What or how did everything start?

[The Hammer]

That sound like what atheists trying to convince believers in creation that nothing exist

I sort of believe that and I am not an atheist.

 

[ChristineM]

Its a little old, things have moved on a little since it was made, it's almost an hour long.
But, i think it worth viewing.

It gives some idea of what a few of the leading cosmologists are thinking about what happened before the big bang.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a loaded question. You assume that the universe exists. But that can't be because every way someone supposes how it can have come to be, there is a way to show that that explanation leads to a paradox.
So, really, the universe doesn't exist.

And then you vanished in a puff of logic.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, if that is the case, you are still stuck in A-theory of time. That is why asked the question. Most people think A theory, which is what our brains evolved, and it is therefore difficult to escape. Perfectly natural, but very likely illusory.

There in no "now" in B theory. Only when we fully understand that the B theory might be correct, we can understand that the Universe is eternal and unchanging. And that any questions about its origins would be pointless, since there is no origin. There is no origin of basically anything.

Despite Big Bang cosmology still being true, and this Universe still be the only one (albeit not necessarily)

Ciao

- viole

You surprise me. I didn't think you would be interested in metaphysical speculation of such an abstract nature.

That's not a criticism by the way.

 

[Heyo]

And then you vanished in a puff of logic.

Not only me, the universe. And then it was immediately replaced with something even more inexplicable.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What is the problem with an infinite sequence of causally connected events?

The trouble with eternity as a concept is, once you introduce it, where does it it end?

 

[viole]

You surprise me. I didn't think you would be interested in metaphysical speculation of such an abstract nature.

That's not a criticism by the way.

Metaphysical? That is nothing more than we can get as a necessary conclusion of relativity.

So, very physical. Unless I miss what you mean with that. Which is?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

Not only me, the universe. And then it was immediately replaced with something even more inexplicable.

That's not how it worked out for God
in THHGTG when he vanished.
Twas just him.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can anyone explain to me what or how this universe come to existence, and i do not accept answers like.

It was the big bang...
It just happend.
It has always been there.
It is a string of universes (tell about the first one then)

What triggered the existence of the universe?

Would you trust any answer provided?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Would you trust any answer provided?

Yes

When people who believe in science can say "I do not know" because science can not answer about example religious topics of faith

 

[RestlessSoul]

I am probably stuck in the A theory of time and I even think of the B theory in A theory thought.
Eg- all of space time in a box that has been there for eternity. (or something like that)

Four arrows of time frame our experience of it;

The psychological arrow, pointing from a remembered past to an anticipated future.
The thermodynamic arrow, pointing from a state of low to high entropy
The cosmic arrow, pointing in the direction of an expanding universe
The arrow of inference, pointing from the known to the unknown (data to desiderata)

This is the unavoidable paradigm, the one perspective available to us as intelligent life forms. But our reasoning minds do allow us to speculate about the seemingly unreasonable. The passage of time need not be linear, A to B to C. Observation tells us anyway, that the passage of time is not only linear, but cyclical. We measure it in lunar and planetary cycles. If we imagine a straight line stretching infinitely into the past and future, it's difficult to shake off the notion that the line must begin and end somewhere. But if we think of a circle, then we can easily imagine a line with neither beginning nor end.

Time, Einstein said, is what stops everything happening at once. It seems to be a prerequisite for events, a necessary framework for cause and effect. Everything in the universe is moving, and everything moves in time. But if time is a fathomless ocean, must all the waves be moving in the same direction?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes

Fool !!!
Never trust internet gadflies (or anyone else) pontificating
about their knowing the answer to the ultimate question of
life, the universe, & everything.

When people who believe in science can say "I do not know" because science can not answer about example religious topics of faith

I don't know about the start of the universe(s).
I wasn't there when it happened.
It's big...really big....so big that we really have
no idea what lurks or lurked before or elsewhere.
We can describe what appears to have happened
in a certain volume of space in a limited time frame,
eg, the Big Bang fitting what we observe. But we
don't observe everything. And then there's the
problem of much of physics being unknown.

Religious folk claim to have the answers, but they
have only certainty of their feelings about their
own myths....no cromulent analysis (IMO).

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I do believe the big bang did happen, but I believe God was behind it

Could be. I do not see any good evidence to support that. It would be great if we could figure it out in my lifetime but I doubt science will have that solved by the time I die. If God did start everything all he has to do is let us know.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Metaphysical? That is nothing more than we can get as a necessary conclusion of relativity.

So, very physical. Unless I miss what you mean with that. Which is?

Ciao

- viole

While the B theory of time has apparently found favour with some theoretical physicists, the emphasis must be very much on theoretical, not physical. Tenseless existence is a philosophical concept, which is seemingly helpful in providing an ontology for special relativity. But, as @mikkel_the_dane would say, this is not purely science, this is philosophy.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Fool !!!
Never trust internet gadflies (or anyone else) pontificating
about their knowing the answer to the ultimate question of
life, the universe, & everything.

I don't know about the start of the universe(s).
I wasn't there when it happened.
It's big...really big....so big that we really have
no idea what lurks or lurked before or elsewhere.
We can describe what appears to have happened
in a certain volume of space in a limited time frame,
eg, the Big Bang fitting what we observe. But we
don't observe everything. And then there's the
problem of much of physics being unknown.

Religious folk claim to have the answers, but they
have only certainty of their feelings about their
own myths....no cromulent analysis (IMO).

Did you just call me a fool HOW RUDE...

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you just call me a fool HOW RUDE...

I didn't just call you a "fool".
I used exclamation marks to do it!!!!

 

[Heyo]

That's not how it worked out for God
in THHGTG when he vanished.
Twas just him.

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable." ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

 

[viole]

While the B theory of time has apparently found favour with some theoretical physicists, the emphasis must be very much on theoretical, not physical. Tenseless existence is a philosophical concept, which is seemingly helpful in providing an ontology for special relativity. But, as @mikkel_the_dane would say, this is not purely science, this is philosophy.

Well, it is not. I am afraid. Because I could equally say that the A theory is pure philosophy, and not science. And, status today, B theory (relativity), are much more in favour than A theory (Newton).

Now, how would you counter that? What makes you think that B theory needs to defend against A theory, and it is not the other way round?

Ciao

- viole

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, it is not. I am afraid. Because I could equally say that the A theory is pure philosophy, and not science. And, status today, B theory (relativity), are much more in favour than A theory (Newton).

Now, how would you counter that? What makes you think that B theory needs to defend against A theory, and it is not the other way round?

Ciao

- viole

I’ll leave the countering and defending to those of an adversarial persuasion. I’m interested in all sorts of theories, regardless of their provenance. I’m much less interested in taking up cudgels on behalf of one side or another, in pursuit of often spurious dichotomies. It’s called keeping an open mind.

 

[viole]

I’ll leave the countering and defending to those of an adversarial persuasion. I’m interested in all sorts of theories, regardless of their provenance. I’m much less interested in taking up cudgels on behalf of one side or another, in pursuit of often spurious dichotomies.

So, why do you even try, since it was obvious from the beginning that you can only retreat with your tails between your legs?

It would be like me trying to debate someone about medieval Chinese theatre, when it takes no time to realise that I have no clue about that.

Ciao

- viole