Customer Discussions > Religion forum

No One has satisfactorily answered the question: What came before The Big Bang? How did the Big Bang Come From Nothing and From Nowhere to "Create" This Universe? What happened Before Space and Time and Matter?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 9, 2013 3:47:42 AM PST
DRM says:
It's a mystery but some say it is Settled Science.

"I'm tired of thinking about it and it's settled in MY mind. It's too mind boggling so I'm going to take the science I have and extrapolate, infer, and speculate. Then I'm going to call that "Settled Science".

No One has satisfactorily answered the question: What came before The Big Bang? How did the Big Bang Come From Nothing and From Nowhere to "Create" This Universe? What happened Before Space and Time and Matter?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 9, 2013 4:18:01 AM PST
Joseph says:
The only thing that makes sense to me is that before anything there has to be consciousness. Even when you are asleep you are conscious. We exist in a state of consciousness, with no boundary. We set the boundary. There's just so much we can know.

We know more than cavemen knew. Our knowledge base is growing exponentially. Five hundred years ago, Earth was the center of the universe. Surely, in the vastness of the universe we are not the only intelligent life.

We've been preoccupied with external factors, the quantitative, and ignoring the qualitative part of us--our immaterial essence, our animating principle or actuating cause of life: our rational and spriritual selves. Welcome to the Age of Aquarius. There's a change taking place.

Posted on Jan 9, 2013 6:07:37 AM PST
One possible answer: A Universe From Nothing

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 9, 2013 6:29:55 AM PST
Didn't you already put this on the science thread? And haven't you posted essentially the same question multiple previous times?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 9, 2013 6:31:01 AM PST
How does the statement "before anything there has to be consciousness" answer the question posed?

Posted on Jan 9, 2013 6:36:56 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 9, 2013 6:37:47 AM PST
There are basically two ways of looking at it/two different conclusions on this....

(a) "We are not sure how the Big Bang came to be, but as a sentient species we can investigate and use our reasoning power and theorize what happened and one day possibly come to have a fairly accurate model for explaining it." ...

....or....

(b)"A magic invisible sky-being did it."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll go with (a), personally.

{I get the distinct feeling that trying to reason with DRM on this issue is going to be a _lot_ like trying to reason with MMX.}

Posted on Jan 11, 2013 4:44:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 12, 2013 7:58:12 AM PST
Science does not make absolute claims. Claims in science are very conservative, supported with an abundance of evidence and even then scientists will leave the door open for possible alternative explanations that are scientifically based.

On the other hand, theists, believers etc... make arrogant claims that are not only extraordinary and out of this world, but also devoid of any evidence at all. It is God. It is definitely without question God. Not any old god, but the Christian God. It is the Christian god despite there is no evidence. Not a shred. It is the Christian god although the existing evidence in no shape or form indicates or hints at or to the existence of this Christian god.

Scientists with plenty of evidence remain conservative in their statements and are hesitant in their non-extraordinary naturally occurring claims.

Theists/god believers without any evidence remain liberal and loose with statements and are not in the least bit hesitant in making their extraordinary supernatural claims.

Big difference.

Believers have a problem with default answers. We don't know what came before the Big Bang so it must be the default answer. Ding~ Christian God.

We didn't know what caused thunder and lightening and it was often (even to this day by some people) attributed to the Christian god man.

There are major problems with believers and their thinking. Fill any gaps in knowledge with the immediate default answer. The god man. The Christian god man. The Christian god man that so easily fills the gap in knowledge and lets the believer go on their merry way without having to think any further.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013 7:20:17 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
DRM says:

[No One has satisfactorily answered the question: What came before The Big Bang ?]

I'm not sure the word 'before' is even applicable to this question.

From the religious perspective time does not exist in the spirit world. Before the 12 universes existed I guess there would only have been the spiritual realm.

Time also does not exist inside of a black hole. Gravity slows time down. The gravitational forces inside of a black hole are so unimaginable that time will eventually come to a screeching halt for anyone who is unfortunate enough to fall into one. So I guess the person would see stars be born, live, and die in what seemed like a few seconds.

I don't claim to understand Einstein's theories but some people think they do.

I just read a book where Edgar Cayce told a guy that in a past life he had been one of the magi or astrologers who found the newborn Christ and presented Him with one of those gifts like frankincense and myrrh.

EC also told the guy that in another past life he had been a mathematical genius in ancient Egypt.

According to Cayce at the present time which was then sometime before World War II this guy was one of the few people alive who could understand Einstein's Theory Of Relativity.

I thought there are more than just a few people alive who understand Al's theory even back around WW II. I'm not one of them though.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013 7:43:09 PM PST
A. Caplan says:
DRM says: It's a mystery but some say it is Settled Science.
>Who says that?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013 8:46:30 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 11, 2013 8:46:58 PM PST
Astrocat says:
DRM, do you really think anyone on these threads is capable of answering such a question? The best scientists in the world are still scratching their head about it, and the changes are we will never know in the scientific sense. Those who think more metaphysically have proposed a number of possibilities, but even there it's all speculation.

As far as it being "settled science", that's just c..p.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 6:03:23 AM PST
sfon says:
DRM says: "How did the Big Bang Come From Nothing and From Nowhere to "Create" This Universe?"

Who said it came from nothing or nowhere? Even quantum physics says that 'nothing' is 'filled with' potential, so it is not actually 'nothing'. There is no evidence that there has ever been a state of absolute nothingness, with no properties or potential. There is no such place as 'nowhere'. 'Nothing' and 'nowhere' are concepts which are purely imaginative.

This universe is a natural phenomenon, a product of nature. Reality has a nature, and we do not yet understand the entirety, or all of its processes. Even as we make discoveries, there is always more to learn.

Personally, I wouldn't need or ask reality to 'explain itself' within the context of imaginative concepts... 'nothingness' and 'nowhere'. And I wouldn't look for the origin of our expanding universe within the context of these concepts. I would ask what the natural processes, mechanisms, and antecedent conditions were.

I wouldn't think that reality or its nature 'came from' anywhere. I wouldn't think that nature was 'manufactured', 'invented', 'thought up', or 'contrived', but self-existent, actual, original, authentic, primal, and inevitable. It would not 'come from' anywhere... it is everywhere. It would not start or end at some 'time'... it produces 'time'.

And it appears, quite obviously, that it can produce an expanding universe of stars, galaxies, and elements. Many details are yet unknown.

DRM says: "No One has satisfactorily answered the question..."

No one has satisfactorily produced any evidence for 'absolute nothingness with no potential' or a place called 'nowhere'. As long as you believe in 'nothing' and 'nowhere', the question is yours to ask and answer, as it only follows your beliefs. I think the question is invalid, and I would ask much different questions.

Posted on Jan 12, 2013 7:00:38 AM PST
The key word in the OP is "satisfactorily".

If we require "100% customer satisfaction" from every idiot with a net portal, we'll be here all night!

If all the many possible answers floated by science & religion are unsatisfactory to you, then perhaps you'd care to take a brief "customer survey" to specify what it is, specifically, that troubles you, so that we might better serve you in the future!

1. Which of our many plans comes closest?
a) Rig Veda hymn 129
b) Big Bang
c) Quantum foam
d) Genesis I
e) Ekpyrotic
f) MUH
g) Genesis II
h) Hawking-Hartle "no boundary"
i) _________________________ (submit your own)

2. Which property of a creation story do you need most ?
a) accuracy
b) explanatory power
c) specificity
d) parsimony/concision
e) memorability
f) needs to rhyme
g) intentionality
h) neighbor must also believe
i) verifiable
j) not too much math/group theory

3. Have you been satisfied in the past, but had a change of heart?
a) yes
b) no
c) don't know

4. If answer 3. is a) yes, then state reason for disaffection:
_________________________________________________
(use back of form, if more space is needed.)

Thanks for your participation. An agent will be contacting you shortly.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 7:12:04 AM PST
Ben West says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 7:13:51 AM PST
Highly interesting and original post! Five stars!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 7:17:27 AM PST
Ben West says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 7:31:45 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 12, 2013 7:33:39 AM PST
Thanks, Mr. fazakas, sir! We aim to please!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 7:47:20 AM PST
I wasn't replying to your post.

I disagree that the book of Genesis should be used as a science text, either literally or in some more figurative way. Genesis is a religious text, part of the mythology of the Jewish people written down at the time of their Babylonian Captivity. Any similarity to modern science is purely coincidental.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 7:50:01 AM PST
Hey, Ben, I have to ask. What could possibly be "highly interesting" or "original" about this view of Genesis? How is it materially different from any of hundreds of similar fundamentalist views any google search is likely to bring forth? Do you think you are out on a limb? Perhaps in danger of excommunication?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 8:14:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 12, 2013 2:44:19 PM PST
<<Any similarity to modern science is purely coincidental.>>

I wonder about that, a little. As I think of my own circumstances, it occurs to me that I have always been an atheist, and yet, I hold to many of Christianity's moral precepts. (Like Steve Martin says, "I believe in 8 out of 10 commandments.") That is, I am not just any atheist, I am specifically a "Christian atheist", since the whole conceptual framework of what a God might be--what it is I don't believe--has been instilled in me by my culture.

Now, much of so-called "western science"** has been 'raised up' in a climate of Christian precepts and beliefs, and it would not surprise me in the least to find that this has had some significant influence on the particulars of the scientific views. Certainly, in much of this history, Christianity has been in a position to 'control the conversation', (as the media does, today), and provide much of the vocabulary/conceptual basis for what we might consider plausible.

The originator of the expanding universe theory was a Roman Catholic priest, Lemaître.

[**Note: If we want to keep that "western" part relevant, we'd better start kicking into the kitty! The LHC is a lot closer to the [orient] (oops!) than Texas is, where we elected NOT to build that SSC.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 8:36:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 12, 2013 8:41:42 AM PST
So you think there's a possiblity that modern scientific theories about the origin of the universe, man, etc. are in some way dependent on the ideas in Genesis? I beg to disagree.

E.g. I don't think there's any evidence that Lemaitre based his hypothesis on Genesis. He based it on the field equations of relativity applied to the universe as a whole, with reference to the already known fact that many galaxies were receding based on redshift measurements.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 8:50:43 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
Not only "adds to the discussion" but made me laugh. Good job!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 8:51:32 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
He wasn't talking to you, Ben. Your post was just silly.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 11:54:55 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 12, 2013 11:59:39 AM PST
I think "dependent" is the wrong word. How about, "suggested"? How about "rendered plausible"? How about "influenced"?

Also, I would not include "origin of man, etc." in this list, but just the BB theory.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 4:09:43 PM PST
Dunno. Just a few years earlier Friedmann had come up with the same idea and he wasn't religious. Why would Lemaitre have had to be influenced by religious beliefs and not Friedmann? Couldn't Lemaitre have just recognized a potential solution the GR equations that would be consistent with the galactic redshift observations? Maybe it was the galactic redshift observations which gave him the idea in the first place.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2013 4:38:50 PM PST
Gwaithmir says:
DRM said: "No One has satisfactorily answered the question: What came before The Big Bang? How did the Big Bang Come From Nothing and From Nowhere to "Create" This Universe? What happened Before Space and Time and Matter?"

>Hypotheses about how the universe originated and evolved continue to be developed and refined as scientists collect evidence and gain an ever-expanding view of the cosmos. I ask the question: At what point would you consider an explanation of what preceded the Big Bang "satisfactory"?

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/december-2004january-2005/the-growth-of-inflation
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 150 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  121
Total posts:  3730
Initial post:  Jan 9, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 12, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions