You're right. Just another stupid creationist I guess? For one, the question does not belong on an the "Earth Science" forum. For two, you do not even belong on Sciforum because this is "the intelligent community" where "Sci" stands for "Science" and your question is not scientific, it's religous.
Why limit yourself by insisting that everything must be made by something else? Maybe everything in your everyday life could be explained this way, but the picture is much bigger than that, my friend. Perhaps energy has always existed.
The limits of human logic and reason force us to stop at "Something had to come from something," AND "Something could not have possibly come from nothing." Because our logic and reason are completely limited, it is quite possibly that the answer to your question would logically make no sense, yet be true.
Hi Answers, There are multiple 'big bang' theories and the one being described isn't one I have heard of. IMO, the most popular one is where the structure of the universe was maximally compressed and then inflated (maybe due to a natural cycle of deflation and inflation, maybe due to a collission with a different structure, maybe something else). Atoms didn't exist on the scene until some 300k-400k years (called the 'recombination period' if memory serves me correctly). In the theory that you originally spoke of, I have no idea. Again, it's not something I had heard of. In main stream theory, I might recommend learning more about the recombination period. It's quite fascinating and answers the question in good detail. For any future question, I'll assume mainstream big bang theory is being referenced. There's no evidence to suggest a 'who' is required. I'm going to rephrase your question in a different way that I think may be more to the point as well as answer it. Q: Where does 'nothing' come from? A: There is no evidence to suggest that 'nothing' has ever existed. No doubt as the theories have different focus. Evolutionary theory models an adaptation process that results in life on earth. Big Bang theory models the process that formed the structure and content of our universe.
A 'Big Bang' model I agree with is that in the beginning there was nothing, then a fissure occured. The fissure in this instance is basically a Speghettified output from a wormhole of just energy (maybe the outcome of a blackhole). The energy comes from the universes future, since the universe began with nothing it would suggest the future a paradox and therefore suggest a Singularity couldn't exist. (I'm guessing this ties in with Stephen Hawkings suggestion but I haven't read up, just know of the statement involving a "Singularity not existing".) The empty space fills with energy and at a certain point the energy reaches a mass which causes it to collapse upon itself. (simply it can't escape it's own gravity). With that the collapse occurs and causes an initial explosion that sends the energy outwards in all directions. As to whether the fissure is still occuring during the explosions, thats unclear. However the universe could of suffered multiple numbers of these collapses in the beginning, there is even a potential that the initial explosion might have altered what created the fissure in the first place either causing it to repostion or causing it to no longer exist. Now I have my own speculations that I have for the model, however they might seem quite ludicrous. Firstly there is "Destiny" or "Predetermination", if the universe in which we exist is completely predetermined, it would mean that everything has to be already defined as occuring. This would mean that the universe would have to "process" where all energy and matter would eventually end up, this would suggest that at the beginning of the universe it would be hot for a while while it determines the future and eventually cool once it knows where things are to be destined. Now people like to suggest we have "Free will", this means the potential for matter within the universe to move beyond the constraints of it's universal programming. I believe such things as star's allow the ability to move matter outside of it's predestined location. Therefore you could suggest in this theory that anything that generates a paradox fuels the stars. What generates a paradox? Well there is a certain amount occuring subatomically which ties in with thermal dynamics, however there is something in the universe that generates paradoxes all the time... Life itself. Lastly one other truly bizarre theory to put a twist into all of this, is eventually one day mankind might learn how to "Remote view" occurances within time and one such time point which would obviously would be investigated would be "The beginning of the universe", this potentially suggests an extra dimension in the universes creational mathematics from our own curiousity.
I am familiar with the component that was descibed where everything is pre-destined, i.e. all possible configurations of matter exist and our perception is occuring in all states at once and the content of the states give us an illusion that they are seperate and flowing (time). I think this was part of Many-Worlds theory if I am not mistaken. Everything else, like fissures in nothing, paradoxical energy, future energy feeding the past, and remote viewing sound like science fiction. Of course maybe they are part of legitimate theories that no matter how high level they seem are grounded in evidence. What is/are they called so I can look em up?
Well it seems the legitamite theory for predetermination was what Richard P. Feynman had suggestion, although I knew nothing of Feynman prior to my post. As for my other asserted pieces, admittedly I don't have anything to clarify any spacial bends or remote viewing, they are but hunches based upon reasoning drawn from other inputs. For instance a recent documentary called Time showed in it's last part the theory towards tapping into sub-atomics to perhaps one day control time, or at least remote view through it. I've for many years realised this concept although I can only really state being a researcher as apposed to all out scientist. I'd had notions that things were probible, however they only seem more possible when other theories begin to tie in. I just wish I was a little more academic, so I could root around some physics archives and develop something literal that is a bit more than just conjecture.
He asked "so where did the something come from?" Big Bang Theory. The question should go on the "physics" forum.
We are so immersed in the reality of matter that we cannot discern the world of nothing. Maybe there are several nothings and the disparity between these nothings could have created the whole shebang.
Answers, Years back someone here suggested that, beyond the universe, there is an isn't, absolute nothingness, a place where the laws of the universe do not exist. If that is true, and assuming that nothing is greater than something, then not is the canvas on which all things become.
there never was, never will be, and there is not presently any kind of nothing. nothing does not exist. nothing did not exist before the big bang because if there was nothing before the big bang, there would be nothing to cause the big bang. the big bang theory itself does not state that there was nothing before it; in fact it states that there had to be energy present to cause the big bang. even if there is something beyond our universe, it will not be nothing--it will have to be something. nothing is a myth.
We know now that there is a multi-dimensional universe where the laws of physics differ: string theory, circular universe theory, multi-dimensional universe theory. Why is it so difficult to see that something arose out of nothing? 90% of our universe that we know of consists of dark matter. It is "nothing" to us. Why limit your theoretical thinking to assume that there always had to be something, and that nothing cannot exist? Break through the bounds of your imagination to think outside of the world as our limited sensory inputs gives us and look beyond into the realm of ultra-human possibilities: beyond our limited sensory experiences.
Because there is no evidence that 'nothing' exists. Nobody knows what dark matter / dark energy are... so to claim it is 'nothing' means you already have knowledge about this that the whole cosmological community doesn't. On a sidenote, if it was 'nothing', it would have no relationship with reality. Clearly it does; therefore, it's 'something'. Because theoretical thinking is based on a foundation of evidence and there is not a single point of evidence where 'nothing' has been shown to directly or indirectly exist. Nothing is the equivelant to dark in the sense that they are purely subjective man-made concepts used to describe human observational states. Dark for example is the absence of enough photons of the right wavelength to stimulate our eyes adequately (i.e. it's dark in this room). Nothing is the absence of something from an environment where that something might normally reside (ex. there's nothing in that box). High level thought and imagination are good tools when they have a base of evidence grounded in reality. The moment that evidence is discarded is the moment where that imagination is limited to fantasy.
Steponit wrote: We are so immersed in the reality of matter that we cannot discern the world of nothing. Answer: I would say we are so immersed in the reality of matter that we cannot discern the spiritual world without God's revelation. This brings it back to the basics. Atheism preaches 'nothing’ while Christianity preaches ‘God’. Bowser wrote: Answers, ”Years back someone here suggested that, beyond the universe, there is an isn't, absolute nothingness, a place where the laws of the universe do not exist. If that is true, and assuming that nothing is greater than something, then not is the canvas on which all things become. “ Answer: Bowser I’m sorry to simplify this and tell you your beliefs are wrong, because unlike a lot of my fellow Christians, people here on Sci-forum (apart from the occasional 13year old who is totally correct and has ‘witty’ remarks for everyone with an opinion contrary to their own) have actually studied and looked into their belief. So I understand if you think I’m wrong, as we can’t both contradict and yet be right at the same time. Now my point is this, nothing can create nothing. The Bible says the existence of God can be known simply by looking at nature. All cultures have a religious aspect to them, something like God, whether it be Islamic where the moon is God, or Buddhists where they themselves are God’s, or many tribes with many religions. So obviously something universal has brought all these people to the conclusion ‘there is something greater then self, and it is deserving of worship/observance’. Now I believe looking a natural things you will be able to see that nothing comes from nothing, if you choose to be humble enough to allow such thoughts. Look at everday life, if you ask a builder “Build me a house, with no materials, in a non-existent time and space, with nothing, without yourself or anyone else” and to take it further, do not even tell the builder these instructions, and have the very concept of a builder not exist, how likely do you think a house with all these attributes will come into being without even one of these attributes there for the house to originate from? Ever asked a rock to create a universe? If nothing can do it, a rock has a better chance, doesn’t it? I know I am ignoring many theories and details, but I just want to deal with the foundation. A foundation which in my opinion is foolishness. Now I know most of you don’t view the Bible as a source for truth, but bare with me. The Bible says that to the world the Gospel message is foolishness. Now I think I can also apply it this way. Those who believe the Gospel message see the worlds message as foolishness. Which I can attest to. So I guess also from this verse we could come to the conclusion that until you see the Gospel message as truth, you will never see the worlds message as foolishness. I hope you are humble enough to think about that and not reject it out of arrogance. No body likes to be wrong, but it’s even worse if you stay wrong. RoyLennigan wrote: there never was, never will be, and there is not presently any kind of nothing. nothing does not exist. nothing did not exist before the big bang because if there was nothing before the big bang, there would be nothing to cause the big bang. the big bang theory itself does not state that there was nothing before it; in fact it states that there had to be energy present to cause the big bang. even if there is something beyond our universe, it will not be nothing--it will have to be something. nothing is a myth. Answer: My understanding is that if there was nothing in the beginning, and yet something came of it, this denies the need for a creator. However if there was something in the beginning, then how did it get there? Something doesn’t just appear. Now you suggest it has always been there. This does not agree with natural law, something cannot always have been. It is unnatural, therefore science being the study of nature, cannot come to terms with what is outside of nature. Perhaps that is why there are so many theories which say a lot yet do not answer the fundamental question. I think this is because Science cannot answer something…unscientific. If this is the truth, then why do people keep telling me that they don’t believe in God, and use science as their reason? Are these people just confused, if they don’t believe what reasoning could explain that disbelief? I may have veered off track, but any thoughts on this? Valich wrote: “We know now that there is a multi-dimensional universe where the laws of physics differ: string theory, circular universe theory, multi-dimensional universe theory. Why is it so difficult to see that something arose out of nothing? 90% of our universe that we know of consists of dark matter. It is "nothing" to us. Why limit your theoretical thinking to assume that there always had to be something, and that nothing cannot exist? Break through the bounds of your imagination to think outside of the world as our limited sensory inputs gives us and look beyond into the realm of ultra-human possibilities: beyond our limited sensory experiences.” Answer: Dark matter isn’t nothing, it is something, it is Dark matter. What is nothing any way? It is the absence of something. So how can you have nothing if there isn't something for it to absent of? There has to be something, in order for there to be nothing. You speak of Ultra-Human possibilities. I guess you could say Ultra-Natural possibilities. Now I as a Christian say to look at the Super-Natural possibilities, and am labelled a nut. All you have said is what Christianity says, yet you have come up with theories that do not answer the questions as conclusive evidence. However Christians come up with a belief that is life changing and which they can swear without a word of a lie is 100% true. I know it’s not proof, but it sure beats the alternative. Valich wrote: “You're right. Just another stupid creationist I guess? For one, the question does not belong on an the "Earth Science" forum. For two, you do not even belong on Sciforum because this is "the intelligent community" where "Sci" stands for "Science" and your question is not scientific, it's religous.” Answer: Now for a religious questions which has nothing to do with intelligent science, it sure has sparked a lot of intelligent scientific conversation. But as you say, I’m stupid so you’re probably right. Golgi wrote: “Why limit yourself by insisting that everything must be made by something else? Maybe everything in your everyday life could be explained this way, but the picture is much bigger than that, my friend. Perhaps energy has always existed.” Answer: I’ll keep this point straightforward and simple. Science (or it may just be you) is telling me that everything in everyday life should be ignored when coming to conclusions about the origin of everything in everyday life. Why? Because you say the picture is bigger, that energy has always existed. My Bible (again with that 2000 yr old paper weight sorry), says that the existence of God can be seen from everyday things. Why? Because He made them. You see a building, and you come to the conclusion that a builder built it. The same is true with the world. You even admit that there is something bigger, some sort of energy (by which I take it you mean power, or source for creation). Now I say God is big, powerful, and the source of creation. Now you have no idea what is big, powerful, and the source of creation, perhaps if you humbly looked at the creation, you would see the creator? Ophilolite wrote: Granola bars. These represent a very efficient way of storing energy. Answers wrote: (apart from the occasional 13year old who is totally correct and has ‘witty’ remarks for everyone with an opinion contrary to their own) Sorry Ophilolite, but you were just the perfect example. Possum King Wrote: The limits of human logic and reason force us to stop at "Something had to come from something," AND "Something could not have possibly come from nothing." Because our logic and reason are completely limited, it is quite possibly that the answer to your question would logically make no sense, yet be true. Answer: So what you are saying is ‘science is contrary to logic’, whereas Faith in God according to the Bible is logical. Back to the creation = creator logical reasoning. Abandon this, abandon logic, and you yourself have come to the conclusion that something came from nothing. I pray that you use your logic, it was given to you for this reason. D H wrote: Science will try to answer such questions. Science has pushed the beginning of the universe back to the tiniest fraction of a second after the big bang. Some scientists are indeed trying to look at what happened before the big bang. One difference between science and religion is that science is constantly pushing the envelope. Answering one question in science inevitably leads to another question. Religion cannot push the envelope; some things have to be taken with faith in religion. Suppose it became evident to science that some god did indeed create the universe. Science would then ask "well where did this god come from?" Religion would not ask such a question; God is the final answer. Answer: Science doesn’t take things in faith yet religion does you say? So by what do you take the tiniest thing that the envelope has pushed? You have faith in something that science has put billions of years in the past, which is tiny as tiny can be. That is all science has accomplished, and without proof. No proof, yet resulting belief = faith. What I put my faith in isn’t in the past, and it isn’t tiny. God brings law and judgement to those that reject His forgiveness. Accepting His forgiveness changes your life from darkness to light. Yet as the Bible says, the world loves darkness therefore it rejects the light. Bringing condemnation on themselves from the very beginning. No wonder you want to make God so tiny and so far away (billions of years) because to you God isn’t a loving Father. Accept Jesus’ payment on the cross and your motivation will change from pushing God away, to pulling Him near. And also don’t call someone stupid who lacks information and teaching on a specific subject. Stupidity is having information and teaching and yet coming to the wrong conclusion. Now if you called me ignorant, I’d never have gotten upset now would I? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tablar wrote: Absolutely no religious based philosophy and absolutely no scientific theory can answer the question of what caused the universe to happen. But, the thing is that whatever the cause, whether we'll ever know or not, is something we will be able to rationalise through scientific means and not through blind faith based on some god or creator, because there will always be the follow up question of what created the creator? Therefore, the simplest way to answer your question at this juncture is to say that the universe is self perpetuating, self governing and self made and anything else is mere man-made conjecture based on anthropomorphological thinking. Answer: You sound like you have a lot of faith in science. Now I have blind faith? Why? Because there is no concrete proof? So the same can be said of you. Please don’t put me down because of my choice of faith, because it is faith. You too have faith, yet it is a different choice of faith. Faith cannot be judged wrong simply because it is faith. It is the reasons we choose which should be judged right or wrong. I choose my faith because God is my loving Father who spends everyday with me proving that He exists. I may sound crazy, but honestly freaky things happen constantly which has brought me to the point of no return. If I’m crazy I’m going to stay crazy for the rest of my life because to me (although this could be influenced by some sort of craziness) God is 100% real, proven. How? Because I’ve experienced God’s Love and the relationship He brings with His salvation through belief and acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. You have faith in something that hasn’t changed your life, at least not for the better (point of view I guess, people who are blind don’t seem to notice a pimple here or there), you have faith that leads to death. I have faith that leads to life. Believe it or not. Ophiolite wrote: Why then do you implicitly criticise two well established theories for their failure to address issues that are outside their scope? Answer: Because everyone criticizes my Faith in God based on these two well established theories. “I would challenge anyone who called you stupid. You have not yet demonstrated that. You are, however, ignorant. Stupidity cannot be corrected, ignorance can. If you will ponder on what has been written here, ignoring the emotion, you may be able to remove some of your ignorance. Good luck with that.” Answer: Ha ha, great minds think alike, I came to the same conclusion, as you can read above lol. Herc wrote: As a result, to try and deflect attention away from your exposed strawman, you’re trying to somehow conclude that "science" cannot explain it. Science most definitely does have theories and data concerning the Big Bang in the form of the field of cosmology. “ Originally Posted by answersThat's a bit illogical. ” So, my willfully ignorant creationist friend, you are the only source of illogicality in this thread Answer: Could field of cosmology please tell me where something came from? Or as some have said it came from nothing, where did this nothing come from? By nothing I mean the special nothing that can apparently make something. Just like how nothing made me a million dollars yesterday (I wish). Sorry for being the only source of illogicality in this thread, if only my logic could grasp nothing I would be right. Facial wrote: Hmmmm... seems like a prod-and-run attack by "Answers." Answer: Sorry I found the time to come back.
