wtf happened before the big bang?

[enjoi]

Wow, this is seriously one of the best threads, if not the best thread, I have ever read in my entire life. I've been sitting here for over an hour just researching the basics behind these theories, I'm so interested in them. I'm sure I'll eventually give up once it starts getting too hard to comprehend without knowing the math behind it but this has really got me thinking. 4 Star thread.

[Zannies]

Yeah, no human has the mental capacity to accept the concept of something appearing in our eyes from nothing because that defeats the whole idea of our reality. But what if our reality isn't the only reality. which it probably isn't. that probably makes no sense

and the only reason why i think religion would be my thing in the future is to fight the thoughts of afterlife i get. even if its brainwashing, i hate these thoughts and they make me feel like shit. the whole "nothingness, never to be again" makes me feel so bad.

[DarkHairedSativa]

i was high one day and was thinking about the big bang and stuff.
and thought what happened before the big bang? scientist always talk about the big bang and everything that happened after that, but none talk about before the big bang?

Very simply other scientists have proven the theory is bunk.....I am personally a Christian,so I believe in Creation. Read the book Starlight and Time.It's written by a scientist....It's extremely interesting and covers different scientific theories from a science perspective.Pretty cool!!:thumbsup:

[snowblind]

the leading theory on the big bang was that there was one iota more peice of matter than their was anti matter. this therefore cause the spark we know as the big bang, due to an imbalance. it is well documented that the universe is exanding and scientists are working on fining a point of origin using the degredation of energy from the big bang that we still see in the universe in the form of back ground radiation. there are two major theories, that firstly the universe will expand indefinately, this is somewhat beyond the human's minds conception but it is probable.

the other maybe more believable is that the universe will expand till it reaches a criticle mass, then it will implode back upon itself. this would make the universe in all definition behave like a wave, as is light which only behaves this way when observed, so it is likely that the universe will recreate itself but posible on the negative side to complete a cycle, so there may be a dawning where anti matter is prevelant in the universe and all things are the fundemental opposite.

this still begs the question as to what the universe exists within, what plain or body it is contained within. this however is detrient to the fact that the universe is trying to be explained with human logic, when in honesty it is the wrong way of thinking, humans have to be explained within the logic of the universe as it is absolute.

humans have tried for milenia to find a god, answer, body who created, contains or controls the universe, but this is ultimately flawed human logic.

its the kinda question that will make you go insane and will never be answered. dshame really

snowblind

[king of the world]

i know that science and religion dont really mix well ,but i dont think that they are mutually exclusive. i mean think about it for a second, could it not be possible that there is a god, and before the big bang there was nothing, then god "let there be light." which caused the big bang.

so to put it in question form:

do you think that science(big bang and stuff) and religion (god and stuff) are mutually exclusive?

[HighTillIDie]

i know that science and religion dont really mix well ,but i dont think that they are mutually exclusive. i mean think about it for a second, could it not be possible that there is a god, and before the big bang there was nothing, then god "let there be light." which caused the big bang.

so to put it in question form:

do you think that science(big bang and stuff) and religion (god and stuff) are mutually exclusive?

now while this is possible simply because i think it will be another thousand years before man better understands the universe... we still don't know sooo sooo much... and the only way to know any of this is to basically die

BUT the bible and most other religous texts state creation as instant... or instant steps, in short periods of time... so that does wane(sp) on those theories

but really what does it change? i follow the breadcrumbs my life has left me

[make it legal]

I don't think it's truly infinite, meaning that you will never hit a boundary and never see the same thing twice. I like the idea that if you go in one direction long enough, you end up where you were. Many people believe that. Maybe I only like it because it's much easier than comprehending infiniteness.

[natureisawesome]

I don't know how it happens, but sometimes I type things trying to speak the truth in a loving way, and then I read it afterwards and it comes out really agressive. Sorry if it seems that way, it's not my intention.

Lucky G said :

Doesn't it also make sense that the proper environmental conditions happened to arise, and life leapfrogged itself to accommodate to these conditions, adapting when said conditions changed, leaving us (all life on this planet) where we are today?

No. Only life begets life.

For every piece of information pointing to this or that theory, there is something indicating against it.

I've heard statements like this before, and I really think people don't think about this very much. Sometimes the information is inconclusive, and this can be misleading. But what we know for certain, those thing we can scientifically anylize here today, we can compare to theories available and use to build upon those premises. There are many verifable evidences of creation. The problem is, we don't know everything, and for many until they see with thier eyes God creating the universe when he takes them back in time to see it, they won't believe. And maybe they wouldn't believe even then. But if a person discredits creationism because of it's lack of evidence ("were you there???"), then it would indeed prove to be overwhelming hypocricy on the part of the evolutionist.


cannabis4for20 said:

That articles answers a question with facts that can't be proven. They state that god created the universe, without any facts to back up that statement. But they do not explain who created God, they just say that god always was, without having a beginning. But everything has to have a beginning. Even if it didn't though, you could just use that same argument to say that the matter which separated after the big bang just always was.

It does indeed answer with facts. The question you asked was about who created God or where did God comes from. The article directly answers that from a biblical perspective. If God exists, how would you expect someone to show you eternity??? Should I just send it to you in a box or something?

The article pointed out that everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning and therefore must have had a first cause. God does not need a cause because he never had a beginning. He's been forever and ever.

The article also uses other scientific facts to show that the universe cannot expand forever, that according to the laws of thermodynamics the universe cannot continue forever it will slow down to a dead stop, even in an oscillating universe "Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past."

It points out that "there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place" and that "the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction"


Also, very importantly it points out "that Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical â??big crunchâ??.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, â??There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.â?? Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and thatâ??s the end.8"


It points out several other things as well. I guess it's easy for you to blow off the evidence I've provided when the material is off site.

Listen, according to the laws of the universe, according to every scientific experiment ever conducted by a human being, every effect has a cause. But that only applies in the physical universe. God is outside of time. He created time. He's beyond our full comprehension. People are saying how it's all too much for us to grasp. Well there it is. God is too much for us too grasp. But at the same time in his wisdom and his all mighty power he gave us a comprehension of God.

Even if it didn't though, you could just use that same argument to say that the matter which separated after the big bang just always was.

no. because ultimately the cause of the big bang would have a previous cause and it would in the end have to have an original cause. That's just the natural laws that exist. If we had no understanding of natural laws then that might be a consideration. But according to all of the scientific evidence ever recorded, every cause has an effect.

And I would really like someone to answer the quote about the universe not being a banana. Particularly this statement:

This universe canâ??t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldnâ??t have any properties until it actually came into existence."

Think of the order in the universe. All the natural laws that hold things together and keep everything from being absolutel chaos. I think we take that for granted. If there is no God keeping order in the heavens and the universe just happened, then there is no reason to believe that the coming to be of the universe is any more to be expected than the big bang producing a gallon of ice cream.


vej33 said:

God was really bad at physics...

if he really did mean to create us all in his image, and make sure that His word was spread far and beyond, why would he create a place where only 1 planet out of an infinite number could sustain the life that would spread "the gospel"?

Because he only wanted the gospel spread upon that one planet!

All those aliens you see in star wars can't be made in God's image. Only we are made in God's image. There's no reason to spread us all over the universe. God put us here, and it started with two people in the middle of the universe. that sounds right to me.

Billionfold said:

Does the bible say anything about the sun engulfing us in the distant future?

No. And even if that were really to happen, it wouldn't be for another 5 billion years if I remember correctly.

sombrero said:

And of course time is something without substance, so doesn't really exist.

I'll ignore the other things you said, but I will mention that time is in fact finite, and I suggest you study up on some physics.

snowblind said:

there are two major theories, that firstly the universe will expand indefinately, this is somewhat beyond the human's minds conception but it is probable.

the other maybe more believable is that the universe will expand till it reaches a criticle mass, then it will implode back upon itself.

I don't know about the first one, but I know as far as the second, this is not possible. Take a look at the page I liked to earlier which points our that there is too little mass for gravity to stop expansion.

[make it legal]

"Because he only wanted the gospel spread upon that one planet!"

I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. Why would he do that? What about allllllll the other planets he created? He doesn't care about them or the life they may support? Why go through the trouble of creating EVERYTHING if he's not going to use it?

Do you really take everything in the Bible literally? What about the things that have been proven without doubt to be wrong, for example; earth being the center of the universe.

I suggest you read a book called "The Last Templar." It's a very
good book and I would recommend it to anyone. Anyway, I don't mean to be an asshole or anything about your religion, but I just can't help being skeptical, no, more like have 99% doubt about everything I hear about the religion.

Religions are like living species. They probably start small, then get bigger and bigger, but eventually, most species of animals will go extinct and die out. The same happens with religion.

Personally, I think religion in general causes waaaaaay too many problems. Far more than they solve. They cause war, discrimination, and much more.

One last food for thought: There are soooo many religions in the world, most of them conflicting each other. Everybody believes theirs to be right. Everybody's can't be right though, obviously, so what makes you so sure yours and the right one?

[snowblind]

the thing about life and specifically life on the earth is that it is dependent on 3 things, carbon, oxygen and light from the sun. all our energies when traced back to its roots are derived from the sun, with the possible exception of nuclear power, yet with complex physics it is possible to relate the two. these are the things we and all life forms on earth need and needed to create and sustain life.
its is arguble that electricity, initially from lightening then from sustained bio creation is required but this is not an exclusivity of life, more perhaps its defining characeristic.
we where created on this earth due to circumstances adn chance, out planet being the rght distance, water, food, primordial soup, lightening. this created living cells, evolution, big macs yadda yadda yadda.
but this is not to say that the life we know as being life is the only only life form in the universe. so to think that we are alone or that god created us is wrong.
yet the idea of god is one that i personally think has been miscontrued through all the religons and all the 'holy people'
i think god or the nature of god is life, but is energy in essence, not nessecerially a being or a concious but unexplainable vibrating of particles, atoms, quarks, that sustain us.
all religon takes of the good and the bad the light and dark and i think they are there on the cusp of it, but it has been flawed and manipulated by human control.
llight really is the essence of the human world and probably but not ultimately other life forms.

in response to the person asking about mutual exclusivity of religon and science. they are not mutually exclusive at all and infact often youse each other to explain their own downfalls.

i would argue more that science is the dominet with religon filling in the blanks, but it is important to treat things with spiritualatiy otherwise we become nothing more than bio chemical reactions.

science has always been condemed by religon thanks to small minded religous zealots, who seek power, control and wealth through the masses.

religon for all the good it does in this world and it does do alot, is the cause of so much pain and suffering. due to the small mindedness of those that loose the inherent meaning of each religon so easily when it is attacked. love, peace and respect.

this truely is the gateway to a higher existence and to a rested soul. and no god could deny a person on the grounds of following the wron sect, because they are all just sects of the same thing, if they adhere to those simple principles.

this is why i love weed

i love physics

and i love debating the universe

it always reminds me of the stars, i love to look at them because they never seem to change, yet the world does so fast and in 100 years they will be the only things that know who i am.

peace and progress

snowblind