Thread 24673922

why can't materialists actually explain what was before the big bang without ironically sounding like magical stories

magical stories like God did it?

>>24673926
"it happened because it happened, time began before time and space manifested nowhere, physically"

>>24673922 (OP)
the current theory is that only energy existed and matter was formed when said energy "spawned" in matter and antimatter according to e=mc¨2
not magical in the slightest, especially since on earth humans have done the same thing on a much smaller scale (turn energy into matter + antimatter)

>>24673926
That's his point. Not the own you thought it was.

>>24673936
What created energy?

>>24673941
good question, but answering is such a monumental task that probably 5 nobel prizes could come from it and no one knows where to start
what created god?

>>24673934
And?
>>24673937
You missed my point.

>>24673946
who said anything about god?
>energy did it
is not really an explanation. what is energy?

>>24673946
God doesn't abide by the rules of our universe, so nothing had to create Him.
The only way material creation theories don't just go back infinitely is if the first thing/force somehow came out of another universe.
>>24673947
I didn't, unless you're arguing in favor of God. Religious theists believe in "magical stories" by the technical senses of the words, so they wouldn't disagree. You're basically just reinforcing rather than arguing against the notion that materialists can't explain what was before the big bang without sounding like creationists.

>>24673963
>my blind faith can beat up your blind faith!
You completely missed the point.

>>24673956
>what is energy
at this level its basically just vibrations, often in matter but sometimes not

>who said anything about god
the op photo is of a guy that has a book called "the heart of prayer", and anyway i asked about god. why do you criticize a science trying to understand more than blind faith in a fairy tail?

>>24673963
>abide by the rules of our universe
great, because before energy our universe didnt exist so obviously whatever happened then didnt abide by rules because those rules also didnt exist
the problem with that though is christcucks dont accept that as an answer (but weirdly thats the only answer they give)

>>24673967
So what exactly is the point? You also believe in magical stories, but modern ones, and that's that?
>>24673969
Where did the energy exist? In another universe?
>random mention of "christcucks" instead of creationists in general

>>24673969
>at this level its basically just vibrations
what is vibrating?
>often in matter but sometimes not
so everything is material but energy can be found in the non-material?

>why do you criticize a science trying to understand more than blind faith in a fairy tail?
materialism is not a science

>>24673976
You seem to be working off assumptions, when did I say anything about my beliefs?

>>24673997
I'm trying to guess at what your six-word argument was supposed to be because you just keep replying that that wasn't what you meant.

>>24673976
>creationists in general
ok, ill call you a creationcuck, does that make you happy?

>where did the energy exist
again no one knows

>>24673979
>what is vibrating
either anything with mass (or at least momentum for anyone that also knows) or just spacetime its self. think gravity, obviously its "energy" but it passes through perfect vacuum with no problems

>materialism is not a science
sure but pre big bang particle physics is science and thats what youre criticizing

>>24673999
No, I am replying that you are not as smart as you think you are.

>>24674000
>again no one knows
So it's ironically similar to creationism like OP was saying.

>>24674000
>either anything with mass (or at least momentum for anyone that also knows) or just spacetime its self.

I asked what was before the big bang, you said energy. I asked what energy is you replied with vibrations. then I asked what is vibratong and you only give examples where the big bang already occured in (you speak of mass, spacetime, gravity)

you answered nothing coherently.

There was nothing until Sofia gave birth to Yalbadaoth, causing the big bang.

>>24673922 (OP)
>itt : theist attacks atheists for not being able to explain experimental physics

the irony is that we do have models (quantum cosmology) that could attest matter coming from nothing, but that would be hard to accept for theists who ground god in scientific gaps

>>24674035
>blocks your path

>>24674036
>nothing did something and then matter exists
nothing.. is nothing. right?

>>24674036
From nothing, nothing comes.

>>24674041
>>24674051
Both wrong, but if you want to argue about quantum physics, go to /sci/ and stop shitting up threads on /his/

>>24673946
Nothing created God. God is not a being within the universe of beings, God is being itself. God is necessary, and all necessity is derivative of God. God is sheer actuality. God's essence is to exist. By contrast creatures, what they are (essence) does not entail that they are (existence).

From the perspective of the cosmos though, we can say that God, is the First Cause (hierarchical efficient cause, not an accidental temporal first cause), the First Mover, the Final Cause, the Necessary Existent, and the architect of quiddity. God is also the most Good, True, and One, by which these properties are structured.

>>24674036
No we don't. We have models that involve symmetry breaking in fields. That is not the same thing as nothing. That which is wholly uncaused has, by definition, no reason to be one way instead of any other. Any such reason would be a determinant cause, suggesting a prior actuality rather than a spontaneous move from potency to act "for no reason at all." You cannot model "nothing." By definition, there would be no model at all.

What happens here is equivocation. And even physicists I very much respect are guilty of this, such as Paul Davies. They equivocate between different senses of "nothing/void/vacuum." Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

>>24674486
Pretty close, but i would ask you why is God Being and what do you think defines and constitutes Being? Does Being not imply form and shape?
Why is God, the One not non-Being, prior to anything that can be 'measured' or prior to form and the formless.
Have you read the Periphyseon by John Scotus Eurigena where he tackles the nature of the One? Its very interesting and hes demonstration of apophaticism, negation.

“Nothing” is a term of art in physics, it doesn’t mean the absence of a state of physical conditions. These conversations are boring because both sides talk past each other and don’t even know what the Big Bang was. The Big Bang Theory is the earliest moment our observations can go and simply states that the *observable* universe was once hot and dense and did not consist of spacetime, particles, etc, not the universe as a whole, or reality as such. The set of conditions that gave rise to the Big Bang is unknown, nor does the theory say anything about it being the scientific resolution to the perennial debate of an eternal vs. a temporally finite universe. It’s just a set of physical conditions that absolutely implies some preceding causal environment that gave rise to a Big Bang, which is out of our observational reach currently. A lot of you sound like you put too much into the ignorant remarks of a Stephen Hawking who was too busy doing complicated math about black hole radiation and getting massaged on the Lolita express to embark on philosophical investigations into the ground of being or esse or whatever. 99% of even highly educated people do not actually understand God anyway, as MacIntyre says, the God of the atheists (and theists) was invented in the 17th century. If you are a theist and you get butthurt about the Big Bang, you are a post-Christian deist who worships a demiurge. If you talk about modern physics disproving god, you are also working in the deistic framework.

>>24674522
Good post.

>>24674522
well the topic of the thread is materialism. and if you need to define nothing as "actually not nothing" to prove your point that's stupid.

magic science.

>>24673922 (OP)

There was no "before" the big bang. Time itself started at the big bang

>>24673936
>not magical in the slightest
lol
>everything was there... somehow, and now there's something
>also we believe in heat death despite it running contrary to an eternal universe

>>24674619
>There was no "before" the big bang.
What makes you think that?
>Time itself started at the big bang
This is more of a metaphysical statement than a scientific one.

>>24674522
>If you are a theist and you get butthurt about the Big Bang, you are a post-Christian deist who worships a demiurge
True. It's darwinism that's demonic and false if anything.

>>24674516
As Dionysius the Areopagite puts it: it is wrong to say of God that He exists and it is wrong to say that He does not exist. But of the two, it is more wrong to say He does not exist."

Apophatic theology is indeed a cornerstone of the ideas I mentioned. I am familiar with Eriugena. In terms of God's nothingness, he makes a distinction between "nothing in virtue of absence" and "nothing in virtue of excellence." God is the latter.

For Aristotle, that God is pure actuality would dictate that God is pure form. But, thanks to "Neoplatonic" insights (scare quotes because some of these were actually borrowed from "middle Platonists" Christians, Jews, and Gnostics, such as Origen, an older contemporary of Plotinus in Alexandria, or Philo) we are not forced to equate actuality with limiting form. There is the idea of a "limiting essence" in Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Thomas, or the Islamics for instance (developed in different ways of course).

However, we aside from the via negativa, there is also the analgoia Entis, the path of analogous predication of God, who is revealed in creatures (Romans 1:20; for example, the two first stages of Saint Bonaventure's Mind's Journey Into God)

Nobody knows what was before the Big Bang but everybody agrees that the Sun, the earth and human beings were not createdy by a God of any kind. That is all you need to know.

>>24674652
No it's scientific. Time is tied to space and there's no passage of time in a singularity

>>24674742
>everybody agrees
>because... I said so

>>24674747
This is only if you assume that the Big Bang was a singular, one-time event.

>>24674666
Sorry don’t respond to my posts with these American opinions. Not interested in your trash country’s culture wars infesting intellectual spaces. Begone.

>>24674742
The term is cognitive closure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_closure_(philosophy)

>>24674780
Commit suicide faster with your false, evil beliefs faster Eurocuck.

>>24674696
Good post. I’ve been getting into this recently and my sense is that this intellectual tradition is basically forgotten outside theological circles versed in classical philosophy. There’s basically nothing from the culture wars of atheism vs theism debates from the late Victorian onward about it, as I mentioned above macintyre remarked that the god of the enlightenment was invented in the 17th century. I want to find the materialist response to this intellectual tradition, I’m not sure where it is, maybe Feuerbach and Marx since they came out of the Hegelian tradition which was deeply familiar with this theology. But I’m not familiar enough.

>>24674784
Have fun at the creationist museum this weekend after stroking to Bibleman movies. Maybe they’ll let you ride on the dinosaur despite your weight.

>>24674742
>>24674747
>>24674619
>>24674036
I love posts like these. How can "men of science" fail so spectacularly to know what science is? It's a process and methodology, not an ideology; I dont know is a fine answer. But presupposing the solution and tailoring your research to support it is not scientific, it's dogmatic.

>>24674801
>wahhh my anti-moralism materialist doctrine is actually true you science hating chud

>>24674827
>science is a methodology, this is why we have all the answers. it's not dogmatic. we know when time started and that energy is beyond space and time. Science rocks
ok bro

>>24674001
>>24673999
He is baiting. No one can be so retarded or insecure about their belief to keep answering "You don't get what I mean lol" without saying what they mean.
To clarify the situation: Religious people believe in magical stories, and they know they are magical, so they call them "miracles". Materialists believe in magical stories, yet they claim to be rational and logical thinkers even though they don't even ask about the cause of the big bang. The point the OP was trying to make was that materialists are hypocrits, while religious people aren't. Both believe in magical stories, only one of them negates they do while believing with a gigantic amount of faith.

>>24674889
You dont know any of that. You aproximate it based on observable and quantifiable information. And that is the polar opposite of my point.

The actual materialist position is that the universe always existed or at least is indeterminate in age.
https://marxist.com/the-big-bang-shoehorning-the-facts-to-fit-the-theory.htm
Big Bang is a psyop that was made up by a Catholic priest to keep science a handmaiden to theology. James Webb Telescope is going to keep finding galaxies way too developed for their supposed age, like MoM-z14. Big Bang cosmology is going to collapse in a decade or so and we will revisit plasma cosmology and aether theories.

>>24674893
The big bang theory doesn't include a theory as to what was BEFORE the big bang, only that a big bang occurred. It is a theory based on experimental data, not philosophy. You will never understand this because you're extremely spiritually unwell, something fed by your belief that you have uncovered the nasty tricks used by the mainstream scientific establishment.

>>24673936
Sounds pretty fucking magical, anon.

As someone semi close to being a materialist this is a rabbithole I've gone done numerous times. Scientists/physicists will say, "well there was energy and that eventually created matter and so on" and leave it at that, its a question they don't want to explore, because theres no possible way to explain it from a material/scientific framework based on our current understanding.
But if you prod them and ask where the energy came from, because there can't have been energy from literal nothingness, they hit a wall, they have no answers, its a total dead end. Every theory about how we got something from supposedly nothing ends up sounding like just as magical of a theory as the existence of an omnipotent creator.

I've heard of quantum physicists and whatnot actually turn to religion because of this, at this level there is pretty much no difference. Its all just unsubstantiated jabs in the dark without a shred of evidence one way or another, and so you either accept that we clearly have either an enormous flaw in our scientific understanding of the universe, or something else entirely is going on that we either aren't capable of understanding, or its being hid from us.

>>24674917
>The actual materialist position is that the universe always existed
But materialists also believe in thermodynamics, do they not?
>or at least is indeterminate in age.
That still points to a plausible starting point, which may not extend as far back as our current estimates suggest, but still necessarily implies there was an event that took place where something started from nothing.

>>24674917
It will be aether theory and field theory. Too much potential in field propulsion tech.
Tesla was right about alot of things.

>>24673922 (OP)
Materialism is just fedoraism. Anyone going back far enough into the mystery and seriously contemplating it would inevitably turn to "magic" and theology.

Why do both atheists and theist's argue in bad faith?

>>24674934
>there can't have been energy from literal nothingness
the "nothing" you are talking about always had energy in it

>>24674961
steady state theory isn't proven at all

>>24674961
Yeah, yeah quantum vacuums and all that, which loosely violates thermodynamics. We know physicists don't consider "nothing" to be truly "nothing" (convenient retooling of the word lmao) but there was a state prior to said vacuum which supposedly created the big bang.

Energy doesn't come from true nothingness, not the vacuum theory, which basically leaves us with Hawking's literal headcanon no-boundaries idea. Even the "not empty" vacuum theory is headcanon as well.

>>24674961
Proof?

>>24673963
>You're basically just reinforcing rather than arguing against the notion that materialists can't explain what was before the big bang without sounding like creationists.
>
The big bang is easy to see. Things all moving away from a central point in three dimensional space. That's a singularity. Too much matter too close, makes the big bang.
>
switch train of thought. Witness the black hole. Too much matter, now even light can't escape. In the center of the black hole, is a singularity. Two black holes orbit and collide when they meet. They become an even bigger black hole.
>
When the energy of the big bang runs out, it will take many billions of years but black holes will form and black holes will slowly collide until... you get one final black hole, containing all the material in the universe. All light, energy, nothing can escape it.
>
Its obvious that this is where the big bang "came from". When they get *all* the math correct, they'll see this. Because right now we have this. Observation, the galaxy is moving and reacting as if it has way more matter than it does. Conclusion? over 80% of the universe is *dark* matter. Ooh! Its a made up concept to explain what can't be explained... yet. Dark energy is the same.

>>24674619
>There was no "before" the big bang.
Bullshit.
Time itself started at the big bang.
Time AS YOU KNOW IT started then. Time begins to exist from your frame of reference.
>
When an object passes the event horizon of a massive black hole, an observer safely back from the even horizon that could observe with say a awesome telescope. The black hole spaceship, you would see it appear to slow down more and more. Until it slowed down (and continued to do so) and appeared to freeze. But to them, they don't see that. What we call time in the presence of huge immense gravity (black hole) slows down so much it appears to stop.
>
Stop! go back to the idea of the big bang. ALL that matter, crammed into a golf ball sized core. If a large black hole stops "time" what do you think all the matter of the universe, into one giant black hole does to "time". Because that's all the big bang really is. The biggest possible black hole.
>
At that size, there is no hawking radiation to bleed off. It goes Krakatoa. Big bang.
>
it will happen again.

>>24675113
Expansion of the universe (depending of course on the ultimate curvature of the universe) and dissipation of black holes via hawking radiation probably precludes this and means nothing ultimately for the validity of materialism as a philosophical theory even if it were true because the question isn’t whether a craftsman made the universe as an “efficient cause” a.k.a. the nonsensical deistic entity of mechanistic science, or whether it’s just an infinite series of material causal chains, but why there are physical, logical, etc. conditions whatsoever. Christianity has no theological problem with an eternal universe, they’ve all read their Aristotle on the nature of infinity. Again, the atheists and “theists” don’t know the terms of the argument as classically formulated, not only is ethics a lost paradigm of which remain mere fragments as MacIntyre says, but ontology too I claim. I need a materialist to respond to Proclus and Denys and Aquinas. Half the thread is going around in circles tailing the likes of Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss.

>>24674522
>A lot of you sound like you put too much into the ignorant remarks of a Stephen Hawking who was too busy doing complicated math about black hole radiation and getting massaged on the Lolita express to embark on philosophical investigations into the ground of being or esse or whatever.

>>24674522
>as MacIntyre says, the God of the atheists (and theists) was invented in the 17th century.
qrd? where does Maclntyre talk of this?

>>24673963
There you go again, mistakenly treating time and space as properties of things in themselves

>all matter is just condensed energy that is constantly converting and reverting back and forth between energy and matter
>materialism has zero sound explanation for what it is about matter, much less energy, within the laws of physics that leads to consciousness
materialism is a not just a meme, by a demonic mind virus that is ravaging the world

>>24675194
The Religious Significance of Atheism

>>24675229
>The Religious Significance of Atheism
Great, thanks anon.

Also thanks to whoever recommended this >>24674696, very relevant to own research

>>24675246
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lbky8CzvKo8

Check this out too

>>24675166
>Christianity has no theological problem with an eternal universe, they’ve all read their Aristotle on the nature of infinity.
Glad I'm not the only person who remembers this. Anyway, religionthreads need to be banned.

>>24674921
>The big bang theory doesn't include a theory as to what was BEFORE the big bang
Wrong. Clearly the theory argues for the beginning of the universe.
Are you implying the beginning of the universe was not the big bang? Or maybe you are confused about the meaning of the word "universe".
>It is a theory based on experimental data, not philosophy.
It was created by a christian priest, not a scientific. Before this theory atheists believed that the universe didn't have a beginning, they thought it was eternal. And it is the logical conclusion if you don't believe in God. In fact, the theory was mocked in the beginning, thus the stupid bame of "Big Bang Theory", originally it was "The Hypothesis of the primeval atom".

If you put all the instances of time into a bag, there simply aren't any before the big bang.

>>24673936
>not magical in the slightest
>said energy "spawned" in matter and antimatter
keke

Because ultimately all that which can’t be directly observed is mere theory, in other words, a mere story.

>>24675753
And that story? His story.

We can all at least agree that regardless of what happened before or after the Big Bang there was never any kind of anthropomorphic God that made or cares about humans.

Asking what was "before" time is nonsensical.

>time just happened bro
Still sounds magical.