What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[mickw]

The whole crux of the arguament is that when people have refered to nothing and something on this froum you get up in arms about nothing being nothing and something being something ,Correct!

 

What I mean is that by referring to nothing we automatically exept its existance, ergo giving it something status.

 

If you can't wrap your head round that one don't leave a purile reply:FULL STOP

[artisan]

The whole crux of the arguament is that when people have refered to nothing and something on this froum you get up in arms about nothing being nothing and something being something ,Correct!

 

What I mean is that by referring to nothing we automatically exept its existance, ergo giving it something status.

 

If you can't wrap your head round that one don't leave a purile reply:FULL STOP

 

That is the trouble we have no definition of nothing.

We can define the absence of something, as Vacuum.

But we cannot define the absence of everything, You try and define it, cos I cant.

[JFKvsNixon]

That is the trouble we have no definition of nothing.

We can define the absence of something, as Vacuum.

But we cannot define the absence of everything, You try and define it, cos I cant.

 

That's the whole point, how can you describe something that you cannot visualise?

[HeadingNorth]

What I mean is that by referring to nothing we automatically exept its existance, ergo giving it something status.

 

 

You are incorrect; once again, misunderstanding of the concept of a privative.

[mickw]

Never a truer word spoken.

 

Like I said previously anything else is symantics!

[danot]

This is a natural human failing, but it is, nevertheless, a failing. The word "nothing" is a privative; it describes an absence of things, and doesn't exist in its own right.

 

"Nothing exists" is equivalent to saying "No thing exists;" in this case, no anything. No light, no space, no matter, no energy, no vacuum, no emptiness; nothing. When we go on to talk about the "nothing" in its own right, we are falling into a semantical trap and forgetting that it's an abbreviation for "absence of anything."

I would argue that the term "nothing" represents the 'not having an explanation for how or why the universe came into being at all', rather than "nothing" existing before the big bang.

 

There's no reason why anyone should believe that "nothing" existed before the big bang, no reason what so ever. Not unless they accept any old mumbo-jumbo that scientists are spoon feeding them.

[artisan]

That's the whole point, how can you describe something that you cannot visualise?

 

exatamundo:thumbsup:

What I have always said.

[mickw]

You are incorrect; once again, misunderstanding of the concept of a privative.

 

Your argument is pointless

[Karis]

If you can't wrap your head round that one don't leave a purile reply:FULL STOP

 

Oh, c'mon. It was funny!

 

You insulted me and I made a joke.

 

Again with the irony that some people take these posts way too seriously!

[mickw]

I don't insult people I only reciprocate in kind.

 

As for irony, is that the American kind?