• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Before Creation: Nothing or Something

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
In lay terms, matter/energy cannot be added or created to the present extant universe we live and move in. HOW DID IT GET HERE is the question since it CANNOT be "added to or subtracted from".

In lay terms the amount of matter/energy at any time is the same as at any other time.

The problem is discussing 'events' when there is no time. Since time is part of the universe and matter/energy exists whenever there is time, there is no 'get here' from a *time* when there was nothing.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You're missing my point--explain the infinite amount of time via . . .

What do you mean 'via'? In these models, there is an infinite amount of time. Period. Everything has a cause at a previous time. There is an infinite string of causes. NOT a single cause of everything.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What do you mean 'via'? In these models, there is an infinite amount of time. Period. Everything has a cause at a previous time. There is an infinite string of causes. NOT a single cause of everything.

How are you not begging the question of infinite regression?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
In lay terms the amount of matter/energy at any time is the same as at any other time.

The problem is discussing 'events' when there is no time. Since time is part of the universe and matter/energy exists whenever there is time, there is no 'get here' from a *time* when there was nothing.

Not a problem at all. Time HERE is based on light, before light there was no time here. We both know this. The problem is, in lay terms, "How did HERE get HERE?"
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Not a problem at all. Time HERE is based on light, before light there was no time here. We both know this. The problem is, in lay terms, "How did HERE get HERE?"

Why do you think time is based on light????

When you ask the question 'how', you are already requiring some sort of laws of physics, in particular causality. But, without time, there is no causality.

My position is that spacetime simply exists. It isn't caused because causality only makes sense within spacetime. I don't know whether time itself is infinite into the past, but that isn't particularly relevant to the issue of a cause for spacetime.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
I am spiritual but I also love quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics postulates that there are other dimensions different from ours with different concepts of reality including time and space. I would say that those dimensions could affect our dimension including possibly creating the physical reality in which we live. After all, we and everything in our world are made up of atoms which are made up of particles which have energy. Pure energy is not physical but some particles are-the Higgs Boson. I find it very interesting to study the supernatural in terms of the science of quantum mechanics.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The Big Bang cosmology never set out to explain what was before the BB, but it isn’t Nothing.

Before the BB, there is something, but whatever it is, no one knows.

As to “Before Creation”, as in theistic creation, the Abrahamic religions assumed God was there before heaven and earth, as do many polytheistic religions that have their own versions of creation myths.

And that all religions are, myths about creation, myths about their god or gods.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I am spiritual but I also love quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics postulates that there are other dimensions different from ours with different concepts of reality including time and space.
I think that’s more String Theory, particularly M-Theory, than Quantum Mechanics.

M-Theory is the one that postulate there are 11dimensions, and the possibilities of alternate universe or alternate reality.

String Theory, M-Theory, Superstring Theory, Supersymmtery, etc, all falls under the theoretical category, therefore not a scientific theory.

Theoretical means it is only logical or mathematical-based (meaning it all maths and equations), no testable and verifiable evidences.

Quantum physics on the other hand, has some experimental evidences to back it up, therefore has some real world application, but other parts of quantum mechanics are still purely theoretical.

Anyway I think you are confusing Quantum Mechanics with String Theory.

Oh, btw. Do not confuse the alternate reality of M-Theory with the Multiverse model, because they are not the same things.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
In lay terms the amount of matter/energy at any time is the same as at any other time.

The problem is discussing 'events' when there is no time. Since time is part of the universe and matter/energy exists whenever there is time, there is no 'get here' from a *time* when there was nothing.
I think some people get energy confused.

Some people think of energy as a mystical or supernatural force, and therefore transcendent space and time. They think energy can exist from nothingness.

But in science, and in this reality, energy is natural that don’t exist without time.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Then you should take the matter up with the cosmologists who support the BB. The theory proposes that a single point of infinite density existed, before the creation of the universe. There was nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no heat no cold, nothing but the singularity.

For unknown reasons unknown, the singularity banged, and created the universe.

The singularity existed outside and before the universe.
No, not true. Not true on several fronts.

The BB cosmology actually state that it was infinitely hot and dense during the singularity, therefore there has to be something there that cause density and heat.

However, they don’t know what that something is there, before the Big Bang. They haven’t postulate of nothing.

Singularity don’t mean there is nothing there.

The stellar blackholes are by all intent and purpose, singularities.

This blackhole isn’t nothing. The star is so massive that when it run out of hydrogen to fuse, it caused gravitational collapse, so anything that past the event horizon will fall into the collapsed star. The star’s core is still there, so it still exist, even if we cannot see beyond the event horizon.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
The Big Bang cosmology never set out to explain what was before the BB, but it isn’t Nothing.

Before the BB, there is something, but whatever it is, no one knows.

As to “Before Creation”, as in theistic creation, the Abrahamic religions assumed God was there before heaven and earth, as do many polytheistic religions that have their own versions of creation myths.

And that all religions are, myths about creation, myths about their god or gods.

As you said, something was before the big band. The energy and matter of the big bang could not have occurred without something creating it. What created it? My belief is God. If not immediately before the big bang, at some point, something needed to create the physical or it could not exist.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
As you said, something was before the big band. The energy and matter of the big bang could not have occurred without something creating it. What created it? My belief is God. If not immediately before the big bang, at some point, something needed to create the physical or it could not exist.
The operator word here is “believe”. You believe that God have somehow create the natural world.

You are entitled your belief, but you cannot test God, can you?

You need to understand that science is not only explanation like a theory or hypothesis, it is also used to test those explanations with either evidences or experiments.

No hypothesis or theory are true by-default. If you cannot test it, then it isn’t science.

What is before the Big Bang?

If you are a scientist, you don’t say “God did it.” That’s merely an excuse and faith-based belief. Not science.

If you are uncertain about the before BB, then the honest answer would be “I don’t know”.

There are absolutely nothing wrong with uncertainty.

There is something wrong when someone declare “God did it,” when you cannot test God creating anything, let alone showing evidences that God exist.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The Big Bang cosmology never set out to explain what was before the BB, but it isn’t Nothing.

Careful. In the original formulation, time cannot be extended past the singularity. There would be *nothing* before the BB since time itself couldn't be defined.

It is only with quantum extensions that smooth out the singularity (or otherwise avoid one) that time can be extended and we can talk about 'before the BB'.

Before the BB, there is something, but whatever it is, no one knows.

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct.

But remember, time is part of the universe (spacetime), so the universe has existed whenever there has been time.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
As you said, something was before the big band. The energy and matter of the big bang could not have occurred without something creating it. What created it? My belief is God. If not immediately before the big bang, at some point, something needed to create the physical or it could not exist.

But time itself is a part of physics. So, if time existed, then the universe existed and there was a physical.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Careful. In the original formulation, time cannot be extended past the singularity. There would be *nothing* before the BB since time itself couldn't be defined.

It is only with quantum extensions that smooth out the singularity (or otherwise avoid one) that time can be extended and we can talk about 'before the BB'.



Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct.

But remember, time is part of the universe (spacetime), so the universe has existed whenever there has been time.

I haven’t yet accepted what is the singularity, and if there are before or not.

BB only begin with time > 0 second, which is where most of the evidences are so far.

Whether we go with General Relativity or with Quantum Gravity, and if there are before BB or no before BB, it all pretty much theoretical, so I am sitting on the fence on this one.

So I haven’t YET accepted any model, because I need more data before making any decision. Just like I haven’t String Theory or Multiverse model or the Oscillating Universe model.

I preferred to go wherever and whenever there are evidences, and these theoretical models are merely draft or proposed hypotheses.

But...Not accepting any of them, don’t mean I am not curious about these proposed fields.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
The operator word here is “believe”. You believe that God have somehow create the natural world.

You are entitled your belief, but you cannot test God, can you?

You need to understand that science is not only explanation like a theory or hypothesis, it is also used to test those explanations with either evidences or experiments.

No hypothesis or theory are true by-default. If you cannot test it, then it isn’t science.

What is before the Big Bang?

If you are a scientist, you don’t say “God did it.” That’s merely an excuse and faith-based belief. Not science.

If you are uncertain about the before BB, then the honest answer would be “I don’t know”.

There are absolutely nothing wrong with uncertainty.

There is something wrong when someone declare “God did it,” when you cannot test God creating anything, let alone showing evidences that God exist.


Can I just say that two things are true. Quantum physicists have discovered that there are other dimensions (realities) and something had to create the matter and energy for the big bang or for any type of existence. If not God, what created it? I really want to know your thoughts on this. Thank you.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Can I just say that two things are true.

Sure you can.

Quantum physicists have discovered that there are other dimensions (realities)...?

Correction.

No physicists have "discovered" other dimensions, and other realities.

It has only hypotheize and theorise the possibilities of other dimensions, of other realities, but they haven't discovered anything.

When you use the word "discovered", it would mean they have found EVIDENCES. There are no evidences to support it.

In the hypothesis of M-Theory, which a subset of String Theory, not Quantum Mechanics (which is another correction), they have postulated there being more than 4 dimensions - the last count in M-Theory there are 11 dimensions, and they did so with some very complex mathematical equations.

Mathematical equations are proofs, NOT EVIDENCES.

For there to be evidences of another reality, it has to be possible a person to move from one reality to the alternate reality.

THAT HASN'T HAPPEN, EXCEPT IN SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS and IN SCIENCE FICTION TV or MOVIES.

To give a example of theoretical concept being used in science fiction. Albert Einstein has once postulated intergalactic travel through "Wormhole", but so far no scientists have discovered wormholes, but in SCIENCE FICTION, it can and have happen. Einstein was never able to discover the existence of wormhole.

Do not confuse theoretical physics models of M-Theory, Wormholes and others with Science Fiction.

Maybe one day, scientists will discover 11 dimensional M-Theory and Wormhole, but in today's reality, no such evidences exist for either one of them.

I am not trying to insult or offend you Diana. I am just trying to clarify some things that you might have misunderstood here. It is better to learn from your errors than repeat them repeatedly in the future.

..and something had to create the matter and energy for the big bang or for any type of existence. If not God, what created it?

Diana, no one what cause the initial expansion of the universe from the singularity.

We may know more in the future, but it is all still theoretical and hypothetical at this stage.

There has been many theoretical concepts, like
  • Oscillating Universe Model, in which the universe go through series of Crunch, singularity, Bang, Crunch again, singularity again, Bang. It is like cycle of birth, death, rebirth, repeating endlessly. The oscillating model is sometimes referred to as the Big Bounce.
  • Multiverse models, where there more than one universe.
  • Static Universe Model (which is universe that eternal and unchanging, first postulated by Einstein in the 1920s, but debunked,
  • Steady State theory, postulated in 1949-51 by Fred Hoyle, has been debunked since 1964 when CMBR was discovered.
  • etc
Two of them have already been debunked, but Oscillating and Multiverse models are still in contention with the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory used to be theoretical until the discovery of the Redshift (1929) and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR, 1964), and it is currently that has "scientific theory" status.

Anyway, it is OK for me, not knowing everything now. I don't know what cause the Big Bang, and I don't know if there is a before a Big Bang.

PS

BTW, Diana. When I used the word "theoretical" model or hypothesis or concept.

The theoretical concept or theoretical model isn't a "scientific theory".

A scientific theory is a well-tested explanation, meaning it is backed up by verifiable evidences or by experiments. You would call any testable scientific theory as EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE or EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.

A theoretical model, on the other hand, is current untestable (no evidences, no experiments), but is MATHEMATICALLY FEASIBLE.

You might know mathematical feasible as "proof". These proofs come in the forms of equations, formulas or metric constants.

Many people who are not well-versed in science, often confuse proof and evidence, as if they were one and the same. They are not the same, when used in science and mathematical worlds.

It is possible for theoretical hypothesis.

Einstein's Special Relativity and General Relativity used to be theoretical concepts, until some scientists were able to perform experimental testings, to validate SR & GR.

And I have already mentioned the Big Bang theory and CMBR.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
After all, we and everything in our world are made up of atoms which are made up of particles which have energy. Pure energy is not physical but some particles are-the Higgs Boson. I find it very interesting to study the supernatural in terms of the science of quantum mechanics.
Something that I had overlooked in my previous reply. This “Pure energy” that you wrote.

I do see you have heard of Higgs Boson, and you are most likely aware of the conservation of energy and conservation of mass.

That the individual conservations, both indicated mass and energy, cannot be created, nor destroyed, BUT it can transformed, converted into something, including to each other, eg mass can convert into energy, and likewise, energy can convert into mass.

This conservation about mass and energy being transferable is one of the defining principle about understanding matter.

They are all real and natural, and they are understood in physics.

The conservation of both mass and energy, are understood as they are related to each other, and how they are related to matters (matters as in objects, atoms, particles). In this scenario,
  1. energy is define a property of mass (and of matter) that has potential to “work”, hence “potential energy”,
  2. and the matter is doing something, eg moving, then energy is define as a property of mass (and of matter) that can do “work”, hence physicists called this “kinetic energy”.
Energy, whether it be potential or kinetic, is calculated as work, with the outcome giving number in “Joules”. The equation of energy required mass of that matter.

So in summary, energy, like mass, is a property of matter.

That much you should have learned in basic high school physics.

I left out a third point about energy (#3) in my points about kinetic and potential energies, that matter doing some work give out another form of energy, where mass and energy will cause matter to radiate a third form of energy - “heat”.

Heat can actually be observed using some form of infrared scanning devices.

Again, (regarding to heat) this is all basic physics you would have learned in high school.

But another thing you should have learned in high school physics, that matters at work aren’t the only things that can produce energy.

Fields can induce force, therefore it can do work too, hence work = energy.

And so can electromagnetism (EM), where EM would propagate waves, therefore it has energy. You would and should know that EM waves include radio waves, visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, x-ray, microwave, gamma waves.

Einstein postulated light has a dual property of being both wave and particle, hence physicists frequently referred to light as “photon”.

So if you studied any physics, beyond what was taught in high school, you would have learned about quantum physics and particle physics, and that photon is one of particles in the Standard Model of elementary particles.

Einstein, expanded the classical physics on matters, fields and waves, with his scientific theory - Special Relativity.

Special Relativity, like his General Relativity, covered many different areas of modern physics, including spacetime (which is very important if you were studying modern astronomy, astrophysics and physical cosmology), but he brought the mass and energy into the 20th century, which you would know it as the Mass-Energy Equivalence equation:

E = m c^2​

Where c is the speed of light constant. This equation highlighted the classical physics of energy, the important interrelationship between mass and energy.

And if you approach modern physics in the other direction - as opposed to Relativity - then you would be looking at energy from the perspectives of Quantum Physics and Particle Physics.

Now I still very new to Quantum Mechanics, so I am still learning.

When I was at universities, they didn’t teach me Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics, because they weren’t relevant to the courses I took in the mid-1980s (civil engineering) and mid- to late 90s (computer science). I have been reading up these new areas of physics, in the last 10 or more years, because I am simply curious.

Anyway, my points in all this, energy is a natural phenomena, and only in the supernatural, which would include science fiction and in the belief of theistic or spiritual religions, is the existence of “pure energy”.

Pure energy is a fiction and a myth. Other than religion, spirituality and sci-fi, pure energy doesn’t exist in the real world.
 
Top