This will make your head hurt.

Post Reply New Topic

Of course it doesn't feel right. Our progress seems to have gone beyond natural human comprehension. Like Quantum Physics it doesn't feel right. But do not discount the evidence for the big bang. It is very supportive.

But I understand, when we try to answer the 'Big questions' we end up even more in the dark.

So true. Classical physics has been falsified in certain conditions. Newtonian gravitation does not predict the motion of Mercury correctly for instance. And time has been show, experimentally to be dependent on relative motion and is not absolute as Newton assumed.

ruveyn

Who created God?

- God has never been created because He exists of the eternal spiritual energy, and not the unconscious materia of the universe.

The definition of "God" is "The first" (the reason of reasons), so how in the world can The first have something before it? Just as dumb as asking what comes before A in the alphabet.

Strangely the atheist does not ask himself the question where the singularity (the dot in the Big Bang myth) comes from, because if it would be eternal it would still exist today. By believing the almighty God has been created must also mean that you think He will have an expiring date (everything created must be destroyed). which is totally up the wall.

Don't you agree?

You lied, my head doesn't hurt yet! Like Fnord said, the truth is that no one knows what existed before the Big Bang. There's plenty of conjectures but nothing in terms of conclusive proof.

I suspect you were looking for another thread, with the religion and the politics in it.
Unless you did a worldwide survey of what questions atheists ask themselves about the origins of singularities, I don't think you have made a valid argument there. And if He was never created, then He would not need an 'expiring' date either.
Don't you agree?

So if God doesn't exist who was number one? God is the center of the creation, the reason of reasons, how can He not be the first?

This is a science forum, so I will try to maintain that flavour.
Science is all about evidence. The volume and quality of evidence determines whether some idea or information is categorized as fact, theory, hypothesis, speculation, myth, fiction, fantasy, or whatever.
I know of no evidence that a God exists. Therefore I could not accept God as part of the answer to any scientific question.
I also don't know of any evidence that there is NO God. Therefore, I could not be an atheist either.

But let us start with the premise that He does indeed exist.
Then of course he could have not been created, otherwise he wouldn't be God, his creator would be.
Maybe some alien did create a very advanced simulation that we call our "Universe"? Also not a god, just looks like one to us puny humans. So who created him?
Who was number one?
Perhaps some self-replicating protein?
'Reason of reasons'- this sort of thing feels like fingernails on the blackboard. It means nothing to me. Maybe I am not clever enough to understand, so explain it to me in english, then I will formulate an opinion.
If he was the first, then there had to be a time he did not exist. 'First' is a step from 'zero'. Otherwise it would be infinity, and eternal like you said, and you could not count it because it would not have a reference point to count it from, i.e. a zero
If he was eternal, then he couldn't be the first. If he wasn't the first, then he wasn't number one.
If there is a god, your arguments are not evidence.

I'm not sure anyone has ever assumed that the singularity was actually eternal because for a start, if time did not exist, then eternity did not either.

Hey, this DID make my head hurt!!

By the way, all of the above is just debating. My personal opinions are based on my own experiences which include things I have experienced that science cannot yet explain. As I have no evidence for them, I cannot present them as part of any scientific debate. I believe that in the absence of proof either way, everyone should feel free to believe as they wish. I don't mean any disrespect to you. I just think you picked the wrong forum.
And science is not actually my god. I love it, but don't have blind faith in it either.

One thing it does mean: our physical theories cannot be pushed back in time indefinitely.

ruveyn

I dobut it is possible to know and find evidence of before the big bang.

Ha ha 'dobut'

I do that all the time. Spellcheck does not always save me.

carl sagan [RIP] in "cosmos" discussed the indian belief that there might be a whole series of big bangs of which the present one is just one. some scientists believe that big bangs are just brane collisions which occur fairly often in the cosmic scheme of things.

Two dimensional membranes that collided, a universe that was a tiny bit different from our universe that collapsed into a "Big crunch"(opposite of a big bang), nothing or a prior universe with someone that understod what the universe was ment for.

Last edited by Exploronaut on 02 Feb 2013, 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

no it is not. science is a process. it begins with the perception of a manifestation, and then is followed by curiosity as to what is the mechanism of the manifestation, which is followed by speculation (i.e imagination (which is the most important part)) which then seeks empirical evidence to test the validity of the hypotheses.

evidence exists everywhere about everything, but the imagination defines what evidence to look for.

so many people are hostile to ideas that are not supported by "evidence", but without those ideas, evidence is no more than pearls rolled before swines.
___________________

my own personal idea of the universe is that there is only 1 universe. people talk about multiple universes and branes (their intersections), but i define the universe as "everything" and it can not be subordinate to it's parts. i surely agree that there are multiple dimensions and even possibly multiple and widely separate instances of "big bangs", but i consider the universe to be all that exists, and that includes all of the dimensions and "parallel universes" etc.

i think the most fundamental aspect of reality is "possibility". possibility predates actuality in every instance.
did the the matrix of infinite possibilities explode out of the big bang and not exist before it? if there is nothing, then there is no possibility for anything.

impossibility (or zero possibility) is what is yielded from speculation about non existence. therefore "nothing" is impossible . it is impossible that nothing in any dimension exists, and, if before "the big bang" there was nothing, then nothing would ever have happened. no cause means no effect.
cause can not be derived from non entity.

____________ a step down into personal speculation
i believe that there have been many "energy spewing" singularities (big bangs) in the universe, and they did not create it, but are a result of it.
i consider gravity to be a function of the "possibility" of energy to be in a locus of space.

the slightest asymmetry in the pressure of the ejection of energy from the big bang resulted in manifestation. if it was completely symmetrical, then no "eddies" of separation or aberration would have occurred, and the universe would simply be composed of pure unbound energy (not even sub atomic particles which are energy bound into a process) all traveling in a straight line away from the big bang.

the blueprint of the asymmetrical expansion of the energy basted from the big bang is to be found in the possibilities of occupation of locii.

nothing is "perfect", and if all locii had an equal chance of being occupied (a state of perfection) then nothing would have ever happened, so therefore nothing is perfect, and since nothing does not exist, perfection also does not exist.


the asymmetry of the expansion of the pure energy quickly resulted in pockets of pressure that then gave rise to an increase in the possibility of energy occupying those locations, which resulted in resonances that forced the energy into self contained systems (sub atomic particles) as a result of "feedback"

good grief. this is where it becomes impossible to describe further without typing forever.

whatever. i may be lambasted as an uneducated idiot, but i at least have bothered to consider the matter without consulting google to merely dump a ctrl-copied (but edited to make it sound original) reply.

i expect to see a post that says "evidence please", but i have only proposed an imaginary scenario which, if the "evidence please" people vetoed, then no one would ever discover anything.

ideas first and evidence second.

I'd agree with that. Sometimes my response is tailored to a specific audience.

The number of Universes is probably about definition. There was a time when universe and galaxy meant the same thing. If you define universe to mean everything, regardless of how it's configured, then there is only one. But if it is possible for a universe to exist that had say different physical constants or subatomic particles or something, and it could not exist in our universe, for example, then you would have cause to call it another universe. Since we don't know if they exist, then it currently doesn't matter which way we define it.

I also agree with your analysis about 'possibilities'. If I understood correctly, you meant there could not have been 'nothing' before the big bang, or it never would have happened. Physics says time did not exist yet, and I have repeated that, even though I don't see how saying that is an answer. I sometimes repeat current scientific opinion, but I don't necessarily agree with it, or understand it, or even think THEY understand it. If I say it, I might be looking to see what someone else will say to that. Personally, I just want to know the truth myself regardless of what anyone else thinks.

AS for the rest of it - evidence please.
JUST KIDDING!! !
I for one am not a parrot. I am also not an education snob nor am I the evidence police. I love ideas, as long as they at least look viable, regardless of where they come from. I have no idea whether the things you think are any better or worse than the things cutting edge science thinks. It's all guesswork to me, and I find it all very interesting. I am liable to spend more than a few hours trying to see if I can come up with a better explanation for this sort of thing, but it is still all speculation.

Not that evidence is not important. It is not everything, but it does help determine what is more likely to be true. I have seen it bastardized often enough to know one may have to 'recalculate' one's opinions about anything.

yes i have noticed that. you wish to illicit replies from smarter people than me so goodnight. i wish you well

If we assume that it was something "before" the universe (or our reality if you chose to think of all parallel realities as "the Universe") because something can't be created out of nothing, then that something would have to come from something else. And that something else would also have to come from something. If we think of this "timeline" as linear, then it would have to have been infinite of realities. The problem with this, is that lines have a beginning, so a line without a beginning would not make any sence. But if it was circular, it wouldn't need to have a beginning. Which would mean that something don't need to have a beginning to exist. Which means that our universe/reality was created out of nothing or created of something that was created out of nothing or everything is going in a circel so it doesn't need to have a beginning.

Last edited by Exploronaut on 03 Feb 2013, 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.