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.
The beginning of Creation is different in scriptures of different religions. They all contain some account of how the universe was created but each arrived at different conclusion.
It's a matter of belief for people of different faiths, not science. Why should be believe one scripture more than the others?
No one KNOWS how Universe was created, yet, and maybe never will.
Every theory has holes that can't be filled. Maybe universe has no creator. Maybe we are still so uneducated that we can't understand physics.
“Big Bang"? - even Einstein found this idea to be perplexing.
The beginning of Creation is different in scriptures of different religions. They all contain some account of how the universe was created but each arrived at different conclusion.
It's a matter of belief for people of different faiths, not science. Why should be believe one scripture more than the others?
No one KNOWS how Universe was created, yet, and maybe never will.
Every theory has holes that can't be filled. Maybe universe has no creator. Maybe we are still so uneducated that we can't understand physics.
“Big Bang"? - even Einstein found this idea to be perplexing.
The trouble with "Big Bang" is that something had to precede the "bang" and something had to supply the ignition. In the final analysis, for the very beginning it is no better than any of the "divine" explanations.
The trouble with "Big Bang" is that something had to precede the "bang" and something had to supply the ignition. In the final analysis, for the very beginning it is no better than any of the "divine" explanations.
I'm not sure you completely understand the Big Bang. As your link the the OP noted, the Big Bang didn't consist of matter and energy exploding into an empty void, it's that all of space and time existed in a singularity which suddenly started expanding outward. There was nothing "outside" the singularity - that is, "outside" the singularity simply didn't exist. Since space, time, energy and matter did not exist outside the singularity, there was nothing to "precede" it, as you said. It's like asking "Where was I before I was conceived?" Well, silly question - you did not exist before you were conceived. Asking, "What preceded the Big Bang?" is like asking, "Where was I before I was conceived?"
The analogy isn't perfect since a person is the creation of a mother and father, whereas with the universe may or may not be the creation of something else (FWIW I believe it exists for some purpose, but that is not a scientific statement). But I hope you get the idea. No, nothing "had" to precede the Big Bang.
There is another hypothesis that's been discussed for quite some time now, based on Hugh Everett's 1950's interpretation of quantum mechanics, that the universe as we know it is just one of an infinite number of parallel universes. This is known as the multiverse theory. What we know of as the Big Bang would have been just one of an infinite number of big bangs in a multiverse where universes are continually being created and destroyed.
I'm not sure you completely understand the Big Bang. As your link the the OP noted, the Big Bang didn't consist of matter and energy exploding into an empty void, it's that all of space and time existed in a singularity which suddenly started expanding outward. There was nothing "outside" the singularity - that is, "outside" the singularity simply didn't exist. Since space, time, energy and matter did not exist outside the singularity, there was nothing to "precede" it, as you said. It's like asking "Where was I before I was conceived?" Well, silly question - you did not exist before you were conceived. Asking, "What preceded the Big Bang?" is like asking, "Where was I before I was conceived?"
See bolded. If it existed why wasn't it "universe"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
The analogy isn't perfect since a person is the creation of a mother and father, whereas with the universe may or may not be the creation of something else (FWIW I believe it exists for some purpose, but that is not a scientific statement). But I hope you get the idea. No, nothing "had" to precede the Big Bang.
Same comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
There is another hypothesis that's been discussed for quite some time now, based on Hugh Everett's 1950's interpretation of quantum mechanics, that the universe as we know it is just one of an infinite number of parallel universes. This is known as the multiverse theory. What we know of as the Big Bang would have been just one of an infinite number of big bangs in a multiverse where universes are continually being created and destroyed.
But aren't the parallel universes all part of one "universe"?
See bolded. If it existed why wasn't it "universe"?
Same comment.
Not sure what you're referring to? Nothing existed outside the singularity. That is, it did not "exist."
Quote:
But aren't the parallel universes all part of one "universe"?
I suppose it depends on how you want to define "universe," but the nomenclature being used by scientists is that there is a "multiverse" consisting of an infinite number of "universes."
Many philosophers have said that the fundamental question is, "Why is there ANYTHING - why is there not NOTHING AT ALL?" Even a singularity, despite all the language games to make it seem like "nothing at all," would be "something." What most people conceive of as nothing is a vast empty blackness, which likewise would be "something." Religions like Christianity posit an eternal, uncaused deity, but this likewise begs the fundamental question. I really don't think there is an answer we can even get our minds around. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good entry on the question, which I think you'll find just reinforces that it's unanswerable: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all[/url].
Many philosophers have said that the fundamental question is, "Why is there ANYTHING - why is there not NOTHING AT ALL?" Even a singularity, despite all the language games to make it seem like "nothing at all," would be "something." What most people conceive of as nothing is a vast empty blackness, which likewise would be "something." Religions like Christianity posit an eternal, uncaused deity, but this likewise begs the fundamental question. I really don't think there is an answer we can even get our minds around. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good entry on the question, which I think you'll find just reinforces that it's unanswerable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_th...nything_at_all.
There was either something or there was absolutely nothing.
If you take the second argument, it raises the questions, 1) is absolutely nothing even possible, and 2), what does absolutely nothing entail?
If absolutely nothing is not possible, then something must logically exist.
If absolutely nothing is possible (and that would include gods), then there would be nothing to say how absolutely nothing should behave, including remaining absolutely nothing. So would absolutely nothing somehow produce something?
If yes, then that would be why something exists.
If not, why not?
So either something must logically exist, or absolutely nothing remains for some unknown reason absolutely nothing.
So the question is probably not why something exists, but what is it?
As to the OP, why do all the creation stories have entities that have human attributes? It is as if we are creating gods by projecting our attributes on to some unknown cause. But why would a god have such attributes, such as emotions?
I'm definitely into deep matters - including philosophy and spirituality - but, the creation of the world is neither interesting to me, nor something I think we'll ever understand.
I'd rather focus on the present and future - and matters we can affect - then something incredibly long ago, that involves guesses at best and can't be changed.
Many philosophers have said that the fundamental question is, "Why is there ANYTHING - why is there not NOTHING AT ALL?" Even a singularity, despite all the language games to make it seem like "nothing at all," would be "something." What most people conceive of as nothing is a vast empty blackness, which likewise would be "something." Religions like Christianity posit an eternal, uncaused deity, but this likewise begs the fundamental question. I really don't think there is an answer we can even get our minds around. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good entry on the question, which I think you'll find just reinforces that it's unanswerable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_th...nything_at_all.
That is exactly my point. All of the creation theories posit that "something came out of something." Therefore there is no actual creation story or explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
As to the OP, why do all the creation stories have entities that have human attributes? It is as if we are creating gods by projecting our attributes on to some unknown cause. But why would a god have such attributes, such as emotions?
Being the OP, that is my question.
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.
