-
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!
What came before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter yoda89
- Start date
"Believe" in it the same way I "believe" in the sky.
Our songs don't speak of one.
Honestly, I don't have the information to make such a call.
Dunno.
As for what came "before" the Big Bang, our songs call it the Yawning Gap.
There ya go. ^_^
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Yes I believe in the Big Bang as there is no reason to not believe in something that has substantial proof for the theory.
Yes I believe something created although I would not call it a being.
Yes I believe something created although I would not call it a being.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Already proof of the big bang provided by Nasa's radiographic results and mapped.
No responsible being superior or otherwise imo.
Mulitverse or something else needs more study first.
No responsible being superior or otherwise imo.
Mulitverse or something else needs more study first.
yoda89
On Xtended Vacation
Do you think expand forever, stop or crunch?
There was no "before the Big Bang."
We can't even say "nothing came before," because there was no "before."
Don't know.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
'the Big Bang' is only a theory.
It was taken to heart by science that it seems the best of explanation for the manner of movement and substance we see above us.
It does seem 'obvious' the universe is expanding.
That indicates a central 'point' of beginning.
As for creation....
Answer the question Spirit first?...or substance?
If substance first then all of spirit is wrought by accidental chemistry....and terminal.
Your spirit functions as long as your chemistry holds up.
Then you go into the box and the box into the ground.
Dust you are and dust you will be.
If Spirit first....then you have a shot at standing from your dust.
Of course a discussion of judgment follows.
It was taken to heart by science that it seems the best of explanation for the manner of movement and substance we see above us.
It does seem 'obvious' the universe is expanding.
That indicates a central 'point' of beginning.
As for creation....
Answer the question Spirit first?...or substance?
If substance first then all of spirit is wrought by accidental chemistry....and terminal.
Your spirit functions as long as your chemistry holds up.
Then you go into the box and the box into the ground.
Dust you are and dust you will be.
If Spirit first....then you have a shot at standing from your dust.
Of course a discussion of judgment follows.
"Only a theory" is like saying "only a 60,000 year old priceless treasure."
There's nothing in science higher than theory.
Yes, the evidence for the expansion of the universe is very strong, and there is considerable detailed research on it.
I don't think there's any good reason to anthropomorphize it like humans have often done with forces they don't understand.
I think it's a reasonable proposition, but unevidenced.
Could have been anything until we know more. Maybe a previous universe collapsed into it. Maybe quantum fluctuations created a universe that balances out to nothing, out of nothing.
It doesn't seem to need a "before", because spacetime itself is what expanded from the Big Bang. It's not like time already existed in a linear fashion and then at some point the Big Bang occurred. Rather, time as we know it only goes back as far as the Big Bang itself, and the origin of it is unexplained.
So is gravity.
captainbryce
Active Member
Yes.
Of course. Logically, there had to be.
No. Mostly because it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of WHO started it all. Though I do admit, as a science fiction fan, it is quite an entertaining theory.
captainbryce
Active Member
Uh, no. Actually gravity is a known, observable, measurable phenomenon. Saying gravity is a theory is akin to saying "life" is a theory.
Hence, a scientific theory, or if we're being archaic, a scientific law. In terms of value, a scientific theory is equal to a scientific law. But the latter was discarded long ago in favor of the former because of how science operates. Something is only regarded as scientific theory (or law) if it is continuously demonstrated by all the evidence, but there's always that remote, itsie bitsie chance that it's not the case universally.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Some 'time' ago ....there was a lengthy debate the difference between theory and all else.
It went on for the longest 'time'.
Still seems to me.....theory is the best guess given what we've seen so far.
And what we see seems really sure.....we call it law.
But last I heard.....it's theory til 'proven' evident.
Theory of gravity?.....sure......prove it?.....sure....
Take a flying leap and see what happens.
Law of gravity?...sure...proven?....sure.....calculations can be sure.
Theory of God before the 'Bang'.....sure.
I think....therefore....'IAM!'
It went on for the longest 'time'.
Still seems to me.....theory is the best guess given what we've seen so far.
And what we see seems really sure.....we call it law.
But last I heard.....it's theory til 'proven' evident.
Theory of gravity?.....sure......prove it?.....sure....
Take a flying leap and see what happens.
Law of gravity?...sure...proven?....sure.....calculations can be sure.
Theory of God before the 'Bang'.....sure.
I think....therefore....'IAM!'
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
You're right, this is tediously overtrodden ground. But still it seems not everyone has taken on board that a scientific law isn't some kind of super-proven, promoted theory.
In a nutshell, theories explain, laws describe. And theories in science are never proven: the best status a theory can ever attain is to explain much while assuming little, while remaining unfalsified.
What happens would be an illustration of the law of gravity, which describes how massive objects attract each other with a force proportional to M1xM2/d-squared. A theory of gravity, if we had one, would explain the origin of that force and why it has that magnitude.
That's all a theory does, describe phenomenon.
Who created the superior being?Yes.
Of course. Logically, there had to be.
No. Mostly because it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of WHO started it all. Though I do admit, as a science fiction fan, it is quite an entertaining theory.
I believe you may be mixing up what a law is, and what a theory is. The Theory of Gravity is, quite literally, a theory. There's nothing higher in science than a theory.
A law is an analytical observation about how something works- generally a very specific fact. A theory is the explanation for why or how something happens, and usually involves explaining the interaction of multiple laws.
It's a known, observable, measurable phenomenon that if you drop a bowling ball, it will fall at a known rate of acceleration. But, the explanation of what gravity is, how it works, why it works the way that it does, and all of that, is the Theory of Gravity, and it's nowhere near being fully understood yet. For example, out of the four described forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, weak force, and strong force), only gravity's force carrier hasn't been discovered and is still considered hypothetical.
