What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[retep]

RE: What existed before the big bang?

Just another thing I thought about whilst painting doors at my parents today;

How about, in the higher eschelons of relativity (to which we are not yet privvy), could the big bang be related to a thought? Say for instance the OP and this thread. Until the OP posted it, it simply did not exist ... it came from nowhere!

 

 

(It'll probably end up going nowhere too but I'm being serious)

 

 

 

Aye, aye,is ther matter thin enuff to think eh? Did ya ivver see a square idea, or a oval thowt sur? Becos, yo kno'n, all matter mun have sum shape to exist in, an if thinkin be material, why have long thowts, an hard ans, an sum toimes varra soft ans, as yo seem to have just nah?

[Karis]

How can nothing create something Karis?

 

Correction!.. They are meaningless to you.

 

You're like a child who keeps asking the same question ad infinitum.

 

Sometimes, there are no answers that we can comprehend. I long LONG ago did away with questions like before (the universe began) because time and space are linked and the question of before is therefore meaningless as they have always existed.

 

But, again, clearly it's only meaningless to me as you can't fathom that concept.

[Alcoblog]

Aye, aye,is ther matter thin enuff to think eh? Did ya ivver see a square idea, or a oval thowt sur? Becos, yo kno'n, all matter mun have sum shape to exist in, an if thinkin be material, why have long thowts, an hard ans, an sum toimes varra soft ans, as yo seem to have just nah?

 

Mummy ..........!

[Greybeard]

Here' something for all the budding cosmologists to get their teeth into...

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html

[danot]

You're like a child who keeps asking the same question ad infinitum.

 

Sometimes, there are no answers that we can comprehend. I long LONG ago did away with questions like before (the universe began) because time and space are linked and the question of before is therefore meaningless as they have always existed.

 

But, again, clearly it's only meaningless to me as you can't fathom that concept.

Oh on the contrary, I've completely fathomed the concept, which is why I'm interested in hearing the theories on it.. wait a minute, you do realise that when talking about the unknown, there is no other alternative other than discussing theories don't you?... don't you?

[Lockjaw]

Like the theory of gravity is only a theory not a fact?

 

Walk off a skyscraper and you will change your mind about something only being a "theory"

 

Nope. Sorry, Obelix, you're confusing cause and effect there.

 

The effect, as everyone knows, is that you will plummet to your messy and colourful and idiosyncratically-sounding death.

 

The cause, on the other hand, is not known for certain. The current, widely accepted, theory is, as you say, the "theory of gravity".

[BritPat]

Possibly a big crunch !

[onewheeldave]

Where does it show that this is true?. what reason do you have to believe it's not wrong. What reason do scientists have to credit themselves with this unwarranted sense of achievement when making theoretical presumption on something far beyond their understanding and technological capabilities?.

 

It shows it's true in the argument that I posted- the reason I have to believe that it's not wrong is because it's a straight logical argument going from premises to conclusion and the logic is valid.

 

If I've made a mistake in the reasoning then you (or someone else here) can point it out to me and I'll admit I messed up.

 

As for your problem with scientists and their presumptions, it's not something I need to get into as the argument I presented is a matter of logic, not science.

 

Here it is again, why don't you try reading it, and, if you still think it's wrong, please do point out where the mistake is:

 

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

 

So- in your opinion, where's the mistake? (not with science/scientific presumption, but, with the reasoning above)

[flamingjimmy]

nothing created God that is the whole concept of God. God essentially means the uncreated creator. God is eternal you can only take things as far back as God once u start getting into who created God what you are talking about is no longer God.

 

Well if god can exist without being created then so can the universe.

 

If you disagree:

 

Why can god exist without being created but the universe can't?

[epiphany]

nothing created God that is the whole concept of God.

 

You could say that man created god. God is just another manifestation of human consciousness, and within those limitations, which is why it does not help in answering the bigger questions.