Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:26:05 UTC No. 16432960

>>16432911
>the big bang doesn't even make sense
>T. Dunning Kruger tard
Anyone who actually believes this is a perfect example of why conspiracy theories and the anti-science movement have gained so much traction in recent years. Leave the science to actual scientists.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:58:36 UTC No. 16432995

>>16432911
>let me put precise mathematical formulations of pseudo-Riemannian geometry in dumbed down pop sci English
>wtf it doesn’t make any sense
no shit

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:10:04 UTC No. 16433014

no one knows if it's cyclical or not
cute deer

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:17:15 UTC No. 16433025

>>16432960
Tell me more about how some conspiracy of Dunning Krugers against science is responsible for all the widespread organizational abuses of science and the reproducibility crisis of recent decades.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:24:17 UTC No. 16433036

>>16433025
You sound like an angry redneck republican

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:29:09 UTC No. 16433047

>>16433036
And these redneckish voices you hear are the ones telling you about conspiracies?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 17:38:28 UTC No. 16433220

>>16432960
YWNBAW

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:37:05 UTC No. 16433281

>>16432911
>the big bang doesn't even make sense
Because you cannot look back to your starting point in time?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:43:38 UTC No. 16433297

>>16433281
How is it supposed to sequester back into one big ball of matter again for the next big bang huh explain that

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:26:24 UTC No. 16433529

The scientific explanation for how and why the Big Bang happened is literally just "God did it."

the guy who came up with the idea was a big time Christian, and said so. It's funny seeing enlightened atheists cling to the theory today. Because there's really no other possibility for how everything could have just come out of nothing for no reason.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:30:56 UTC No. 16433543

>>16433529
What made God? Bigger God?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:31:59 UTC No. 16433546

>>16433543
Big God

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:50:14 UTC No. 16433567

>>16432911
The big bang is not a scientific theory. It is a political scientific theory. Big fucking difference

People who promote the big bang theory are scientific communicators. Which are people who by definition of sociolibgustics persuade and influence the public on scientific topics.

This Is a political endeavor. Big bang has been debunked several times.

Bayron asymmetry. Proves this

The inconsistency of the hubble constant or bubbles law proves this.

This is just trolling by the intellectual elites you'd be a fool to believe this nonsensical theory.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 23:28:53 UTC No. 16433613

>>16432911
>big bang doesn't even make sense
Of course it does:
-nothing then explosion
-there is no center, makes no sense
-if reverse time then everything goes back to a singularity but you can't ask where is the center relative to earth.
-

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 23:36:37 UTC No. 16433620

>>16433613
What

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 23:37:23 UTC No. 16433621

>>16433567
Provide an alternative theory then

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:16:41 UTC No. 16433670

>>16433621
God did it, commie.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:33:27 UTC No. 16433677

>>16433621
The alternative theory is nothing. No one knows how the universe came into existence.

It is something that we can never observe.

Can we go back in time billions or how ever many years and observe the universe come into existence?

Obviously no. So there's no material way we can prove any hypothesis on the topic.

Why do we need to know? What point would it be to know?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:11:49 UTC No. 16434068

>>16433529
>there's really no other possibility for how everything could have just come out of nothing for no reason.
0!=100%, the reason everything just comes out of nothing is because everything is a particular mathematical function of nothing.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:10:24 UTC No. 16434101

>>16434068
>Yeah maaan its all just a closed loop yeeeah

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:26:36 UTC No. 16434113

>>16434101
Counting isn't just symbol that loop, it is also a progressive expansion of the magnitude of those symbols upon a void additive element to represent an ever expanding potential from a base origin.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:48:01 UTC No. 16434132

>>16434113
>Something is adding to the loop
>Just dont think about it

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:59:13 UTC No. 16434138

>>16434132
The loop is just symbolic so you can easily truncate 100 instead of making 100 different hash marks, the values aren't actually looping, they are progressing without end.

>durr something
Maybe its something (You) can't think about given (You) clearly don't understand any of the math terms that were mentioned like magnitude, expansion, potential, or additive element.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:05:47 UTC No. 16434141

>>16432960
isn't calling someone dunning kruger a dunning kruger in itself?
>>16433546
they're the same
>>16433670
proof?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:23:49 UTC No. 16434157

>>16432911
JWST is actively disproving big bang as we speak while youtube talking heads scramble to cope and change the narrative.
>>16433567
Yeap
>>16433621
That's not how science works
>>16433677
Likely true, humans assume nothing is beyond our understanding, hubris.

>Pasted google info below

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has produced observations that are in tension with some cosmological models, including the standard cosmology and the CDM cosmological model:

High redshift galaxy observations
JWST observations of galaxies at high redshifts predict a higher star formation efficiency than the standard cosmology. This is in tension with the Planck CMB measurements.

Early Universe galaxies
JWST observations of galaxies at high redshifts, which existed 0.3 Gyr after the Big Bang, indicate that their structure and masses may be as evolved as galaxies that existed for Gyr. This is in tension with the CDM cosmological model.

The Hubble tension is another apparent paradox that cosmologists are trying to explain. This tension is caused by the difference between the value of the Hubble constant calculated from the brightness of objects and their redshift values, and the value calculated using other methods. Some hypotheses suggest that new physics may be the cause of the Hubble tension

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:38:19 UTC No. 16434168

>>16434138
nah this doesn't need to be a big word conversation at all, either the loop is closed, or its open, and there are big implications to both

the behavior within the open or closed loop is quite literally determined by whether or not its a closed or open loop

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:48:43 UTC No. 16434176

>>16434168
>either the loop is closed, or its open,
Nope, in counting each position loops through a radix, but the total magnitude is completely open, so the numbering system incorporates both aspects.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:04:50 UTC No. 16434187

>>16434176
You are just spouting nonsense, reality itself is the loop. You are just describing internal behavior.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:08:11 UTC No. 16434188

>>16434187
Maybe in your nonsensical though looping opinion, but not according to the math, the formula provided or the way counting works.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:12:31 UTC No. 16434193

>>16434188
You actually just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I mean by loop.

It is that which contains all things, regardless of expansion all of this is within this loop. Either there is input into this loop, or there is no input and it works independently.

Literally all of your statements are meaningless regarding this, so this is why I say you have a fundamental misunderstanding.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:18:27 UTC No. 16434200

>crtl+f
>"gravity"
>0 results

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:22:25 UTC No. 16434204

>>16434193
You fundamentally misunderstand what loop means since loop is when an end point and beginning point directly connect so that a line/process just loops through the same finite set of points over and over instead of extending to infinite points.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:33:28 UTC No. 16434221

>>16434204
Mathematics does not have total domain over word definitions, autist. The best people define words on the fly mid-conversation, and intelligent people do not get screwed up by this and they pick up on the conversation based term immediately rather than autistically trying to adhere to a meaning that obviously has no relation to the conversation just to be a miser.

You're a homosexual.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:38:02 UTC No. 16434228

You need a job

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:41:50 UTC No. 16434230

>>16434221
>The best people define words on the fly mid-conversation
>best
You mean narcissistic people who can never admit they are wrong and would just arbitrarily redefine a word over and over while ignoring the past ways they used them.

>rather than autistically trying to adhere to a meaning that obviously has no relation to the conversation just to be a miser.
It definitely relates to the conversation, since in reality, the number system both loops and progresses and not all numbers can actually be fully represented within the radix based number system as you tried to suggest.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:43:17 UTC No. 16434232

>>16434230
Bro you came into my conversation and misunderstood it and started replying based off that misunderstanding, you are the wrong one.

You are still misunderstanding. This is a simple statement about God or No God. Input or no input.

I think you just want to share that you know a few terms.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:45:09 UTC No. 16434235

I offer to change the term for the remainder of the thread to "system" if your panties truly cannot be unbunched

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:47:13 UTC No. 16434239

Loop, system, cycle, expect these to be interchanged or we can decide on just one

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:55:42 UTC No. 16434245

>>16434232
No, I provided the exact mathematical formula that showed the mathematical reasoning for the direct relationship between nothing and everything and you started ranting about closed loops with some nonsensical definition that has nothing to do with the mathematical definition of closed or loop.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:11:43 UTC No. 16434259

>>16432911

Just, light particles red shift down to 0 at cmb and before cmb is 1hz down to 0hz you get dark age.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:22:30 UTC No. 16434272

>>16434245
Again, you are just explaining internal behavior which is nice and cool but totally unrelated to the rules that regard the boundaries.

It is sad and annoying that you keep repeating yourself.

Why > How

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:24:03 UTC No. 16434275

This nigga talkin bout the hamster cage the other nigga talkin bout the smell LMAO

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:29:57 UTC No. 16434281

>>16434259
But who was phone

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:35:49 UTC No. 16434290

Imagine, after humans go extinct.
And in a other few billion years new intelligent life appears.
Imagine how they will never be able to understand or develop the same theories as us because the universe expanded so much and everything is so far away they won't see shit.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:12:57 UTC No. 16434323

>>16434290
Sci-fi fantasy... anon this is conter factual. We can't predict the future because it is uncertain.

The hiesberg uncertainty principle. The only thing certain is uncertainty.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:32:28 UTC No. 16434356

>>16434272
>internal behavior
No, the additive element is ubiquitous given everything is a function of nothing, not simply a subset of nothing.

The how 100% is everything is explained by the definition of the percent function, the how nothing is the additive element is explained by the definition of the additive identity.
The why everything is a function of nothing is explained by the equality between 100% and the nil factorial function, you need to answer the how before you can begin to explain the why.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:46:14 UTC No. 16434374

>>16434356
ANON! We get what your technical jargon is trying to convey. I understand what you are saying.

However.

Technical jargon and mathematics means dog shit if you cannot OBSERVE or SEE what you are measuring using math.

No ONE in the world CAN SEE. the beginning of the universe. THEY CAN SPECULATE or GUESS but there is no way to know for sure.

how do you not understand?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:58:00 UTC No. 16434383

>>16434374
>words and numbers bad
I accept your concession.

I can OBSERVE nothing, I do it for hours every night of dreamless sleep, I can SEE nothing with my own two hands, I am holding nothing right now in my tenth hand.

> THEY CAN SPECULATE or GUESS
No, they can calculate and model, hence there are definite objective formulas we can use to generate endless imaginary universes from beginning to end.

>how do you not understand?
Your new thesis is that things cannot be understood for sure, things can only be observed and speculated, so of course you are going to conclude that nobody understands which basically just is you projecting that you don't understand which is why your concession is hastily accepted.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:10:16 UTC No. 16434401

>>16434383
Bro it's in the literature ANON!! theoretical physics is non expiremental. Have you actually READ, THE LITERATURE. This is an academic consensus. No one is making shit up. If you want to believe in the big bang as a fact fine. Just admit that you want to believe and you don't care what anyone says.

You cannot bend reality to fit your narrative anon. That's not how reality works.

See Pic. They are abstractions anon meaning no physical or concrete existence anon. .

Hahahahahahahaha


Go read the literature again anon.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:16:01 UTC No. 16434405

>>16432911
Do you also believe that your COVID shots contain nanotech?
How about your own UFT, do you have one? Do you think someone else has one?
Do you believe in spirits? Do you believe little gray man are visiting Earth?
Do you listen to Joe Rogan more than once a week?
If any of these are true, then get off the board.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:24:28 UTC No. 16434412

>>16434401
I have said nothing of the big bang and mentioned nothing about its dogma, the formulas I reference have had centuries of discussion and testing prior to 1948 and the big bang theory, you are grasping at straws and fishing for ad hominem because you got btfo.

>You cannot bend reality to fit your narrative anon. That's not how reality works.
>t. the anon who keeps using abstract symbols and arguments to disprove math that has held up for centuries on the basis of it being abstract symbols

>They are abstractions anon meaning no physical or concrete existence anon.
They describe and explain the how and why of physical concrete existence.

>Go read the literature again anon.
>t. the same anon that just refused to engaged with the literature and math on the basis literature and math is just dog shit jargon

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:29:56 UTC No. 16434416

>>16434356
>Everything is just nothing

Nobody take this guy seriously

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:31:25 UTC No. 16434421

>>16434412
Hey fagface I took a nap a while ago and somebody else started arguing with you btw

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:32:26 UTC No. 16434423

>>16434405
Reddit

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:33:17 UTC No. 16434424

>>16434416

>>16434356
>function of nothing, not simply a subset of nothing
Read closer next time, so you don't look so foolish.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:35:04 UTC No. 16434429

>>16434421
I guess you can go back to sleep and try again in a few hours since you still don't seem to have an argument btw.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:35:48 UTC No. 16434431

>>16434424
Lmao anon nobody cares and it's bullshit you came here to be a loser

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:36:58 UTC No. 16434433

>>16434429
>Argument

Anon your numbers are bologna that's why people picked different options and theew yours in the trash centuries ago

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:37:38 UTC No. 16434436

>>16434431
Ok you win an accepted concession, good job.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:38:53 UTC No. 16434438

>>16434412
Bahahahahahahahahahhahhahaha.

It's never to late to go to college anon.

I throw you a bone and say you understand math but math isn't real. the universe doesn't operate on math. Mathematics is an abstract tool of measurement.

It is a point of reference of REALITY.

which is why statistical measurements are NON deterministic. Because the the probability distributions or stochastic processes are RANDOM. or unordered or CHAOTIC!!!

These are what mathematical models are based on anon. They are predictions they are not facts.

Understand the linguistical parameters they change your perception of reality

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:38:59 UTC No. 16434439

>>16434433
>t. the self-refuting anon relying on those numbers to post lies on the internet trying to defame numbers

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:40:04 UTC No. 16434440

>>16434439
You are so insanely dumb, mathematics is not your backbone you fucking idiot

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:43:11 UTC No. 16434444

"hey guys this placeholder term to show a lack of quantity well guess what, that's also the recipe for the entire universe"

3 year old mindset

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:50:57 UTC No. 16434455

>>16434438
>the universe doesn't operate on math.
It doesn't operate on words either, wordcel.
>an abstract tool of measurement.
Yes, and the measurements demonstrate to physically draftable and computationally simulateable degrees the exact how and why everything is a function of nothing.
>It is a point of reference of REALITY.
Which points to reality being almost exactly what I am saying while almost completely refuting your claims that it is impossible to test.
>They are predictions they are not facts.
No, they are centuries worth of populations of observers generationally refining their observations and encapsulating them in layers of symbolic logic.

>Understand the linguistical parameters they change your perception of reality
Again, your whole argument is that you can't actually understand abstract symbols like linguists which is why you constantly have to refute yourself to make that argument with abstract symbols using numbers to compact your information into standardized semiconductor communication protocols and broadcast them to the internet so the entire English speaking world knows you are incoherent and retarded.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:53:45 UTC No. 16434459

>>16434455
>Yes, and the measurements demonstrate to physically draftable and computationally simulateable degrees the exact how and why everything is a function of nothing.

That's a lie and you've got nothing to back it up just your wishful thinking

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:01:49 UTC No. 16434470

>>16434444
>term to show a lack of quantity
Nope, you might have got quad quads, but that isn't what 0 means, the additive element, nothing, is the value that can combine though logical conjunction with any other value without changing the value of the other one.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:05:21 UTC No. 16434481

>>16434455
>Again, your whole argument is that you can't actually understand abstract symbols like linguists which is why you constantly have to refute yourself to make that argument with abstract symbols using numbers to compact your information into standardized semiconductor communication protocols and broadcast them to the internet so the entire English speaking world knows you are incoherent and retarded

What do you mean by this can you clairfy?

It sounds like we are making progress but it also sounds slop.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:05:33 UTC No. 16434482

>>16434459
No, they definitely use arithmetic logic to draft models and make physical simulations, its not something I could ever possibly dream up all on my own, its based on the documentation of centuries of trial and error and ALU development and networking that you are taking advantage of right now to tell the entire english speaking world that numbers don't real.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:08:21 UTC No. 16434492

>>16434481
It means you are actively refuting the coherency and reasonableness of your own argument by arguing with words that words can't be used to make coherent reasonable arguments.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:09:54 UTC No. 16434495

>>16434470
>0 is "the additive element"

pure schizophrenia

>>16434482
All in your imagination


"Around the third century B.C., the Babylonians used two wedges to indicate that a number was missing from a column."

You are adding LORE to 0

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:20:16 UTC No. 16434506

>>16434495
What exactly do you think the axioms of arithmetic consist of if you don't even know about the additive element, literal 3rd grade arithmetic.
>imagination
Nope I am using a physical computer that can only function if the arithmetic logic that enables it is actually really physically consistent and so are you.
>You are adding LORE to 0
No, I am taking advantage of the physical properties of 0 to make you look like an incoherent retard on a global computer networking forum.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:26:17 UTC No. 16434515

>>16434492
No all I'm trying to say is it's just an abstraction anon. Reality is reality abstraction are ideas.

That's it anon.

A cars speed is reality measured through abstraction. The speed is real. Mph is abstract. It is a way for HUMANS to understand the rate of change.

The big bang is an abstraction measured with an abstraction. An idea measured through ideas. Where's the reality components that it can be tethered to????

Know the difference

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:30:57 UTC No. 16434527

>>16434506
You are so foolish, let's just be clear 0!=100% is nonsense

for your computer to work 0! must never = 1 you fucking monkey

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:33:18 UTC No. 16434535

>>16434515
>No all I'm trying to say is it's just an abstraction anon.
Yes, I have been pointing out since >>16434383 that you have moved the goalposts to muh werds r bad since your original incoherent loop nonsense that you abandoned.

>The big bang
Again, I don't care about your strawman, you brought that shit up, the logic I presented preceded 1948 by at least a century.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:35:41 UTC No. 16434542

>>16434535
You have posters mixed up. Also, the entire thread is about the big bang, you fucking nigger.

I am loop poster, and the question regarding the loop we are contained within is whether or not there is external input. This is the God question. A real question.

Your numbers are just little placeholders for logic operators.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:36:28 UTC No. 16434544

>>16434527
Anon what are you saying. 0 is a representation of nothing.

Binary replicates the switching of integrated circuits

1 or 0.

Switch off 0

Switch on 1

I don't get how this is schizophrenia?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:37:13 UTC No. 16434547

>>16434527
>0! must never = 1
For arithmetic to be consistent, 0! must always equal 1, you can confirm with any calculator from the software calculator on your computer to some cheap job fair solar calculator swag to massive parallel supercomputers, they all synchronize 0! to 1.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:37:47 UTC No. 16434549

>>16434544
Do you not grasp what you just said

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:38:48 UTC No. 16434550

>>16434547
literally the opposite

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:43:42 UTC No. 16434551

>>16434542
>You have posters mixed up.
Nope, you are the frog posting retard trying to use word logic to debunk words and logic who doesn't understand I was pointing to my own post where I accepted the concession of >>16434374.

>Also, the entire thread is about the big bang
Then you said something illogical to prove big bang is wrong and we went to that tangent, then you started ranting about how numbers and words aren't even real because you lost the argument and were mad at words.

> whether or not there is external input.
Yes when I pointed out the additive element is not solely internal because it is ubiquitous, you broke down and started ranting about how numbers and words and logic aren't even real, so I accepted you concession and will continue to do so.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:49:20 UTC No. 16434556

>>16434550
What do you mean by literal opposite?
What does your calculator calculate for 0!, if not 1?
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=0%21

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:51:12 UTC No. 16434558

>>16434551
That's me anon lol I'm the frog guy

My point is they aren't real and you need material proof to back it up.

It's the equivalent to having an imaginary girlfriend. You can say she exists all you want.

prove it.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:59:13 UTC No. 16434561

>>16434558
>you need material proof to back it up.
Yes and you actively interacting with the semi-conductive material proof that backs up the real physical utility of arithmetic logic.

>It's the equivalent to having an imaginary girlfriend.
Your computer, the global network of computers using the same communication protocols and the arithmetic logic they depend on are not imaginary like your girlfriend, the shitty self refuting argument you are wasting computation power trying to justify is imaginary.

If you choose make a new post using physical devices that depend on arithmetic logic units, you are simply adding to the massive pile of evidence that proves my claims and making yourself look retarded for everyone to see which at this point I can only attribute to some kind of humiliation fetish mixed in with the retardation.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:06:51 UTC No. 16434685

>>16433297
>xplain that
Explain shizo babble? For what?.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:21:23 UTC No. 16435231

>>16433543
According to NDErs God just found itself existing, knew that it was eternal and uncaused and unlimited, and created everything for fun. As NDErs say, the source is infinitely curious and creative, and we are its children.

And NDEs are seriously irrefutable proof that heaven is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they ought not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

So every atheist or materialist or agnostic would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

>"The minute that I kind of woke up on that hillside in heaven I knew that that was more real than any time I've ever spent here on Earth. And I knew instantly that my time here was really but a dream. It's real to us when we're in it, but once I was there in heaven I realized that's more real, that felt more real, and it made much more sense to me than anything here. This is kind of nonsensical at times. In heaven, it's so clear, so real, so rational, so logical, but yet emotional and loving at the same time. Immediately I knew that was real and this was not. Immediately."

If NDEs were hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.

So NDEs convince people who have them, and so does the extensive scholarly literature on NDEs for the people who actually reads it. The problem, however, is that so many pseudoskeptics never actually read the scholarly literature on NDEs and instead just assume, based on their materialist dogma, that since there can not be any evidence for the reality of NDEs, there is no point actually learning more about NDEs.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:27:16 UTC No. 16435239

>>16435231
>The source just found itself existing

You mean like you did? Shit answer

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:28:16 UTC No. 16435243

>>16434561
Computers work on semantic and logical relationships the numbers are irrelevant and can be whatever and be used as whatever and the computer will function

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:36:16 UTC No. 16435265

>>16434551
I am not the frog, sorry ya dumb sperg

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:40:49 UTC No. 16435266

>>16435231
I had an NDE and it's just bullshit

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:02:47 UTC No. 16435409

Fuck creationists their takes are literally irrelevant.

But i do have a problem with the big bang theory, first of all it's a shitty show, second - as a theory it sucks, it's just people trying to study the parameters of a huge ass city park by looking at a square feet of grass in said park.
>inb4 HOW WOULD YOU STUDY IT GENIUS
i at least wouldn't try to preted that whatever i came up with is logical because it's not.
The big bang theory is LITERALLY a fucking crutch for things you cannot explain.

Modern cosmology is a worthless money sink and so are people working in this field. You're worthless. You contribute nothing. You might as well study theology or star wars lore.
There i said it. Now fuck off and study something normal.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:08:26 UTC No. 16435419

>>16435265
I am the frog fear me.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:09:03 UTC No. 16435420

>>16435419
Based frog poster

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:18:11 UTC No. 16435431

>>16435409
Who said anything about creationist in this thread faggot?

>worthless money sink

What exactly do you do sir? Beside beat yourself to transformers every hour.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:15:11 UTC No. 16435837

>>16435431
>What exactly do you do sir?
magnetospheric plasma

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:49:48 UTC No. 16438206

>>16432911
ok

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:49:07 UTC No. 16439639

>>16432960