What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[danot]

The proof for the Big Bang is in the matter around you that you can touch, and in the cosmic microwave background that bathes us in a 3 Kelvin deluge of microwaves.

Yes I know, that only proves the bang bang happened though.

[Obelix]

Yes I know, that only proves the bang bang happened though.

 

Which follows from that the absurdity as proven by formal logic of a First Cause - because to presume one exists leads very quickly to an absurdity.

[truman]

Are you asking in the theoretical sense, i.e, are you asking me if time travel is possible?

 

What does time travel have to do with quantum theory?

[danot]

Ok- if you're going to insist that a space requires a further space to exist in, or to expand into, then you're going to require an infinite regress of such spaces.

 

The 2nd space, which contains the first one, will similarly require a 3rd space to contain it.

 

The third space will require a 4th space, with, in turn, requires a 5t, etc..etc..etc

 

That never ends- it yields an infinite heirachy of higher spaces.

 

It may be that you're OK with that, but, when it comes to actual spaces, it cannot be, because we're talking about the creation of universes and hence, the creation of each of those spaces.

 

Space no.1 cannot exist until space no.2 does, because, on your original premise, that a space must be contained within a higher space, space no.1 cannot exist until it's container (space no.2) does.

 

Space no.2, similarly, cannot exist till space no.3 does, which, in turn can't exist untill....etc...etc.

 

Space no.1, in short, cannot exist until the entire infinite sequence of higherachy's of higher spaces actually exists in it's entirety- a position which is not possible as the sequence is infinite.

 

The only logical conclusion is that your original premise, that space must be contained, is wrong- thus the opposite [/i]must[/i] be true- that space does not require a further space to contain it.

Which would make the fallacy that scientists have created equally wrong when making unsupported presumption that the universe wasn't created?

[danot]

Since when does quantum theory require time travel to be possible? You are making a strawman

No strawman intended. So what did you mean by: "being in two places at once"?

[danot]

Given your current inability/refusal to accept that space can exist in and of itself, uncontained by a further space, you'll also have to accept that a creator would encounter the exact same problem.

 

i.e. a creator would be unable to create an uncontained space, because, by your reasoning, it is impossible that an uncontained space could exist.

 

And, that is the root of why scientists tend to avoid the use of 'creators' to explain the universe, because, the concept of a creator tends, upon analysis, to not explain anything- the things that are unexplained on 'non-creator accounts', tend, upon analysis, to remain unexplained when a creator is invoked.

 

Of course, no scientist can rule out the existence of a creator, but, given that, in the scientists eyes, the existence of a creator explains nothing that can't equally well be explained (or remain unexplained) by a non-creator account, there's absolutely no reason to bring in the creator in the first place.

Likewise, there's no need to make unsupported presumptions.. but they do!

[danot]

Which follows from that the absurdity as proven by formal logic of a First Cause - because to presume one exists leads very quickly to an absurdity.

Yet scientists choose to accept the idea that the universe was created from nothing, for no apparent reason other than to eliminate the possibility of it having been created.. it's flawed logic!

[truman]

No strawman intended. So what did you mean by: "being in two places at once"?

 

Have a look for the "double slit" experiment..

[Obelix]

No strawman intended. So what did you mean by: "being in two places at once"?

 

Where did I say that?

[Obelix]

Yet scientists choose to accept the idea that the universe was created from nothing, for no apparent reason other than to eliminate the possibility of it having been created.. it's flawed logic!

 

Where did I say that?