Which evolved first, consciousness or senses

[gnostic]

What was the nature before 20 billions years ago that created the universe that we know and from where it came from?

Science, with the current technology, can observe the observable universe, which is 13 billion years. Anything beyond the observable universe, are merely speculations.

Until we have more advanced or better technology than we have now, we are stuck by the limitations of knowledge, and any statement made about before or during the Big Bang singularity is theoretical (mathematical proof) or hypothetical.

No one know what occurred 20 billion years ago. Everything that science say about this period of time, are theoretical, hypothetical and speculative.

Yes by logic the thing before the singularity have to be existing and eternal, and God is eternal.

Sorry, but that just your personal belief or faith talking, not evidences. It is even worse than hypothesis or speculation, because you are assuming it is true based on your belief in the God that you really don't know to exist, and on the words of your bogus prophet.

 

[FearGod]

Sorry, but that just your personal belief or faith talking, not evidences. It is even worse than hypothesis or speculation, because you are assuming it is true based on your belief in the God that you really don't know to exist, and on the words of your bogus prophet.

No it isn't about religion or what the prophets had said, it's about logic.
The thing is that something should existed and that thing can't come as a result of nothingness, so a thing
should already existed and that thing has always existed, it happened that the bogus prophets guessed
it right, maybe they were very smart.

Do you believe that the universe came from nothingness?
Can nothing + nothing make a thing?

 

[gnostic]

No it isn't about religion or what the prophets had said, it's about logic.

Logic is not evidence, FearGod. And logic is not fact.

Fact is evidence-based, not logic-based or belief-based.

Logic is still human-construct, based on how we think and reason. People thinking processes are not the same. Logic is not infallible and can be flawed.

Often the logic prove to be failure when trying to match logic with reality.

And when you say God is eternal, that's based solely on personal belief or one's faith, not on logic, and certainly not evidence.

 

[FearGod]

Logic is not evidence, FearGod. And logic is not fact.

Fact is evidence-based, not logic-based or belief-based.

Logic is still human-construct, based on how we think and reason. People thinking processes are not the same. Logic is not infallible and can be flawed.

Often the logic prove to be failure when trying to match logic with reality.

And when you say God is eternal, that's based solely on personal belief or one's faith, not on logic, and certainly not evidence.

So do you have an evidence that a thing can exist from nothing?

 

[gnostic]

So do you have an evidence that a thing can exist from nothing?

Straw man, FearGod.

I have never made any claim whatsoever that thing exist from nothing.

As I have told you earlier (previous reply), with the current technology, science only have evidence for what can be "observe", which is the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE.

I would suggest you read up on "observable universe", and at the same time look up "quasar", "cosmic microwave background radiation" (CMBR).

The CMBR is remnants of thermal radiation (heat) of the earliest detectable electromagnetic waves (eg light, photon, microwave) that was said to be evidence for expanding universe, hence the Big Bang model. CMBR occurred 370,000 years after the Big Bang, known as the Recombination epoch.

Recombination is a period, when electrons first bind themselves into ionised atoms like hydrogen and helium, creating the first stable matters. An atom is ionised when it has no electron(s); just proton(s) (and possibly neutrons for ionised helium; there are no neutrons in hydrogen) enclosed in the shell known as nucleus.

Getting back to Recombination epoch, when electrons bind themselves to ionised hydrogen atoms, energy occurred where it will emit light. Light produced energy in the form of thermal radiation (heat). Visible light (electromagnetic waves) as they age and travel through space, the waves attenuated or get stretched, shifting the waves from visible to infrared to microwave waves; this natural phenomena is known as red shift.

It was Edwin Hubble who discovered the red shift in 1929, as sign and evidence for universe is expanding and galaxies moving away from each other.

CMBR was first predicted in 1948, by two scientists, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, with the help of George Gomow (Alpher's mentor and professor), but it was only discovered in 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, which they received Nobel prizes for their discovery in 1978.

CMBR have been a number of times, on several different missions of space telescopes -

1. Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) - 1989 -1993 (NASA)
2. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) - 2001 - 2010 (NASA, ESA)
3. Planck - 2009 - 2013 (ESA)

With each craft, they get a better images of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Below is the last (Year 9) image in 2012 of CMBR from WMAP:

My point is that, although Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître first predicted the expanding universe model (Big Bang), we are only just started our discoveries, and it take time, for our technology to catch up with the theoretical theory.

A new space telescope will be launched in 2018, called James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be more advanced than all previous telescopes. Perhaps it will uncovered more earlier epochs of the Big Bang, perhaps we will finally observe for the first time, dark matters.

Hopefully I will still be around when they show the latest images JWST.

My point in all this, we don't know what exist before the Big Bang began, but it is certainly not this "nothing".