What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[HeadingNorth]

No, No you totally misunderstand.

Or are you deliberately doing it?

I mean because we are Humans we need an explanation for everything.

It is our very nature to investigate and define the whole of our existence.

 

Ah, well in that case yes, you're right. We seek an explanation for everything.

 

That does not, though, mean that we are going to get one. Nothing says that the Universe must be constructed, and operate, in ways which are comprehensible to us. Indeed, quantum mechanics suggests very strongly that it is not!

[artisan]

Granted, but it's a pointless one. There is no reason to assume that such a God exists at all, since there is no reason to assume that the Universe must have been created by anything.

 

If we're going to invoke entities merely because we choose to, then Plekhanov's super-god is just as valid as your god.

 

You seem to be missing the complete point here.

Modern theory says that 15 billion years ago that a massive expansion occourred from a a singularity.

That is a nothing, it was nothing at all.

No space, no time, it has now expanded into the Universe as we see it.

You have two ways to believe.

God did it

or nothing did it

You have to decide the way you go on your death bed.

I think I will gamble on God, as the other wont pay me out.

[Draggletail]

Yes, I know the obvious answer is,'nothing existed before the big bang; how could it?.. but to accept that theory defies logical. Something must have existed before the singularity, which went on to form our universe exploded/expanded(whatever)into being.

 

How could time and space not exist before this; well I'll accept that time couldn't exist before it, but space must have, or at least something to the affect of space must have existed to allow the expansion of the singularity.

 

So does anyone have any theories on this cos it's mind-boggling.

 

Just maybe our present big bang is slowing down and going into a 'backwards motion' (a big shrink?) If that's the case, our present big bang was the product of a previous big shrink - ad infinitum .....

 

Doesn't really answer you question really though does it

[onewheeldave]

Granted, but it's a pointless one. There is no reason to assume that such a God exists at all, since there is no reason to assume that the Universe must have been created by anything.

 

If we're going to invoke entities merely because we choose to, then Plekhanov's super-god is just as valid as your god.

 

'Invoke' is another unfortunate choice of word to use in connection with a proposed being whose essence is to always exist

 

It's a long established argument in the philosophy of religion-

 

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

 

Plekhanov's super-god is far from valid, as one of it's characteristics is that it creates a God whose essence is to always exist and, therefore is logically impossible to create: Plekhanov's super-god therefore performs the logically impossible and thus cannot possibly exist.

[onewheeldave]

You seem to be missing the complete point here.

Modern theory says that 15 billion years ago that a massive expansion occourred from a a singularity.

That is a nothing, it was nothing at all.

No space, no time, it has now expanded into the Universe as we see it.

You have two ways to believe.

God did it

or nothing did it

You have to decide the way you go on your death bed.

I think I will gamble on God, as the other wont pay me out.

 

Not just 2 possibilities though, as Descartes pondered, the creator could be a 'malicious Demon'- just as powerful as God, but with a desire to deceive.

 

Maybe the creator sets up the universe it creates, such that all those who 'gamble on God', go to hell for an eternity of suffering?

 

You won't get paid out then

[HeadingNorth]

'Invoke' is another unfortunate choice of word to use in connection with a proposed being whose essence is to always exist

 

 

Not at all. What I am saying, is that you invoke the concept of a god in order to explain something. It is the concept being invoked, not the actual God.

 

As a concept, it's a pointless one. It explains nothing that cannot be equally well explained without invoking it.

[hard2miss]

You can say God did it but leave it open to interpretation what 'God' is.

[Cyclone]

It doesn't matter whether you leave it open to interpretation or not, if you invent something that starts creation, you still need to explain where the 'something' came from.

[danot]

No it doesn't. To suggest that everything has a reason to exist assumes that there is some meaning behind everything when, in effect, most things happen through what scientists understand as simply 'cause and effect'.

So the rules of cause and effect only apply to things that scientists have an understanding of?.. even I'm struggling to keep a straight face saying that, no wonder Dawkins smiles a lot.

[danot]

Within the Universe, that appears to be so. Even in the hardest of vacuums ther are still quantum fluctuations.

 

 

Outside of the Universe, the Universe's rules do not apply.

I thought there was no outside of the universe?. If there was, wouldn't the universe be contained within it?