What came before the Big Bang?

[captainbryce]

Who created the superior being?

Nobody. It always existed.

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.

That's because you guys are being intentionally obtuse about this by digging into the weeds of technicality. So let's just dumb this down a bit into the realm of common sense. Gravity is observable and measurable. The Big Bang is not. We can prove with absolute certainty that gravity is a phenomenon that actually exists. We cannot prove with absolute certainty that Big Bang happened because it cannot be directly observed, and because there are alternative theories which might explain the effects of the Big Bang that are observable (unlike with gravity). So there is clearly a difference between the two concepts (whether you refer to both of them as theories or not).

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.

That may be, but obviously, that's not what anybody is talking about when they are compare gravity with the Big Bang.

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.

But we know that it exists (whether we can define it or not). We don't know that the Big Bang happened because it's only one possible explanation for the origins of the universe. We don't even know that there is only one universe (ie: the multiverse theory).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I thought the whole point of science was to be technical?

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Penumbra]

Nobody. It always existed.

How does that logically follow?

You said logically there had to be a superior being before the Big Bang, but then don't apply that logic to the superior being itself.

That's because you guys are being intentionally obtuse about this by digging into the weeds of technicality. So let's just dumb this down a bit into the realm of common sense. Gravity is observable and measurable. The Big Bang is not. We can prove with absolute certainty that gravity is a phenomenon that actually exists. We cannot prove with absolute certainty that Big Bang happened because it cannot be directly observed, and because there are alternative theories which might explain the effects of the Big Bang that are observable (unlike with gravity). So there is clearly a difference between the two concepts (whether you refer to both of them as theories or not).

That may be, but obviously, that's not what anybody is talking about when they are compare gravity with the Big Bang.

But we know that it exists (whether we can define it or not). We don't know that the Big Bang happened because it's only one possible explanation for the origins of the universe. We don't even know that there is only one universe (ie: the multiverse theory).

They do observe things about the Big Bang. Cosmic expansion, cosmic background radiation, galactic distribution, ratios of elements, etc.

It's not what "I" refer to them as- it's what they're actually referred to as...

 

[Revoltingest]

Gravity is observable and measurable.

One view:
We observe the phenomenon of gravity, & the relationship between mass, distance & force. This is something factual because it is commonly agreed upon, & therefore a "law".
The theory of gravity is an understanding of the law, ie, something more fundamental than the observations of the "law".

The Big Bang is not. We can prove with absolute certainty that gravity is a phenomenon that actually exists.

What we haven't done though is to verify a theory of gravity which combines relativistic aspects with quantum mechanics. So the theory of gravity is still up in the air.

We cannot prove with absolute certainty that Big Bang happened because it cannot be directly observed, and because there are alternative theories which might explain the effects of the Big Bang that are observable (unlike with gravity). So there is clearly a difference between the two concepts (whether you refer to both of them as theories or not).

The big bang is not so much proven, but rather it has implications of it verified, eg, cosmic background radiation. So it is a "theory", but not a "fact".

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

To a large degree. I can't help but having a nagging suspicion that something is missing in the theory. It's so weird that space itself could expand faster than the speed of light. Dunno. It wouldn't surprise me if there will be major overhauls and changes to the theory in the future.

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

No.

Not a being.

But I'm only certain to 98.3% that it wasn't a being.

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Maybe. I like the idea. I've accepted it as a good explanation.

Was it something else?

There's always something else...

 

[Riverwolf]

That's because you guys are being intentionally obtuse about this by digging into the weeds of technicality.

Science.

So let's just dumb this down a bit into the realm of common sense.

That's what causes misunderstandings, so that's actually a bad idea.

Gravity is observable and measurable. The Big Bang is not.

Yes it is, just not with the tools, equipment, or mathematics available to most people.

We can prove with absolute certainty that gravity is a phenomenon that actually exists. We cannot prove with absolute certainty that Big Bang happened because it cannot be directly observed, and because there are alternative theories which might explain the effects of the Big Bang that are observable (unlike with gravity). So there is clearly a difference between the two concepts (whether you refer to both of them as theories or not).

Have you done the observations and calculations yourself?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Of course. Logically, there had to be.

Not that this is anything new, but I'll bite; why, "logically", must there be a "superior being" to "create" the Big Bang?

 

[captainbryce]

How does that logically follow?

You said logically there had to be a superior being before the Big Bang, but then don't apply that logic to the superior being itself.

It follows because the universe is subject to natural laws, and the natural assumptions that can be made by direct observation. A theoretical transcendent, omniscient, SUPERNATURAL being is NOT subject to natural laws (by definition), and would have to have always existed (by definition). To apply the SAME standards to principles which are diametrically opposed (natural law/supernatural phenomenon) is in itself illogical.

Why Does the Universe Require a Causal Agent to Explain its Existence? | Dispensational Apologetics

They do observe things about the Big Bang. Cosmic expansion, cosmic background radiation, galactic distribution, ratios of elements, etc.

No. They INFER things about the Big Bang, based on what we can observe, then attribute a scientific explanation for. But we cannot actually observe the Big Bang itself. You are comparing apples to oranges. Gravity is a phenomenon that is measurable and observable. The Big Bang is a theory about a past event that may or may not have happened. Granted, there is strong evidence to support the fact that the big bang did occur. We gather this evidence from things that CAN be directly observed and measured today (like gravity). But at the end of the day, we'll never be able to 100% positively confirm that a Big Bang happened because we'll never be able to observe it. That is not the case with gravity!

It's not what "I" refer to them as- it's what they're actually referred to as...

And yet, THAT is completely besides the point! The difference between the two concepts fundamentally IS the point.

 

[captainbryce]

What we haven't done though is to verify a theory of gravity which combines relativistic aspects with quantum mechanics. So the theory of gravity is still up in the air.

Fair enough. But I do think it's important for any user of this example, to make that clear before comparing the two things. Most people interpret "gravity" in terms of the observable phenomenon. Just as long as everyone is clear on how we are using terms for comparison.

 

[idav]

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.

Here you have said that spacetime is what expanded which I agree with. Then you follow it with time didn't exist in a linear fashion. However as long as there was a spacetime before it began expanding then time was part of the big bang, it just hadn't done anything yet. I guess I can agree that time wasn't linear since spacetime would have been at a stand still prior to expansion.

 

[Penumbra]

It follows because the universe is subject to natural laws, and the natural assumptions that can be made by direct observation. A theoretical transcendent, omniscient, SUPERNATURAL being is NOT subject to natural laws (by definition), and would have to have always existed (by definition). To apply the SAME standards to principles which are diametrically opposed (natural law/supernatural phenomenon) is in itself illogical.

Why Does the Universe Require a Causal Agent to Explain its Existence? | Dispensational Apologetics

Who's to say that natural laws can't include non-causal events?

You're essentially using definitions, rather than actual logic, to explain why a supernatural creator can have certain qualities that the universe can't. Rather than articulating why such a being can have the property to transcend its own cause while the universe cannot have the property to transcend its own cause, you've simply used the word supernatural in all caps as though that is an articulated distinction.

So it's a non-argument.

No. They INFER things about the Big Bang, based on what we can observe, then attribute a scientific explanation for. But we cannot actually observe the Big Bang itself. You are comparing apples to oranges. Gravity is a phenomenon that is measurable and observable. The Big Bang is a theory about a past event that may or may not have happened. Granted, there is strong evidence to support the fact that the big bang did occur. We gather this evidence from things that CAN be directly observed and measured today (like gravity). But at the end of the day, we'll never be able to 100% positively confirm that a Big Bang happened because we'll never be able to observe it. That is not the case with gravity!

And yet, THAT is completely besides the point! The difference between the two concepts fundamentally IS the point.

With the big bang, they observe facts about the universe, such as cosmological background radiation, the observed expansion of the universe itself, and then piece together the process for the Big Bang Theory.

Similarly, we observe certain aspects of how mass attracts other mass, and then describe the Theory of Gravitation for how we think it works.

For any descriptor like that, there's nothing in science higher than a theory.

 

[captainbryce]

Science.

Math. Your point? Science requires one to focus their arguments on the technicalities of verbiage rather than substance?

That's what causes misunderstandings, so that's actually a bad idea.

Well, the alternative hasn't seemed to be effective in your case.

Yes it is, just not with the tools, equipment, or mathematics available to most people.

Right. And I'm sure the elves of Rivendell can look into their magic pool of vision to see things that happened at the start of the Big Bang. But for the other people who live in the REAL world, we cannot!

What tool or piece of equipment can go back to the moment of the Big Bang?

Have you done the observations and calculations yourself?

WHICH observations and calculations? Those associated with gravity (in which the answer would be yes), or those associated with the Big Bang (in which case the answer would be no, but reputable astronomers HAVE). Relevance?

 

[captainbryce]

Who's to say that natural laws can't include non-causal events?

That would be SCIENTISTS (mostly atheists) who support Big Bang Cosmology. Particularly the ones who recognize and understand the law of causality.

DeepAstronomy.com :: What Caused the Big Bang?
http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/law_of_cause_and_effect_fos_v7n3_causality.pdf

You're essentially using definitions, rather than actual logic, to explain why a supernatural creator can have certain qualities that the universe can't. Rather than articulating why such a being can have the property to transcend its own cause while the universe cannot have the property to transcend its own cause, you've simply used the word supernatural in all caps as though that is an articulated distinction.

So it's a non-argument.

It's not intended to be an argument. It's intended to show you that their is no answer to that question. The whole reason "supernatural" exists, is to explain things which cannot be explained scientifically (ie: the creation of the universe). That's why people use the term supernatural. It implies something that cannot be explained in nature.

With the big bang, they observe facts about the universe, such as cosmological background radiation, the observed expansion of the universe itself, and then piece together the process for the Big Bang Theory.

I'm aware of that.

Similarly, we observe certain aspects of how mass attracts other mass, and then describe the Theory of Gravitation for how we think it works.

For any descriptor like that, there's nothing in science higher than a theory.

That issue has already been settled (if you followed the thread). The issue for me is when people choose to compare two concepts, where one represents an event and the other represents a phenomenon, trying to illustrate the point that they are both "theories". It's a disingenuous comparison. Gravity is more than a "theory", it's also an effect that can be observed. The Big Bang is not more than a theory because the event cannot be observed. Only the effects of that event can be observed and measured, so it's comparing apples to oranges!

 

[Penumbra]

That would be SCIENTISTS (mostly atheists) who support Big Bang Cosmology. Particularly the ones who recognize and understand the law of causality.

DeepAstronomy.com :: What Caused the Big Bang?
http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/law_of_cause_and_effect_fos_v7n3_causality.pdf

It's not intended to be an argument. It's intended to show you that their is no answer to that question. The whole reason "supernatural" exists, is to explain things which cannot be explained scientifically (ie: the creation of the universe). That's why people use the term supernatural. It implies something that cannot be explained in nature.

The word supernatural is a placeholder for things people don't understand. It's not an actual logically defined argument. It's like using the word "magic" for a missing variable in an argument.

You can link to laws if you want- the laws of physics break down at the moment of the Big Bang, and become no longer applicable, which is why nobody yet has an explanation. So for you to say that the universe can't possibly have non-causal properties, but a supernatural being can have non-causal properties, is a non-argument.

I'm aware of that.

That issue has already been settled (if you followed the thread). The issue for me is when people choose to compare two concepts, where one represents an event and the other represents a phenomenon, trying to illustrate the point that they are both "theories". It's a disingenuous comparison. Gravity is more than a "theory", it's also an effect that can be observed. The Big Bang is not more than a theory because the event cannot be observed. Only the effects of that event can be observed and measured, so it's comparing apples to oranges!

The Big Bang is more than an event- it is a continuation. Spacetime continues to expand, which can be observed. The Big Bang itself is merely the starting point of such expansion.

So like gravity, there are facts of observation, and a theory to explain it. Saying that it's "only a theory" misses the point that a theory is the highest level of certainty in science for such a complex thing.

 

[Riverwolf]

Math. Your point? Science requires one to focus their arguments on the technicalities of verbiage rather than substance?

Can't get to the substance if the verbiage isn't accurately representing it.

Well, the alternative hasn't seemed to be effective in your case.

Actually, once the technicalities were revealed to me, that's when I finally understood.

Right. And I'm sure the elves of Rivendell can look into their magic pool of vision to see things that happened at the start of the Big Bang. But for the other people who live in the REAL world, we cannot!

What tool or piece of equipment can go back to the moment of the Big Bang?

You are fully capable of getting your hands on the tools necessary.

Actually, even the equipment isn't an issue anymore. Got a computer? Know a programming language? (If not, are you in a position to learn one? Hint: if you've got internet, the answer is yes. I'd recommend Ruby or Python for their simplicity and to stay away from all forms of Basic.) Then you're all set to perform the calculations yourself.

The rest of the tools are the exact same tools used to solve crimes behind closed doors: deduction and elimination.

WHICH observations and calculations? Those associated with gravity (in which the answer would be yes), or those associated with the Big Bang (in which case the answer would be no, but reputable astronomers HAVE). Relevance?

You are perfectly capable of performing the necessary calculations that demonstrate the Big Bang.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

No. But I understand why it is the best explination at least to my meek scientific understanding of it.

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

I have yet to see evidence of it. So no.

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

yes. Its a good explination. However its yet to be proven and its a far cry from being "fact"

Was it something else?

We dont know.

 

[nazz]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

I believe it is the best explanation with the most evidence so far

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

It's possible

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

for what?

 

[gnostic]

It does seem 'obvious' the universe is expanding.

Ah, here you seem to see that the evidences show the universe is expanding. That's a leap forward for you.

But then the next thing you...

That indicates a central 'point' of beginning.

...and, this...

As for creation....
Answer the question Spirit first?...or substance?

...so. you've taken 2 steps backward, then another 10 steps backward. From that point onward, you're rolling backward, downhill...and before know it, you have fallen off the edge of the Earth.

 

[gnostic]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

So far, all the evidences point to the universe formation due to the expansion of the universe.

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

There are no evidences, so I seriously don't think so.

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

So far, there are no evidences to support the multiverse, so it is really a hypothesis, not a theory, and it's largely theoretical.

 

[psychoslice]

What came before the Big Bang?......the Big Silence lol.