Before Big Bang God or Singularity

Thanks to all who participated.
A special thanks to cavediver and Son Goku. Message 1
Message 56Message 59Message 62It is impossible according to what you say in the above quotes for us to be having this conversation. Message 66
Message 67
Message 74
Message 82
My original question: Message 1
In this topic I would like to discuss which is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. God or the Singularity including the Big Bang.Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. FalasifiedPremise 2: God is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe.Maybe, Maybe not but not falsified.cavediver says we need a new theory.
Son Goku says we need a new theory.
With both agreeing we need a theory I hope molbiogirl is correct when she says:

quote:

---

Scientists do not give up when a theory has (possibly) fatal flaws.

---

I rest my case.Now have fun it is only a debate.Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

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

Now I've tried to imagine what lieth outside this universe, bearing in mind nothing within this universe can be counted as a possibility: based on the universe being 'finite' - and thereby all its contents also being finite. I would say even the aspect of 'nothingness' can be excluded, because this [no 'things'] infers a post-universe concept. A spirual realm would also be part of this universe, because like the material realm, it would have to have been created - or come about within this universe's paradigm, al beit without the corporeal material aspect; in any case it is a moot point because no one can even evidence a spiritual realm.I have hardly ever seen this premise being debated, in the perspective of a finite universe, whereby all universal products are also thereby finite. Most people escape it via escapist bogus counter scenarios, and thus do not address the issue at all. There is here a premise that other universes or realms can still prevail outside this finite universe, by virtue of those universes not containing anything of this universe, but different products - which is not within human imaginations, yet it is a sound premise theoretically: why not!? The latter was suggested by a participant in another thread, and is a good insight to this issue. This indicates that the human mind can percieve outside its shakles of space and time.Since a scientific, imperical theory is not available [space, particles, energy, etc are not applicable in this criteria], there seems no place to look other than genesis, because at least it does give a response, but one which again does not give anything which can be grasped outside of the meta-physical.This answer is in the opening four words of Genesis, namely: "IN THE BEGINNING GOD". This says that pre-universe, there was only the terrifically lone Creator. Yet when this is thought of deeply, it is not so unreasonable, and there is no alternative to it: whatever else we pick, cannot be the end source if we can imagine it, and only what we cannot imagine can qualify. Because it must point to a transcendency of anything the mind can imagine - else that is less transcendent. And actually, Genesis does make a logical point when deliberated with in the bounds of its criteria.If it can be imagined, theorised or imperically defined - we know it cannot qualify - else we would all be able to produce universes in our backyards or buy universe making kits from WalMart. Most reject this scenario of the Creator response, because it leaves us unsatisfied - humans want to taste the forbidden fruit, and cannot abide a command not to eat thereof too long - the reason we climb mountain peaks with the firm knowledge there is nothing up there.Thus i welcome any offerings to the question.Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

quote:

---

Son Goku writes:

​

Keeping the interpretation given above, this means that in these places General Relativity breaks down and "space time curvature" or "spacetime" breaks down as a sensible concept and/or new physics emerges.
We need a new theory, almost certainly a quantum one, to account for this. It is provisionally named Quantum Gravity.

---

Perhaps a better word than 'breaks-down', can be 'inapplicable', by virtue of post-universe products cannot apply pre-universe. At least, not if one is inclined to a finite universe.

quote:

---

We need a new theory, almost certainly a quantum one, to account for this. It is provisionally named Quantum Gravity.

---

I think the uncertainty principle is more applicable than quantum; the former is a precedent factor, while the latter is a secondary resultant phenomenon.

Let's try this another way... No, it is not impossible. Why do you claim this?

If he exists, being omnipotent he can do whatever he wants. I don't see the relevance of this though. It has nothing to do with describing the Planck scale physics near the Big Bang. The Big Bang is certainly not falsified and the "singularity" isn't supposed to be an origin for the universe. This is such an unusual sentence; I'm not sure how to respond. We don't know what went on during that era. That's it. We don't take anything on faith.
For instance nobody is certain how the Sumerian version of Gilgamesh makes a transition from one verse to another because the tablets are missing. That doesn't mean people start inventing stuff between the verses and taking them on faith. They simply don't know.I fail to understand how not knowing something means you are taking something else on faith.

Not all breakdowns in a physical theory are due to inapplicability of a concept. Which is why I avoided the word. No, the uncertainty priniple is a result of quantum theory. Quantum Gravity would be far more correct than "Uncertainty principle gravity"(Whatever that would mean?).

By inapplicable, I mean that the laws of science relate to processes and elements already at work and existent, to measure and define them, so if these processes are not come of age - what will science define?Re quantum, what makes you say it causes the UP, as opposed the other way around? I see quantum inclined with wavering density measurements, which reflects UP within its inner core structure, as opposed an outer or belated result of it.

Hi Son, Son, did the Big Bang spawn out of a singularity?Have fun,

---

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

This question also asks, what was within that singularity - was it the entire current universe in contracted form, and is there an alternative - considering that nothing else existed?

The multiverse theory is the only attractive alternative to answering the question of the First Cause without invoking the supernatural because the beginning of this universe could have spawned out of the death throes of a Big Crunch in an alternate universe. But it does still delay the inevitable question of causation. And there is no way, thus far, to answer that with veracity. If we understand singularity to be the nanoseconds prior to Planck's Time, where energy was infinitesimal, then we still are dealing with why and how something -- anything -- can come from absolute nothingness.Some people tend to dismiss the question, possibly because of their philosophical implications, and choosing rather to minimize it. They end up saying things like, science is only interested in what we can know. But that us patently false, or at least misleading. The how and why is the only thing science is concerned with. For instance, we already knew that what comes up must come down. What we wanted to know, was how and why.This is precisely why questions of origin are so appealing to so many people. Its a fascinating subject. The only problem is that even in our advanced technological state, we are still as clueless to answering that questions now than when we first started asking it. The Hawking solution, which seems to be just pretend that such a question about the singularity is immaterial, is begging the question.If one cannot go beyond the North Pole, it doesn't negate what North means in relation to the laws of physics. Likewise, just because the singularity seems to be the advent of physical law itself, wondering what its cause is does not detract from its greater context, IMO.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

No, not at all. There are several ideas... No, we're not. Something does not 'come' from nothing. But you are assuming that the thing it comes from has to be 'before'. Why is that? Those outside the field are clueless - just like everyone is clueless about the frontiers of any discipline other than those working at that frontier. No disrespect, Nem, but the No-Boundary proposal is physics so advanced that whatever it 'seems' is immaterial. Let me assure you that there is no pretending, and there certainly is no begging the question. Yes, it definietly does. That is the point of the analogy. At T=0 in classical big bang, or in no-boundary, there is no concept of before. But as I asked earlier, if you are looking for a cause, why does it have to be in the past?

quote:

---

The multiverse theory is the only attractive alternative to answering the question of the First Cause without invoking the supernatural

---

I'm sure there are many theories, I guess I was just relaying the only theories that seemed plausible to me. Because anything that begins to exist has to have some force prior to explain its cause. Nothing material has begun to exist without a cause. And that cause is always outside of itself. That seems rather axiomatic to me. It seems everyone is clueless in that arena, even brilliant cosmologists, whose real power seems to lie in jargon. And that's not saying anything negative about those in that field. Its just that no one has any definitive answers, but we are all seeking one, from the layman to the cosmologist.

quote:

---

The Hawking solution, which seems to be just pretend that such a question about the singularity is immaterial, is begging the question.

---

I assume you are speaking about quantum physics, and how what seems ordinary and plain as day may actually be an obscurantist. That also may be a straw man where someone will say that its so complicated that no explanation is either necessary, nor will it suffice.

quote:

---

If one cannot go beyond the North Pole, it doesn't negate what North means in relation to the laws of physics.

---

Because time and space are intimately connected, and material has to exist within it. I mean, isn't that the very definition of the singularity -- the point at which time-space, matter, and energy came in to existence?I assume you are thinking of some profound thing that I am overlooking, but currently I'm not sure what you arriving to. Can you expound for me?

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

Hi Nem, glad to see you are still alive. You know I been thinking about this North Pole thing quite a bit because it keeps coming up.The thought occured to me when I saw a sub stick it's nose through the ice.What if we had a sub over the North Pole and He launched a rocket straignt up what direction would it be heading. Would it be in the general direction of the North Star.Just a thought.Have fun,

---

"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'm going to sleep, so will reply in the morning...But I'll just leave you with this: Doesn't actually sound like I need to reply; you seem to have it all figured out. In how many other ultra-technical frontier sciences are you an expert, or have you just specialised in this one? goodnight