Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Under the current Big Bang Theory the actual event is a Singularity; the laws of physics (as we know them) may not have worked then as they did immediately after the event. Gravity, inertia, Planck's constant even Time itself could have simply not existed.
There are a couple of philosophical theories concerning pre-Big Bang. One is that NOTHING existed; that the Bang is literally the creation of all things. Whether that necessarily implies a Creator; well I'll leave that up to each of you. I am personally a Christian, but almost any religious or philosophical beief I know could accomdate this.
Another theory is the current cosmos is simply one in a series of expanding/contracting universes. Our universe is currently expanding according to Red light shift. At some point in the future it may reach maximum size and begin contracting, until still later it reaches maximum density and another Bang starts the whole shooting match over. Is the point at which the universe begins to contract another Singularity? Will all our "laws of science" become meaningless? Nobody knows, but it is only an Academic argument anyway; the odds of any of us living to see it are pretty small..
There is no my doubt in my mind that there is a creator, that has nothing to do with the current popular theory on how our solar system (universe) came to be created.
The bible does briefly mention the existence of "others". So the creator did create other civilizations as well. The bible says that we should should not worry about The Others they will not bother us.
Please don't encourage this thread devolving into religion. Since it hasn't been locked or moved or deleted, I'll respond briefly.
The Winnie the Pooh reference is a lot more accurate than it might seem at first glance. The error in the OP is in attempting to extend causality, which is a product of the internal structure of the universe, and extend it outside the boundaries of that construct. A corollary would be a goldfish in a bowl positing the existence of a giant goldfish who created the bowl and water.
And how do you engage in a discussion about a Creator without stumbling across religion now and then?
Particularly if you refuse to extend causality to keep it in the realm of logic and science, what you're left with is mysticism.
Does the Big Bang imply the existence of a Creator or creators?
No, but it also depends on how one defines "Creator". In terms of a creator god, no, The Big Bang Theory is simply one idea for how our Universe came together after the Big Bang and why the Universe looks and behaves the way the it does. What led up to the Big Bang is irrelevant to the theory itself. Now, if one uses the idea of the Universe as its own Creator, then it can be argued that the Universe created itself but you still run into the same situation; it is only a matter of what happened from the exact moment zero onward. The how's and why's are a separate issue.
The Universe has no center. No matter where we relocate to within the Universe we would always see a radius of 46 Billion light years.
In some versions of the Theory, this universe is the only one that exists. In other versions, it is the only one that we can observe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
It implies that some action must have happened to initiate the Big Bang, which implies that some thinking being must have taken that action. One could argue that it is possible that the Big Bang was initiated all by itself, but something would have had to have been in place for the Big Bang to be able initiate itself. Could matter or the self-initiated creation of matter come out of nothing from nowhere?
I think everyone will agree that "something" had to have been in place before the Big Bang, but this is largely just a construct of the human mind in that it is impossible for any one of us to actually understand the concept of something-from-nothing yet quantum mechanics can somewhat explain such a concept. The way we think, what we observe in Nature, everything within our own objective mind frame, has a point of beginning. We can see an empty lot turned into a skyscraper and we know that even before the first brick was laid someone came up with the idea to put a tall building at that location, which led to planning, then ultimately construction. We can watch a sapling grow into a tree and know that it began as a seed which originated from the fruit of another tree. And so on. Therefore there must have been something before the Big Bang. Of course, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter is neither created nor destroyed but who is to say that physics do not operate under different Laws in that pre-Big Bang other... ...nothingness?
Here is probably an easier way to think about it. Air is all around us. We don't see it be we touch it constantly and it is constantly touching us. Sometimes we feel it, sometimes we don't have that sensation. For those who study atmospheric circulation, some say that the air we exhale will eventually be breathed in by another human on the other side of the planet. Others say the air we breathe is eons old. We understand its properties and can draw its molecular structure but here is the tricky part: describe it. Can you actually conceptualize air?
Considering that we could hypothetically count from one infinity to another [because despite being infinity the concept of a starting number and an ending number makes sense to us, no matter how large or small--we get the idea of boundary] it is an easier concept to grasp that the Universe would be an infinitely number of years old. For one such an idea discounts that the Universe has always existed while at the same time suggesting that it has always existed; in particular if one where to utilize a limit law and place the limit going back in time to zero (if you were to go back in time you would infinitely get closer to zero without reaching it, the limit. This is my on way to say that inflation has a starting point because if you were to go back in time your own "history" would eventually expire, meaning that the inflation of the Universe could not then be of an infinite past even though it has an infinite present. Then again it has since been proven that Zeno's runner would eventually reach the other side). Infinity is also a concept and in and of itself is not an actual number. It can be any number; infinitely large or infinitely small. It can even be bounded, and by two numbers separated by an infinitely small range. It also has the unique property of going from starting point to infinity point at the exact moment it was thought; it always exists as infinity.
So it could be that "nothingness" exists but as stated previously it is irrelevant to the Big Bang Theory as the BBT is there to only explain the the expansion of the Universe and all that is within.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip OK
Under the current Big Bang Theory the actual event is a Singularity; the laws of physics (as we know them) may not have worked then as they did immediately after the event. Gravity, inertia, Planck's constant even Time itself could have simply not existed.
There are multiple ideas for what caused the Big Bang. Nearly all suffer from the dilemma of Well, then where did that come from?
Once again, an irrelevant question since time, like infinity, begins at the moment it is created.
There are multiple ideas for what caused the Big Bang. Nearly all suffer from the dilemma of Well, then where did that come from?
Once again, an irrelevant question since time, like infinity, begins at the moment it is created.
There are not anywhere near sufficient reasons to believe that a "big bang" ever happened.
So it would be a fool's errand to speculate what the proposed "big bang" suggests, when it
is nothing but a suggestion itself.
Time is not a force by itself. It is merely a measure by which other events, operating
independently of time, are observed. In other words, time is an artificial straw man
forced into the equation by our minds.
Infinity goes into the past (the past exists independently of the concept of time) as well
as what future there could be.
It neither implies nor prohibits the possibility of a creator or God. Based on the concept of the singularity, it can pretty much be argued either way that it either expanded from natural phenomenon or a creator willed it to happen. Neither is 100% fact based on what we have, though I will say those who favor the creator explanation have a lot more work to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
