who or what created god

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Show me a source that states the big bang theory says there is nothing before it.

I thought I did. From Professsor Michael Woolfson's Time, Space, Stars, and Man: The Story of the Big Bang (Imperial College Press, 2009): "This observationally-based conclusion has led to the current theory that most, but not all, astronomers accept for the origin of the Universe- that at some point in the past all the energy in the Universe was concentrated at a point, a point with no volume that scientists refer to as a singuilarity. That is a challenging idea. The implication of it is that, at the instant the Universe came into being, space did not exist and time did not exist! Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means. Try the following experiement- close your eyes and try to think of nothing- absolutely nothing. You can no more do this than we can properly understand- really understand- a Universe of zero volume in which time did not exists. This theory, called the Big Bang thoery, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, "What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?", to which you will receive the answer, "There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occured." You might try again with the question, "Into what did the Universe expand?", to which the answer is, "There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded...Remember, once the Universe came into being and began to expand, then it is possible to talk about time" [italics in original, emphases added]. p.66

True but matter/energy were just in a different state at the moment the expansion began. Did you watch that video I posted? Is there something in that video I might be missing?

No I've read enough Stephen Hawking to know his views. From The Nature of Space and Time By Hawking and Penrose (Princeton University Press, 1996): "Indeed, almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang." He (and Penrose) have both discussed other possibilities, including the existance of multiple singularities, multiple universes, etc. However, one then leaves the theory of the big bang behind.

We simply don't know. Your presuming there was nothing before it. Let me put it this way. At the very instant the expansion began there was something there to expand.

I'm not presuming it. That's the theory. And as Woolfson notes, it is hard to understand. The "something" which expanded, this singularity, was nothing. As Paul Lurquin puts it in his book Origins of Life and the Universe (Columbia University Press, 2003), this we are talking about "a universe beginning with a singularity characterized by zero space" So a point of zero space which isn't in space and neither space nor time exist. Norman Glennding titled the first chapter of his book Our Place in the Universe (World Scientific, 2007) "A Day without Yesterday" for a reason: "In an instant of creation about 14 billion years ago the universe burst forth, creating space where there was no space, and time when there was no time."

Time before the expansion began could easily have been very different which is what people contend that the laws of physics as we know it were very different before the universe formed.

I'm not arguing that something couldn't have existed prior to the big bang. I'm simply stating what the big bang theory is. According to that theory, the universe began out of nothing, and when it began, space and time began with it.

 

[idav]

The implication of it is that, at the instant the Universe came into being, space did not exist and time did not exist!

I'm not arguing that something couldn't have existed prior to the big bang. I'm simply stating what the big bang theory is. According to that theory, the universe began out of nothing, and when it began, space and time began with it.

The statement you referenced does not support your assertion that the universe came from nothing. Yes I agree that space and time did not exist but the fact of the matter is something else that is different existed before the universe did which is what big bang theorizes when figuring out the singularity at the planck scale.

 

[idav]

No I've read enough Stephen Hawking to know his views. From The Nature of Space and Time By Hawking and Penrose (Princeton University Press, 1996): "Indeed, almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang." He (and Penrose) have both discussed other possibilities, including the existance of multiple singularities, multiple universes, etc. However, one then leaves the theory of the big bang behind.

Why would multiple singularities rule out the big bang? That doesn't make sense it seems it would support it. It would just mean that our big bang is one of many.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why would multiple singularities rule out the big bang? That doesn't make sense it seems it would support it. It would just mean that our big bang is one of many.

It doesn't rule it out. It's just a different theory. The big bang theory concerns the beginning of this universe. All it says about anything apart from this universe is that the universe began out of nothing, or out of a singularity with no volume, mass, space, etc. Multiverse theories, theories of a universe which expands from nothing, only to collapses into nothing, and so on, are not incompatible with the big bang theory. They just aren't a part of it. The big bang theory doesn't answer, for example, another important question which would be incompatible with an ever-expanding, ever-collapsing universe. The issue of whether this universe will continue to expand is also a different question and not part of the big bang theory (although it results from it).

 

[idea]

believers always claim there must be a god, what else could have created all things.
what then created god?

Everything is eternal - no beginning to any of it.

Create means transform - it does not mean to make something from nothing... God creates in that He transforms what is around Him, His influence is like gravity - the closer you get to Him, the more you are influenced by Him.

 

[idav]

It doesn't rule it out. It's just a different theory. The big bang theory concerns the beginning of this universe. All it says about anything apart from this universe is that the universe began out of nothing, or out of a singularity with no volume, mass, space, etc. Multiverse theories, theories of a universe which expands from nothing, only to collapses into nothing, and so on, are not incompatible with the big bang theory. They just aren't a part of it. The big bang theory doesn't answer, for example, another important question which would be incompatible with an ever-expanding, ever-collapsing universe. The issue of whether this universe will continue to expand is also a different question and not part of the big bang theory (although it results from it).

There is nowhere that I have seen the big bang saying that it explains the universe coming out of nothing. Your getting that from inference of what was said about it being the beginning of our universe. The truth is it was the beginning of the STATE of the universe.

The hypothesis of 'from nothing' isn't necesary for the big bang but it probably is the best hypothesis I have heard for where the singularity came from. Similarly the hypothesis that muliple singularities arise and collapse is also compatible with the big bang, it would just mean that this 'from nothing' thing happens more often than we can count.

 

[idea]

Hebrew Root Word Studies

[SIZE=+1]Child Root (Branches of the Tree)[/SIZE]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.

[/FONT]

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

His influence is like gravity - the closer you get to Him, the more you are influenced by Him.

Then, alas, it would appear that I am 'loin du regard de Dieu/Haletant et brisé de fatigue, au milieu/Des plaines de l’Ennui, profondes et désertes."

 

[idea]

Then, alas, it would appear that I am 'loin du regard de Dieu/Haletant et brisé de fatigue, au milieu/Des plaines de l’Ennui, profondes et désertes."

we are agents unto ourselves - our free will is our own to go where we will.
(I had to google that)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There is nowhere that I have seen the big bang saying that it explains the universe coming out of nothing. Your getting that from inference of what was said about it being the beginning of our universe.

Actually it's more from statements like "Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means. Try the following experiement- close your eyes and try to think of nothing- absolutely nothing. You can no more do this than we can properly understand- really understand- a Universe of zero volume in which time did not exists." The reason Professor Woolfson relates thinking of "absolutely nothing" and understanding "before" the big bang is because that is what a singularity is.

The hypothesis of 'from nothing' isn't necesary for the big bang

It is, however, the big bang theory: "the universe began when both its gravitational energy and kinetic energy were arbitrarily close to zero. It literally began from nothing..." from p. 137 of Silk, J (2006). Infinite Cosmos: Questions from the Frontiers of Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

but it probably is the best hypothesis I have heard for where the singularity came from.

The singularity, according to the big bang theory, couldn't have come from anywhere. It is a description, as Silk and Woolfson both point out explicitly, of nothingness. And there was no place for it to come from or time for it to exist in.

Similarly the hypothesis that muliple singularities arise and collapse is also compatible with the big bang, it would just mean that this 'from nothing' thing happens more often than we can count.

That's certainly true. And it is a theory that many posit.

 

[Daviso452]

Actually it's more from statements like "Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means. Try the following experiement- close your eyes and try to think of nothing- absolutely nothing. You can no more do this than we can properly understand- really understand- a Universe of zero volume in which time did not exists." The reason Professor Woolfson relates thinking of "absolutely nothing" and understanding "before" the big bang is because that is what a singularity is.

It is, however, the big bang theory: "the universe began when both its gravitational energy and kinetic energy were arbitrarily close to zero. It literally began from nothing..." from p. 137 of Silk, J (2006). Infinite Cosmos: Questions from the Frontiers of Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The singularity, according to the big bang theory, couldn't have come from anywhere. It is a description, as Silk and Woolfson both point out explicitly, of nothingness. And there was no place for it to come from or time for it to exist in.

That's certainly true. And it is a theory that many posit.

Quantum fluctuation. AKA universe from nothing. Look it up.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Quantum fluctuation. AKA universe from nothing. Look it up.

Quantum fluctuation doesn't explain "universe from nothing." It has been suggested as playing a role, but the standard view is neither quantum physics nor relativity existed before "Planck time." As such, any talk of quantum fluctuations prior to this moment doesn't help us much.

 

[Daviso452]

Quantum fluctuation doesn't explain "universe from nothing." It has been suggested as playing a role, but the standard view is neither quantum physics nor relativity existed before "Planck time." As such, any talk of quantum fluctuations prior to this moment doesn't help us much.

"Planck time" is just a unit of measurement, you do realize that?

What I have found is that a quantum fluctuation may have been the "spark" that caused inflation which resulted in the Big Bang. I still have more to research, but just making sure this idea is out there.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"Planck time" is just a unit of measurement, you do realize that?

And yet for some reason when physicists talk about the big bang and our limit of knowledge of the physics of the universe they refer to it: "The previous discussion has to do with the global background properties of our observable universe. However, what characterises inflation, and alllows alternative models to be distinguished, is the predicted spectrum of metric pertubations...In the absence of any vector perturbation, parity is conserved and the cross-correlations {BT} and {BE} are expected to be zero...Similarly with large tensor perturbations or gravitational waves. If their amplitude is too large, compared with the scalar perturbations, it would imply an origin of inflation close to the Plankian era, and thus classical description of space-time in terms of the general theory of relativity would not be appropriate. There are models of inflation that consider intial condition close to the Planck boundary, but their effects are seen on scales much much larger than our Hubble volume, and by the time the fluctuations that gave rise to structure in our observable universe were produced, inflation proceeded well below Plank Scale." p. 33 of J. Garcia-Bellido's paper "The Paradigm of Inflation" in Advances in Astronomy: From the Big Bang to the Solar System vol 1.

Or there's Barrow and Tipler's description in The Cosmological Anthropic Principle (Oxford University Press, 1986): "Prior to Plank time 10^-43...neither quantum theory nor general relativity are valid..." Others refer to it as the era/epoch of ignorance, or simply Planck's epoch.