What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[danot]

In what sense?

Well if the "nothingness"; that is in fact "something" was allegedly responsible for creating the cosmos due to quantum fluctuations, why would there not be a reason for it being there?..

[back2basics]

Well if the "nothingness"; that is in fact "something" was allegedly responsible for creating the cosmos due to quantum fluctuations, why would there not be a reason for it being there?..

 

Do some googling on this;

 

The Anthropic principle

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[danot]

Do some googling on this;

 

The Anthropic principle

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Thanks For that:thumbsup:

[skinz]

Well if the "nothingness"; that is in fact "something" was allegedly responsible for creating the cosmos due to quantum fluctuations, why would there not be a reason for it being there?..

 

Let's get this straight, I'm no scientist (even they have a problem with it).

 

The something within the nothing may not have been in the singular. The something within the nothing may have been diverse without any specific reason. Maybe the diversity within the nothingness came together and created "The big Bang" theory.

 

If you mix 2 pigments together you get a specific colour, but if those pigments are a billion light-years apart you wont. But because of a freak pigment movement in the nothingness of space you freakishly or ultimately get a collision. Hey presto, the big bang! Or should I say Green.

[danot]

Let's get this straight, I'm no scientist (even they have a problem with it).

 

The something within the nothing may not have been in the singular. The something within the nothing may have been diverse without any specific reason. Maybe the diversity within the nothingness came together and created "The big Bang" theory.

 

If you mix 2 pigments together you get a specific colour, but if those pigments are a billion light-years apart you wont. But because of a freak pigment movement in the nothingness of space you freakishly or ultimately get a collision. Hey presto, the big bang! Or should I say Green.

Yeah!.. could well be theoretically speaking. My heads hurting now.

[davyboy]

Nothing exists.....it's all in your mind.

You are imagining that I'm replying to your question.

In fact I'm imagining that I'm replying to SHEFFIELD FORUM which is a figment of my mind.

Scary isn't it?

[onewheeldave]

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

 

Sorry danot- I'm here to debate the issue, not amuse trolls

 

Here (again) is what I said-

 

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 must[/i] be true- that space does not require a further space to contain it.[/i]

 

now if you think-

 

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

 

is an appropriate reply to that, in the context of a discussion, then there's nothing more for me to say

 

however, it does show, in a logical manner, that space does not require a further space to contain it- if you still disagree with that, then now you need to point out where the argument is wrong.

[1ofTheseDays]

Why does it defy logic to say that nothing existed before the big bang?

 

Because by definition "nothing" is, well, nothing, so how can something start from nothing. Its a mind bender that science will ever answer.

 

I was talking to my grandad about this when i was a kid and he said to me - "there are some things that man is just not meant to know, and this is one of them". I thought that was just a cop out at the time, but i think he's right.

[HeadingNorth]

Because if there wasn't a "before", there wouldn't be anything that followed

 

We proved in post #23 that this is a false assumption. It invariably leads to a self-contradiction.

[AJ sheffield]

We proved in post #23 that this is a false assumption. It invariably leads to a self-contradiction.

 

Spoken like a true Vulcan...Live long and prosper.