In The Beginning.

[FoeHammer]

If time, space and matter did not exist before the ''big bang (expansion)'' of the ''singularity'' then where did it come from and when, where and how did that singularity exist?

FoeHammer.

 

[Taure]

The question is self answering.

If time, space and matter did not exist...where did it come from and when, where and how did that singularity exist?

Space did not yet exist: there was no "where" for it to come from.

Time did not exist: there was no "when" for it to occur at.

There were no laws of physics yet in place - there was no universe for them to be in place for, so there is now "how".

Science is still trying to answer these questions but I believe that they will never be answered, because, unless multiple-universe theory is correct, there was no before the big bang, and therefore nothing to find.

Its quite hard to imagine space, time and matter not existing, simply because the way we experience the universe doesn't allow the comprehension of such a thing. Perhaps a blind person might understand it better, I don't know. But even if such concepts are impossible for us to truly grasp, they still exist.

The question you want to be asking is not "where", "when", or "how", but why.

Many believe (myself included) that this is God, but this is a personal belief, not a logical conclusion - there is nothing that says that something cannot happen without reason.

 

[FishFace]

Your basic assumption is that there was nothing: nowhere and nowhen before the Big Bang. That is an unjustified assumption.

At the moment, we have very little evidence regarding what may have been around at that time - for obvious reasons. Nonetheless, there are a few hypotheses floating around, such as M-theory (which is apparently incomplete, but never mind) which state that there was time and space before the big bang.

If these are true, then they answer your question. If they are not true, and your assumptions are correct, then, as said, you have answered your question: The Big Bang came from nowhere, it just happened.
At least, that's the scientific stance. Science says we should not start claiming things if there's no evidence, so science can never say "God caused the Big Bang" unless there's evidence for that claim. At the moment, it seems that there isn't.
That doesn't preclude any theist from saying "God caused the Big Bang," but, in my opinion, you are then holding a belief contradictory to science. Not because science claims "there is no god," but rather that science claims, "we shouldn't believe things without evidence."

 

[plindboe]

If time, space and matter did not exist before the ''big bang (expansion)'' of the ''singularity'' then where did it come from and when, where and how did that singularity exist?

FoeHammer.

I don't know. Neither do you. The difference between us is that I don't convince myself that I know something which I actually don't.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Not because science claims "there is no god," but rather that science claims, "we shouldn't believe things without evidence."

Would you agree that without evidence and no evidence are two different things?

 

[FoeHammer]

Your basic assumption is that there was nothing: nowhere and nowhen before the Big Bang. That is an unjustified assumption.

At the moment, we have very little evidence regarding what may have been around at that time - for obvious reasons. Nonetheless, there are a few hypotheses floating around, such as M-theory (which is apparently incomplete, but never mind) which state that there was time and space before the big bang.

If these are true, then they answer your question.

Not at all, if time and space existed before the big bang then my question would be, where did they come from?

If they are not true, and your assumptions are correct, then, as said, you have answered your question: The Big Bang came from nowhere, it just happened.

This is both, unsatisfactory.....

At least, that's the scientific stance. Science says we should not start claiming things if there's no evidence, so science can never say "God caused the Big Bang" unless there's evidence for that claim. At the moment, it seems that there isn't.

..... and unscientific... Unless science has evidence that something did, or can, come from nothing... Does it?

That doesn't preclude any theist from saying "God caused the Big Bang," but, in my opinion, you are then holding a belief contradictory to science. Not because science claims "there is no god," but rather that science claims, "we shouldn't believe things without evidence."

How can a belief contradict what science doesn't know?

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

I don't know. Neither do you. The difference between us is that I don't convince myself that I know something which I actually don't.

Peter

So why are you an atheist?

FoeHammer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Would you agree that without evidence and no evidence are two different things?

Yes. The former is used when referring to the null hypothesis, while the latter is used with regards to an alternate theory (for example, the assumption of immutable physical laws (qv. dad insanity) is taken to be true even in the absence of evidence, since it is the null hypothesis. However, the assumption that the physical laws are mutable (specifically, to accommodate the Judaeo-Christian mythology), is rejected in the absence of evidence, since it is contradictory to the null).

Now, what determines the null hypothesis? It goes beyond this thread, but null hypothesises are the default explanations (consistancy instead of change, simplicity over complexity, etc) in the absence of contradictory evidence.

'No god' is the null, whereas 'god' is not.

 

[plindboe]

So why are you an atheist?

FoeHammer.

Because I haven't encountered evidence to convince me that there is a God or gods. Not being a theist, by definition makes me an atheist.

Peter

 

[FoeHammer]

Because I haven't encountered evidence to convince me that there is a God or gods. Not being a theist, by definition makes me an atheist.

Peter

Why not an agnostic?

FoeHammer.

 

[plindboe]

Why not an agnostic?

FoeHammer.

I consider the term "agnostic" kinda pointless, since agnostics are atheists too. I believe the word was invented, as the word "atheist" had rather negative connotations among the general populace, and I guess Huxley didn't want to describe himself with a word that for many, at that time, meant he was in cahoots with the Devil.

That said, I consider myself a hard atheist, in other words I believe that there are no God/gods. This is just a belief though, which I acknowledge could be wrong, if presented with convincing evidence to the contrary.

The belief is based on the fact that humans throughout history have had a nasty habit to invent fantasy creatures, that obviously doesn't exist, often to explain something "unexplainable". I think a million fantasy creatures(all backed up by their own anecdotes), is rather damning evidence that the millionth and one creature presented is most probably fantasy as well.

Peter

 

[thaumaturgy]

Why not an agnostic?

FoeHammer.

The Null Hypothesis: "There is no God" (a standard null hypothesis for testing purposes)

The goal is to either
1. reject the null
2. fail to reject the null

That is all we can do. So far no one has provided sufficient evidence to merit rejecting the null. This does not therefore mean that "both" are equally possible. The majority of the data points to a high "p-value" which means the null is unlikely to be rejected and there would be a high probability in making a Type II error in rejecting the null.

The null holds. Besides, agnosticism is for "Fence-sitters"!

 

[OdwinOddball]

Why not an agnostic?

FoeHammer.

Are you agnostic when it comes to the existence of Faeries? Elves? Unicorns? Lephracauns? Superman?

Are are you pretty much convinec that they are all fictional?


To me, god is no different than faeries, elves, lephracauns, or Superman.

 

[FoeHammer]

I would like for someone to explain to me how something can come from nothing for no reason and without purpose i.e. the ''singularity''. Come on atheists what is your alternative to ''god'' having done it?

FoeHammer.

 

[RedAndy]

The null holds. Besides, agnosticism is for "Fence-sitters"!

HEY! I resent that!

Agnoticism for me has been a nice transitional ground while I shift from theist to atheist. I suppose you could call me a weak atheist in that I don't believe there to be sufficient evidence to believe in a god; I would contrast that with some atheists who believe absence of evidence to be evidence of absence.

 

[Taure]

I would like for someone to explain to me how something can come from nothing for no reason and without purpose i.e. the ''singularity''. Come on atheists what is your alternative to ''god'' having done it?

What evidence have you that something cannot come from nothing with no purpose?

Its perfectly possible that there is no cause, and it just happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you agnostic when it comes to the existence of Faeries? Elves? Unicorns? Lephracauns? Superman?

Whoa! Just hold on! I draw the line at Superman!

ESPECIALLY Green Lantern - (Hal Jordan - test pilot).

• In brightest day, in blackest night, let those who worship evil's might, beware my power - Green Lantern's light!

(Oops! Yellow is his weakness due to a defect in his ring!)

 

[plindboe]

I would like for someone to explain to me how something can come from nothing for no reason and without purpose i.e. the ''singularity''. Come on atheists what is your alternative to ''god'' having done it?

FoeHammer.

Piece of cake. Santa did it. Unicorns did it. Elvis did it. There are an infinite number of possibilities. But saying that something did it, when you have no proper evidence, is kinda pointless. The most reasonable answer is admitting that you don't know, rather than applying the X of the gaps. X being a person's favorite fantasy.

Peter

 

[FoeHammer]

What evidence have you that something cannot come from nothing with no purpose?

Common sense dictates that you cannot get something from nothing.
From nothing, nothing comes, since nothing is nothing it can do nothing therefore it can cause nothing.

Its perfectly possible that there is no cause, and it just happened.

Then explain how.

FoeHammer.

 

[corvus_corax]

Common sense dictates that you cannot get something from nothing.

"Common" sense is often ridiculous. And this is exemplified in your OP.

Then explain how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation