Message from @Crazed Shotgun
Discord ID: 590646837216542751
nah
Oh I thought you were done, please continue
We exist in what is known as the observable universe. An interesting thing is that as things such as galaxies drift farther and farther away, they eventually pass through a boundary called the event horizon. They still exist but are outside our possible field of view. For all intents and purposes, they no longer exist because we would never be able to travel faster than the expansion of the universe to ever reach them. all of this culminates in the final thought that since the universe is expanding, and we can see things expanding beyond our scope of view, we know that the expansion must have originated from somewhere. However if the expansion theory is true, then we could theoretically pinpoint the exact location of the initial expansion.
I support milfism
Pinpointing the exact point of expansion is a very interesting thought, however of what relevance does this have to our discussion of a creator entity
I've heard about the anti-matter/matter theory before. It supposes that matter and antimatter pop in and out of existence all the time and cancel eachother out, resulting in a net gain of 0. However, if that were true, then Matter should not exist. Proponents of this theory claim that there is somewhat of an asymmetry between matter and antimatter
I was answering the Krauss question
Oh alright
The importance of finding the exact pinpoint is irrelevant
But
The implication of all matter and time coming from a single point begs the question, "What caused reality?:
The particle in question was all things, both time and space.
It was everything, it had no reason to explode as it did
It essentially was inert since nothing could exist outside of it and thus, nothing else existed outside of it to act upon it.
Well we can’t say with any degree of accuracy until we are certain of the exact properties of whatever could have been outside of it. My problem with claiming an immaterial creator was this first cause is that the immaterial/unnatural can’t be defined.
Its only characteristic is that it lacks characteristics
and is contrary to everything we know
It is in contrast to everything we *currently* know *empirically*.
If we are capable of analyzing it then it is material. Observation is how we acquire knowledge
I fully support scientists and the pursuit of understanding the universe, I just see the current scientific understanding of the universe much like the medical understanding of Humorism.
We just don't have the tools required to observe a God empirically yet.
The lack of proof is not proof of lack of existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence*
Yes, but the default assumption is that a theory is incorrect. I’m also not willing to wait around for proof that I doubt will ever come
and again, how do you expect to prove the existence of an immaterial being when we can only observe the material. We can see things because light essentially bounces off of things and back into our eyes
Yes, but for a time we couldn't see air either, yet we still felt the wind.
Exactly, we observed its effects and went from there. If the “immaterial” can affect the material, it is necessarily able to do so because it exists as a physical entity subject to the laws of physics
thus making it material
but I’m a bit bored of this so I’ll end off by saying that agnostic atheism is the most reasonable position with our current info
I've got shit to do myself l8r.
good talk 😁
@☭ Anon ☭ Why are you a communist?
because I’m jewish property and I want to please jews obviously
Oh.
why are you a liberal
lol
Because I believe in freedom and equality of opportunity and people’s right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
should we keep bombing brown people and colonizing their lands like we are doing now
No one is being colonized
Colonialism ended like 100 years ago