I've suffered more than any of you

No need to hope, faggot.

You don't know what suffering is.

but are you gay?

7 years of being suicidal. Pretty sure I've been through more shit than you will endure in your lifetime.

Nope

Weird contest

Why are you still alive then?

weird flex but ok

Attached: DDA562CA-B56C-45BE-9C38-8ABCEF2C1911.jpg (576x1024, 62K)

then i think its pretty likely someone has been through as much as you, but is also gay.

are they in this thread? probably not so you got me there.

1. Fear of hell

2. Need 40k for something. Don't want to die without it.

Probably not. My particular issue is beyond unique. Being gay is nothing to bitch about.

there is no situation which is beyond unique.

???
Yes there is. Statistically speaking, most people don't get eaten by piranhas for instance. That would make it unique.

I have never heard of another human having my issue with this magnitude. That makes it unique.

Mom died when i was 11, dad OD on drugs when i was 15, grandma died when i was 17 of cancer. I've had severe depression ever since i was 9....now the only thing i had left that loved me was my beautiful husky....jessica...she passed away at 14 two weeks ago....Every single morning i hold my ar15 for at least 5 minutes...just thinking about it...you know....why not...

Attached: 20190323_073807.jpg (1421x768, 307K)

thats literally not what unique means. if something only happens to 0.01% of people its happened to over 700000 people.

It can't be too bad if something that stupid keeps you alive. Someone interrupted me the day I was going to die. I'm about tired of suffering myself and some dumb shit won't keep me alive when I'm done with all the pain.

That IS unique.

The AMOUNT of people is irrelevant. PERCENTS give a clearer picture.

>7 years of being suicidal.

Oh. Okay. Well, sure. That's all then...

Well I do hope things get better for you friend.

Attached: 0038.jpg (1920x1080, 110K)

>It can't be too bad if something that stupid keeps you alive.

That's dumb. "Oh ya.. burning forever is no big deal" if you're ignorant.

Huh?

something unique only happens once by defintion but obviously i wouldnt hold you to that high a standard but the more you insist your situation is unique the less inclined i am to believe its anything close.

Okay semantics game.

Fine. Extremely Rare. Better?

You know hell isn't fucking real. Don't kid yourself, your belief and fear of hell is you convincing yourself to live because you actually want to live. Fairy tales shouldn't stop someone that needs to die.

no, i gave you an out earlier and you want to insist that youre a super special snowflake so now youre gonna have to prove it if you care about anyone believing you

sorry to hear about your dog user

I fucking love this painting.

I used to go to school with a kid like you. Never had anything really bad that he'd suffered through, but he also had nothing to be proud of. He'd go off on these weird reee tantrums and punch himself in the balls and start screaming about how he's had it harder than anyone in the world. Odds are you're not him. But likely as not you're life isn't that bad, and you just enjoy being a whiney bitch.

You're an idiot.
Let me give you an example. If the apeed of light were just a little faster or slower, then carbon wouldn't have been a thing.

News flash. ALL life is carbon based. In other words, 0% of life would have formed.

What's my point? With one universe, you only get ONE chance to get the speed of light right. Guess what? It's worse. According to Hugh Ross, there are over 180 universal constants needed for life.

It is stupid to believe in atheism.

Now... what I said basically proves we were created (unless it could be proven multiple universes are constantly being created).

Creator = extremely logical to believe in

Identity of creator? That part is faith based. Personally, for the fact that a creator exists, that puts that makes hell an actual possibility.

I have a feeling you don't understand the speed of light example.

Ha. Ok bud.

That is pathetic that you want to argue semantics this fucking hard.

With that said, even if I played by your bullshit rules, my issue actually is like no other. I'm not saying it here since a bunch of tards will downplay no matter what it is.

Just tell us bitch.

Better you than me.

That's fucked bud. But some day someone or some other dog may need you in its life. And if you die that really erases any chances of it happening. I don't believe in anything beyond this and drugs have fucked my skull to the point that I don't even believe in this but just keep clawing at the dirt till you make it.

not him but i have a feeling -you- dont understand the speed of light example. if [conditions for life as we know it] didnt happen nobody would be around to point out how unlikely it is that they happened. probability doesn't work backwards like this it can only predict fictional events.

here's a quick example: imagine i have a dice with infinite sides on it and if i roll it, it will stop on exactly one side. What is the probability of it landing on '1'?

the probability is zero, it will never land on that sides unless i roll it infinitely many times, in fact the probability of it landing on ANY number is zero. How then could it possibly land on a number? well the answer is probability doesn't work backwards like that. just because something is improbable doesnt mean that it cant have happened.

>I used to go to school with a kid like you.

Oh here we go.
>Never had anything really bad that he'd suffered through, but he also had nothing to be proud of.

Projecting unto me I see. Baseless assumptions = you lack analytical thought process.

>He'd go off on these weird reee tantrums and punch himself in the balls and start screaming about how he's had it harder than anyone in the world.

Still projecting their story unto mine.

>Odds are you're not him. But likely as not you're life isn't that bad, and you just enjoy being a whiney bitch.

"Odds" you say? Based on what exactly? I know. A baseless assumption. Work on your deductive reasoning.

im not arguing semantics anymore, and ive given you two outs now. it is plainly obvious to everyone youre lying, but you've gathered quite a few (you)'s so good on you. I'll be lurking just in case you decide to justify anything you've said here.

>not him but i have a feeling -you- dont understand the speed of light example. if [conditions for life as we know it] didnt happen nobody would be around to point out how unlikely it is that they happened. probability doesn't work backwards like this it can only predict fictional events.

No, it is clear you don't understand anything I said. I am arguing the equivalent to this. That if you have say 1 million lottery tickets to choose from, the big bang = 1 needed for life.
The chances that we got that winning ticket is so ridiculously idiotic to believe in, that the only logical conclusion is that we were created or there are multiple universes. "Working backwards". The fuck are you saying? Even atheist cosmologists argue this universe is finely tuned which males them sweat balls so they justify this by believing that multiple universes is a possibility.

>here's a quick example: imagine i have a dice with infinite sides on it and if i roll it, it will stop on exactly one side. What is the probability of it landing on '1'?

>the probability is zero, it will never land on that sides unless i roll it infinitely many times, in fact the probability of it landing on ANY number is zero. How then could it possibly land on a number? well the answer is probability doesn't work backwards like that.

You're not making sense. "Working backwards" ....??? What does that even mean??

>just because something is improbable doesnt mean that it cant have happened.

And just because something CAN happen doesn't mean it WILL. In fact, it is even more stupid to believe in something that is LESS likely to occur than more likely.

>brags about working out
God damn dude. We all wish we could be you

You ARE arguing semantics or else you would have dropped my usage of the word "unique". Lol wow that's sad. You can't even see you still are arguing semantics.

>it is plainly obvious to everyone youre lying

Based on what? A baseless assumption. Just because I'm secretive of what fucked me up? Lol

It is time to grow up user.
You're going to be just fine.

Attached: Man's Search For Meaning.jpg (766x1200, 531K)

Hey man dont call that guy sir. He is a homosexual and wouold rather the identity 'they'

No you fucking retard. someone wins the million lotto every fucking time. Just because something DID happen means it did, thats what i mean by working backwards. if the guy who wins the lotto looks back and says "wow the odds of this were a billion to one, it must have been some greater power which made me win" he is equally as retarded as someone who thinks that because the universe is unlikely to exist, some greater power must have made it so.

Cringe post

Whiny/10
You should become a sissy boy to alleviate all that angst and let real men take care of you

And i hope you keep on suffering, user.

Ive got a violin to play for you.

Attached: 1533146328436.jpg (536x459, 15K)

Wrong, fuck stick. That ain't shit. That's all you got? 7 years of feeling like a bitch? That's not suffering, that's easy. Again you have no idea what real suffering is, boy.

maybe you have

Attached: 71ab437313f779ef118de06d982b0d1d.jpg (3500x2229, 1.11M)

You retard. You don't understand ANYTHING. Pathetic.

>someone wins the million lotto every fucking time.

Retard. You missed the fucking point. Let me dumb it down AGAIN.

Say 1 ticket = one big bang

say out of those 1 mil, 1 = the right big bang

Now listen carefully, retard.

There was only ONE big bang. There weren't "a million". See where I'm going with this?

There weren't 1 million tickets (big bangs). There was only ONE.

In other words, you didn't exhaust all the tickets (which would make it so the right big bang would occur with certainty).

In other words, you only get to CHOOSE ONE FUCKING TICKET OUT OF THE MILLION.

YOU DON'T USE ALL ONE MILLION TICKETS.

YOU ONLY GET ONE CHANCE.

Holy SHIT, you're stupid as fuck.

What happened to you then? Drop your ice cream, fagboy?

I had a junky friend. He died October 2017. Around 2004, his girlfriend had an abortion because her mother asked, "does he have $50k?" "No, he doesn't" "Then abort the baby." He lived as a depressed junky for about a decade and OD'd when he was 38.

Attached: Cole_Thomas_The_Oxbow_(The_Connecticut_River_near_Northampton_1836).jpg (3181x2161, 1.94M)

Has anyone else seen the shop lifting milf add at the top where she puts the gherkin up her ass??? I've got to admit it looks pretty good

Haha. Bitches are so materialistic. Haha

maybe you should kill yourself?

>There was only ONE big bang. There weren't "a million". See where I'm going with this?

first of all this literally doesn't matter because youre still using predictions backwards, but im going to ignore that for now

hypothetically, if there were more than one big bang, and the conditions needed to create the universe and life and etc were not met, where would the evidence be that this had occurred?

...yeah there wouldnt be any so neither of us know that there was "only one chance" for the big bang.

and thats not the only baseless presumption you've made, you're also assuming the way physical laws work, that there were not physical laws before the big bang, that the constants that describe those physical laws are generated randomly at the big bang, and there absolutely definitely is no other set of constants or laws that could conceivably form a universe capable of supporting life.

Attached: 1978_2_2_m1_2010.jpg (1800x1189, 288K)

Attached: The_Good_Shepherd_(Thomas_Cole).jpg (2376x1544, 453K)

Attached: 1966_2_7_m1_2011.jpg (1800x1221, 297K)

Attached: hb_04.29.2_av1.jpg (2000x970, 678K)

When's the last time you had a shower OP?

Attached: The-Titans-Goblet-by-Thomas-Cole.jpg (1696x1993, 1.15M)

Nah, I'll pass. I don't need to bitch about my life to anons for attention. I'm a man and accept my shit. I don't bitch like a little spoiled bitch, like you.

Attached: 2880px-Albert_Bierstadt_-_Rocky_Mountain_Landscape_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (2880x1938, 980K)

Attention whore detected, suicidal people CHOOSE the pain they inflict on themselves because it's easier than having to cope with the uncertainties of the real world.
Real suffering comes from things that hurt you that you can't control.
Fuck you you fucking emo weeb.

my gf ist 45, and still suicidial.. she suffers her life long.. so 7 years are laughable.. but still.. pain is very invidual

Attached: Thomas_Cole_-_Scene_from_Byron’s_“Manfred”_-_1968.102_-_Yale_University_Art_Gallery.jpg (1453x1920, 802K)

Fuck her, and fuck you too.

Reading anything you type has put me is more suffering than you've ever been through, you seem like such a wengie entitled faggoy

Let me kill you user. Its an early morning and I can end all your suffering. You wont go to hell if you're murdered. Let me introduce you to your god. Let me show you the end of consciousness. Just let me kill you quickly. How about that address?

>first of all this literally doesn't matter because youre still using predictions backwards, but im going to ignore that for now

"Working backwards". You don't understand the argument at all....
If there is only (say for the sake of argument) one chance out of 1 million and let's pretend for the sake of argument that is a 100% empirical fact, the very fact that we landed on that one in a million chance already shows that NO, a creator is 100% proven EMPIRICALLY, BUT it would be extremely illogical to believe what are against the odds given only ONE chance.

>hypothetically, if there were more than one big bang, and the conditions needed to create the universe and life and etc were not met, where would the evidence be that this had occurred?

I don't understand what you're asking. Let me put it this way. If there were evidence that multiple universes were actually being created without end, THAT would actually make my argument MUTE.

>...yeah there wouldnt be any so neither of us know that there was "only one chance" for the big bang.

Here's the thing. I don't know if a spaghetti monster exists. Should I believe in it as "probable" with no evidence? No.

Guess what? Does multiple universes have data to back it up? Actual empirical data of any kind? Nope.

So... it would be the equivalent to believing in a spaghetti monster as our creator. Is a spaghetti monster 100% improbable? No, but at the end of the day, withiut data, it's just an idea.

Could multiple universes exist? Maybe. Is there data to back it up? No, so no reason to think it's a thing. It is simply an idea equal to the spaghetti monster being our creator.

Word limit. So I'll finish it off in the next post.

Based

Hey. What's your address?

no

Cringy

Jesus, it is you again? And you are going to tell that you did it for our sins? Go play somewhere else.

took a while for me to compress these images to

Attached: 1.jpg (4353x2940, 1.85M)

>and thats not the only baseless presumption you've made,

"Baseless assumption"? No. Believing in multiple universes with no evidence is a baseless assumption. Without evidence, it shouldn't be considered seriously.

>you're also assuming the way physical laws work, that there were not physical laws before the big bang, that the constants that describe those physical laws are generated randomly at the big bang,

They obviously are "random". If the big bang had been say 100× "stronger", OBVIOUSLY the speed of light wouldn't have the value it has in our universe. OBVIOUSLY the magnitude of the big bang would have an effect on it.

>and there absolutely definitely is no other set of constants or laws that could conceivably form a universe capable of supporting life.

No evidence of this being a thing. You are saying "that one in a million chance (btw it's probably a much lower chance than 1 in a mil) could actually be more like 100 in a mil chance".

Meaning "higher success rate than you'd think".

For the speed of light example I used, this assumes non-carbon based life could form.

There is 0 evidence that non-carbon based life can exist.

Tough talk from a beta cuck. Keep cum munching, fag.

Literally the WHINIEST snowflake shit it's fucking fascinating.

If a thing is statistically improbable

and it happens

all that has been proven is that it happened, not the mechanisms behind why. You cannot look at a thing which is improbable after it has happened and proclaim that it cannot have happened by random chance alone. This is what i mean by you using probability backwards.

There don't have to be multiple universes at the same time for the big bang to have happened more than once, and that wasn't even my point. My point was that neither of us understand the mechanisms behind the big bang because no one does, and theyre arguably unknowable. You've basically admitted that multiple universes is just as likely as a creator, which is to say both have no empirical evidence to support them. If that's the hill you want to die on, sure, but you said at the beginning that "it is stupid to believe in atheism" and that a creator is "extremely logical to believe in"

>They obviously are "random". If the big bang had been say 100× "stronger", OBVIOUSLY the speed of light wouldn't have the value it has in our universe. OBVIOUSLY the magnitude of the big bang would have an effect on it.

i no longer believe you are being serious. If you are, then you need to read up on the speed of light.

Yeah but he aint a lil bitch like OP

>suicidal people CHOOSE the pain they inflict on themselves because it's easier than having to cope with the uncertainties of the real world.

That's retarded logic. You don't "choose" to be suicidal, dumbass. If I were to torture you (cutting off limbs, etc.) for years and years and say you became suicidal, did you choose to become sad and suicidal?

It's not a fucking "choice". That's the equivalent to saying it's a choice to find at a joke funny. No, it's not. It's an emotion your body forces on you.

>Real suffering comes from things that hurt you that you can't control.

Ya. That's what happened to me, retard. Literally wasn't in my control.

LITERALLY. As in it actually wasn't in my control at ALL.

>Fuck you you fucking emo weeb.
Maybe you should fuck off, shithead. Take that dumbass logic with you.

Ditto to you

>i no longer believe you are being serious. If you are, then you need to read up on the speed of light.

Cite a source showing how the magnitude of the big bang would have 0 effect on the speed of light.

I'll address the rest of your argument on the next post.

Suffering can not be compared on a scale. Everyone suffers and feels it may be more than another. But again suffering the most grants you no more remorse. You suffer because you feel the things that happen yo you shouldn't be happening rather than the them being the cause of the suffering. It's time to make a change.

By choosing to be suicidal it means you simple chose to give up. No one has time for those who give up

>If a thing is statistically improbable
>and it happens
>all that has been proven is that it happened, not the mechanisms behind why.

Yes..?

>You cannot look at a thing which is improbable after it has happened and proclaim that it cannot have happened by random chance alone. This is what i mean by you using probability backwards.

I NEVER said it "couldn't happen". I said it was stupid to assume that an improbable thing just so happened by chance. Is it "possible"? Could be. Probable? No.

>There don't have to be multiple universes at the same time for the big bang to have happened more than once, and that wasn't even my point.

I didn't say "all at once". They could be happening once every million years somewhere outside our universe. Maybe once every billion years, etc.

Point I was making is that without evidence of that being a thing, it is just an idea and nothing more.

>My point was that neither of us understand the mechanisms behind the big bang because no one does, and theyre arguably unknowable. You've basically admitted that multiple universes is just as likely as a creator, which is to say both have no empirical evidence to support them.

No, I didn't. I said multiple universes is just as unlikely to believe in as the spaghetti monster, NOT of A creator. I believe the existence of a creator is more likely than believing blind chance led to the finely tuned universe given that at this point in time, there is NO reason to believe in multiple big bangs.

>If that's the hill you want to die on, sure, but you said at the beginning that "it is stupid to believe in atheism" and that a creator is "extremely logical to believe in"

It is as of this moment. The IDENTITY of this creator is another story. Is a creator 100% fact? No.
It is simply MORE realistic than believing we won the lotto given ONE ticket.

If one day evidence arises that "multiple big bangs occur without end every x years without end" or whatever, that's another story

You don't "choose" to feel "x" way. That's a flaw in your argument.

>be 28
>going to a restaurant
>ordering a pizza pie
>i said no ansjovis wtf
>girl says sorry i say is ok
>eat pizza pie while lying
>go outside wait till restaurant closes
>walk up to girl call her a bitch
>yelling I SAID NO ANSJOVIS CUNT
>punch her repeatedly in the left eye
>shit stars bleeding she yells "whyyyy whyyyyy"
>take her head and place it above my cock
>let blood pour on cock
>shove it in her mouth NOW SUCK IT
>manager comes out yells WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING
>grab my pistol and blast him twice
>then blast girl in skull with my cock inside her mouth
>let blood pour all over my cock
>feels good man
>escape and go home
>masturbate with her blood still on my cock

Bullshit

Don't do drugs faggot.

Pics?

What if there are 1 trillion universes?. If the probablity of all those constants being like the ones in our universe is 1/1000000000, as an example, then it would most likely happen in one of those one trillion universes. That doesn’t prove that God made ours, just that we are a circumstance of probability.

But you should treat everyone's sadness as equal, user.

Attached: 2019-02-07 09_25_28-Window.png (1710x306, 88K)

Well, duh. That's what I've been saying. If there are multiple universes being created without end, THEN it can be argued logically that "we came about by chance"

LOL! If we traveled back in time 100 years ago. You would be dead in a week. SO please stfu with your woe is me story.

yes you do, you just can't see it.

The speed of light is constant from all reference frames. As far as i'm aware there isn't a proof for this but if it wasnt true then a large amount of special relativity could be easily disproven so have at it.

>I NEVER said it "couldn't happen". I said it was stupid to assume that an improbable thing just so happened by chance. Is it "possible"? Could be. Probable? No.

what makes a creator more probable? more credible? more believable? more logical? anything like that? a specific creator (the flying spaghetti monster) is just as likely a generic creator.

I'm gonna be pretty generous here because honestly we're hitting really hard physics concepts that i dont really understand myself, but i can still tell where this is going to boil down to. In the end we're both going to be sitting on a set of presuppositions.

Me, that the universe came into existence by random chance and happenstance with all natural laws intact.

You, that some creator helped the process along by some means.

The main difference is in the number of presuppositions.

introducing a creator is at minimum, one presupposition more, and at the end of the day, its more logical to believe in an idea with the least number of assumptions.

btw you're still doing predictions backwards

Attached: 4dGym9U.png (393x70, 4K)

forgot i attached the picture, feel free to ignore it. its about the amount of energy a particle needs to move at relativistic speeds. doesnt really impact my argument.

>The speed of light is constant from all reference frames. As far as i'm aware there isn't a proof for this but if it wasnt true then a large amount of special relativity could be easily disproven so have at it.

So you didn't answer my question. I asked for a source showing the magnitude of the big bamg would have 0 effect on it.

>what makes a creator more probable? more credible? more believable? more logical? anything like that? a specific creator (the flying spaghetti monster) is just as likely a generic creator.

The very fact that probability is not on the side of random chance alone makes a creator more probable. Why? There are obviously only 2 options. 1) we were created by a creator or 2) we were created by chance
There is no 3rd option and since there's no reason to believe in multiole big bangs, there's no reason to believe logically that we came about by pure chance.

>I'm gonna be pretty generous here because honestly we're hitting really hard physics concepts that i dont really understand myself, but i can still tell where this is going to boil down to. In the end we're both going to be sitting on a set of presuppositions.

>Me, that the universe came into existence by random chance and happenstance with all natural laws intact.

Probability goes against this unless it is shown that multiple universes are a thing.

>The main difference is in the number of presuppositions.

>introducing a creator is at minimum, one presupposition more, and at the end of the day, its more logical to believe in an idea with the least number of assumptions.
What makes it have "one more presupposition"???

>btw you're still doing predictions backwards

What I'm doing is showing how life is only based on carbon, how a different speed of light (outside its level of tolerance) means no carbon would exist, amd that you only get ONE chance of getting it right since there's no reason to believe in multiple universes.

discord
=|+|--|121|--|+|=
.gg/Bsyufq6

good, you deserved whatever happened to you, because you're an attention whoring faggot. I hope more awful things happen to you.

u·nique
/yo͞oˈnēk/Submit
adjective
1.
being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.
"the situation was unique in modern politics"

Attached: dat word.gif (498x268, 655K)

You should really try to follow the subsequent posts.

>I asked for a source showing the magnitude of the big bamg would have 0 effect on it.

literally any equation with 'c' in it that can be described from two different reference frames

>There are obviously only 2 options.

this is an assumption

>Probability goes against this unless it is shown that multiple universes are a thing.

for the last time, you cant use probability like this. It only describes future events. If something improbable happens, then the chance of it happening is 100% because it already happened.

>What makes it have "one more presupposition"???

the creator. it either came from somewhere or was always there which is an extra layer.

>What I'm doing is...

youre doing predictions backwards is what youre doing.

there's no evidence of what may or may not lay beyond, you claim because you see no bear in a cave therefore there is no bear. but that does not mean that once you wonder into the cave you won't find a bear. you give too much "power" to mans perception of reality.

But have you learned from your suffering? Based on your responses to everyone else, no.

>literally any equation with 'c' in it that can be described from two different reference frames

That doesn't answer my question at all

>this is an assumption
Okay. What's the magical third option then?

>for the last time, you cant use probability like this. It only describes future events. If something improbable happens, then the chance of it happening is 100% because it already happened.

Yes I can just as you can use probability on past events such as lotto events.
The chance of winning lotto is one in a mil. Doesn't matter "that it happened in the past". Yes, someone won so the chance of it happening is 100% for that person BUT THE CHANCE REMAINS THE SAME. One out of a million. You aren't understanding this.

>the creator. it either came from somewhere or was always there which is an extra layer.

Still more logical than believing in blind chance creating this finely tuned universe given only one universe (and again, not evidence exists of multiple universes being created without end)

>youre doing predictions backwards is what youre doing

Read the lotto example above on this post. You just don't like the odds so you say "probability doesn't apply" to try to make your belief logical.

there are a vast number of things in the universe well beyond our ability to understand, i.e

infinite -without beginning or end, the without end part is comprehendable, but imagine if you could travel back in time, and no matter how far back you went it simply always was, WITHOUT beginning

that is the "origin" of us, that is what astounds me the most, you claim that it is more logical to believe that the "thing" without beginning is a "creator" and not just a hodge podge of randomness, I say that is like saying a coin flipped is more likely to land on heads than tails.

Attached: maybe.jpg (760x596, 222K)

What's there to learn? It's just pointless pain.

in a sense, all are unique, as no one has experienced the exact life of another

he went through 4 deductions

>That doesn't answer my question at all
you didnt ask a question you wanted a source

>What's the magical third option then?
some natural process that is yet not understood. Just because you or I can't think of another option doesn't mean there are no other options.

>all this shit about chance and probability

okay seriously, if you want to consider random chance as being a real possibility for the formation of the universe as we know it, you dont get to slap "but its 1 in a kajillion odds that that didnt happen so any other explanation must be more likely" the universe already exists. the odds of it happening by random chance, no matter how unlikely, are irrelevant in comparing it with any other completely baseless assumption about the formation of the universe because theyre both equally unfounded.

K fag

you realize there is no evidence of what lies beyond our view into the universe other than it is far bigger than we can see? that means there could easily be other "big bangs" that happened outside of our perceivable universe.

Attached: fries.jpg (600x611, 61K)

>you didnt ask a question you wanted a source
Yes. Stop nitpicking. Provide it.

>some natural process that is yet not understood. Just because you or I can't think of another option doesn't mean there are no other options.

Won't completely dismiss this.

>okay seriously, if you want to consider random chance as being a real possibility for the formation of the universe as we know it, you dont get to slap "but its 1 in a kajillion odds that that didnt happen so any other explanation must be more likely" the universe already exists. the odds of it happening by random chance, no matter how unlikely, are irrelevant in comparing it with any other completely baseless assumption about the formation of the universe because theyre both equally unfounded.

Completely wrong. Odds ARE completely relevant first of all. It isn't unfounded.
You would have to assume that you just so happen to get all 180 universal constants in the right spot with just one big bang.
That is extremely hard to believe. "So you're saying there's a chance". Ya, if you want to believe in the most extreme coincedences, go ahead.

Again, I'll say it. Without multiple universes, what you believe in is basically dumb luck. That all 180 constants just luckily landed on the right spot given one chance. That is no logical.

Stop crying, little bitch. You're just frustrated

can I presume you're in a similar situation now?

Exactly.

COULD.

As of now, no evidence of multiple universes = it's just an idea. Nothing more.

And yet you have access to the internet to start this thread.

no one has a choice, you only have options.

i.e.

you're born to a rich family with every chance to excel and have the option to do so

you're born to a shit family in a shit part of the world with no chance to excel and no option to do so

>Provide it.

nigga gps, any outside-earth communication with satellites that have to account for special relativity, there has never been any case of the speed of light not being constant in all reference frames, why would the big bang's "magnitude" whatever that even means have anything to do with it

>what you believe in is basically dumb luck.

what -you- believe in is basically dumb luck. What brought a creator here or why was it here or why did it decide to create the universe or how is it so unreasonable that if a creator could exist before the big bang that failed big bangs didnt happen, how did the creator know which 180 constants were the right ones, why did he only create what is and not more or less.

i dont want an answer to any of those questions, im just demonstrating that it is not more or less logical to believe in one of two completely evidence-less options. they are both equally unfounded.

it's interesting how self termination brings about all these thoughts of eternal consequence, while dying naturally or of some other than inherently self imposed method is somehow more divine.

what about those who do not do everything possible to extend their lives? proper diet / exercise, treat the body as the eternal temple and fight for every last breath possible? is anything less any different than just offing yourself early?

bull fucking shit.

who actually thinks hell exists?? that explains a lot

>depressed for 7 years

>Meanwhile in every wartorn third world country
>Meanwhile in Black gangster neighborhoods
>Meanwhile in Mexico
>Meanwhile in America

Gee I guess you really struggle to survive, don't you? Really tough and oppressed. Others should definitely envy how great you are.

Shut up. I can bet you've probably never had to worry about whether or not you will be able to eat the next day.

What? Guilt is a survival mechanism that the higher brain chooses to rationalize. Don't get all preachy, user.

>"Working backwards". You don't understand the argument at all....
>If there is only (say for the sake of argument) one chance out of 1 million and let's pretend for the sake of argument that is a 100% empirical fact, the very fact that we landed on that one in a million chance already shows that NO, a creator is 100% proven EMPIRICALLY, BUT it would be extremely illogical to believe what are against the odds given only ONE chance.

ok, so let's assume we are both here. yay, unless you're a nihilist and assume I'm just a bot or something, but regardless you're still here.

how did you get here? well, there are TWO options

1 - creator! yay!!! or is it yay? I mean, does it speak directly too you? like a parent would? no? hmmm.... why create something I don't want to talk too.... well, I don't spend much time conversing with cows before I eat them either, but I'm sure there's nothing to worry about there.

2 - the elements to create us have always existed and over the course of INFINITY at some point they came together to create us (or just you)

Attached: groovy.gif (498x264, 127K)

>nigga gps, any outside-earth communication with satellites that have to account for special relativity, there has never been any case of the speed of light not being constant in all reference frames, why would the big bang's "magnitude" whatever that even means have anything to do with it

That's not a source. I want a source showing the big bang's magnitude would have 0 effect on it. And who knows, if it doesn't, maybe something else about it did have an effect on it. Want a source either way.

>what -you- believe in is basically dumb luck. What brought a creator here or why was it here or why did it decide to create the universe or how is it so unreasonable that if a creator could exist before the big bang that failed big bangs didnt happen, how did the creator know which 180 constants were the right ones, why did he only create what is and not more or less.

Sorry, no. Believing in all 180 constants with just ONE chance WITHOUT some sort of purpose from a creator is dukb luck. Don't try to spin it as saying what you believe in isn't based on pure chance.

>i dont want an answer to any of those questions, im just demonstrating that it is not more or less logical to believe in one of two completely evidence-less options. they are both equally unfounded.

We are never going to agree on this. Without multiple universes, wh... you know what. You won't get it. I was just going to repeat what I have many times over already.

Very dumb counter-argument.

Anyways, by believing in a creator, the idea of hell because an actual possibility and this whole thread I've been explaining why I believe in a creator.

>There is 0 evidence that non-carbon based life can exist.

have you ever considered that only occurred because it was the only thing that could? that in a different set of variables a different form of life may have occurred, and that somewhere in the multiverse there's a (you) out there arguing that only non-carbon based life can exist?

Shut the fuck up. You want to play that game? By your logic, no one can complain ever since "there's always someone who has it worse". By your logic, only one human is allowed to complain "who ever it was that suffered the most pain in all of existence".

Now... I will say I don't believe I suffered more than those physically tortured for instance, but what I've endured is really fucking up there and the issue itself is not one I've seen others have to my extent.

>the elements to create us have always existed and over the course of INFINITY at some point they came together to create us (or just you)

What is this "infinity" you speak of? Even this universe is finite.

Well go inpatient and get drugged up.

Have you ever considered that's a mute point until there's proof non-carbon life can form to begin with?

All of our tools of perception are based off of our limited ability of perception. Entities of intent are not always "life". And what does a human look like to a tree?

>That's not a source

there is no source, i've provided a reason to believe the 'magnitude' of the big bang would have no impact on the speed of light but i cant prove it conclusively. Do you happen to have any reason to believe it would?

>Don't try to spin it as saying what you believe in isn't based on pure chance.

okay, a guy tells you he got a new car because a powerful deity with powers over the very cosmos stopped by and made it from nothing for him.

next another guy tells you his car fell through solid ground because every single particle making up the atoms that make up his car's tires quantum tunneled in succession through the ground.

Which one is more logical to believe?

you are getting pwned FYI

Again. If there is no evidence of non-carbon life existing, there is no logical reason to assume it's possible as of yet.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=j_lk0UvVLv0

my trips overrides you

Attached: bale rocks.gif (500x490, 971K)

>Exactly.

COULD.

As of now, no evidence of multiple universes = it's just an idea. Nothing more.

Yeah... like evidence of a creator

Attached: inception.gif (405x280, 1.31M)

that's all we do here sir, preach to the choir of Yea Forumsrethern

When a scientists speaks of "infinity", what do you think sits in that place?

You're young... so it hurts you to not have everything defined. But empirical facts and thinking only exists in our tiny bubble.

You'll grow out of it. Defense mechanisms have to be confronted at some point. I don't mean to ad-hominem, but i want you to face your contrarianism for the authority that was around you in your more formative times. We know nothing but what we choose.

so, are we changing this to flat earth thread now? have you reached the great ice wall user?

Attached: hack.gif (500x500, 1.65M)

no, you bring it a step further, you believe in Christian / Catholic / Muslim style God, one who awards good behavior and punishes the wicked for their sins.

What is normal for the spider can be chaos to the fly.

This "good" behavior of yours is relevant only by your perspective, if those are the constraints you believe in than you do nothing other than constrain yourself.

TL;DR: OP can't grow the fuck up snd learn to deal with his problems on his own. Shows heavy cases of Main Ptotagonist Syndrome.

Good morning, OP.

have you ever considered that literally anything finite is a mute point? all things destined to perish will inevitably be lost among only further more the finite.

there's no evidence that anything exists outside your perspective, why not take up being a nihilist?

>there is no source, i've provided a reason to believe the 'magnitude' of the big bang would have no impact on the speed of light but i cant prove it conclusively. Do you happen to have any reason to believe it would?

I will just ask nasa as they have a website for inquiries. I still find it suspiciously odd how the speed of light just so happens to have the right value needed for life from pure coincedence.
Maybe it's just a constant because of the number of particles our universe has or whatever. I guess at this point, I'll just wait on their response.

>okay, a guy tells you he got a new car because a powerful deity with powers over the very cosmos stopped by and made it from nothing for him.

>next another guy tells you his car fell through solid ground because every single particle making up the atoms that make up his car's tires quantum tunneled in succession through the ground.

>Which one is more logical to believe?

Let's stick to the universe argument.

Guy 1 says he believes all 180 constants were formed by a creator

Guy 2 says they just happen to be formed by coincedence even with just 1 universe.

I choose

I am not fyi

That's a stupid counter-argument.

So by your logic, we should believe in things without any sort of data. In other words, I should believe in flying unicorns "just cause why not"

What "infinity" are you even talking about, idiot?

What the FUCK are you talking about?

>I choose

whatever you decide to choose (i think we both know which one) why do you choose that? by which logical process do you determine it to be -more- logical than the other? and can that same process be used to dismiss your own choice?

What "what" are you what'ing about?

You're not understanding. The fact that I believe a creator is logical = it means the identity of other creators is a possibility meaning it is very possible for a hell or whatever else kind of torture to be implemented unto me after I die.

You are so incoherent. What the heck does that have to do with non-carbon life forms being a thing?????????

you said it's not infinite, but that it is finite. to be finite there is an end. as in an unassailable barrier at the end of the universe that defines it's end. that's some flat earth logic.

yes

By what standard shall we be measured?

What is good?

To give something to someone? Why not spread it evenly about to everyone?

To take another as your spouse? What about the other user who wanted your spouse?

To create life? What about the life that ends up like you, complaining it ever existed?

You measure yourself by an immeasurable standard.

absolutely nothing, you missed the point

Suffering is subjective

That's what infinity would imply. We're not talking infinite space. it's infinite dimensions. Describe to me what the 37th dimension looks like when you can't even see time the way you see your neighborhood.

I literally explained that above. I don't believe those constants just so happen to have occured with just one universe.

Now... depending on the nasa response I get could actually make that mute. If they say "whether the universe were one trillionth of its current size (so less particles) or whether the magnitude of the big bang were different, the constants would remain the same".

At that point, all ot would mean is that the multiple universes would become irrelevant and it would more so become an argument of "you either believe all 180 universal constants just so happen to be the value needed for life 'aturally' by mere coincedence" or you believe "a creator designed those constants to be at the exact values".

Personally, I wouldn't be able to see it as a coincedence.

>aturally
Supposed to say "naturally"

Your changing the subject then. Stop doing that

>Describe to me what the 37th dimension looks like when you can't even see time the way you see your neighborhood.

What even is your argument? What point are you even trying to make?

You're asking me irrelevant question I couldn't give 2 shits about. None of my posts have anything to do with morality.

ITT OP doesn't realise he's
A. Whiny
B. A fool

Once I heated a salami and cheese sandwich in the microwave, and I slightly undercooked it so parts of the cheese didn't melt all the way.

Mother fucker.

isn't that what you're doing?

actually, they do.

you've repeatedly mentioned your fear of hell, the place where the immoral go for their sins. that was pretty much the basis of this.

>as in an unassailable barrier at the end of the universe that defines it's end

Your assuming there's something outside this universe first of all. Baseless assumption.

I'm going to requote what you said
>the elements to create us have always existed and over the course of INFINITY at some point they came together to create us (or just you)

Again, what do you even mean by "infinity". Multiple universes or what? And if so, under what evidence? Dogma? You are stating it as fact when it isn't a fact to begin with.

How so??

ok i'm legitimately sorry but i needed to be asleep hours ago, so i'm going to have to leave. I'm going to leave you with a few questions that i really want you to think about your answers to.

what does it mean for something to be more likely than something else

how can you determine how likely it is for a creator to exist

does the existence of a creator need to be explained

if a creator has always existed, could the same be said of natural laws and physical constants

how do you reach a logical conclusion and can you do it without evidence

good conversation. frustrating at the beginning but i wouldnt have stuck around for so long if i were legitimately angry, i hope you feel the same.

For those of you just joining us, this sums up the entire thread.

Attached: OP.png (500x375, 259K)

by measuring pigheadedness

I don't know, I have to suffer seeing your melodramatic bullshit.

>you've repeatedly mentioned your fear of hell, the place where the immoral go for their sins. that was pretty much the basis of this.

Which I stated was faith based. I stated by believing in a creator, it opens uo the possibility of hell or other forms of torture.

As POINTLESS as it is, I'll say I see morals as subjective. "good" and "bad" are based on our survival instinct.
Anything that benefits survival is "good" (such as reproduction, money for financial security, etc.). Anything against it is "bad" (murder, etc.).

I believe this survival instinct was given to us by a creator to give us a guide as to how they see "good" and "bad".
Some things humans see as good "such as excessive money" etc. Is seen as "greed" by the christian creator for instance. Long story short, I see even this creator's moral compass as subjective just that by disobeying them, you can go to hell. So they are like a tyrant.

There you go. I feel it is extremely pointless to even mention this here.

Can you be more transparent??

hmmm.... honestly I don't care what you think, you want to think we live in a box? sure, have it. I suppose it's nice to have a belief, that's why tell kids about Santa, because it gives them joy to think him bringing presents to all the good little boys and girls and gives them something to strive for to make their parents lives easier. But, then they grow up and find Santa's not real. They gained (possibly) some desirable traits from this, (not being whinny little shits) but, is it really better? Eh, who knows, if you could back to believing would you? Would you forsake knowledge for a falsely perceived happiness? These are questions without answers, the same is the answer to your problems, there isn't one. It's just another enigma of life.

Attached: snekkkkkk.jpg (750x783, 78K)

See that little defense you had of pretending not to track in the name of pragmatism hoping for an audience here? You did follow me. Your defense mechanisms are showing again.

My argument is that you can't use your present observations to limit things.

You're making the point that atoms didn't exists until we defined them. Funny thing is, you might be right but not in the way you think.

People are telling you that there's more to things than we know and saying "i know nothing one way or the other" is fine

>what does it mean for something to be more likely than something else

It becomes subjective at some point. Like I said above, you either believe in extremely odd coincedences or you don't.

>how can you determine how likely it is for a creator to exist
Depends on the nasa response I get. Say they say the constants would be the same no matter what, again, it would become a subjective at some point. You either believe in odd coincedences or you don't.

>does the existence of a creator need to be explained
I don't think it will ever be 100% proven so you would have to use deductive reasoning at some point. See above.

>if a creator has always existed, could the same be said of natural laws and physical constants
YES, BUT again, read above. Assuming you don't believe in a creator, you would have to just believe that the constants BY MERE COINCEDENCE had the right values needed for life.

>how do you reach a logical conclusion and can you do it without evidence
Process of Elimination

>good conversation. frustrating at the beginning but i wouldnt have stuck around for so long if i were legitimately angry, i hope you feel the same.
Sort of. More or less.

You aren't being clear but by your use of "infinity", I'm going to assume you believe in multiple universes as a *fact* which is a BELIEF in itself. The irony.

I love Hudson River School paintings by Albert Bierstadt.

>See that little defense you had of pretending not to track in the name of pragmatism hoping for an audience here? >You did follow me. Your defense >mechanisms are showing again.

No, it genuinely didn't make sense to me. Notice how I've answered every other comment clearly? Why wouldn't I have done the same for yours? It genuinely made no coherent sense to me.

>My argument is that you can't use your present observations to limit things.

You are saying here "to be open minded". I am saying "sure, but to see things as a VIABLE option, I need to see evidence".

I won't just believe in non-carbon based life without a shred of evidence just as I won't belueve in flying unicorns wothout evidence.

>You're making the point that atoms didn't exists until we defined them. Funny thing is, you might be right but not in the way you think.
Umm... what? I didn't say that. Quote what you are referring to.

>People are telling you that there's more to things than we know and saying "i know nothing one way or the other" is fine

Dude. I am not going to believe in non-carbon based life without some sort of evidenxe supporting it. Research is actually being done to TRY to see if carbon can be substituted for in organisms. Good. Until something is actually found, it is just an idea.

Again: you keep being dogmatically attached to the idea of pragmatism after willingly entering a debate of philosophy. The scientific community as a whole acknowledges there are more things they don't know than they do by incredible degrees. You've picked the god of empirical data that shapes your narrative and the universe of perception you sit in.

Tell me where i said anything about "non-carbon based lifeform"?

But you either acknowledge that infinity is a construct or it isn't. What's inside of infinity? If not, what sort of superstate exists beyond the finite observable universe?

Look. You are EXTREMELY vague and I'm leaving so ALL I'm going to say is to read the whole argument I had with the other guy because I literally already addressed what you said and you are also missing the point I was making with the speed of light having a near perfect value needed for carbon to exist. We are carbon based life forms. Had the speed of light been different, we wouldn't be here.

As for dogma? Believing in multiple universes as fact is as dogmatic as you can get. You're blind.

Bye.

You keep saying "infinity" wtf? There is no proof of infinite universes so your premise is already flawed right there.

>What's inside of infinity?
That doesn't mean anything. That question isn't coherent. You can't find anything "inside infinity". That literally means nothing.

Again, bye.

You also keep assuming there even is something outside of the universe with no proof of ANY kind. Bye.

Cool, thanks for making me feel better. Hopefully you continue suffering so I can continue to feel this good bud. Wish you the worst

For fuck's sake, it's moot. Not mute.

But you're assuming that those 180 constants are needed to make life. What if 179 makes life, just not life as we know it.

>man, you musta had a bumper crop when they removed thread IDs 5 years ago
Not once did i state i believed anything. Simply stated i don't rule anything out.

you've been arguing with 3 people.

Philosophy is vague. If you don't like it, stick with hard sciences.

The nature of the universe, the idea of god however you define it, what is beyond our reality or hidden from us within it... that's not the realm of science and they've never stated it is. Theoretical science is not even reality.

Stop using your rules in a place they don't belong yet.

And when you leave like an asshole, it just shows that your beliefs were tested and you didn't come out feeling as well off about them.

"Kill yourself"

Always the "go to" insult for zoomer retards

only gays suffer. OP must be a gay

best response ive read so far tbh
op is low quality bait

Attached: 1553177340051.jpg (720x960, 53K)

I'm 22 with hardly any teeth & the rest of them are fucked up, have infections in my jaw because of fucked up teeth, living on antibiotics, need a $25k surgery to fix it, socially insecure, no job, no car, living with parent, addicted to opiates. but even me, a fucking loser is more positive about life than you, fucking faggot.

People who haven't suffered are the only ones that complain on the internet. If you can't imagine taking one more fucking breath you'd do shit about it. Therefore op is a liar

discord
=|+|--|309|--|+|=
.gg/Bsyufq6

Attached: 9.jpg (480x480, 39K)

Good, keep being a faggot and let the rest of the functioning world carry on

suffering isn't a competition

Below are the top 20 stressful scenarios reported by millennials:

1. Losing wallet/credit card
2. Arguing with partner
3. Commute/traffic delays
4. Losing phone
5. Arriving late to work
6. Slow WiFi
7. Phone battery dying
8. Forgetting passwords
9. Credit card fraud
10. Forgetting phone charger
11. Losing/misplacing keys
12. Paying bills
13. Job interviews
14. Phone screen breaking
15. Credit card bills
16. Check engine light coming on
17. School loan payments
18. Job security
19. Choosing what to wear
20. Washing dishes

Literally everyone loses a loved one sooner or later. You're not special, emo bitch.

Huh, either I've made good choices in life or I just don't get stressed easily. Family health is just about the only thing that stresses me out.

The first time I said I wanted to die was when I was 7. Im 24 now and still the same mood. Difficult family, hard childhood and even harder teenage years. Life is hard, and everyone sees it from different points of view. You cant say to anyone that you suffer the most as if it was a fucking ball measurement championship. No one is the same. Fuck off, edgelord.

You mistook #1: breathing.