For those that believe in the Big Bang, what was there before?

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

Gerald actually has a point; time is a property of space - without "space" there is no "time", at least as we understand it. Prior to the universe there was no "space" therefore there was no "time". My understanding is that this isn't something Hawking made up, but a direct consequence of applying Einstein's Relativity (space-time) to the big bang. 

 

Although, if there is a multiverse or whatnot, I'm not sure what that would do. If there was another universe that existed prior to our universe existing, I would think that would be considered "before", but I don't know enough to say. And of course if there is a metaphysical plane where God resides outside space-time that would throw a wrench in the idea too I imagine. But as long as we are talking solely within our universe, there was no time or space before the big bang if we take the big bang to mean the beginning of the universe. 

 

As I understand it none of the universes existed prior to the Big Bang, they are all interconnected and branch from one another, and possibly even depend on one another for stability if, as is currently thought, their are particles that operate accross multiple universes.  I have an inkling that quantum entanglement might shed light here too, but I digress.  If time and space both came into existence at that point then dimensions would not have existed either.  This is a super neat blog that may interest you; http://cosmos-staruniverse.blogspot.ca/2011/06/parallel-universes-and-before-big-bang_13.html

 

Now here is the problem. If the universe came into being from nothing then that violates cause and effect, common sense, and some conservation laws.

 

But if it came from something before, then the origin of the universe is not really answered by pushed back in time to something else.

 

So this fundamental conundrum still remains, because we can always ask and where did that come from.

 

For atheistic origin science this is a disaster.

 

For theistic origin science it is not a disaster. For example, God created the universe is the origin of the universe. Now one can always ask where did God come from. But at least those that hold this belief they honestly admit that God always existed. 

 

So in the end there is always at root a fundamentally religious belief (atheism is a religious belief too) and the discussion must move to that realm.

 

 

Except that this entire argument depends on the false premise that science claims to have all the answers, or even tries to have all the answers.  Science is comfortable with questions.  Science depends on questions!  More answers always lead to more questions.  The theory of gravity wasn't completed with an apple falling on someone's head.  The theory of gravity STILL isn't complete.  Yet the things we don't understand about gravity do not disprove gravity.  This is an example of how having unanswered questions about a theory, or even having a theory that leads to more questions, does not disprove a theory.  

 

Stating that if we cannot describe the nature of the expanse or the catalyst for creation prior to the Big Bang then the Big Bang theory does not work, is as relevant as saying that if we cannot measure the vocal intonations of the voice of God at the beginning of creation then He does not exist.  The argument does not stand up to the test of logic.

 

Logic is used to find errors in reasoning, it identifies misuse of facts.  The misuse of facts using faulty logic may or may not accidentally lead to a true conclusion, but that conclusion is not correctly drawn from those facts. 

Edited August 13, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't think anyone here is quite old enough to have personally witnessed creation.

 

 

Same is true for the big bang, but that doesn't stop mainstream proponents of the BB to treat it as if it were established fact and treat those who don't accept it as crackpots.

 

Science is a marvelous way to understand the scope of God's creation but it is limited in what it can tell us.  The natural world is what we, the theological community refer to as "general revelation."  It reveals God, his nature and attributes, but it can't introduce to God.  It can only point to His existence.   Science, if done properly should lead to an acknowledgement of the Creator of natural world.  The Bible is what we refer to as "special revelation."  It is God's self-disclosure to man. 

 

The problem is that so many in the scientific community seek answers to some questions that have their answers in a divine, all-knowing all-powerful Creator because they have discounted the existence of any reality outside of the natural world.  Science can point to the Creator, but it can't tell you how He created.  Creation was a supernatural event that defies scientific explanation.

[TsukinoRei]

 

I don't think anyone here is quite old enough to have personally witnessed creation.

 

 

Same is true for the big bang, but that doesn't stop mainstream proponents of the BB to treat it as if it were established fact and treat those who don't accept it as crackpots.

 

Science is a marvelous way to understand the scope of God's creation but it is limited in what it can tell us.  The natural world is what we, the theological community refer to as "general revelation."  It reveals God, his nature and attributes, but it can't introduce to God.  It can only point to His existence.   Science, if done properly should lead to an acknowledgement of the Creator of natural world.  The Bible is what we refer to as "special revelation."  It is God's self-disclosure to man. 

 

The problem is that so many in the scientific community seek answers to some questions that have their answers in a divine, all-knowing all-powerful Creator because they have discounted the existence of any reality outside of the natural world.  Science can point to the Creator, but it can't tell you how He created.  Creation was a supernatural event that defies scientific explanation.

 

 

It can as easily be argued that creation was the first natural event and that Gods creation of and continued activity within nature is also part of what is natural.  It has been argued by theological philosophers that nature could not and cannot exist without God, therefore any concept of a world without God is what would be unnatural.  Do you see how we are discussing questions of pure philosophy, not of science?  I see many passages in scripture that lead to the conclusion that by revealing His nature and attributes through creation He also introduces people to Himself.  It does more than point to His existence.  But again this is philosophy, not science.  Puzzling out the workings of the universe need not damage faith in God, for many it increases their awe of Him.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I don't think anyone here is quite old enough to have personally witnessed creation.

 

 

Same is true for the big bang, but that doesn't stop mainstream proponents of the BB to treat it as if it were established fact and treat those who don't accept it as crackpots.

 

Science is a marvelous way to understand the scope of God's creation but it is limited in what it can tell us.  The natural world is what we, the theological community refer to as "general revelation."  It reveals God, his nature and attributes, but it can't introduce to God.  It can only point to His existence.   Science, if done properly should lead to an acknowledgement of the Creator of natural world.  The Bible is what we refer to as "special revelation."  It is God's self-disclosure to man. 

 

The problem is that so many in the scientific community seek answers to some questions that have their answers in a divine, all-knowing all-powerful Creator because they have discounted the existence of any reality outside of the natural world.  Science can point to the Creator, but it can't tell you how He created.  Creation was a supernatural event that defies scientific explanation.

 

 

It can as easily be argued that creation was the first natural event and that Gods creation of and continued activity within nature is also part of what is natural.  It has been argued by theological philosophers that nature could not and cannot exist without God, therefore any concept of a world without God is what would be unnatural.  Do you see how we are discussing questions of pure philosophy, not of science?  I see many passages in scripture that lead to the conclusion that by revealing His nature and attributes through creation He also introduces people to Himself.  It does more than point to His existence.  But again this is philosophy, not science.  Puzzling out the workings of the universe need not damage faith in God, for many it increases their awe of Him.

 

Creation was not a natural event.  It was a supernatural event which is why there is so much in our world that science can't explain. 

 

Nature points you to God but there is nothing in Scripture that says one is introduced to God by nature. Nature can point you in God's direction but it can't introduce you to God.   Nature can tell you that God exists and what God is like in that it reveals His glory.  It reveals a God who is all-powerful and all-knowing, but it can't tell you that God loves you and that He sent His Son to die on the cross.  If the natural world could have introduced man to God,  the Bible would be superfluous.   The Bible is God's personal self-disclosure wherein man finds that God seeks to be in relationship with Him.  Nature can't do that.  Nature can't explain to us why we are sinners and why we need a Savior and who that Savior is.

 

This is not philosophy.  I am talking about biblical Chrisianity which is all about God wanting to be in relationship with us.  You cannot simply relegate that to "philosophy."  Philosophy is all about questions that have no answers.  God offers answers and solutions and reveals that in His Word.

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

Gerald actually has a point; time is a property of space - without "space" there is no "time", at least as we understand it. Prior to the universe there was no "space" therefore there was no "time". My understanding is that this isn't something Hawking made up, but a direct consequence of applying Einstein's Relativity (space-time) to the big bang. 

 

Although, if there is a multiverse or whatnot, I'm not sure what that would do. If there was another universe that existed prior to our universe existing, I would think that would be considered "before", but I don't know enough to say. And of course if there is a metaphysical plane where God resides outside space-time that would throw a wrench in the idea too I imagine. But as long as we are talking solely within our universe, there was no time or space before the big bang if we take the big bang to mean the beginning of the universe. 

 

As I understand it none of the universes existed prior to the Big Bang, they are all interconnected and branch from one another, and possibly even depend on one another for stability if, as is currently thought, their are particles that operate accross multiple universes.  I have an inkling that quantum entanglement might shed light here too, but I digress.  If time and space both came into existence at that point then dimensions would not have existed either.  This is a super neat blog that may interest you; http://cosmos-staruniverse.blogspot.ca/2011/06/parallel-universes-and-before-big-bang_13.html

 

Now here is the problem. If the universe came into being from nothing then that violates cause and effect, common sense, and some conservation laws.

 

But if it came from something before, then the origin of the universe is not really answered by pushed back in time to something else.

 

So this fundamental conundrum still remains, because we can always ask and where did that come from.

 

For atheistic origin science this is a disaster.

 

For theistic origin science it is not a disaster. For example, God created the universe is the origin of the universe. Now one can always ask where did God come from. But at least those that hold this belief they honestly admit that God always existed. 

 

So in the end there is always at root a fundamentally religious belief (atheism is a religious belief too) and the discussion must move to that realm.

 

 

Except that this entire argument depends on the false premise that science claims to have all the answers, or even tries to have all the answers.  Science is comfortable with questions.  Science depends on questions!  More answers always lead to more questions.  The theory of gravity wasn't completed with an apple falling on someone's head.  The theory of gravity STILL isn't complete.  Yet the things we don't understand about gravity do not disprove gravity.  This is an example of how having unanswered questions about a theory, or even having a theory that leads to more questions, does not disprove a theory.  

 

Stating that if we cannot describe the nature of the expanse or the catalyst for creation prior to the Big Bang then the Big Bang theory does not work, is as relevant as saying that if we cannot measure the vocal intonations of the voice of God at the beginning of creation then He does not exist.  The argument does not stand up to the test of logic.

 

Logic is used to find errors in reasoning, it identifies misuse of facts.  The misuse of facts using faulty logic may or may not accidentally lead to a true conclusion, but that conclusion is not correctly drawn from those facts. 

 

 

That is a truly an astounding revelation.

 

Here is the problem.

 

Not all scientists ignore being correct.

 

For example scientists and engineers have a great deal of confidence that a certain jet liner will fly and not just fall apart. Those that do not value high confidence in this regard would kill many people and be legally held accountable.

 

Architects, who base designs on real operational science, have a great deal of confidence that a certain will not just collapse. Those that do not value high confidence in this regard would kill many people and be legally held accountable.

 

Even a stockbroker would go to prison if they confidently claim that a stock price would go higher and it does not. This is only a money issue and not a life nand death issue.

 

But when it comes to the origin of all things, some “scientists” do not even care if they are right or not. But they teach it as if it is almost proven in the public schools and other public venues. But it actually constitutes fraud. Why not disclose that there are no answers or facts to support their story and frankly we do not care if it is even true. It further violates the establishment clause of the US constitution. The issue in the end is more serious than money or even physical life and death. The issue is everlasting life versus everlasting damnation.

 

Thus these “scientists” have revealed that they do not care about the truth or are even honest in their dealings. The odds against their theories are so astounding; it is amazing to think that anyone could be under such delusion.

 

Atheistic origin science claims it just uses science and not miracles. Yet its own theories require many trillions of miracles several each day for billions of years. One after another but not even random miracles but miracles designed with a purpose. Thus it violates its own assumption and is thus proven false.

 

However the Holy Bible predicts this. This is another great proof that the Holy Bible is true.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

[MarkNigro]

 

 Creation was a supernatural event that defies scientific explanation.

 

Thus, you set the conditions so that science and faith must be in conflict, and if science is able to explain the origin of the universe, creation by God is thereby disproved.  Those who seek the demise of Christianity are all too happy to accept those terms.

 

There is no conflict between real science and faith in the real truth.

God created everything in 6 days about 6000 years ago.

 

Now the false science of evolution from atoms to man and old ages is in conflict with real science and faith in the truth.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

Romans 1:20

New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

   

Romans 2

New International Version (NIV)

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

 

 

 

What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

 

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them (Psalm 8:3,4).

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat (Psalm 19:1-6).

 

 

 

But this seems like a trail that leads away from the topic of Big Bang Theory or of Science vs Religion.

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

Romans 1:20

New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

   

Romans 2

New International Version (NIV)

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

 

 

 

What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

 

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them (Psalm 8:3,4).

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat (Psalm 19:1-6).

 

 

 

But this seems like a trail that leads away from the topic of Big Bang Theory or of Science vs Religion.

 

Well the trial ended with atheistic origin science without an answer to the origin of all things.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 Creation was a supernatural event that defies scientific explanation.

 

Thus, you set the conditions so that science and faith must be in conflict, and if science is able to explain the origin of the universe, creation by God is thereby disproved.  Those who seek the demise of Christianity are all too happy to accept those terms.

 

Science is not in conflict with the Bible and never has been.  Scientists who allow their atheistic worldview to drive their science are in direct conflict with the Bible. Many of the greatest scientists in the world have been men of faith.  Much of modern science owes its existence to men who believed the Bible's account of creation. 

 

The Bible, is not a science book and does not offer a scientific account of creation.  It is unfair and unreasonable to hold the Bible, which is pre-science, to the standards of modern scietntific precision.  I would not judge a novel by the standards and rules that govern poetry. I would not read a newspaper the same way I read a cookbook.  I would not read a biography of George Washinton the same way I would read science fiction.  In same way, it is rather ridiculous to judge a nonscientific account that makes no scientific claims by modern scientific standards.

 

Science, by virtue of its inability to detect anything outside the natural world, will never disprove creation by God. 

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

The Bible, is not a science book and does not offer a scientific account of creation.  It is unfair and unreasonable to hold the Bible, which is pre-science, to the standards of modern scietntific precision.  I would not judge a novel by the standards and rules that govern poetry. I would not read a newspaper the same way I read a cookbook.  I would not read a biography of George Washinton the same way I would read science fiction.  In same way, it is rather ridiculous to judge a nonscientific account that makes no scientific claims by modern scientific standards.

 

Science, by virtue of its inability to detect anything outside the natural world, will never disprove creation by God. 

 

 

That's mostly what I've been saying!  

 

Although at least one person must have read a biography of Abraham Lincoln like a science fiction!  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/

Edited August 13, 2013 by TsukinoRei