Who is God

[-bZ-LongTrang1]

tell me what existed before the universe

A small but growing number of cosmologists and physicists are starting to embrace the notion that the universe is eternal. It has always existed and it will always exist without beginning or end.

This oddly aligns with the following Scripture:

"The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 40:28)

God is everlasting. As in forever.

This is sure to upset dogmatic religionists but what if the Universe is God? And I don't mean a passive god of nature but the God of Abraham who knows no beginning, no end, and He knows the infinite universe and somehow...for some inexplicable reason...He gives a shit about humanity.

 

[Hoosiers]

A small but growing number of cosmologists and physicists are starting to embrace the notion that the universe is eternal. It has always existed and it will always exist without beginning or end.

This oddly aligns with the following Scripture:

"The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 40:28)

God is everlasting. As in forever.

This is sure to upset dogmatic religionists but what if the Universe is God? And I don't mean a passive god of nature but the God of Abraham who knows no beginning, no end, and He knows the infinite universe and somehow...for some inexplicable reason...He gives a shit about humanity.

 

[-bZ-BigMilfyFuta]

A small but growing number of cosmologists and physicists are starting to embrace the notion that the universe is eternal. It has always existed and it will always exist without beginning or end.

Citation required. The overwhelming consensus amongst cosmologists and physicists regarding the life cycle of the universe has not changed since the 70s. The evidence points towards there being a beginning; currently the arguments are in regard to heat death vs crunch death.

I don't believe in the big bang. I don't believe in evolution. I don't believe in a lot of things, because a lot of things don't have sufficient proof. And if proof exists, how do I know it is not manipulated by someone else?

You never fail to impress me. Scientific proof is rarely at a point of absolutism. Its a mountain of evidence that constantly builds upon itself. Sometimes something comes along and the mountain gets knocked down a little, but then it continues being built back up. Think of getting a 1 billion piece puzzle. You have no clue what its a picture of. Slowly you start to piece it together. Over time, parts of the picture start to become clear. This is a tree, thats a building, over here is a flower. After even more time you start to fit the pieces together where you think they best belong. Maybe you put the tree next to the building only to realize later that it fits somewhere different based on the context of the image. This is how scientific proof works. Saying you don't believe in evolution because you don't have "sufficient proof" is like looking at a puzzle and seeing a flower missing a few petal pieces and saying "well I won't believe this is a flower until i see *all* the petals".

The propaganda of the United States has always seemed hypocritical to me, they speak of good, Jesus and God always have their hand on their people, supporting them. During the last century and a large part of it, they only spread terror throughout the world with the excuse that their territory was in danger, in the Vietnam war they were completely sensationalist by using banners, metal pins so that young people went to kill communists in the name of Jesus , Jesus who never wanted to hurt someone, and if they come to tell me that it is not sensationalist, the only thing left is for them to be completely ignorant and just like a child who is completely manipulable believe what they believe because they are told to believe in it and nothing more, but we are talking about grown people, people who can think for themselves. I can only speak of racism from what I've seen in hollywood movies, but how real was it that children hated blacks for having dark skin? (I know it's a touchy subject but it's a clear example of how bad it is to be influenced as a child and not have the ability not to think beyond). Sorry if I offended anyone.

Literally the history of all and every religion. Some dude says "God(s) say you need to kill those people". See every Crusade, the Iranian revolution, every ethnic genocide, etc.

Yeah that’s a pain in the ass. If you’re not in university or you don’t pay for access to the journal articles, the public has no free access towards this scientific knowledge. I guess the reasoning behind not making them public and just private is so that the researchers could recuperate money and make some dough on the side. Research ain’t cheap, and the researchers gotta get that income.

If you know the authors of a scientific paper, you can email them directly and ask for a copy of their paper. Most will trip over themselves to send you a copy free of charge.

Regarding the formation of stars, it is necessary to take into account how the atoms fuse and how each one of them is composed, but at least with the stars, it is only necessary to focus on the Helium, which is their fuel, as the stars are spending this fuel lose electrons by nature, the stars are losing mass but in turn the Helium begins to fuse with other Helium atoms like this, forming heavier atoms such as carbon, neon, oxygen, etc. and this is where I realize that I was wrong that I didn't mean star formation but how stars die lol.

Stars start their lives mostly burning hydrogen, with a smaller percentage being made of up helium.

 

[Hoosiers]

Citation required. The overwhelming consensus amongst cosmologists and physicists regarding the life cycle of the universe has not changed since the 70s. The evidence points towards there being a beginning; currently the arguments are in regard to heat death vs crunch death.

You never fail to impress me. Scientific proof is rarely at a point of absolutism. Its a mountain of evidence that constantly builds upon itself. Sometimes something comes along and the mountain gets knocked down a little, but then it continues being built back up. Think of getting a 1 billion piece puzzle. You have no clue what its a picture of. Slowly you start to piece it together. Over time, parts of the picture start to become clear. This is a tree, thats a building, over here is a flower. After even more time you start to fit the pieces together where you think they best belong. Maybe you put the tree next to the building only to realize later that it fits somewhere different based on the context of the image. This is how scientific proof works. Saying you don't believe in evolution because you don't have "sufficient proof" is like looking at a puzzle and seeing a flower missing a few petal pieces and saying "well I won't believe this is a flower until i see *all* the petals".

Literally the history of all and every religion. Some dude says "God(s) say you need to kill those people". See every Crusade, the Iranian revolution, every ethnic genocide, etc.

If you know the authors of a scientific paper, you can email them directly and ask for a copy of their paper. Most will trip over themselves to send you a copy free of charge.

Stars start their lives mostly burning hydrogen, with a smaller percentage being made of up helium.

Thats a lot of text to read

 

[Mobius.jpeg]

I mean no disrespect. I cannot tell if you people are genuinely typing all this out or if you’re using ChatGPT or some shit.

And that scares me.

 

[Mobius.jpeg]

Well, correction: I can tell Trap’s was genuinely written lol

 

[The0bamessiah]

I mean no disrespect. I cannot tell if you people are genuinely typing all this out or if you’re using ChatGPT or some shit.

And that scares me.

Which is scarier, that a machine can create a facsimile of religious philosophy or that people are taking the time to write their metaphysical treatises on a Battlefield clan's website?

 

[Blivot3]

Which is scarier, that a machine can create a facsimile of religious philosophy or that people are taking the time to write their metaphysical treatises on a Battlefield clan's website?

It’s not scary for a clan website to talk about such things. I mean, to give us all credit, what would we be talking about if we were in this cirCUMstance (you’re welcome Tom) 15 years ago?

 

[UnoDosi]

Is it shitposting time yet? Are y'all done blabbing about an entity, a deity, a fact or a fiction that one can merely choose to believe in or not believe in?

Without humans, no belief exists. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if God is real or not or eternal or not. If no one in society chooses to believe or if everyone chooses to believe unquestionably then so be it. "But but but Uno, by saying that you are implying that religion is a societal creation" =)

believe what makes you happy and if someone doesn't believe the same thing as you then good for them. If you are troubled by what other's care about then you need to care less about what makes others happy and vise versa.

 

[Koshmenk]

Is it shitposting time yet? Are y'all done blabbing about an entity, a deity, a fact or a fiction that one can merely choose to believe in or not believe in?

Without humans, no belief exists. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if God is real or not or eternal or not. If no one in society chooses to believe or if everyone chooses to believe unquestionably then so be it. "But but but Uno, by saying that you are implying that religion is a societal creation" =)

believe what makes you happy and if someone doesn't believe the same thing as you then good for them. If you are troubled by what other's care about then you need to care less about what makes others happy and vise versa.

Man you forgot the whole point, thread name is Who is God, not in what you believe is wrong, but since you mentioned it, if what you believe in hurts other people because of the way they think or the way they want to lead their lives should it be socially accepted and not disowned like it happened with the hitler youth?

 

[UnoDosi]

I clarify: If what people believe in is reasonable and not outright harmful and immediately apparent as wrong: it shouldn't be a problem. *within reason*.

 

[-bZ-LongTrang1]

Citation required. The overwhelming consensus amongst cosmologists and physicists regarding the life cycle of the universe has not changed since the 70s. The evidence points towards there being a beginning; currently the arguments are in regard to heat death vs crunch death.

#1: CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE!!! SCIENCE IS NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRACY!!!

#2: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvD..90d3520W/abstract

We discuss cosmological models for an eternal Universe. Physical observables show no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. While the Universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end—the Universe exists forever. The early state of inflation is described in two different, but equivalent pictures. In the freeze frame the Universe emerges from an almost static state with flat geometry. After entropy production it shrinks and "thaws" slowly from a "freeze state" with extremely low temperature. The field transformation to the second "big bang picture" (Einstein frame) is singular. This "field singularity" is responsible for an apparent singularity of the big bang. Furthermore, we argue that past-incomplete geodesics do not necessarily indicate a singularity or beginning of the Universe. Proper time ceases to be a useful concept for physical time if particles become massless. We propose to define physical time by counting the number of zeros of a component of the wave function. This counting is independent of the choice of coordinates and frames, and applies to massive and massless particles alike.

 

[DequanKillman]

COVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMANCOVERT DON'T CUT YOUR PENIS OFF GET HELP YOURE NOT A WOMAN

 

[NorthropGunman]

God is a social construction arising out of the universal fear of mortality.

 

[NorthropGunman]

#1: CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE!!! SCIENCE IS NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRACY!!!

I would disagree with this wholeheartedly. People like to talk about science as though it is this infallible, perfectly objective system of producing knowledge. But that's an undergraduate's conception of science at best... For example, the claim that science is "not a fucking democracy" doesn't account for the very real existence of scientific paradigms and attendant constraints. Also, peer review is essentially a (highly flawed) process of consensus-seeking, don't you think? Sounds at least somewhat democratic to me...

Have you ever read T.S. Kuhn? I think one of the major shortcomings of Western undegrad education is the total exclusion of any meta-theory or philosophy of the student's area of study.

 

[-bZ-LongTrang1]

Also, peer review is essentially a (highly flawed) process of consensus-seeking, don't you think? Sounds at least somewhat democratic to me...

No, peer review is not a fucking popularity contest. It's supposed to be the process of asking other people to disprove and test your claims. By nature peer review is intended to be adversarial. That's not democratic in any way.

Also, the consensus isn't just unscientific it can be an excuse for tyranny.

Remember all that shit we did the past three years because of the consensus?

Only to later have the same shitheads admit that:

1. Lockdowns didn't work.
2. Masks didn't work.
3. Those arrow stickers on the grocery store floor didn't work.
4. The mRNA 'vaccine' didn't work.
5. And the mRNA was neither safe nor effective.
6. The fucking virus came from a lab in China just like Trump said it did.
7. Fauci knew all of the above from the very start.

But yeah, you go with the consensus. I'll go with the actual science.

 

[NorthropGunman]

No, peer review is not a fucking popularity contest. It's supposed to be the process of asking other people to disprove and test your claims. By nature peer review is intended to be adversarial. That's not democratic in any way.

Also, the consensus isn't just unscientific it can be an excuse for tyranny.

Remember all that shit we did the past three years because of the consensus?

Only to later have the same shitheads admit that:

1. Lockdowns didn't work.
2. Masks didn't work.
3. Those arrow stickers on the grocery store floor didn't work.
4. The mRNA 'vaccine' didn't work.
5. And the mRNA was neither safe nor effective.
6. The fucking virus came from a lab in China just like Trump said it did.
7. Fauci knew all of the above from the very start.

But yeah, you go with the consensus. I'll go with the actual science.

Do you work in academia? Peer review is not generally adversarial. And I would argue that democracy is adversarial

 

[UnoDosi]

It is generally adversarial in a slightly different sense of "putting it to the test" and verifying results. However not adversarial as in "I am out with an intent to prove this wrong no matter what."

Also, @longtrang, of all of those things the Grocery Stores arrows were OBVIOUSLY the single most effective tactic to evade Covid.

 

[NorthropGunman]

It is generally adversarial in a slightly different sense of "putting it to the test" and verifying results. However not adversarial as in "I am out with an intent to prove this wrong no matter what."

But peer review doesn't generally involve replication... in my experience it is essentially just a prima facie appraisal of the methodologies and content of the paper. A bit if a pedantic argument on my part, but the point is that peer review, like science, is far from infallible.

 

[UnoDosi]

But peer review doesn't generally involve replication... in my experience it is essentially just a prima facie appraisal of the methodologies and content of the paper. A bit if a pedantic argument on my part, but the point is that peer review, like science, is far from infallible.

oh, yeah, nothing is perfect and while I am not really in a field that see's peer review type studies (law) SOME people claiming to do peer reviews are simply using or "comparing" the study to fulfill their own academic or professional requirements.