Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[prometheus11]

I know what nothing is, it is as you say...and if this was not the source of the singularity...what was?

Nobody knows....for the thousandth time. Perhaps it always existed. Perhaps it is part of a larger reality. Perhaps it was a unicorn zit popping.

We. Don't. Know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nobody knows....for the thousandth time. Perhaps it always existed. Perhaps it is part of a larger reality. Perhaps it was a unicorn zit popping.

We. Don't. Know.

Perhaps...perhaps...that is a more healthy approach to science...for unless the theory is falsifiable, it is not really science...and thus skeptics like myself will not go down the big bang rabbit hole for that reason...the beginning is imagined...simple as that. No amount of nuanced rhetoric about firewalls before and outside the big bang will suffice...I want to know, to the extent language can convey it, what this 'nothing' is that is before and outside the big bang envelope.. (yes i know there is no time and space before and outside) is.... I must admit it does seem to sound awfully like nothing to me...haha..

 

[prometheus11]

Perhaps...perhaps...that is a more healthy approach to science...for unless the theory is falsifiable, it is not really science...and thus skeptics like myself will not go down the big bang rabbit hole for that reason...the beginning is imagined...simple as that. No amount of nuanced rhetoric about firewalls before and outside the big bang will suffice...I want to know the this 'nothing' is that is before and outside the big bang envelope.. (yes i know there is no time and space before and outside) is.... I must admit it does seem to sound awfully like nothing to me...haha..

I could agree with that nonsense, but then we'd both be wrong.

The Big Bang is proven by all the measurements we have made, but if you would like to prove it wrong by coming up with a better idea that fits all the scientific data, you will do all of science the hugest favor imaginable and become incredibly rich and famous.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you believe that you are making sense, or do you just take it on faith?

I suspect your ad hom is defensive in nature as your mind is not sufficiently fluid and nuanced to understand what is sometimes said to you.... Be aware that a well developed mind, the mind of a mystic, is able to stay in a state of quiescence at the portal of non-duality and simultaneously look out upon upon multiplicity....that the two are one is understood...as well as the fact that the dualistic mind can never enter into union with the serene oneness...ever...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I could agree with that nonsense, but then we'd both be wrong.

The Big Bang is proven by all the measurements we have made, but if you would like to prove it wrong by coming up with a better idea that fits all the scientific data, you will do all of science the hugest favor imaginable and become incredibly rich and famous.

There are no measurements of Time = 0 and you know it...so enough of your bluffing...the rabbit from a hat is contrived...magic should have no place in science proper..

 

[prometheus11]

It's not ad hominem. If your mind is so adept as you claim, you would have realized that.

In this thread, I am not interested in claims about certain types of minds and which ones can or cannot enter into certain states. ... Certainly I would not want one that operated the way yours does.

 

[prometheus11]

There are no measurements of Time = 0 and you know it...so enough of your bluffing...the rabbit from a hat is contrived...magic should have no place in science proper..

Snicker doodles have slowly pirouetting fan blade optimist orplexes.

 

[prometheus11]

The inflation and subsequent expansion of the singularity is proved. You can call it something other than "the Big Bang" if you like, but people won't know what you're talking about.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's not ad hominem. If your mind is so adept as you claim, you would have realized that.

In this thread, I am not interested in claims about certain types of minds and which ones can or cannot enter into certain states. ... Certainly I would not want one that operated the way yours does.

It is not yours to want......

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Snicker doodles have slowly pirouetting fan blade optimist orplexes.

I think your mind may need a pit stop...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The inflation and subsequent expansion of the singularity is proved. You can call it something other than "the Big Bang" if you like, but people won't know what you're talking about.

I told you we don't do post big bang singularity until we get to the bottom of Time = 0...

 

[prometheus11]

I told you we don't do post big bang singularity until we get to the bottom of Time = 0...

No.

There is no "post Big Bang"

There is the singularity.

Then inflation.

Then expansion.

We are still expanding.

The Big Bang is still happening and will continue for billions of years.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

Don't be insolent....

 

[prometheus11]

Don't be insolent....

I was editing my post. Don't rush.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

There is no "post Big Bang"

There is the singularity.

Then inflation.

Then expansion.

We are still expanding.

The Big Bang is still happening and will continue for billions of years.

Ok...I will use your preferred term of 'post singularity' so long as I remember...big bang is 'post singularity'...yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I was editing my post. Don't rush.

I am sorry..but.there are those always on my case for being tardy....

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Staying at the moment on the big bang singularity....I really can't see any difference between your view and the Theist's view of a creation of something from nothing by command from on high...

I agree. But the only alternative is something from nothing without will or command, which is just as "impossible" and just as lacking in evidence. In fact, a case could be made that if it all happened without design, then there should be some evidence from "before". But, logic dictates that a lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence. Duh! So there we are: will--no will, God--no God, with no evidence for either. So, we're left with this rational, natural universe and its natural law, forcing us to be rational, or to resort to intentional blindness.

most theists also believe in big bang theory btw...

Only the ones who accept allegory in the Bible for what it is--not those who insist that 13 billion years is actually 6 thousand. Almost nobody, including theists, think or want to learn about the Big Bang anyway.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Nope.
The microwave background radiation provides proof that the singularity expanded. We have no idea if the universe came into being or just changed state.
The one thing we know for certain is that the universe is NOT in a "steady state,"

However the ' steady state ' here is in an ' organized ' state. The earth abides forever - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B

The late Antony Flew concluded as far as DNA that " DNA research has shown by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved ".

Where there is intelligence there is a mind. Where there is a mind there is a person. In Scripture that intelligent person is: God
So, however God brought the universe into being, or just changed state ( energy into matter? ) still shows intelligent organization. No intelligence No organization.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I agree. But the only alternative is something from nothing without will or command, which is just as "impossible" and just as lacking in evidence. In fact, a case could be made that if it all happened without design, then there should be some evidence from "before". But, logic dictates that a lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence. Duh! So there we are: will--no will, God--no God, with no evidence for either. So, we're left with this rational, natural universe and its natural law, forcing us to be rational, or to resort to intentional blindness.


Only the ones who accept allegory in the Bible for what it is--not those who insist that 13 billion years is actually 6 thousand. Almost nobody, including theists, think or want to learn about the Big Bang anyway.

Thank you for your excellent analysis, I agree but would add there is also the eternal universe position which does not require a beginning...and which is more logically and rationally sound than having to concoct a beginning that defies both real science and logic...

As to you last point.. .........

 

[prometheus11]

However the ' steady state ' here is in an ' organized ' state. The earth abides forever - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B

The late Antony Flew concluded as far as DNA that " DNA research has shown by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved ".

Where there is intelligence there is a mind. Where there is a mind there is a person. In Scripture that intelligent person is: God
So, however God brought the universe into being, or just changed state ( energy into matter? ) still shows intelligent organization. No intelligence No organization.

Snowflakes don't appear organized to you?