This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
What existed before the universe?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Zoltas
Equally wishful are physics professors who try to do the same with lots of groundless assumptions. Or those that start everything with the Big Bang. And where did so much energy come from?
Nowhere? I like to use the phrase, "In the beginning there was nothing ... which exploded."
Goes to show how you can build a cult even around science.
In the end I can't answer the OP's question, cause I have no bloody idea. Sometimes "I don't know" is a lot better than a possible answer which, however, you have no way of proving and for some reason we must take as fact.
Now, there are theories which aren't groundless that may provide a wider definition of the universe, as is string theory. Before anything is proven, though, I'm not going to preach it because it's just as valid as "God created it", despite all the elegant math. I can't help it but wonder how the definition of divine will change if ever we are able to access 11 dimensions. Should be interesting to see what happens in the next decade.
Yet, this isn't the theory, in the 'beginning' there was a singularity, not 'nothing' >.>
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
wishful are physics professors who try to do the same with lots of groundless assumptions. Or those that start everything with the Big Bang. And where did so much energy come from? Nowhere? I like to use the phrase, "In the beginning there was nothing ... which exploded." Goes to show how you can build a cult even around science.
Ah but God could have created the big bang.
There is nothing in science which conflicts with God
Yeah there is nothing wrong with the Big Bang Theory as it exists, as far as a God is concerned. Many people take it beyond its scientific boundaries, however, to use it in place of God.
Post by
Orranis
wishful are physics professors who try to do the same with lots of groundless assumptions. Or those that start everything with the Big Bang. And where did so much energy come from? Nowhere? I like to use the phrase, "In the beginning there was nothing ... which exploded." Goes to show how you can build a cult even around science.
Ah but God could have created the big bang.
There is nothing in science which conflicts with God
God, or a god?
God, in the sense of Elohim, Yaweh, Adonoy, or whatnot, is very unscientific.
The possibility of a sentient creator could possibly not conflict with science, but it seems rather unscientific to put a rule on something, then assuming without evidence that there is something breaking that rule, then not question whether the original object (the universe in this case) was subject to the rule at all.
Post by
MeanMachine
I believe the universe is infinite it has always existed and always will,
space is infinite it has no limits,
whether or not there is an infinite amount of matter I dont know.
And what is infinity. We cannot perceive it. Is it a hard limit to the size of everything? If so, infinity - 1 would make sense, or infinity / 2, but it doesn't. Not to mention that there are, in fact, transinfinite sets.
Take a line for instance. It consists of an infinite number of points. But what about a plane? It contains an infinite number of lines. But isn't that infinity times infinity? And what if we extend it further to hyperplanes? 3 dimensions, 4, 5, .... infinite dimensions? That goes an awful lot beyond the "universal limit".
In my opinion, and I stress the word
opinion
, infinity is a wishful thinking on our part. We do not like how things seem to extend forever and ever so we put a barrier, which ironically enough is unfathomable. Doesn't really help much.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The possibility of a sentient creator could possibly not conflict with science, but it seems rather unscientific to put a rule on something, then assuming without evidence that there is something breaking that rule, then not question whether the original object (the universe in this case) was subject to the rule at all.
These rules of which you are talking about are dependent upon our universe. God, according to most religions, does not lie within our universe.
THOR 4 LIFE!
But yeah, if you're going to posit X as the creator of Y, you can't apply Y's mode of existence to X.
Post by
Orranis
The possibility of a sentient creator could possibly not conflict with science, but it seems rather unscientific to put a rule on something, then assuming without evidence that there is something breaking that rule, then not question whether the original object (the universe in this case) was subject to the rule at all.
These rules of which you are talking about are dependant upon our universe. God, according to most religions, does not lie within our universe.
No, here's my idea.
There's God, and then there is the Universe. This makes up everything.
God created the universe, and the universe exists in cause and affect.
Thus, everything but God is cause and affect. Thus, God would be the exception to the rule that everything (not just our universe) is operated on cause and affect. But if God can break this rule, then why don't we question why the universe can't?
Post by
607995
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
*waiting for someone to post something about Chuck Norris*
Obviously not.
Post by
MeanMachine
According to Stephin Hawking, it was a "very tiny, ultra-hot fog of energy."
Absolutely, but that's as far as we can backtrack it. And where the hell did so much energy come from. Vacuum energy is not nearly enough. quantum fluctuations? And why would they be a billion billion times stronger than normal? Besides, you have to assume that there was a space which fluctuated.
And, you see, there we go blindly guessing. Why are God or a celestial battle of thirty-dimensional beings not as valid as quantum mechanics? Don't go probabilistic or scientific here, because statistical probability is thrown out of the window when you don't know a single variable.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, here's my idea.
There's God, and then there is the Universe. This makes up everything.
God created the universe, and the universe exists in cause and affect.
Thus, everything but God is cause and affect. Thus, God would be the exception to the rule that everything (not just our universe) is operated on cause and affect. But if God can break this rule, then why don't we question why the universe can't?
Because the statement that 'everything operates according to cause and effect' is self-contradictory. There is a reason why I said '
the universe
operates according to cause and effect.'
And, you see, there we go blindly guessing. Why are God or a celestial battle of thirty-dimensional beings not as valid as quantum mechanics? Don't go probabilistic or scientific here, because statistical probability is thrown out of the window when you don't know a single variable.
Occam's Razor. Probability can still be applied.
Post by
607995
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
364444
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Oh and to the whole " before" issue. There was no "before" the universe. There is nothing "before" the advent of time.
Post by
Orranis
No, here's my idea.
There's God, and then there is the Universe. This makes up everything.
God created the universe, and the universe exists in cause and affect.
Thus, everything but God is cause and affect. Thus, God would be the exception to the rule that everything (not just our universe) is operated on cause and affect. But if God can break this rule, then why don't we question why the universe can't?
Because the statement that 'everything operates according to cause and effect' is self-contradictory. There is a reason why I said '
the universe
operates according to cause and effect.'
What? You still haven't answered my question. I'm not saying that everything operates on cause and affect, but that if one thing does not, then how can you say for sure there are not others?
But if God can break this rule, then why don't we question why the universe can't?
Because God created it so that it couldn't.
Apply what you're saying to humans (it's nowhere near comparable, but can be used in a relative sense). Just because I created a block of wood doesn't mean that it's going to have properties that apply to me. I have the abilities needed for locomotion but these abilities don't pass onto the block of wood because I didn't allow them to. If I gave that block of wood a set of wheels or legs, then it would have that ability but I did not.
God created our universe with specific boundaries and laws.
I don't know if that came out clearly, but hopefully I got the point across.
...But what if God didn't create the universe?
Post by
MeanMachine
Occam's Razor. Probability can still be applied.
Only as long as you know the underlying laws you can judge the simplicity of a given action. If the case is a boundless God (I think it's better than infinite, which would imply an actual limit), then yes, concentrate enough energy, tinker with the laws of organization and interaction and there we go. In a different case the simplest answer could differ.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.