There was no "before" before the Big Bang

[Yoder777]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe:

"Its gravitational field is so powerful it doesn't only warp and distort light but also time," he explained. Time, thus, doesn't exist in the black hole.
Using this as the final key to revealing how the universe created itself, Hawking explained that if you travel back in time toward the moment of the big bang, the universe gets smaller until it comes to a point where the whole universe is in a space so small that it is "in effect a single infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole."
He concluded, "You can't get to a time before the big bang because there was no before the big bang. We have finally found something that doesn't have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means there is no possibility of a Creator because there is no time for a Creator to have existed."
http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...othing-is-possible-53589/#IYHCAKMALsRUP6Dm.99

Furthermore, it's special pleading to claim that the universe required a cause that was itself uncaused.

 

[lesliedellow]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe:

Is that why we have atheist scientists indulging in the kind of speculation that makes the doctrine of that Trinity look mundane? Trying to rule a question out of bounds is the last refuge of somebody who feels severely embarrassed by that question.

 

[justlookinla]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe:



Furthermore, it's special pleading to claim that the universe required a cause that was itself uncaused.

Would this not be a supernatural claim?

 

[Yoder777]

It's like you guys didn't even read the original post. Here is more:

One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue...
The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[31] Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[31] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments

 

[lesliedellow]

It's like you guys didn't even read the original post. Here is more:

I will repeat what I said before. Why, if the question is meaningless, do we have atheist scientists indulging in unverifiable speculations, such as the big bang being the result of two branes colliding? Answer: Because they want an explanation which doesn't involve God, no matter how far outside the proper remit of science that takes them.

 

[juvenissun]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe:

Furthermore, it's special pleading to claim that the universe required a cause that was itself uncaused.

Your concept applied God, not to the universe.

 

[Yoder777]

It's special pleading to claim that God is uncaused if everything requires a cause.

 

[Strathos]

Most of this type of science is still relatively speculative.

 

[Steve Petersen]

When you get done with all the arguing, either the uni/multiverse has alway existed, or it hasn't. How different is this from claims of the same for a Creator?

 

[Black Dog]

I will repeat what I said before. Why, if the question is meaningless, do we have atheist scientists indulging in unverifiable speculations, such as the big bang being the result of two branes colliding? Answer: Because they want an explanation which doesn't involve God, no matter how far outside the proper remit of science that takes them.

Yeah, same thing with lightening. Lots of people believed Zeus sent it, but those crazy scientists just HAD to find an explanation that didn't involve Zeus, no matter how far outside the proper remit of science it took them. Those zany guys!

BTW, what's the proper remit of science?

 

[Yoder777]

There's no need to assume there's a multiverse or anything before the Big Bang if Stephen Hawking is correct.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yeah, same thing with lightening. Lots of people believed Zeus sent it, but those crazy scientists just HAD to find an explanation that didn't involve Zeus, no matter how far outside the proper remit of science it took them. Those zany guys!

BTW, what's the proper remit of science?

The proper limit of science is formulating FALSIFIABLE hypotheses about the physical world, and then testing them. Speculation about what caused the big bang is not science, but pure metaphysics, and it doesn't stop being metaphysics if you dress it up in "scientific" language.

 

[jacks]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe:

How convenient.

 

[Black Dog]

The proper limit of science is formulating FALSIFIABLE hypotheses about the physical world, and then testing them. Speculation about what caused the big bang is not science, but pure metaphysics, and it doesn't stop being metaphysics if you dress it up in "scientific" language.

It still has nothing to do with scientists looking for any explanation that avoids God, as you asserted. That makes no sense, many scientists are Christian, so why would they avoid God? It looks like you're upset God is going to be removed from one more Gap.

 

[lesliedellow]

It still has nothing to do with scientists looking for any explanation that avoids God, as you asserted. That makes no sense, many scientists are Christian, so why would they avoid God? You're just upset that it looks like God is going to be removed from one more Gap.

"..... many scientists are Christian"

That is why I said specifically atheist scientists. You do not hear that kind of speculation coming from the mouths of (say) John Polkinghorne or John D Barrow.

 

[Black Dog]

"..... many scientists are Christian"

That is why I said specifically atheist scientists. You do not hear that kind of speculation coming from the mouths of (say) John Polkinghorne or John D Barrow.

You are factually wrong. Theist scientists have speculated on how the big bang started without including God.

 

[lesliedellow]

You are factually wrong. Theist scientists have speculated on how the big bang started without including God.

Name names. Scientists are not doing science when they indulge in that kind of speculation, and theistic scientists have already got their metaphysics sorted out, so they don't need that sort of pure speculation.

 

[davedajobauk]

We conclude [wrongly] that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer.
(Niels Bohr)

I agree.

After all, what.... is 'a thought' ?
How long does a man's 'thought' endure ?
God's thoughts are not, our thoughts (?)
How long, might God's thoughts endure (omnipresent)
Our understanding is NOT, God's understanding (?)

What if ?
The Universe (what we know of it)
came into being, simply-because, God, had a thought
What if, every atom, nucleus, photon and electron ~within the Universe
WAS, put into place, by the power of a simple thought ?

"God has prepared a mansion of many rooms"
How many cells do we have in our brains
AND, how many of those, does God have

What if ? our Universe, is
between a presynaptic membrane and, a postsynaptic membrane in God's mind ?
and, simply, because He can

What if ? the book, His book ~our story, has already been written
and WILL come to pass, because He has willed it, so, to be ?

We, were created.... IN, 'His image' .... (?) inside of, Him ?

 

[davedajobauk]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe:

Can this be proved / disproved ?

How can anyone KNOW THIS ?


Hearsay and speculation


At first, there was nothing, not-even light
and then, two massive black holes (spinning in opposite directions)
were brought together and became unravelled

^^ sounds about 'right' to me (string-theory ~unstrung)

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I still don't understand how nothing turns into something. It makes zero sense. So something...er... nothing?!? the size of nothing exploding from nothing into something and formed LOTS of nothing beyond what we can imagine. At least when you add a Creator it would make more sense because He can create things from nothing (as He did). Though some say "Well who created Him then?" or "Where was He if nothing was around?". But thats thinking from a human view point. Just like from a human viewpoint we understand time. Especially when it comes to our bodies. We know we live and die. Time is a thing. But to some things time may not be anything. As in the case of God. To him 1,000 years is but a blink.

As for who created Him. He just has always existed. Again we are looking at from our human POV. Space, time, mass....it didn't exist until He brought it into being. Lets imagine you just woke up and you were a god. You could create everything. Would you ask who created you (assuming nothing existed at the time you woke up)? Of course not. But again, we can't even answer that question because it doesn't make sense with our human minds. We would wonder "How can you suddenly wake up? How did you come into being?". We don't understand anything really. As for where was He if nothing existed. Well currently we cannot see God (in a literal sense) right? So this would mean Hes not in our spectrum of what we can see. Maybe Hes in another dimension. Maybe Hes invisible to us. Maybe Hes invisible to everything. Maybe time and space aren't even a place He exists. For all we know the universe fits is a tiny ball sitting in the ball of HIs hand. Again from a human stand point it makes no sense because its beyond our understanding. Just like explaining quantum mechanics to a 3 year old is beyond their understanding. But we don't want to think of it like we are almost babies because it means there is something smarter then us, something that is beyond what we are. We don't like not having total control or knowing something else may matter more then ourselves.