The big bang and the creation of the universe.

[gnostic]

But, one thing, thing for sure, in my opinion, is something coming from nothing as about as equivelant as believing trees turn to elves that steal ice cream from your frig.

That's exactly what happen to me. :foot:

Do you think I should padlock my frig?

 

[Thief]

So the universe didn't come 'out' of nothing....

Well gee....at the 'point' of singularity....
you don't have two of anything.

If you did the singularity wouldn't be that 'singular' item.

And now we have the immense universe (one word).....

That's a whole lot of 'something' coming out of.......what?

One Something?......or just plain nothing?

 

[ruffen]

.
1- A nothing that created something from nothing
2- God that created something from nothing
.

I don't think this is complete. Here are some options (may still not be all possible):

1- A nothing that created something from nothing
2- A God that existed always created something from nothing
3- A nothing created God that created something from nothing
4- Something (laws of phyiscs) that always existed created something from nothing
5- Everything that exists was created from something that existed before (ie. not nothing) but which was before Big Bang so not observable evidence of it

etc...

 

[zaybu]

Some of this argument is about semantics. It depends how you view the vacuum:

(1) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (nothing).

(2) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (something).

If you take position (2), then to the question, how did something came out of nothing, the right answer is, it never happened.

 

[Ouroboros]

Some of this argument is about semantics.

True. I've noticed that this is true for many, if not most, arguments when it comes to these things. Language isn't a formal system with exact definitions and parameters, and the vagueness of it makes it impossible to get a perfect fit. (i.e.

 

[ruffen]

The problem of causality is that we as humans are "programmed" (either by our creator or through evolution) to expect that every event has a cause. This may or may not be a correct assumption. If it is correct the problem of first cause arises. You can ask "how did that happen?" again and again until you are at the beginning of the universe and time. Then the cause for the universe's existence is a question to which God is not a calid answer, as God also requires a cause to exist. If not, then we have the conclusion that not everything needs a cause, and the causeless event might be anything else than God coming into existence.

 

[Almustafa]

the universe came from that which is irriducible, we can make assumptions but no one can say for absolutely sure what the irriducible is, but it creates things that are something...
so it could be assumed that for something to be made from nothing, nothing would have to be something...

 

[camanintx]

Some of this argument is about semantics. It depends how you view the vacuum:

(1) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (nothing).

(2) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (something).

If you take position (2), then to the question, how did something came out of nothing, the right answer is, it never happened.

It gets even worse when you consider time as a property of the universe (space-time). Even if you take position (1), there was never a time when nothing existed.

 

[ruffen]

It gets even worse when you consider time as a property of the universe (space-time). Even if you take position (1), there was never a time when nothing existed.

This is a very good point. Time and space are both features of the universe, and neither existed before the Big Bang. Hence there was no "before" in which a cause could happen, divine or not.

 

[ruffen]

the universe came from that which is irriducible, we can make assumptions but no one can say for absolutely sure what the irriducible is, but it creates things that are something...
so it could be assumed that for something to be made from nothing, nothing would have to be something...

Maybe, maybe not. There are two main issues as far as I can see:
- do we absolutely certainly know that every event (such as an universe forming) must have a cause?
- do we absolutely certainly know that something cannot be created from nothing spontaneously and without any (apparent) cause? Isn't that what happens with quantum fluctuations creating a particle-antiparticle pair with a total energy of 0?
- do we absolutely certainly know that the only way something can be created from nothing is God?


If the answer to any of these questions is "yes, we do know this with absolute certainty", I would like to ask the question: How do we know this to be true?

 

[JamesYaqub]

.
I have few questions if you have the time to answer them.

Which makes more sense to you as a rational, intelligent and intellectual human being?

That the big bang is the result of:

1- A nothing that created something from nothing
2- God that created something from nothing

Please try to keep up with me on this one if possible...

You choose which makes more sense to you.

.

I agree with neither. In my view the idea of nothing is Illogical and perhaps impossible. I believe that God did, and does, exist in a medium of "spirit" which both predates and is superior to, the physical universe that we know.

God directs His mind upon spiritual mass. It reacts by "slowing" and "congealing". Suddenly there is physical form for the first time. Zillions of years later we know a little about this beginning and call it the Big Bang. :angel2:

 

[Thief]

Maybe, maybe not. There are two main issues as far as I can see:
- do we absolutely certainly know that every event (such as an universe forming) must have a cause?
- do we absolutely certainly know that something cannot be created from nothing spontaneously and without any (apparent) cause? Isn't that what happens with quantum fluctuations creating a particle-antiparticle pair with a total energy of 0?
- do we absolutely certainly know that the only way something can be created from nothing is God?


If the answer to any of these questions is "yes, we do know this with absolute certainty", I would like to ask the question: How do we know this to be true?

If you take away cause and effect....you will never 'know' anything.

I watch a lot of science documentary.
Grew up with science...love it....excelled in it.
simply went on my way to be a toolmaker.

Cause and effect is an 'axiom'.
Take it away...and ALL experimentation is made invalid.

If you can't do the experiment with some level of expectation....you have no experiment.

So.....can you deal with expectation?

 

[ruffen]

If you take away cause and effect....you will never 'know' anything.

I watch a lot of science documentary.
Grew up with science...love it....excelled in it.
simply went on my way to be a toolmaker.

Cause and effect is an 'axiom'.
Take it away...and ALL experimentation is made invalid.

If you can't do the experiment with some level of expectation....you have no experiment.

So.....can you deal with expectation?

Yes, we do take causality as a given, but can we know this is the case for the universe coming into existence?

Also, if causality is a given, then what caused God? If God doesn't require causality then ALL experimentation is invalid again, as our results may be manipulated by an invisible deity.

 

[Thief]

Yes, we do take causality as a given, but can we know this is the case for the universe coming into existence?

Also, if causality is a given, then what caused God? If God doesn't require causality then ALL experimentation is invalid again, as our results may be manipulated by an invisible deity.

Answering...what caused God won't happen.

But making a choice can.

Choose.
Spirit First?.....then life outside of chemistry is a possibility.

Substance without spirit?
What caused the substance?
Spirit dependent upon chemistry?
If so....then death is final.
And Man (along with life generally speaking) is a mystery without resolve.

 

[outhouse]

And Man (along with life generally speaking) is a mystery without resolve.

Nope this is a poor personal translation of yours. Word salad, from your personal hobby horse..

There is no mystery

 

[idav]

Some of this argument is about semantics. It depends how you view the vacuum:

(1) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (nothing).

(2) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (something).

If you take position (2), then to the question, how did something came out of nothing, the right answer is, it never happened.

This. It's nothing to something or something to something else. People want to call the first something God by default.

Really even God would have that issue, did god create something out of thin air or did god use an already existing substance to shape everything else. Presumably God would be the only and first "substance" so he could have used himself to "create" what we see, the act of creating himself would be enough.

 

[zaybu]

This. It's nothing to something or something to something else. People want to call the first something God by default.

Really even God would have that issue, did god create something out of thin air or did god use an already existing substance to shape everything else. Presumably God would be the only and first "substance" so he could have used himself to "create" what we see, the act of creating himself would be enough.

Theists will say that are two kinds of causes: agent causes and efficient causes. They will identify God with agent causes, while the universe is efficient causes, so it can't create itself. Their point of departure is the kalam cosmological argument which starts with: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The christian apologist William lane Craig has gained some notoriety with this in his debate.

 

[idav]

Theists will say that are two kinds of causes: agent causes and efficient causes. They will identify God with agent causes, while the universe is efficient causes, so it can't create itself. Their point of departure is the kalam cosmological argument which starts with: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The christian apologist William lane Craig has gained some notoriety with this in his debate.

Who knows how or if a singularity begins to exist. It would be just as easy to just say magic did it.

 

[Thief]

Nope this is a poor personal translation of yours. Word salad, from your personal hobby horse..

There is no mystery

So instead of denial and critique.....would you care to enlighten the participants here?

 

[Thief]

This. It's nothing to something or something to something else. People want to call the first something God by default.

Really even God would have that issue, did god create something out of thin air or did god use an already existing substance to shape everything else. Presumably God would be the only and first "substance" so he could have used himself to "create" what we see, the act of creating himself would be enough.

Good stuff.

'I think....therefore....'I AM'....