Before the Big Bang

Hi cavediver, That makes it just as clear as mud.Either: There was someting before the Big Bang.Or: There was nothing before the Big Bang.It cannot be both ways. But this says there was something there already.My problem is the Big Bang theory starts with nothing or at the most a singularity. But if all the things listed below was created at the planck time after the big bang where did they come from. And since none of those things existed they were not in the singularity.Let me sum up before the Big Bang: Message 155There was no space.
There was no time.
There was no particles.
There was no matter.
There was no subatomic particles.
There was no energy.I think that covers everything. But the universe did not exist until after the Big Bang. If I understand your post you are hinting that the universe has always been there. The beach ball (being the universe) with the Big Bang as a point on the ball.cavediver, I have no problem with the universe being old, even very old. I do not have a problem with things getting rearranged by various events.I do have a problem with a singularity appearing (since the Big Bang theory says there was no matter, no space, no particles, no subatomic particles no energy and no time) then expanding into the universe as we know it today.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Ok, it looks as if I've completely failed to get across what I'm trying to say No, it can't. I'm saying that we don't know. No-one is claiming that there definitely wasn't a T<0, nor that there definitely was a T<0. We don't know. What I am saying is that both cases make sense, and neither require any concept of something from nothing. You're missing the big issue. Time as we know it is purely a property of our Universe. When we have God's view of the Universe, there is no before or after. If there was a creative event, it did not occur in our past, because our future was brought into being at the same event. Going back in time just takes you to one end of our Universe. That end is no more the 'beginning' of the Universe that any other point - such as my now, sat here typing at my computer. What you are asking for - a before the Big Bang - just does not exist as a concept (assuming no T<0)This isn't easy to grasp, I admit, but you have to let go of this idea that our normal concept of time applies outside the Universe. It didn't appear - it just is. Just as right now, right here just is. And now, and now again. These moments didn't 'come' from the preceding moment. They all just exist, and we experience these moments in this bizarre sequence we call time. But all of theose moments just exist. To single out the singularity and to ask 'where did it come from' is just silly, becasue you don't ask where all the other moments in the Universe come from! All of them just exist...

How do you justify believing in "eternal life" while rejecting the concept of immaterial timelessness in pre-big-bang cosmology?”HM

You Posted: After that you use words like "before" and "then" in your posts. If there is no time you can't use those words.I'd like you to try to answer the following question or explain carefully why you can not:If our whole universe (world) is the surface of this earth and I hike, ski and swim to the north pole, being careful to head north the whole time then what is north of the north pole?That analogy has been used before but I think you've skipped over it. I'd like you to answer that question carefully.

If I understand what you are saying it is:We have the Big Bang theory.
There may have been a before.
There may not have been a before.
We have no idea where the singularity came from.
Even though the Big Bang theory states everything that exists was created by the Big Bang therefore ruling out the possibility of anything existing prior to T<0. Meaning everything we see today came from nothing, and since we know something cannot come from nothing, We will throw up smoke screens and try to explain the facts away. (Reminds me of the YEC"ERS)The fact is if the Big Bang theory is correct everything came from nothing.If something cannot come from nothing it is time to discard the outdated Big Bang theory and replace it with something else.I know that there are those who have already proposed replacement theories. It didn't appear - it just is. That says it was in existence prior to T<0.I know that right now is now. I also know that a planck time ago was then.But the singularity did not have a planck time ago as it did not exist. There was no then.I also know the best answer for where the singularity came from is we don't know. Time as we know it is for the benefit of man.cavediver, I have no problem with there being a before.I like to use an illustration when talking about eternity. You draw a circle (the complete circle represents eternity), then place a mark on the circle at 11 o'clock, write beginning of time as we know it. Then make another mark at 12 o'clock write end of time as we know it.Time is just a small segment of eternity that you and I exist in. God's view is just one great big now. He views the beginning and the end at the same time and everything in-between.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I will try. First of all the universe is not planet earth.Therefore to compare our universe to the earth is stupid.But to try to answer your question what is north of north in the universe not the earth. If you could figure out which direction in the universe was north and set of on a journey in some kind of spacecraft and travel at the speed of light you would die before you reached north in the universe. Why not.I believe that Genesis 1:1 took place billions of years ago in time as we know time.But from Genesis 1:1 until Genesis 1:2 was only 1 day as there was no night. During that day all the events recorded in Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:26 took place.I believe Genesis 1:2 took place only a few thousand years ago.Genesis 1:5 was the creation of the first 24 hour day.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hoot Mon,I reject the concept of immaterial timelessness as I believe in a material timeless eternity, with a portion marked off by time for the benefit of humankind.See: Message 185Enjoy

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

And herein lies the problem. We have multiple posters (including two professionals of the subject) spending a great deal of time attemptng to explain an incredibly deep concept to this layman here, but this layman is so totally incapable of learning anything, so stuck is he in his preconceived ideas with no desire or inclination to relax those ideas to take in something new. What's that about old dogs and tricks?No ICANT, it is not STUPID to compare the Universe to the Earth. I used to do it all the time for my students, whether they were postgrad, undergraduates, or high-school. It is an analogy used to try to explain the situation. Your declaration does indeed make something look stupid, but it is not the analogy. The humble response would be - I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your explanation; can you elaborate please?And your suggestion that Big Bang theory should be dropped - do you really set yourself up so high as to think that you have a valid view on this. What about easier subjects like neuroscience? Could you give the surgeons some advice as well? They sure could use it from this pastor here, who suddenly seems an expert on subjects that take normal mortals years and years of dedicated study to gain a respectable understanding.You disappoint me...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Let's try this again.You believe that the Big Bang is "something coming from nothing".You also believe that there is a law of nature that "something cannot come from nothing".If both of these claims were true, don't you think physicists (who, unlike you, have studied physics) would have noticed this and rejected the Big Bang?Every time I study some area of science on my own, I come across something I don't understand, and you know what, instead of thinking that I've found an error in the fundamentals of science which no scientist has ever spotted in my first read through the textbook, I think I need to study more until I do understand it.Unless you are, in fact, the most gifted physicist who has ever lived, I recommend the same course to you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Fine. Rather than doing this over and over again. Come up with a 2D (or 3D) analogy for a 4D object, and we'll explain it from that - if the globe analogy is stupid I'm sure you can think of a better one!I rather suspect you don't think very well in 4D so we'll need some kind of analogy in lower (and thus more understandable) dimensions.

ICANT, you wrote: ICANT, are you aware of what you are asserting here? You are saying, essentially, that you know God's views, and that He sees the whole big picture in the moment of now. How on earth could you or anyone else know what God sees? Isn't that just about the most arrogant claim anyone could make?And while you go on believing this with no problem at all, you fail to grasp key scientific speculations on T

If God declared the end from the beginning He must have been able to see it. If He could see it then, why could He not see it now?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Sorry to disappoint the teacher.But teacher I have asked many questions without answers. Message 155I have referenced many sites without a mention of them coming from you.So I will try again.Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting This states:
1. the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity,2. this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist.So at this moment there was absolutly nothing and in this nothing there was a singularity, which could not exist if there was nowhere for it to exist.Then states:1. an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature2. created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself.Space did not exist.
Time did not exist.
Particles did not exist.
Matter did not exist.
Energy did not exist.If none of these things existed until after the explosion, would you please explain how a singularity that would be made up of all these things could exist.If there was no particles, no matter, no energy, there could be no nucleus.If there was no space where did the singularity exist other than someone's imagination.Enjoy

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You are having problems with both the questions you ask and the attempts to explain the current state of research in this area.For that reason, as a good pedological device, we are attempting to discuss a simpler situation to help you understand the problems you may be having.The north pole question is such a device.If you attempt to work at it you may gain some insight into the nature of the problem.Your tossed it off in a way which only emphasizes your lack of understanding of the issue.To some degree you are asking for an answer to a question which is like "what is north of the north pole?". Please go back to that post and attempt to answer that question.

Please explain. I don't see where it says that. I don't understand what a 'moment' is when we don't yet have 'time'. Creation of what? Where does your source say any of this? It doesn't say 'at this moment' since that doesn't make sense if we haven't got time yet. It doesn't say there was nothing, it says that all of our universe was contained in a singularity - that is all that is, but it is far from nothing. And it does not say that the singularity existed in nothing. That makes no sense whatsoever, and is not what physicists consider to be the Big Bang.The singularity exists in the same 'place' as the universe does now. If you want to consider that 'nowhere' that's fine. OK. Not sure about this though. Where does the universe exist? It's the same question. In the standard model the universe just is. It doesn't exist 'anywhere' it just does. The same applies with the singularity. This is my favourite image of the universe. This one doesn't have a singularity because it takes quantum physics into account, but that doesn't matter for this. The question is, where is this universe? There is no space or time outside of it for it to exist in. Does that mean it is all in our imagination?