The raw, unfiltered process of becoming—not pretending. I don't need a divine mascot to avoid hookers and blow. I don’t outsource my conscience to a 2,000-year-old symbol.

The tragedy is that people cling to Christ because they’re terrified of their own depths. But your soul won’t grow in the shadow of someone else’s light. It only grows when you stop performing sainthood and start getting honest.

>>23045667 (OP)
>Where does it all start? Where does it end?
its too difficult to understand for us the answer could be that there is no answer and nothing makes sense

niggerfaggot confusion spell thread
>>23045667 (OP)
infinite regression of "what is shit made out of" can happen whether or not you believe god created it, i don't know what you're on about

actually i do, it's a fed makign sure everyone is properly mindraped on pol

actual physicist here, AMA and i'ill try to respond

>>23045667 (OP)
>How do atheist solve the issue of infinite regression?
why do you assume the regression (which is sometimes called physical reductionism) is infinite? For all we now the quantum field level might be the most fundamental level and is able to explain everything (relatively) neatly.

For reference, at the end of the 19th century when the Maxwell equations were first written down, many physicists assumed that the "project of physics" was nearly done, i.e. all the fundamental laws of nature were already known and all that had to be done is use that framework to solve some remaining open problems . Of course, right after that quantum physics was discovered which uprooted the entire system so those scientists were wrong, but it gives you an idea of what the goal of physics actually is. It's not a dogmatic system that needs to invent more and more complexity in a reductionist spiral to explain reality, we are just trying to find the most accurate description of our world.

>atheist worldview
>How do atheist get to the root of this?
Nothing about physical reductionism is particularly "atheist", many great physicists were religious, in fact the theory of the Big Bang was penned down by a Catholic priest. For religious people, practising physics, discovering laws of nature brings them closer to God's creation.

I would also like to add that the laws of physics governing our daily life are completely known. The world around us, the common elements, their interactions. All of it is figured out beyond reasonable doubt. In that sense, physics is already "done".

The stuff physicists are working on now (What happens near / in black holes, what happens when you smash really energetic small particles together, what happened at the beginning of time) those are all very interesting and fundamental questions but frankly they will not add much to our understanding of the world.

>>23046256
>>23046269
something is wrong

appreciate your posts though

>>23046269
Physics isn't done. We don't yet have the ability to manipulate reality in any way we wish.

>>23046764
i think we pretty much do form the physics side
the problem is more consolidation of power
our understanding of physics has far surpassed our ability to use/implement that stuff
you know?

>form
from*