Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Ben Dhyan]

What are you talking about, why assume further than we can observe? Well we can if we want but science can't do that, only imaginations can go any further.

It is not I who is assuming, it is you and all the other big bang faithful..... for correct me if I'm wrong, but science is assuming a big bang occurred....not that they are able to observe it through HST..

So then you are admitting you are using imagination wrt big bang preexistence....while others say there was nonexistence....neither of these positions are anything but faith in an idea...

 

[ArtieE]

It is not I who is assuming, it is you and all the other big bang faithful..... for correct me if I'm wrong, but science is assuming a big bang occurred....

Science doesn't "assume" a big bang occurred. Scientists observe that the universe is expanding with time and if you run the movie backwards you end up in a single point where science can't follow what happens next or if there's even any "next". Theists can claim that a god created the universe five minutes ago and just made everything look like it's been expanding for billions of years, or they can claim that this god existed "before" the Big Bang and created the universe. I prefer the science approach over the theist approach.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science doesn't "assume" a big bang occurred. Scientists observe that the universe is expanding with time and if you run the movie backwards you end up in a single point where science can't follow what happens next. Theists can claim that a god created the universe five minutes ago and just made everything look like it's been expanding for billions of years, or they can claim that this god existed "before" the Big Bang and created the universe. I prefer the science approach over the theist approach.

Scientists just do not know.....on that there is agreement... There is no difference in principle between the big bang science and the theist creation beliefs....universal existence came into being from non-existence.. The only sane understanding is that of pantheism, budhism, taoism, etc......the universe is eternal.....there was never a beginning....nor a creation...nor a birth...

 

[ArtieE]

Scientists just do not know.....on that there is agreement... There is no difference in principle between the big bang science and the theist creation beliefs....

LOL any rational and logical person understands that since the universe expands if you run the movie backwards you end up in a point of some kind. No belief required only simple logic and reason. Nothing to do with theist creation beliefs.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

LOL any rational and logical person understands that since the universe expands if you run the movie backwards you end up in a point of some kind. No belief required only simple logic and reason. Nothing to do with theist creation beliefs.

Ok...you run the movie backwards until you arrive at non-existence....you call that logical and reasonable....

 

[ArtieE]

Ok...you run the movie backwards until you arrive at non-existence....you call that logical and reasonable....

No, you run the movie backwards until you arrive at a singularity. From there on you can believe whatever you like about what happened "before" if there even was a "before" but so far science doesn't know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you run the movie backwards until you arrive at a singularity. From there on you can believe whatever you like about what happened "before" if there even was a "before" but so far science doesn't know.

Ok....but I hardly see science admitting it doesn't know and therefore everyone can imagine what they want as being logical and reasonable... The thing is, there is no time....all the essential mass/energy of the universe is ageless...all it can ever do is go from form to essence and back to form, etc...not an iota of it can ever be removed from existence....and not an iota can ever be added...except in the mind of human beings who have only relatively recently, in cosmic terms, come out of the trees..big bang theory indeed..

 

[ArtieE]

Ok....but I hardly see science admitting it doesn't know

Why do you think scientists come up with all these new theories all the time if they already knew what's what?

and therefore everyone can imagine what they want as being logical and reasonable...

What do you mean? Everyone can imagine whatever they want, but it doesn't mean it must be logical or reasonable...

The thing is, there is no time....all the essential mass/energy of the universe is ageless...all it can ever do is go from form to essence and back to form, etc...not an iota of it can ever be removed from existence....and not an iota can ever be added...except in the mind of human beings who have only relatively recently, in cosmic terms, come out of the trees..big bang theory indeed..

What is that supposed to mean? The Big Bang theory doesn't claim anything was added to or removed from existence the singularity contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you think scientists come up with all these new theories all the time if they already knew what's what?

What do you mean? Everyone can imagine whatever they want, but it doesn't mean it must be logical or reasonable...

What is that supposed to mean? The Big Bang theory doesn't claim anything was added to or removed from existence the singularity contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand...

Because new observations keep showing the flaws in the previous theory/hypothesis, and the science is never settled...

Nothing about any theory concerning the genesis of the universe is logical or reasonable....for the simple logic and reason there was none...and never could be one...the universe is eternal...

Big bang claims that the universe was added to nothing (though not in those words)...I say it didn't because the universe is eternal and nothing can be added to it or taken away from it. If I am wrong, as you think.....then the whole universe can be theoretically taken away to replicate the theoretically timeless state before the singularity/big bang....by the logical implication of the principle of reciprocity... By way of lending some credence to their position, I don't ask science to actually do that...but just try and add or remove the merest iota of cosmic essence and I will be all ears...

 

[ArtieE]

Nothing about any theory concerning the genesis of the universe is logical or reasonable....for the simple logic and reason there was none...and never could be one...the universe is eternal...

The Big Bang theory never said otherwise. It just says everything in the universe was in a singularity and then it expanded.

Big bang claims that the universe was added to nothing (though not in those words)...

No it doesn't.

I say it didn't because the universe is eternal and nothing can be added to it or taken away from it. If I am wrong, as you think.....then the whole universe can be theoretically taken away to replicate the theoretically timeless state before the singularity/big bang....

The Big Bang theory says nothing about what was "before" the singularity or even if it was a "before". Your speculations have nothing to do with the Big Bang theory.

You could theoretically compress the universe into a singularity again by the logical implication of the principle of reciprocity... By way of lending some credence to their position, I don't ask science to actually do that...but just try and add or remove the merest iota of cosmic essence and I will be all ears...

Don't you ever get tired of repeating over and over again that nothing can be added or taken away? Will you ever get it into your skull that the Big Bang theory says nothing about anything added or taken away but that what existed just expanded?

 

[idav]

It is not I who is assuming, it is you and all the other big bang faithful..... for correct me if I'm wrong, but science is assuming a big bang occurred....not that they are able to observe it through HST..

You are wrong...because when we look through a hubble telescope we look at the stars back in time. Please don't try and derail with some sort of , time is an eternal now, or what not, please address that issue.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are wrong...because when we look through a hubble telescope we look at the stars back in time. Please don't try and derail with some sort of , time is an eternal now, or what not, please address that issue.

The point I made was...the big bang itself can not be observed....it is only an idea that you believe to be true...no observation is possible...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Big Bang theory never said otherwise. It just says everything in the universe was in a singularity and then it expanded.

No it doesn't.

The Big Bang theory says nothing about what was "before" the singularity or even if it was a "before". Your speculations have nothing to do with the Big Bang theory.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating over and over again that nothing can be added or taken away? Will you ever get it into your skull that the Big Bang theory says nothing about anything added or taken away but that what existed just expanded?

So where do you say the singularity came from? If you say science does not know, you prove my point....there was not one..

Yes it does, though as I said, not in those words....what existed before big bang time?

Of course it doesn't....the theory implies there was no time before the big bang.....no time means there was nothing in existence...

I think you are purposely ignoring the implications of what I am pointing out.....that if it were true that all the mass and energy in existence came from nothing in the big bang...than it should be possible to happen again and again...and if understood, replicated by science... But they can't because all the mass and enegy in the universe is all there ever was.....it is eternal...

 

[idav]

The point I made was...the big bang itself can not be observed....it is only an idea that you believe to be true...no observation is possible...

We can certainly go back 14 billion years to literally see the state of the universe at its inception.

Further we can see the cosmic microwave background which has been the smoking gun for the big bang, because it does lend to what happened in the very inception of the universe.

Oh we can't literally see the first second, doesn't matter, everything we observe confirms over and over what is predicted of a big bang coming from a small mass of intense heat and gravity. Even other competing theories can't get away from that scenario or inflation. The only thing argued about is the nature of reality when physics breaks down at that point. Big bang isn't argued about it is confirmed over and over and over. What is argued now is what type of string theory is involved and that would be the place I think faith may be involved. Big bang certainly requires no faith.

 

[idav]

Of course it doesn't....the theory implies there was no time before the big bang.....no time means there was nothing in existence...

I'm going to ask you to cite where the big bang theory talks about time. I think your convoluting cosmologists string theories with the big bang theory.

 

[gnostic]

The Big Bang theory never said otherwise. It just says everything in the universe was in a singularity and then it expanded.

No it doesn't.

The Big Bang theory says nothing about what was "before" the singularity or even if it was a "before". Your speculations have nothing to do with the Big Bang theory.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating over and over again that nothing can be added or taken away? Will you ever get it into your skull that the Big Bang theory says nothing about anything added or taken away but that what existed just expanded?

I pretty much said the same things to Ben.

I kept telling him, that the Big Bang only concentrate its theory largely on the observable universe, with some hypotheses of earlier epochs after the initial expansion (BB).

Ben keep distorting the theory, no matter how many times I have said that's now what the Big Bang say. He keep bringing up the "eternal universe" as if it factually truth, but this is pure speculation. And yet he persisted.

My replies seems to bounce off his eyes, so that he is not registering anything I have to say, which is why I've pretty much given up explaining to him in this thread.

He doesn't understand that the Big Bang don't talk of before the singularity, and he keeping bringing up other cosmologies that have nothing to do with the current BB theory.

The only newer and major contributions to this theory, is that the dark energy is causing the acceleration of the universe expansion, beside from the better images of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation from recent space telescope(eg WMAP).

CMB radiation is the primary evidence for the Big Bang cosmology, first predicted by Alpher and Herman (along with Gamow), in 1948, but first discovered in 1964, by Penzias and Wilson.

Basically, the CMB is the earliest photons (light) we can observed, which occurred during the Recombination epoch, starting 377,000 years after the Big Bang.

Other hypotheses and other theoretical theories have been around for some times now, but these are currently untestable and speculative, like the eternal universe (professed by Ben, of course) and the multiverse models favoured by others here.

For me, as far as I understand the Big Bang theory, it doesn't say that the universe came from nothing, but that doesn't mean it is an eternal universe. We just don't know, because we currently can't observe beyond the "observable universe".

 

[idav]

I googled "big bang theory time" and all I got were episodes of big bang theory. I don't even think big bang talks about time.

edit: on the bottom of the second page was an actual big bang theory youtube that said "get your space time t-shirt" lol

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We can certainly go back 14 billion years to literally see the state of the universe at its inception.

Further we can see the cosmic microwave background which has been the smoking gun for the big bang, because it does lend to what happened in the very inception of the universe.

Oh we can't literally see the first second, doesn't matter, everything we observe confirms over and over what is predicted of a big bang coming from a small mass of intense heat and gravity. Even other competing theories can't get away from that scenario or inflation. The only thing argued about is the nature of reality when physics breaks down at that point. Big bang isn't argued about it is confirmed over and over and over. What is argued now is what type of string theory is involved and that would be the place I think faith may be involved. Big bang certainly requires no faith.

None of this refutes what I am saying....there is no direct observation of a big bang...only the idea.. There has never been a state of the absence of existence...and never will be...the universe is infinite and eternal. why? Because it could be any other way....nothing does not exist and never has!

Btw, as a pantheist, where do you imagine God was before the big bang?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So where do you say the singularity came from? If you say science does not know, you prove my point....there was not one..
Yes it does, though as I said, not in those words....what existed before big bang time?
Of course it doesn't....the theory implies there was no time before the big bang.....no time means there was nothing in existence...

Isn't ' eternity in our hearts ' meaning that for each second we can count we can count endlessly both forwards and backwards ?_______
So, at what point would you count to nothing?
God is simply from everlasting - Psalms 90:2 - so God existed before the Big Bang.

 

[Sonofason]

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.

Regards

If it can be said that spirit and mind is something then something existed first.