If there is anything at all after death you will know instantly as from your point of view all of time will go by in an instant.

>>17788152 (OP)
I'm a firm believer of eternal recurrence.

>>17788152 (OP)
>Contraction
What causes the contraction?

>>17788152 (OP)
We are getting closer to debunking the big bang every day.
We just found out about several stars and planets that add up against the big bang.

>>17789368
I thought Christards supported the Big Bang because they thought it proved God or some shit

>>17789370
Nothing boom is unbiblical atheist mythology like evolution.

>>17788889
I can’t wait to see you again next time buddy :)

>>17789376
What created God?

>>17789380
God exists by nature.

>>17789368
>We are getting closer to debunking the big bang every day.
No we're not and nobody is saying this. You do realize we can still see the redshift of stars with our own eyes right? The universe had to be smaller in the past, we know this because we can literally see the universe getting bigger. You can't fake the universe getting bigger, you can literally get a telescope and see it happening. This means it had to have been smaller in the past, and we have no reason to believe there was a point in the past where it was smaller than it was during the big bang. This in and of itself does not prove or disprove God, so it's a dumb hill for you to die on.

>>17789388
>where it was smaller
I mean bigger, it could be smaller but thats purely speculative

>>17789388
>The universe had to be smaller in the past, we know this because we can literally see the universe getting bigger.
Therefore nothing happened to nothing and nothing exploded for no reason

>>17789388
>The universe had to be smaller in the past, we know this because we can literally see the universe getting bigger.
That's a dubious assumption, just because it's getting bigger in the present doesn't mean it had to be much smaller in the past

>>17789395
The thing is that we don't actually know what happened before the Big Bang, we know that there was a period of rapid cosmic expansion between year 0 after the big bang and year 380,000 after the big bang through the cosmic microwave background, and we know what happened after this because that's when normal matter as we know it formed during the recombination epoch, but everything before all that is impossible to actually know. Maybe God set off the big bang, maybe the big bang wasn't actually a singularity event and is simply the earliest point of cosmic expansion we can reliably measure, we don't know. But the big bang still had to have happened.

>>17789399
Cosmologists are fairly confident that it was smaller becuase of the CMB, which suggests the universe was way more dense and way hotter in the past before expanding and cooling off, leaving the CMB as trace background heat

>>17789411
The big bang did not happen, most of this is made up. The radiation was observed, the red shift was observed, all this other stuff like the supposed state of matter billions of years ago was not observed, it is atheist mythology. There was no long gradual evolution of the cosmos from a primal state to its present form, but all things were created by God from nothing in approximately their present state.

>>17789423
But we can literally observe the cosmic microwave background which is a remnant from when the universe was hotter and more dense

>>17789430
>But we can literally observe the cosmic microwave background
True
>which is a remnant from when the universe was hotter and more dense
Untrue

>>17788152 (OP)
Or not know. An exact replica (same subjective state through and through at x given moment) materializes, no memory transfer, you'd have no idea. Comes down to philosophy of self questions. Empty (favored by the professionals), open (arguments for empty apply + a pantheistic like leap), closed (common sense, soul-based).

>>17789649
Empty individualism*, open individualism*, closed individualism*

Primer:
https://www.quora.com/What-does-David-Pearce-think-of-closed-empty-and-open-individualism
Chaser might come from Bernardo Kastrup

>>17789440
>Untrue
What makes you think this is untrue? What do you think the CMB is?

>>17789669
>What makes you think this is untrue?
I'm open, I suppose, to the theory the universe was at one time for whatever reason was hotter. I'm not open to the idea of cosmic evolution.
>What do you think the CMB is?
I don't know.

>>17788905
Gravity. This theory is pretty much discredited though.

>>17789815
Think I heard something along the lines of vacuum collapse, gravity becomes overpowered, reverse inflation, re singularitization. I swear I heard that, do you believe me?