What came before the Big Bang?

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

We perceive it incorrectly because it is an illusion.

Time, Space, and Causation are also illusory; they are concepts only, superimposed over Reality.

If you still cannot see this as being so, then tell me what you mean when you say the world exists as real.

But they are reality. Reality doesn't need to be just 1 thing.

I wonder if animals question if time and space is a reality....

 

[BlandOatmeal]

How can spirit exist before the big bang? And what is Spirit?

Hi, Franklin

I happened to be in the neighborhood, and noticed your post. Since a "line" is open-ended, it's reasonable to want to know what happened "before" an event -- be it the "Big Bang", the birth of Christ, whatever. We handle "negative" values for the latter by the letters "BC" or "BCE"; but just because those years have "negative" values, that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

The reason atheists don't want to deal with the concept of "before" the Big Bang, I think, is that the "negative time" region represents the area of their ignorance, the vastness of things that they not only DON'T understand, but CANNOT understand if they limit their enquiries to the natural realm.

As for the term "spirit" or "ghost", I think it has gotten a bum rap via Pagan notions of hobgoblins, etc. From what I have read of the Bible, the term in its original languages (meaning "wind" in Hebrew, and "breath" in Greek) seems to refer to anything that is REAL and POWERFUL, yet invisible. Since we can't "see" what happened "before" the Big Bang (which theory, by the way, I look at as merely a theory, a passing fancy in the scientific community), it is appropriate to say it consists of "spirit": It apparently is a place of great power, since the laws that GOVERN the known world appear to come from there (The universe is the "governed", which, by definition, is not the same as the "governor"). It also helps to explain why the universe "seems" to have arisen from nothing, contrary to our normal experience with reality, because spirits are definitely "something".

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The reason atheists don't want to deal with the concept of "before" the Big Bang, I think, is that the "negative time" region represents the area of their ignorance, the vastness of things that they not only DON'T understand, but CANNOT understand if they limit their enquiries to the natural realm.

Here you are once again telling atheists what they believe. You'd think you'd have learned a lesson by now. And I'd imagine the actual reason, as opposed to your biased speculation, is because we're not really in any reasonable position to "deal" with the events prior to the Big Bang at all; we know next to nothing that is reliable about the very early universe (although what we are coming to know, via QM, has nothing to say about God or any other occult entities), and atheists don't have any ideological motivation to saying things where nothing credible can be said (i.e. making all sorts of wild speculative claims where we have little basis to make claims at all, as Christian apologists are sometimes prone to do).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The reason atheists don't want to deal with the concept of "before" the Big Bang, I think, is that the "negative time" region represents the area of their ignorance, the vastness of things that they not only DON'T understand, but CANNOT understand if they limit their enquiries to the natural realm.

You think wrong.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Here you are once again telling atheists what they believe. You'd think you'd have learned a lesson by now. And I'd imagine the actual reason, as opposed to your biased speculation, is because we're not really in any reasonable position to "deal" with the events prior to the Big Bang at all; we know next to nothing...

I agree with that last bit. As for my trying to tell atheists something? Do you think I'm mad? Franklin is not an Atheist.

Bye bye.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As for my trying to tell atheists something? Do you think I'm mad? Franklin is not an Atheist.

Looks like you're telling Franklin what atheists believe (which means, by extension, you're telling atheists what they believe), i.e. this-

The reason atheists don't want...

And if you agree that we have very few credible notions about what occurred during the very early stages of the development of the universe, then representing atheists' reservation in making claims about these events as "ignorance", as you do here-

The reason atheists don't want to deal with the concept of "before" the Big Bang, I think, is that the "negative time" region represents the area of their ignorance, the vastness of things that they not only DON'T understand, but CANNOT understand if they limit their enquiries to the natural realm.

presumably as opposed to the alternative, i.e. the theists tendency to feign knowledge or understanding with respect to the development of the universe, is curious if not contradictory.

Also, a few housekeeping items-

Since we can't "see" what happened "before" the Big Bang (which theory, by the way, I look at as merely a theory, a passing fancy in the scientific community)

Saying "I look at the theory as merely a theory" is just redundant- yes, the Big Bang Theory is "just" a theory; that is, a well-established scientific hypothesis. There is no "just" about it, and calling it "a passing fancy" is simply inaccurate; its been the prevailing cosmological model for 30+ years.

... it is appropriate to say it consists of "spirit"

Wait... We don't know, so anything goes? Is that your argument here? Then why must it be "spirit"- what if I prefer to say that a wizard did it?

It apparently is a place of great power, since the laws that GOVERN the known world appear to come from there

As on the other thread, there's no reason to reify the laws of nature. They are not entities. The "laws of nature" are human descriptions of the what we observe. They are not "out there", as it were, floating off in Plato-land somewhere.

 

[godnotgod]

But they are reality. Reality doesn't need to be just 1 thing.

I wonder if animals question if time and space is a reality....

They would first need to conceptualize them.

Saying that Time, Space, and Causation are reality makes them so? What is it about them that makes them 'reality'?

 

[Slapstick]

They would first need to conceptualize them.

Saying that Time, Space, and Causation are reality makes them so? What is it about them that makes them 'reality'?

I doubt any other species question anything like that. That is probably going to be humankind’s downfall, questioning things that are not worth questioning.

Most if not all species have their own schedules, sleeping patterns, migration patterns, politics, mating rituals, along with everything else. I’m sure most if not all species have a fairly good understanding of time and their environment based on how they have evolved to live in it. Earth is the Martian planet, filled to the brim genetically mutated life. Metaphorically speaking, Humans are like fish that has outgrown its fish bowl. :goldfish:

 

[Thief]

We perceive it incorrectly because it is an illusion.

Time, Space, and Causation are also illusory; they are concepts only, superimposed over Reality.

If you still cannot see this as being so, then tell me what you mean when you say the world exists as real.

Try banging your head on the wall til you bleed.
Then say it's not real.

Time is not 'real'...as it is a cognitive device....not substance or force.
Space is real enough as it will be there between any two points.
Cause and effect are real.

Reality is a noun describing what you 'think'.
If you are 'realistic' in your thoughts....one to another....you are sane.
If you lump your nouns as you please....you are not.

 

[Slapstick]

Try banging your head on the wall til you bleed.
Then say it's not real.

Time is not 'real'...as it is a cognitive device....not substance or force.
Space is real enough as it will be there between any two points.
Cause and effect are real.

I don't believe in the geometric models of space and time so I will say Einstien was a total wash and didn't know diddly squat about either of the two.

 

[godnotgod]

Try banging your head on the wall til you bleed.
Then say it's not real.

Why restrict your fantasy to mere banging of head on wall until bloody? The entire bloody human spectacle from the very beginning to this very moment is just a Big Act, don'cha know? You mean to tell me that all this time you thought it was REAL? Poor baby!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

They would first need to conceptualize them.

Saying that Time, Space, and Causation are reality makes them so? What is it about them that makes them 'reality'?

They would not need to conceptualize them, hey would just need to experience them. Can you move? or are you localized to one spot? In the process of movement have you not gone from one state to another? Even when you choose to just stand still, does the rest of what is around you not change? That is time and space. Causation is a strange term, one thing I have learned when dealing with healthcare is that there is no such thing as causation, there are just correlations.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi, Franklin

I happened to be in the neighborhood, and noticed your post. Since a "line" is open-ended, it's reasonable to want to know what happened "before" an event -- be it the "Big Bang", the birth of Christ, whatever. We handle "negative" values for the latter by the letters "BC" or "BCE"; but just because those years have "negative" values, that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

The reason atheists don't want to deal with the concept of "before" the Big Bang, I think, is that the "negative time" region represents the area of their ignorance, the vastness of things that they not only DON'T understand, but CANNOT understand if they limit their enquiries to the natural realm.

As for the term "spirit" or "ghost", I think it has gotten a bum rap via Pagan notions of hobgoblins, etc. From what I have read of the Bible, the term in its original languages (meaning "wind" in Hebrew, and "breath" in Greek) seems to refer to anything that is REAL and POWERFUL, yet invisible. Since we can't "see" what happened "before" the Big Bang (which theory, by the way, I look at as merely a theory, a passing fancy in the scientific community), it is appropriate to say it consists of "spirit": It apparently is a place of great power, since the laws that GOVERN the known world appear to come from there (The universe is the "governed", which, by definition, is not the same as the "governor"). It also helps to explain why the universe "seems" to have arisen from nothing, contrary to our normal experience with reality, because spirits are definitely "something".

If noting in Genesis that the term breath or wind is used, the idea of something powerful and invisible, one could make an argument that these "spirits" are emotional states. Our emotions (including the most basic two Fear and Pleasure), are powerful, real and yet invisible. But I'm not sure that is the spirit that he means.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

If noting in Genesis that the term breath or wind is used, the idea of something powerful and invisible, one could make an argument that these "spirits" are emotional states. Our emotions (including the most basic two Fear and Pleasure), are powerful, real and yet invisible. But I'm not sure that is the spirit that he means.

It probably is what he means. People who are used to reading the Bible start to think in Bible terms (granted, this is a best case scenario). A "minister", for instance, is a "servant", not a church official; the "earth" is the ground, not the planet, etc. Trinitarians, who think of the "Holy Spirit" as a person, drive me up a wall, and those who conjure up images of goblins when the word "spirit" is used, simply live in a different world from me.

Spirits are not emotional states, but emotional states are certainly spirits: They are powerful, producing visible results in a person; but they are invisible to the eye. Infectious disease also fit into this class. Are infectious diseases caused by spirits? Certainly not; but both are invisible and causing an effect; and this is how the ancients described them.

John 3
[1] There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
[2] The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
[8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
[9] Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
[10] Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
[11] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
[12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

If Jesus was speaking Hebrew, rather than Greek, the word "wind" above was indistinguishable from the word "spirit". It had to be translated into Greek by its context alone.

God is described as a spirit, someone who is powerful but unseen; and he inhabits a realm that is greater than the known universe. Paul refers to this realm:

2 Cor 12
[1] It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
[2] I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth); such an one caught up to the third heaven.
[3] And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth);
[4] How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Whatever the first two heavens are, the third is certainly beyond human understanding -- so that Paul not only was not able to speak about it; it was not lawful for him to do so. This is the area we are talking about, beyond the "Big Bang", beyond even the possibility of our understanding, beyond time and space as we know it.

What science CANNOT describe, the Bible describes. Trying to find answers about these things from a scientific understanding is completely futile; because science refuses to acknowledge what those who have been to these places say about them. They're like Nicodemus, completely bewildered; but the explanations are quite simple.

 

[Thief]

I don't believe in the geometric models of space and time so I will say Einstien was a total wash and didn't know diddly squat about either of the two.

I would agree.
In another thread I blew off his famous theory as it leans to the use of a non-entity.... time.

Not substance or force.
Just a measurement that we might get a handle on the 'general relativity'.

 

[Thief]

Why restrict your fantasy to mere banging of head on wall until bloody? The entire bloody human spectacle from the very beginning to this very moment is just a Big Act, don'cha know? You mean to tell me that all this time you thought it was REAL? Poor baby!

Say it again...when you stand before Something Greater.

I suspect we all get a shot at doing so.

 

[godnotgod]

Can you move? or are you localized to one spot? In the process of movement have you not gone from one state to another? Even when you choose to just stand still, does the rest of what is around you not change? That is time and space.

When the movement of the Big Bang occurred, there was no Time or Space. Theoretically, Time and Space are supposed to have come into existence when the Big Bang occurred. So how do you explain this 'movement' of the BB with Time and Space not yet existing? According to your scenario, the BB would have required Time and Space within which to occur.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The reason atheists don't want to deal with the concept of "before" the Big Bang, I think, is that the "negative time" region represents the area of their ignorance, the vastness of things that they not only DON'T understand, but CANNOT understand if they limit their enquiries to the natural realm.

It's not "negative". Spacetime began with the big bang (according to the standard model). There was no "before" because that question has no meaning without time. Period. According to one main view, the cosmos expanded but didn't and couldn't expand into anything because there was no space for it to expand into. According to another main view, there are infinitely many universes being created infinitely many times for all time all the time. Holographic anthropic cosmologies, multiverse cosmologies, many-minds cosmologies, etc., all reach beyond our limits. Some establish themselves as limits rather than seeking to find an axiomatic derivation for all of physics. I don't think atheists have a problem reaching beyond the limits of testing. They've done it repeatedly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Before the Big Bang, people didn't use the Big Bang as misguided evidence of the existence of their imaginary super-beings.

 

[metis]

Since time is merely sequencing, most cosmologists that I have read believe that there was likely some activity
prior to the BB, but it would be immensely slow because of the mass involved. Therefore, the concept that "time began at the BB" appears to be slightly exaggerated, but not by much.