Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

You do not read what I say....there was no creation of the universe...the only creation that takes place is that of forms.. If you presume a beginning of the underlying universal essence of all that exists...then simultaneously it presupposes the absence of what all that exists at that beginning.... Iow, big bang theory claims that all that now existence came from the absence of all that now exists...

Oh...and until science can make the universal essence to cease existing....then logically the universe is eternal..

 

[Sonofason]

So clarify....so if time existed before Time=0...so would have space...yes?

That which is nothing does not exist. The space between stuff is only relative and is dependent on the stuff that occupies the space. In a universe without God, you might remove all the stuff and what you are left with is nothing. But God exists, and he is eternal.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

You are not reading what I have to say...I have not mentioned God....only you are raising the issue...presumably as a strawman to obscure the fact that you can not refute what is being explained to you...please do not throw a tissie...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That which is nothing does not exist. The space between stuff is only relative and is dependent on the stuff that occupies the space. In a universe without God, you might remove all the stuff and what you are left with is nothing. But God exists, and he is eternal.

Are you a pantheist?

 

[Sonofason]

Are you a pantheist?

I only know that God exists and permeates every aspect of existence. If that makes me a pantheist, then so be it. But I am a Christian.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

As a pantheist....the material universe is the manifestation of God...

 

[gnostic]

You do not read what I say....there was no creation of the universe...the only creation that takes place is that of forms.. If you presume a beginning of the underlying universal essence of all that exists...then simultaneously it presupposes the absence of what all that exists at that beginning.... Iow, big bang theory claims that all that now existence came from the absence of all that now exists...

Oh...and until science can make the universal essence to cease existing....then logically the universe is eternal..

And I have repeatedly told you, that I have never claimed that the universe came from nothing, and neither does the Big Bang.

The Big Bang only explained how the universe as we know it came to be, and not what occurred before the Big Bang. The BB cosmologists, astronomers and astrophysicists have only been able to observe as far as the Recombination epoch, with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Everything before this epoch was opaque, and therefore unobservable...well, at least with our current technology.

Oh...and until science can make the universal essence to cease existing....then logically the universe is eternal..

No one know if the universe is eternal or not, you dumb ***.

All you are doing is making assumption that it is eternal, using circular reasoning, not logic. And logic or illogic is not the same as evidence, dumb ***.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I only know that God exists and permeates every aspect of existence. If that makes me a pantheist, then so be it. But I am a Christian.

Same for me....but I'm also a buddhist, taoist, etc...

 

[Sonofason]

Same for me....but I'm also a buddhist, taoist, etc...

There is a great deal of truth to be found in Buddhism and Taoism etc... for sure.

 

[gnostic]

As a pantheist....the material universe is the manifestation of God...

Again, that's just another baseless assumption; it's a leap of faith, not science.

Being a pantheist, don't make you a scientist or know more about science.

It has no more basis in reality if I was to claim "the material universe is the manifestation of the pink unicorn" or the "manifestation of Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "of Sauron" or even "of Gandhi".

 

[Sonofason]

Again, that's just another baseless assumption; it's a leap of faith, not science.

Being a pantheist, don't make you a scientist or know more about science.

It has no more basis in reality if I was to claim "the material universe is the manifestation of the pink unicorn" or the "manifestation of Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "of Sauron" or even "of Gandhi".

In the words of Crypto2015, a member of this site, "it is an incontestable truth that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. This is a very basic truth that all scientists ought to know. It is founded on the thoughts of some of the most brilliant philosophers in the history of mankind. Moreover, any honest scientist is able to attest that science cannot provide answers to metaphysical or moral questions. Science has simply nothing to do with morality, metaphysics, or even with ethics. That's why people like Richard Dawkins, Laurence Krauss, Sam Harris, Massimo Pigliucci and others are either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest."

 

[gnostic]

In the words of Crypto2015, a member of this site, "it is an incontestable truth that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. This is a very basic truth that all scientists ought to know. It is founded on the thoughts of some of the most brilliant philosophers in the history of mankind. Moreover, any honest scientist is able to attest that science cannot provide answers to metaphysical or moral questions. Science has simply nothing to do with morality, metaphysics, or even with ethics. That's why people like Richard Dawkins, Laurence Krauss, Sam Harris, Massimo Pigliucci and others are either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest."

Sorry, but what honesty does the bible (or any other scriptures) have, when it is distort everything through superstitions and myths?

Is there any honesty in episode of talking serpent or talking donkey?

Is there any honesty in the Flood when there are no such evidences for global flood occurring in human history other than a myth?

Is there any honesty in the gospels that claim Jesus can heal madness by exorcising demons?

Don't tell me what honesty is, when you believe in a book that exaggerate and distort everything that claim to be "miracle". If you truly pride yourself on honesty, then showed conclusive evidences for the existence of this invisible god of yours. Then, and only then, will I believe that you have any honesty.

BTW, I couldn't give a rat's a55 in what Pigliucci, Harris, Dawkins or Krauss have to say, because none of them are my role models, and I am not fan of any of them. They have their own views, I have mine.

 

[idav]

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..

Well as long as your say Big Bang claims nothingness then your understanding of Big Bang is terminally flawed, in which case I wouldn't believe it either, but you can't help putting stuff I a theory that doesn't exist. You keep referring to string theory which get Big Bang doesn't deal with. String theory deals with time at zero and prior not the Big Bang theory. It's like the argument that evolution can't explain life, it isn't supposed to. Big Bang is not cosmology, Big Bang is what happened after we know stuff exists. Please tell me your following.

 

[Sonofason]

Sorry, but what honesty does the bible (or any other scriptures) have, when it is distort everything through superstitions and myths?

Is there any honesty in episode of talking serpent or talking donkey?

Is there any honesty in the Flood when there are no such evidences for global flood occurring in human history other than a myth?

Is there any honesty in the gospels that claim Jesus can heal madness by exorcising demons?

Don't tell me what honesty is, when you believe in a book that exaggerate and distort everything that claim to be "miracle". If you truly pride yourself on honesty, then showed conclusive evidences for the existence of this invisible god of yours. Then, and only then, will I believe that you have any honesty.

First of all, the earth is growing. There is no plate tectonic subduction. There was no continent Pangaea on one side of the earth with oceans on the other. In earth's early history, there were no oceans whatsoever. The flood happened. And the evidence is everywhere even on mount Everest. I have been more honest in my entire life than you have been in this one single post. You don't get to decide what donkeys can say. It only had to happen once.

 

[gnostic]

The flood happened. And the evidence is everywhere even on mount Everest.

And there lie your own ignorance. The reason why there are evidences of sea life on the Himalayas is that the Indian subcontinent was even part of Asia, prior to 70 million years ago.

The Himalayas (including Everest) is still rising, because the Indian tectonic plate is still pushing into Asia, causing uplift of earth.

You denying the tectonic plate, when Australia is still moving 5 cm each year, moving faster than Indian plate, only demonstrated your scientific illiteracy and unwilling to accept evidences.

Well, good for you. I'll leave you to your ignorant bliss.

 

[gnostic]

You don't get to decide what donkeys can say. It only had to happen once.

You think that the bible is the only myth that have talking animals?

There are tonnes of fables of talking animals, in the Middle East and Egypt alone. That this occurred in the Bible, just showed that the people who wrote Genesis and Numbers were as superstitious as their neighbors.

 

[Sonofason]

And there lie your own ignorance. The reason why there are evidences of sea life on the Himalayas is that the Indian subcontinent was even part of Asia, prior to 70 million years ago.

The Himalayas (including Everest) is still rising, because the Indian tectonic plate is still pushing into Asia, causing uplift of earth.

You denying the tectonic plate, when Australia is still moving 5 cm each year, moving faster than Indian plate, only demonstrated your scientific illiteracy and unwilling to accept evidences.

Well, good for you. I'll leave you to your ignorant bliss.

So you're trying to suggest that the Himalayas were a part of the ocean floor? Wrong. That is not the case at all. But I'd like to see you prove that. Show your proof that the Himalayas was a part of the ocean floor.

 

[Sonofason]

You think that the bible is the only myth that have talking animals?

There are tonnes of fables of talking animals, in the Middle East and Egypt alone. That this occurred in the Bible, just showed that the people who wrote Genesis and Numbers were as superstitious as their neighbors.

I didn't say it didn't happen more than once...I only said it only has to happen once for it to have happened. No one ever has to see it again, and no one will ever know if it really happened. But it could have. And knowing the power of God, I believe it did happen.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I have repeatedly told you, that I have never claimed that the universe came from nothing, and neither does the Big Bang.

The Big Bang only explained how the universe as we know it came to be, and not what occurred before the Big Bang. The BB cosmologists, astronomers and astrophysicists have only been able to observe as far as the Recombination epoch, with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Everything before this epoch was opaque, and therefore unobservable...well, at least with our current technology.



No one know if the universe is eternal or not, you dumb ***.

All you are doing is making assumption that it is eternal, using circular reasoning, not logic. And logic or illogic is not the same as evidence, dumb ***.

Because you do not know the universe is eternal....you think everyone is as ignorant as you...

There was no big bang....it's only an idea...but you are free to believe in it....I prefer actual reality myself...not conceptual interpretation of reality..

 

[Sonofason]

Because you do not know the universe is eternal....you think everyone is as ignorant as you...

There was no big bang....it's only an idea...but you are free to believe in it....I prefer actual reality myself...not conceptual interpretation of reality..

Well the scientists call it inflation? or something like that, right. no real bang, right?
God said, "let there be light". And there was.