wtf happened before the big bang?

[human8]

wasn't it the Great Inhale?

[Diffusion]

But the big bang theory isn't purported to have created galaxies, but instead the ENTIRE universe originated from it. From nothing came everything we know to exist. No recollection of how this matter happened to appear out of nowhere, just blind faith that it did.

Not true. You're making incorrect assumption that the Big Bang theory claims that the universe was created out of "nothing" or "appeared out of nowhere", which is not the case at all. The Big Bang theory describes that the universe was once a very small, infinitely dense singularity, from which the observable universe we see today expanded from and evolved through a series of chemical and particle interactions. For the expansion to occur there must have been already pre-existing matter. How did it get there? We're not sure, but that is not what the Big Bang theory seeks to explain. The theory only seeks to explain the expansion of the pre-existing singularity into the observable universe we see today.

Believing in this theory makes believing in intelligent design just as plausible. They're both deemed as impossibilities, only one generally backs up their assertation with historical religious scripture, where the other doesn't. Science as we know it cannot define either, and therefore cannot confirm the truth and validity of either. Beyond this, we start delving into the metaphysical... which is far beyond the realms of science.

Again, not true. The Big Bang theory is seen as an impossibility only by people who have an extremely limited understanding of what the theory is, what it states, and what evidence we have to support it. How can you expect someone to accept the theory when their entire understanding of it is wrong?

And also, why do you assume that the Big Bang theory and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive? We can infer everything we know about the Big Bang theory from observable evidence we see today - the exponential expansion of the universe, the cosmic background radiation, abundance of light elements over heavy elements, etc. This is what we see, and this is exactly what one would expect from a "Big Bang" universe. One can easily assume that the Big Bang expansion is simply God's method of creation rather than rejecting the theory all together.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

We don't know yet; so that proves God did it.

[Mr. Clandestine]

The Big Bang theory describes that the universe was once a very small, infinitely dense singularity, from which the observable universe we see today expanded from and evolved through a series of chemical and particle interactions.

Granted, but since there is absolutely no explanation as to how this infinitely dense blob of matter just happened to appear in the middle of a great void of time and space, we'll just have to admit that we simply don't know what we don't know. Hence the reason the "Big Bang theory" is still a theory, it's still plagued by large amounts of speculation. Until science can definitively prove that this matter existed in the beginning, there is reasonable cause to reject the underlying hypothesis... because for the most part, we can't accurately describe what we don't understand. We can throw in all sorts of conjecture, based on more speculation about the random observable facts that we can see... but that still doesn't verify the theory.

We can infer everything we know about the Big Bang theory from observable evidence we see today - the exponential expansion of the universe, the cosmic background radiation, abundance of light elements over heavy elements, etc.

You're right. You can infer that this observable evidence directly correlates to the occurrence of a Big Bang. But, you can't explain where the infinite amounts of energy originated that blasted this matter forth into the universe... you can't actually observe the universe as it expands... you can't explain why the dispersed matter is "clumped" together as opposed to having been evenly distributed... and you can't actually determine which elements are more abundant. You can only speculate, and you should know that this is not science. This is actually where I find many purported "scientists" begin to dig around the realms of metaphysical explanations, and this is where they lose all credibility of actually being called scientists. There are also several other theories that just as accurately describe how this "evidence" could point out our origins, but they're equally as speculative. And now that we've got these great thinkers like Dawkins drooling over mathematical consistencies and spewing forth long-winded explanations, the Big Bang theory is just the most overly hyped fad of todays 'evolutionary scientists'. Nothing more. In another thousand years, if our world still exists, I have no reason to believe that this theory won't have become outdated and replaced. But in a thousand years, again... if we're still here, I have plenty of reason to believe that the opinions of a Christian will have remained unchanged.

One can easily assume that the Big Bang expansion is simply God's method of creation rather than rejecting the theory all together.

One can just as easily assume that the expansion is based mostly on intangibility and hypothetical scenarios that best "fit" the intended theory. Denying this doesn't make me ignorant of the facts, because for the most part, there are none that directly correlate to the proposed theory. As long as we're free to speculate, you have no authority to tell me that I'm wrong. Likewise for myself.

[Coelho]

Ive always found the idea of time travel intriguing, so that leads me to believe there are other dimensions that we cannot see or experience, and that these dimensions affect our 'laws' of life. Such as the constant speed of light. In certain ways we are begining to see that these laws can be modified and changed.

Basically I think there is sooo much stuff out there we dont know, that its going to take us a very, very long time to figure it out. Man, I love watching discovery channel wacked out.

I think this way also... even being a scientist (or maybe cause of this), i strongly believe that the physical world (the one which we usually can see and which is thought to "obey" the physical laws) is only one "layer" of the world... i believe that there are another non-physical worlds "superimposed" to the physical one, and all of them interact (even if only barely) with each another.
If you like this kind of stuff, maybe you will like to look this site: Beyond the Physical
It explains a LOT of things... and its accessible for everybody, without need of scientifical background (but having it helps a lot...).

One can easily assume that the Big Bang expansion is simply God's method of creation

Exactly... the Big Bang theory says that in the beggining everything was concentrated in a very small volume, and everything was energy. Well... light is energy. So, when its said: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Gen 1:3, it may as well be a description of the creation of that primordial state of the universe.
Also, after some expansion, the energy stopped to fill all the universe, and it would account for the separation between light and darkness described in the next verse : "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." Gen 1:4.

We don't know yet; so that proves God did it.

Why not? In the end, it may be right...

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Why not? In the end, it may be right...

Well, the thing is... I'm really sure that the universe was designed by trillions upon trillions of invisible omniscient pixies. It's impossible to disprove the pixies, and the pixie theory fits perfectly into the missing piece of the creation puzzle.


My point being; the pixie hypothesis and the God hypothesis are both the same thing; a hypothesis. There is no actual evidence pointing to God, but rather God is assumed to be the only option because he fits so well where we can't explain the unexplained. As I showed with my pixies though, all you need is an active imagination to think of something that perfectly explains anything unexplainable. There's no extra empiracle evidence to give God more validity than my pixies.


When you really analyze the notion of God, it's like somebody decided to design the perfect logical explanation. "Ok, here's what we do; we think of a guy that can do everything, knows everything, is infinite in every respect, and he created the universe." When you design the infinite being, he will of course fit into every explanation.

[Coelho]

Gandalf, the idea of God was not a rational creation of someones mind. It comes from peoples mystical experiences. When they were in such alterated states of consciousness (where reason is usually useless or even meaningless), they percieved that there was a "source" from everything that was and is (and will be), and when returned to "normal" waking consciousness, they called it "God", and tried to fit it in human concepts, for describing it to others.
But as God is far beyond any human concept, they had a hard time doing it, and the best they could was say that it was everywhere, that it could do anything, that it knew everything, and so... this descriptions being only the best way they could fit the greatness of God in mere human concepts and words. God is beyond words, beyond concepts, beyond anything our human minds can reach.
But people insists in treating it as one concept, as one thing that the human mind can understand. And doing so, obviously they are not talking about the God that Is, but about a human concept that i will call god (without capital letter).
So, IMHO, anybody who never did "see" God, or rather, who never had a mystical experience and percieved Him as He is, simply dont know what they are talking about when talks about God. It includes myself, as i never had such mystical experience (yet). But, from what ive understood about this experiences, im sure that my explanation will make sense to the ones who actually had such experiences, and who are the only rightly entitled to talk about God.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Gandalf, the idea of God was not a rational creation of someones mind. It comes from peoples mystical experiences. When they were in such alterated states of consciousness (where reason is usually useless or even meaningless), they percieved that there was a "source" from everything that was and is (and will be), and when returned to "normal" waking consciousness, they called it "God", and tried to fit it in human concepts, for describing it to others.
But as God is far beyond any human concept, they had a hard time doing it, and the best they could was say that it was everywhere, that it could do anything, that it knew everything, and so... this descriptions being only the best way they could fit the greatness of God in mere human concepts and words. God is beyond words, beyond concepts, beyond anything our human minds can reach.
But people insists in treating it as one concept, as one thing that the human mind can understand. And doing so, obviously they are not talking about the God that Is, but about a human concept that i will call god (without capital letter).
So, IMHO, anybody who never did "see" God, or rather, who never had a mystical experience and percieved Him as He is, simply dont know what they are talking about when talks about God. It includes myself, as i never had such mystical experience (yet). But, from what ive understood about this experiences, im sure that my explanation will make sense to the ones who actually had such experiences, and who are the only rightly entitled to talk about God.

Damn Coelho, that's the best description of God I've ever heard! That's actually what I believe myself. You look at some of the amazing revelations of Shamans, the Koran, Bible, Torah, The Buddha Dharma, and so much more, and there is definately some outside force influencing ones knowledge. I'm not actually an atheist, but A-deist (a non-belief in dieties).

Deifying God is such a primitive way of understanding the forces of the universe. And not just in making God a "him", but making the source of everything a separate conscious being in and of itself. What you described perfectly explains what I've been thinking. But this is why I don't think we even need to call this force "God". Some call it the Tao, some call it space-time under the rules of string theory, some call it the ultimate nature of everything; the true link diminishing the barriers between supposed "nothingness" and "somethingness".

Good description anyway. :thumbsup:

[Coelho]

Im glad that you did understand. :thumbsup:
In fact, i arrived at this description after "mixing", or rather comparing what i knew about Christianism, Buddhism, Shamanism, Occultism, and some more... i did realize that there was something common underlying all this religions... and i only call it God because i was born and raised Christian, and am half (or more) Christian myself... but of course the name we give to it is what matters less... as the important is our notion, how we imagine it.
And i sincerely hope to meet Him (or It)... one day, who knows?...

[dragonrider]

Granted, but since there is absolutely no explanation as to how this infinitely dense blob of matter just happened to appear in the middle of a great void of time and space, we'll just have to admit that we simply don't know what we don't know.

According to quantum physics, particles do arise out of the void all the time. Virtual particle pairs, a particle and an anti-particle, arise out of the vacuum and then recombine and disappear in immeasurably short periods of time. This is called a vacuum fluctuation. The larger the particle, the less statistically likely it is to appear, and the shorter the period of time that it lasts. So there is a remote, but statisticaly possible chance that a virtual elephant might appear in your living room, but it would be gone so quickly that it wouldn't really have any effect.

One model for the Big Bang holds that the Universe arose as a vacuum fluctuation. It was an incredibly massive singularity that arose out of the vacuum. Ordinarily such a massive vacuum fluctuation would reconcile its virtual particle pairs in an unimaginabley short period of time and disappear back into the void, but because of the density and pressure, the singularity curved space-time and triggered a massive inflation of space-time. During this super inflation, the virtual particle pairs become irreconcilably separated in space and a stable universe resulted which was not going to instantaneously fall back into oblivion.

So it is not right to say that there is "absolutely no explanation as to how this infinitely dense blob of matter just happened to appear in the middle of a great void of time and space." It arose as a vacuum fluctuation.