What was before the big bang?

[Pariah]

"this idea you're discusing is nicely exemplified in a book by the guy who draws those dilbert comics. it's called god's debris: a thought experiment (here, you can read it in a sitting, only 132 p)"

Thanks very much for the link - a superb piece of writing.

 

[619]

After many lsd sessions I came to understand that the big bang was only God expressing Himself. If any of you have found the absolute, you will realise that everything is God and God is everything.

 

[????????]

Thanks very much for the link

hey, i just found out, the guy wrote part 2!

 

[Crimzen]

After many lsd sessions I came to understand that the big bang was only God expressing Himself. If any of you have found the absolute, you will realise that everything is God and God is everything.

therefore god is nothing
god expressing himself? if there WERE a god it wouldnt be androgenous and wouldnt have any need what so ever to express itself
and theres no such thing as an absolute

 

[GOD]

Bollocks .

 

[maxfreakout]

the big bang theory is based on the sequential causation model of time, the idea that every event is caused by a preceding event. The big bang is then the 'first cause' which started off the chain of causally linked events in the universe

but the model of sequential causation may not be a true model of the way the universe works, so there is no solid ground on which to base the assumption that there had to have been a 'first cause'

 

[GOD]

The whole of physics is based on cause and effect . The big bang was an effect , at least as far as physics is concerned . If people cant see that theres no point in talking about it . Just think about an explosion , it doesnt hapen by itself . It has to have a cause and a "space" to take place in . And for fucks sake please dont start talking about fractals or the big bang folding in on itself itself .

 

[Crimzen]

GOD if you havnt read "a brief history of time" by stephen hawking you should because in it is an explanation of how it could go from what it was to expanding
it didnt come from nothing

 

[maxfreakout]

The whole of physics is based on cause and effect .

specifically, physics is based on temporally sequential cause and effect, ie each effect has a cause that precedes it in time

The big bang is held to be the 'first cause', it was the moment when the universe came into existence, ie it is the beginning of time, and therefore there cannot possibly be a preceding cause of the big bang itself (if there is, then you have to ask what caused the cause of the big bang, and eventually you will arrive at a first cause)

The big bang was an effect , at least as far as physics is concerned .

an effect of what?

Just think about an explosion , it doesnt hapen by itself .

the big bang is an explosion that happened by itself, with no prior cause

 

[GOD]

"The big bang is held to be the 'first cause', it was the moment when the universe came into existence, ie it is the beginning of time, and therefore there cannot possibly be a preceding cause of the big bang itself"

The cause of the universe and the lineartime / space that we know . The big bang wasnt the cause of the big bang .


"if there is, then you have to ask what caused the cause of the big bang, and eventually you will arrive at a first cause"

Yes . If we think in terms of linear time .

"an effect of what?"

Exactly .

"the big bang is an explosion that happened by itself, with no prior cause"

Max you have a brain , your an intelligent man , please give a rational explenation of how an explosion could happen without anything to explode or a "time / space" to happen in ?

The easyest way is to stop thinking of organised time / linear time . That it happened in a "space" where that isnt so . That the linear time that we know is as science says a product of the big bang .

 

[maxfreakout]

please give a rational explenation of how an explosion could happen without anything to explode or a "time / space" to happen in ?

what i said in my first post, was that the big bang theory is based on the linear/sequential causation model of time, but that this model may not be a correct model of the way the universe works. If this is the case, then the big bang theory is redundant. The burden is on the person who thinks that the linear/sequential causation model of time IS a correct model of the workings of the universe, to answer your question. I am arguing the opposite way, that tha linear/sequential causation model of time is in fact false, i think that there is no sequential causation, and therefore there is no need to postulate a (inherently unprovable and inexplicable) 'big bang as first cause of existence' 8)

Furthermore, i dont think that there is a 'rational explanation' for the existence of the universe

 

[GOD]

WOW !!!! So we agree ! Exept about the big bang theory being redundant . A big bang happened but it couldnt have been the start of everything . At the moment the most likely theoretical explanation is that it happened in a place that doesnt have to have 100% linear time = a place with no start and no end . Theoretical physics has gone a long way since einstein and there have been newer explenations since hawking .

 

[maxfreakout]

WOW !!!! So we agree ! Exept about the big bang theory being redundant .

i mean specifically that the big bang theory is redundant as an explanation of how the universe was originally caused to come into existence/how time was originally caused to begin

A big bang happened but it couldnt have been the start of everything .

The big bang may or may not have happened, there may or may not be evidence for the occurence of a big bang, but either way, we cannot possibly know that there was a big bang, because it is supposed to have occured long before there were any human beings alive to witness it.

The big bang is commonly understood to be the beginning of time, ie the start of the sequence of temporal causation that constitutes the physical universe. But this view tacitly implies the linear/sequential causation model of time, which i am saying is not only false, but is also inherently inexplicable, unprovable and ultimately absurd. There is no such thing as sequential causation (it is a myth that events are caused to occur by prior events in time), and therefore there is no need to postulate an inexplicable big bang as being the start of this process, the big bang theory (as a theory of how the universe started) is therefore entirely redundant

 

[GOD]

" but is also inherently inexplicable, unprovable and ultimately absurd."

That aplys to all / most of what we think we know but that isnt a reason not to try and understand .

"The big bang may or may not have happened,"

Something happened . It happened from a direction and a much smaller space than we now have . I think it can be "proved" back to a point of a few hundreths of a second after something happened that we now call a big bang . Denying that the universe was squashed and expanded very rapidly with extreme amounts of heat is against what we "know" . ( Thats another discription of an explosion ) .

 

[restin]

The big bang is just a lazy excuse. If there was no big bang, modern physics would die. The origin of the Universe is the crucial point if physics is right or wrong. If you think of it, the big bang is the same as god - origin of the universe and all creation just with another name.

 

[maxfreakout]

the big bang is the same as god

I think it's more accurate to say that God is the transcendent cause of the big bang


God said "let there be light" and then there was light

= God caused a big bang to happen

 

[maxfreakout]

That aplys to all / most of what we think we know but that isnt a reason not to try and understand

i dont think that postulating logically impossible entities (such as a big bang = first cause) is trying to understand. Rather, it avoids understanding, or makes understanding impossible

Something happened . It happened from a direction and a much smaller space than we now have . I think it can be "proved" back to a point of a few hundreths of a second after something happened that we now call a big bang . Denying that the universe was squashed and expanded very rapidly with extreme amounts of heat is against what we "know" . ( Thats another discription of an explosion ) .

it is entirely unprovable, anything could have happened, it is just arbitrarily speculative to suggest what may or may not have happened to cause the universe to start existing

 

[Shamanita]

I have a question. it's a bit offtopic, but thread-related

If the universe expands, like science says, would that mean that our universe have borders?
And is there anything on the other side of the border?
or is there "nothing" (no space, no time, nothing, it doesn't exist)?
and why does our universe expands? is it the BigBang-energy "flying" away from the center of our universe, that makes the universe expand?

 

[Pariah]

"There is no such thing as sequential causation"

Could you explain why you think this in clearer terms please? Entropy seems to say otherwise.

What I think is really "inherently inexplicable" is why you think absolute certainty is required for scientific knowledge, but we've already gone over this in other threads...

"the big bang theory is based on the sequential causation model of time, the idea that every event is caused by a preceding event."

"that every event is caused by a preceding event."

That isn't entirely true: for now at least, there is room for probability: to demonstrate this, all I need is a box, a cat, a radioactive source, and a vial of hydrogen cyanide; anybody?
:twisted:

Again, as I've said before, vacuum fluctuation and/or cyclic bang/crunch cycles are reasonable suggestions - they use observations to form ideas.

The big bang is not necessarily a "first cause" , but even if it was, it can be explained with testable experiments and observation.


"i dont think that postulating logically impossible entities (such as a big bang = first cause) is trying to understand."

" think it's more accurate to say that God is the cause of the big bang"

"logically impossible entities"

Who created god? did god create himself, or did another god create him etc. ad infinitum?

What created the universe? did it create itself, or did another universe create it etc. ad infinitum?

To say that god created the universe, then say that its logically impossible for the universe to be caused by a big bang is contradictory - they use the same arguments, just with different names.

The understanding of God is more essentially flawed than that of the big bang - one is explained with evidence and observation, the other appeals to faith.

Assuming an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god is also logically impossible as I understand it:

if all powerful, and omniscient, he knows suffering occurs, has the power to stop it, but doesn't - which isn't benevolent.

perhaps he's benevolent, but doesn't have the power. Perhaps he's benevolent but doesn't know we exist. In all cases a pretty lousy god.

If your bringing up god in a philosophical sense, then you should really justify yourself by destroying the argument from evil:

"If God is omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, there should be no unnecessary evil in the world. There is unnecessary evil in the world, so there is no omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god."

What is your understanding of what god is? and why is it anymore relevant than the big bang?

***

"If there was no big bang, modern physics would die"

I don't agree with that - if the big bang was debunked, then science would develop a new explanation based on the available data:

There *should* be no dogma in science.

If the big bang was debunked, it wouldn't stop scanning tunneling microscopes from working, satellites wouldn't instantly fall out of orbit, astronomers wouldn't suddenly see mile high letters on the moon saying "God Woz Ere 0/0/0000" (although that'd be pretty cool).

 

[restin]

Who created god? did god create himself, or did another god create him etc. ad infinitum?

What created the universe? did it create itself, or did another universe create it etc. ad infinitum?

To say that god created the universe, then say that its logically impossible for the universe to be caused by a big bang is contradictory - they use the same arguments, just with different names.

The understanding of God is more essentially flawed than that of the big bang - one is explained with evidence and observation, the other appeals to faith.

Assuming an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god is also logically impossible as I understand it:

if all powerful, and omniscient, he knows suffering occurs, has the power to stop it, but doesn't - which isn't benevolent.

perhaps he's benevolent, but doesn't have the power. Perhaps he's benevolent but doesn't know we exist. In all cases a pretty lousy god.

If your bringing up god in a philosophical sense, then you should really justify yourself by destroying the argument from evil:

"If God is omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, there should be no unnecessary evil in the world. There is unnecessary evil in the world, so there is no omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god."

What is your understanding of what god is? and why is it anymore relevant than the big bang?

I think you misunderstand the concept of God.

I don't agree with that - if the big bang was debunked, then science would develop a new explanation based on the available data:

There *should* be no dogma in science.

If the big bang was debunked, it wouldn't stop scanning tunneling microscopes from working, satellites wouldn't instantly fall out of orbit, astronomers wouldn't suddenly see mile high letters on the moon saying "God Woz Ere 0/0/0000" (although that'd be pretty cool).

I reformulate: if the big bang is debunked the system of physics - and logic (!) would need a total makeover. it is as if you have the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 if you think it is n+1 but you find out that the next number is 345 your whole theory is broken down. If big bang is wrong exactly this system is wrong - it worked until now but now is dead end.