quote:
If the universe had a beginning, as the big bang suggests, then it is an effect, because something had to cause it to come into being.
(Ignoring the cause and effect for now, I can't seem to organize my thoughts well on it in a simple way... Instead...)
What makes you think that the universe had a beginning just because of the Big Bang? It could have existed before that, as has been suggested by some, as something that expands and eventually (or quickly, depending on initial conditions) "collapses" into itself, only to repeat the cycle over and over - this just happened to be the time that the conditions were right for humans to come about. I think it was Alan Guth (correct if wrong) who said, "Although the creation of a universe might be very unlikely, [name I can't remember] emphasized that no one had counted the failed attempts." Or perhaps they
had come about before, but when the universe collapsed no evidence would have been left.
I don't actively believe the above (that is to say, I haven't really done enough research into the possibility of multiple Big Bangs to conclude anything personally. As far as I know it is still a possibility, though not a scientific one by nature - that is, it hasn't been
disproven, just that there's no evidence for it), but just putting the idea out there to say that the Big Bang does not necessarily equal the beginning of the universe and time, just the beginning of the universe
as we know it.
™ Version 4.2