What existed before the big bang?

File: The Genesis in Modern English.png (345KB, 443x1347px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 443x1347px

>>8997451
God

>>8997451
Me.

>>8997451
Nothing, empty space.
Or maybe our universe is part of a larger structure.

The very concepts of time and space may not have existed before.

Really the very words "before" and "existed" can't even apply. It was the beginning of existence.

>>8997700
In other words we literally can't know

Might as well be God then

>>8997480
The author of this picture doesn't know any theoretical physics. How would space-time come into existence after the standard model?

>>8997451
IF something existed before the big bang, we currently have no way to know anything about it.

>>8997703
But for the sake of science, one then has to ask the old phrase 'where did God come from?'

I honestly find it more believable that a random, chaotic, cosmic, hellhole appeared out of thin air, than an omnipotent, omniscient super complex trans-dimensional being appearing out of thin air.

>>8997480
God's kinda a shitty engineer then. Why would he create a huge ball of burning shit to provide us with light, but simutaenously can give us skin cancer or blind us? Or stoke wildfires?

>>8998054
Really it's just a matter of preference at that level of speculation.

>>8998082
>such a godlet he can't even fusion or dark energy
>hurr God is a shitty engineer

>>8997480
came into this thread to say this but you beat me to it

Literally everything existed before the big bang

>>8998137
please elaborate

>>8997730
spacetime has no matter content. the laws of physics create spacetime.

>>8997451
I suppose there had to be some possibility for existence to appear. Can something non-existent cause possibilities?

>>8998054
>appearing
>implying an eternal being "appears"

>>8998054
How have you not seen the million responses that question has received from us?

God is an eternal spirit being. He did not "come from" anywhere, and He was not "created by" anyone or anything.

His name is I Am that I Am, and I Will Be What I Will Be.

And you will see Him, with your own eyes. That meeting will go one of two very different ways.

>>8997480
>>8997703
>>8998054
>>8998082
>>8998496
>god

this board has a rule: no science vs religion threads.

Go back to /pol

>>8997451
your question presupposes that big bang theory is true. since it is just an intrapolation of current trend you can't say if it is true or false. problem with models you can't verify is that you can't verify them

>>8998496
>things don't have to come from anywhere or be created by anything to exist
Thanks for showing the universe coming into existence on its own is a-ok

>>8997451
A big crunch. Our section of the universe is expanding right now. The areas near it are contracting, until they have their own big crunches and big bangs. When that happens, our area will have another big crunch.

>>8999416
Infinity is a hard thing to grasp for humans.

>>8998137
k

>>8998250
The universe didn't begin with the big bang
the universe has always existed
The big bang is just the origin of the observable universe's current form.
There are and infinite number of "universes" (speherical islands of mass) in an infinite cosmic backdrop.

>>8999422
Wrong
>>8999557
What GR implies but probably not true

>>8997451
A lonely unsuspecting scientist in a lab

>>8999557
and where'd that come from?

File: christ.jpg (32KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 800x600px

>>8998496
There are respectable conceptions of God out there. Yours is on the retarded side if you think that you are some distinct entity which can converse with and be judged by something that is definitively omnipresent/potent.

Also (mostly referring to that last bit you spewed), your outright and wholly confident claims of something so pulled out of one's ass is a legitimate sign of a learning/ thinking disorder as well as a social disorder (given that you would just tell someone that without feeling the need to justify yourself).

>implying GR isn't seriously faulty as a general form of the universe
>implying quantum gravity is ever going to make sense with QFT
GR is an approximation. With that in mind you can realize that the laws of physics did not always exist and that at some point they came into existence.

>>8998082
>he believes the nuclear heat-death sun theory
wew lad. riddle me this: if the sun is a big burning ball of nuclear material then how can it also be magnetic when heat and magnetism has an inverse relation?

a slight twang

>>8997700
Maybe it could be rephrased: what was logically prior to the big bang?

>>8998496
Wow, not to be an asshole but you sound like a retard. Get off this board.

Your mom

>>9000741
Magnetism in a ferromagnet breaks down with heat because of the increased energy allows the magnetic domains to break alignment.
The sun is a plasma, which is made of charged particles. When charges move, magnetic fields are created.

>>8999416
Things can exist or not, but they can't come into existence on their own.
The universe came into existence so there must have been something else to cause it to do it.
Eternal things exist but without any transition into existence so there's no need for anything else.

Do atheists deliberately misunderstand this?

The boot sequence for the simulation server.

>>9001259
WRONG

an idea can come into existence on its own

how about how religion fags deliberately misunderstand everything as an act of god, how does that taste

>>9001259
>>>8999416 (You)
>Things can exist or not, but they can't come into existence on their own.
>The universe came into existence so there must have been something else to cause it to do it.
Prove and qualify these statements

>>9001406
Not sure that's a great example, hes obvious going to say the someone creating ideas is the people who have their ideas in their head. You can't have ideas without minds

>>9001247
>which is made of charged particles
what is a charge and what did the charging? also define a field please for I do not understand.
also, if opposite poles of a magnet are attracting each other then why is there no magnetism in the middle of the magnet?

>>9001491
>can't have ideas without minds
ty, saved me the trouble

>Prove

>Things can exist or not
(A or not-A) = true, logic, law of excluded middle

>can't come into existence on their own
Statistical evidence: if things can come into existence uncaused we'd observe it, we keep on not observing it, that's good evidence that it can't happen.
Also it's in principle impossible to prove something happened uncaused even if it did so the evidence is all on the side of needing a cause to come into existence.

>universe came into existence
It looks like that's what happened 14 billion years ago, that's what everyone believes about it. Cosmologists are asking what caused it to happen and postulating branes and cyclic false quantum vacuum fluctuations and all sorts of things as causes.
And if it didn't start existing at some point it would have to have existed eternally but there's absolutely no evidence of that.

>must have been something else to cause it
because as above something can't come into existence on its own

BUT
getting me to prove the statements is a bit of a dodge. I'm wondering whether atheists actually understand first cause arguments because I always see this "oh yeah what caused god then?/universe could be uncaused" stuff.
You can understand without agreeing that it's correct, thing is that type of response suggests a misunderstanding.

Is it possible to trace back the location of the big bang from the direction on which the universe is expanding?

>>9002603
No because it's expanding everywhere.
Common analogy is imagine dots on the ~2D surface of a balloon being blown up. Every dot sees surrounding dots moving away, there's no central dot that tells you where the middle of the balloon is.
Big bang is the same only in 3D, the 'center' if it's anywhere isn't a location in space it's the first instant and we're expanding forwards in time away from it.

>>9002622
Alright, a no would've sufficed because that analogy made me even more confused since you can just deflate the balloon and find its original shape.

>>9002628
OK so no.

Maybe try it this way- the balloon's 3D center isn't anywhere on its 2D surface. An ant crawling on the balloon's 2D surface isn't going to be able to walk to the center, even if you deflate it.
"Location of the big bang" is the 4D center of the universe but if we only use 3 spatial dimensions we can't point to it, we need that additional dimension.

File: images (2).jpg (8KB, 212x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 212x238px

>>8997451
We can't know. It is a fundamental part of our mind to consider that everything has a cause- and, therefore, an effect. However, when we try to apply this essential aspect of reason many times, we can never get to an end- because everything must have a cause. Hence, human mind can never answer this problem, because it creates a fundamental contradiction of human reason- what Kant would call an "antinomy of pure reason".

>>9002622
if you believe in the big bang then logically you must either admit God is real or that it wasn't a true beginning in any sense but merely a changing of already existing particles

>>9002676
That's mostly right but I don't believe in the big bang.

>>9002567
>Statistical evidence: if things can come into existence uncaused we'd observe it, we keep on not observing it, that's good evidence that it can't happen.
No, lrn2evidence. It's good from a pragmatic viewpoint to say it can't happen because we haven't seen it happen, but from a rigorous viewpoint, that is absolute shit
>Also it's in principle impossible to prove something happened uncaused even if it did so the evidence is all on the side of needing a cause to come into existence.
>if there is no direct evidence for a thing, that thing does not exist
Well, there's no direct evidence of God, so... thanks for playing . Absence of evidence = evidence of absence, you can't claim something can't happen then point to the fact it hasn't happened to your knowledge as evidence that it can't happen. That would have precluded the development of lots of man-made inventions
>
>BUT
>getting me to prove the statements is a bit of a dodge.
>bro I don't know how to prove my claims and support them with valid evidence, just accept them or you're dodging the truth

>I'm wondering whether atheists actually understand first cause arguments because I always see this "oh yeah what caused god then?/universe could be uncaused" stuff.
The universe could be uncaused or self caused, and you haven't proved otherwise.

>You can understand without agreeing that it's correct
It is not.

>>8997451
A singularity, isnt the big bang just the destruction of a black hole by the hawking radiation? And iys manifestation of all its hidden matter in a expansive space?

>>8997451
Me, James! Me! The author of all your pain.

>>8997451
The small bang.

>>8997451

Have you not seen the end of Men in Black? We are merely a marble..

>>8998082
>being an aussie

>>8997451

Gangbang

>>8997647
No space either

>>8997451
Undefined.

>>9003173
Nope, black holes of that mass would only slowly lose their mass, not fast enough to create galaxies.

>>8997451
Nobody knows,any claims otherwise are not only ridiculous but stupid.

>>8997451
Who cares

>>8999557
Proves it

>>9000280
>Wrong

Not at all. The universe is unending. It has currents and eddies. Some areas expand and others contract. We are in an expanding section.

File: 1496592285198.jpg (20KB, 530x368px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 530x368px

>>9005686

File: 1494613575206.jpg (137KB, 720x692px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 720x692px

On a semi-related note, for those better informed: how bullshit is this image?

>>9005686
That's a hypothesis. Data points to isotropy, homogeneity and never ending expansion.

>>8998510
Religion isn't allowed on /pol/ either.

>>8997451
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe

>>9006445
It's simple really. If you are inside a black hole you get squashed!!!
Is this really from NASA?

>>9007153
The data about size of universe probably from NASA. The speculation about universe is black hole is not. They just stuck on NASA to try and improve credibility

Using logic I can tell you know with 100% surety that matter has always existed, and that it cannot be destroyed or created at a fundamental level.

>>8997451
HIGGS FIELD AND CHAOS.
NEXT.

File: this guy.png (1MB, 1366x727px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1366x727px

>>9008414
HIGGS FIELD BITCH

HIGGS. FUCKING. FIELD.

Matter didn't always exist. Energy became matter.

e=mc^2

REEEEEEEEREEEEEE

>>9008414
What happens when a proton meets an anti-proton?

>>9008450
They make baby radiation

>>9003150
>The universe could be uncaused or self caused, and you haven't proved otherwise.
Even assuming it was caused by an external force we know absolutely nothing about its nature. Theists often assume it's a sentient being, but there's no indication of that.

>>9002671
The end is God, Kant. And, no, the distinction between phenomenal and noumenal worlds does not problematize the principle of sufficient reason, simply because there is no noumenal world.

>>8997451
Don't know and would prefer not to think about it since it doesn't matter what the answer is, it is all pretty frightening to consider. This must be the kind of maddening knowledge that HP Lovecraft was talking about. It's one of the few thing man might genuinely be better off not knowing.

>>9006445
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+*+gravitational+constant+*+mass+of+observable+universe+%2F+speed+of+light%5E2
530 billion light years vs 46.6 billion light years

hmmm no.

>>9008445
Trump's bitch tits are visible, some what here.

>>8998054
Where did the thin air come from then?

Atheists BTFO.

>>8997451
absolutely nothing
no time, no space, no nothing
whatever exists outside of the universe could have existed here, if anything

>what existed before z?
>y
>well then what existed before y?
>x
>well then what existed before x?
>...
>...
>...

File: 1498889516156.jpg (460KB, 1331x941px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1331x941px

You can't really know.
Same thing goes for Moral Relativism, either something out there is objective truth or everything is subjective.
The only laws we have are those of math and physics, but then again, how are these laws, where did these come from?
In the end, you have to make a decision, everything is a random coincidence, or there is a creator out there. I Struggled with this question and found the Logos, Jesus Christ to be the truth. Look for the truth and you will find it. Pro-tip, the Bible is literally the word of God.
Try to disprove it without resorting to logical fallacies, if you really want to know, take the scientific method(which the bible has in there) to heart and do your own research.
God Bless.

I'm not religious but I really dislike the argument that either something always existed or it didn't and you can't argue it any further. I don't support Yahweh interpretation but why can't Dawkins and the like admit they dont have any idea?

>>8997451
Probably we're just a pocket space that suddenly popped into existence and expanded within a larger universe, which did the same, which did the same, forever and so on. This can theoretically happen in a bunch of ways: For example, we know that something can come from nothing, so it's possible that when a void gets big enough and the density of matter small enough, a big bang will happen by chance.

tl;dr average stuff

>>9009414
Life actually created air by itself by accident.

>>9010805
>For example, we know that something can come from nothing

Citation fucking needed; isn't it like a key tenet of physics that shit can't just come from nothing?

>>9010835
>Citation fucking needed
That's fair enough, it's a bold claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)

In this book, Hawking describes how the universe can form out of nothing because it is "nothing" -- all the positive energy (matter) is cancelled out by equal amounts of negative energy (gravity). This is why quantum fluctuations can happen with the uncertainty principle.

Basically, a quantum fluctuation happened in the void of another universe, then it rapidly expanded before it had a chance to disappear in the next moment. No energy was created in the pre-existing universe because everything in our universe has a net energy of Z E R O.

>>9010844
No one actually means by "nothing" what Hawking and other brainlets like Krauss claim to mean. They define nothing to skirt the theological and philosophical problems that they don't actually know how to deal with.

File: 1498531612250.jpg (48KB, 628x442px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 628x442px

>>9010072
>if you really want to know, take the scientific method(which the bible has in there)

>>9002671
Based Kant speaks. This makes sense but it doesn't mean that we can never know the answer. It also doesn't stop the universe, or multiverse whatever, an eternal entity.

>>9010844
>>9010894
It's a fantastic means of skirting the question because it's just universes all the way down.

Don't get me wrong, I understand how God of the Gaps is a fallacy (Hell, the fallacy was pointed out BY theologians), but such premises under the guise of being scientific are equally unscientific. Hell, I'm more likely to believe something exists in a base universe with different physics that can interact with our own and is based outside of "time" as we know it, or string theory is real there is a sentient 5+ dimensional being that is eternal by way of being above spacetime than I am to believe we're just going to start validating creation theories by saying nonconservative forces are cool because zero-energy universe hypothesis.

Granted, a zero-energy universe can last forever, too, which is cool, but I don't know if they mean that in a strictly technical sense and heat death is still an issue.

I think "We can't know" is a solid answer for stuff like this without taking sides on either religion or theoretical "science"

>>9002457
Not the anon you replied to but you sound like a dumb kid by this point


He answered your question, move on in the conversation.

spacetime always existed
it has a boundary at the big bang
it was in fact the future force that set it in motion
we as organisms evolved under the conditions of entropy and as such perceive the illusion of a time bias
the answers all lie within the data of QM which continue to be wildly misinterpreted.

>>9011584
In other words, it's not an answer to the question they claim to be answering at all. Saying that it is universes all the way down is also not an answer.

There is no sense in which this is a "God of the gaps" scenario. God isn't being treated as a scientific hypothesis, but a metaphysical answer to a metaphysical question.

How could you demonstrate that we cannot know the answer?

>>9011634
yet again my logic kills threads
and yes, turtles all the way down argument is not an argument. infinite universes simply means you don't even understand what one universe represents let alone multiple

>>9001132
there is no prior

File: proofs.png (124KB, 382x491px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 382x491px

>>9011634
>the answers all lie within the data of QM which continue to be wildly misinterpreted.

File: IxQqGAr.png (2MB, 844x1511px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 844x1511px

>>8997451

>>9012741
Why not? I specified *logical* priority to avoid the issue of time. Is there another issue I am missing?