Sonofason
Well-Known Member
No we can't.
We can go back miliseconds after it's inception, not to the point of its inception.
And certainly we can't go back to before its inception.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
We can go back miliseconds after it's inception, not to the point of its inception.
And certainly we can't go back to before its inception.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
".....the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.".....http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
I'm probably not in much disagreement with your eternal now notion, god is omnipresent in space and time.
Bill Maher last night had Neil DeGrasse Tyson guesting and Maher made a good point like what your trying to say.
So Bill says something to the effect "all the stuff in the entire universe the earth, the cosmos all of it would fit in a head of a pin, and you expect me to believe that instead of jesus".
Tyson answered "the difference is perhaps, that all evidence we have on the universe points to that scenario and the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you".
I'm plenty happy what we are able to observe and gather as evidence to what happened especially when we can see light as far back as 14 billion years. It certainly is not anything like faith in religion.
I'll filter the video in the spoiler. Published yesterday, the portion I refer to is at 3 and a half minutes.
Yeah I've read that lecture. Talks about a singularity in there several times, as the likely scenario. However your referencing a cosmologists thats getting into other theories building on the big bang. Which is why I said your convoluting cosmologists string theories with the theory of the big bang.
Your correct, I exaggerated a tad, a few hundred thousand years.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
No...that was a quote from Hawking himself.... time had its genesis at big bang Time = 0...
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Well thank you for acknowledging the point I was making to you...
Matthew Dean
New Member
The question is nonsensical. It's like saying 'which didn't exist first, something or nothing?' It doesn't mean anything.
gnostic
The Lost One
That's the thing, God don't enter the picture in science, because science doesn't speculate on what is not there.
You are making baseless assumption for there being a deity, involving mere superstition.
You have no evidences that God exist before primitive men invented deities, because they see nature, but not being to explain how nature exist, so they imagined some spirits are behind every trees, streams, mountains, sun, moon, clouds, fire, etc; these are just superstitions.
Even in Jesus' time, they thought physical illnesses and mental illnesses (madnesses) were the result of evil spirits (eg the paranoia of King Saul in 1 Samuel, is an example of imaginary storytelling of evil spirit sent by God and inflicted the King with jealous paranoia and madness) or God being wrathful on individuals, and that cures or healing occurred through miracles of Jesus (or his disciples) by merely touching them, healing the insanes through exorcism of demons. That's pure superstition and wishful fancies.
Science have managed to explain many things about nature, and that doesn't involve any god. Science and medicine, and even social science (eg psychology) are able to explained what mental illnesses without the need of superstitions of god or evil spirits (demons, jinns, fairies).
During the Second Temple period, astronomy involved angels moving the sun, moon, stars and planets in the sky. By the time of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton, science gradually began peeling away superstitious nonsense of God and angels causing movements of these celestial bodies in the sky.
It is only when scientists began creating large observatories and radio telescopes that we began to realise that our world is a lot smaller, and we could observe more distant stars and galaxies. The concept of the universe is very modern.
Even as late as 18th century, frightened believers still viewed the solar eclipses as signs of ill-omen.
And because of people like you, the needs for superstitions is still pretty much alive today. You still need superstition (eg God) to be the answer to your question about the universe, even there are no evidences to support God ever existing, let alone the sad superstition of God created everything.
God existing before the Big Bang or God creating the universe??? Only in your superstitious fantasy or delusion.
You still miss the point. He's saying his whole theory of everything and your extrapolating that to mean thats what the big bang theory says, thats not true. Time has to do with his string theory and Hawkings notion of real time and imaginary time. That is a lecture on the beginning of time not the big bang. Any notion on the beginning of time will take a bit of faith. The big bang isn't what is in question but what is happening in an event horizon is certainly in question.
Did you see what i responded to, that we can see milliseconds after but not before, that much is certainly true.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Idav....there is not any way in eternity I can ever take the big bang theory seriously....it is terminally flawed. There can not be nothing...not now, not in the past...not in the future. Conceptual idea like the big bang only has traction because mankind is yet relatively a young child of the universe....it was not long ago when they believed the world was flat and the sun moved around the earth... Now they believe the universe had a birth...as if observations of the births and deaths of all forms they see means that the underlying essence of existence itself also must have experienced a birth..so 'not long out of the trees' anthropocentric..
Last edited:
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Time as it relates to space and its physical contents had its genesis at the big bang. That is not to say that there was no time before that event. Physicist's mathematics says time didn't exist at t=0, but that doesn't mean that time didn't exist at t=0.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
No..it was a literal quote...
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now."
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
So clarify....so if time existed before Time=0...so would have space...yes?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
No...as I keep saying...there are no direct observations of a big bang! The HST can see galaxies about 14.2 billion LY distant. Big bang theory has it occurring about 13.7 billions years ago. Theoretical description of what happen milliseconds after is not direct observation!
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The evidence is all there before your eyes....you yourself are evidence but you deny your own existence and prefer to believe you are merely the temporary form... There was never a nothing and you can not prove there was....I on the other hand say the underlying essence of all that exists has always existed...and science can not add to or remove a single iota...
gnostic
The Lost One
Before the name (Big Bang) was coined (by Fred Hoyle in 1949) for this theory, the theory is about the expansion of the universe, and how MATTERS as we know it, formed from its primordial stage, developing stars and galaxies.
Alexander Friedman (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1929) both postulated that the universe was originally much smaller and denser before expanding. But neither of them could actually explain fully how matters and universe formed until George Gamow expanded the theory with the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis in 1949.
Scientists continued to add to the Big Bang cosmology, as technology improved, which help gathering more evidences and data from finding.
The theory is not just about the 1st second, Ben.
It is about the whole evolution of the universe (I'm not talking about biological evolution here). Just because we cannot currently observe directly of the earlier epochs, don't mean much, since we have only just begun.
You are nit-picking and a hypocrite, Ben. Do you think scientific theory have TO KNOW EVERYTHING at the start?
Galileo invented the telescope, but due to the current technology, he was still limited what he can see through his telescope. He couldn't see that the universe was much larger than what he was able to observe.
If learning more about the universe took all this time (centuries), why are you so bloody impatient that the modern cosmologists must know everything now, or else accept God for the reason of the universe?
It has being less than a century when Lemaître first wrote his paper on the Primeval Atom, and we are currently learn more than since then. So what we haven't learned everything there is. Science have been able achieve far more, uncover more, learn more than some ancient books of superstitions and myths, collectively known as "scriptures".
If you want to believe God created everything and have about around for eternity, that's called superstition (or fantasy, or worse, delusion), that's not science.
And until you have real and verifiable evidences for the existence of God, then you have less to offer than science about the knowledge of the universe.
gnostic
The Lost One
I am not denying my existence, you dumb ***.
I just want no part of your deluded fantasy of some gods which you have no evidences for, other than you trying to twist science and your religion to your liking.
gnostic
The Lost One
No, you dumb ***.
The 13 or so billion years is only the observable universe, and observable because before the Recombination epoch, the earlier epochs were opaque.
It is only when the electrons were finally bounded to ionised atomic nuclei (so that there are now stable and neutral elements, like hydrogen and helium) and photon were decoupled from matters and able to move freely through space, that the universe (space) became transparent.
And this only occurred during the Recombination epoch, 377,000 after the Big Bang.
Just because they are not able to observe directly, doesn't mean they are not about able to know what could have happened, or uncover more in the future.
You keep telling us that science is not able to observe directly the Big Bang or the singularity. You have said there are evidences for God and eternal universe everywhere, but why don't you tell us...
- How are you able to directly see the universe is eternal what astronomers are not able to see?
- And tell us some more, you dumb ***, have you seen "God" directly?
- Did you directly see God actually creating stars and galaxies?
My fingers are just itching to put you in the ignore list, but I am having too much fun watching you wallowing in your ignorant superstitions.