if a universe was created in a big bang what was before that?

[frank_garrett]

if there was nothing before that then it couldent be created because nothing really existed.

[Yosemite]

there was the little bang

[Lordinquisitor]

if there was nothing before that then it couldent be created because nothing really existed.

But something existed and exists now, as you might know.

[frank_garrett]

But something existed and exists now, as you might know.

before the univese existed nothing existed thats what im saying. it had to be created from something

[Helm]

Probably another universe of some description I would say it's on some kind of cycle.

[Elfdude]

In quantum theory nothing is inherently unstable. Spontaneous creation from nothing would actually solve a lot of problems for physics. The issue is that that's not what the big bang seems to show us. The big bang seems to show us that what we think of our universe including it's entire timeline is only a small section of the multiverse and the infinite timelines therein. If you have 20 minutes this might help, it's also pretty interesting regardless.

[Meneth]

@Thread title:
Here's a few possibilities:
A) Another universe, that collapsed into the singularity that caused the big bang
B) Nothing, the big bang started time and space
C) Our universe is merely a part of an infinite multiverse

[Eneru112]

The infinite multiverse theory sounds reasonable.

[Mr. Crow]

an egg. now, for sensible beeings this question is futile, we choose either of 2 philosophies of the nature of the universe, it has always existed thus no need for the big bang; alternatively you can say it faces a changing process of cycles upon cycles. the second view states it has a beginning, in which case there was nothing at all before the big bang, no universe, no nothing, without nothing you can not eve measure space and time. basically if you ask what was before that you subscribe to the first view of the nature of reality, " it has always existed and goes threw a series of cycles".

either concept is impossible for us to imagine, impossible for us to comprehend and prove. any way what makes you think we exist at all? like all good filosofy the question of the beginning has no answer, but in looking for it we make new questions and some interesting discoveries.

[Tuor]

This may come across as extremely pedantic, but can we be sure that the universe really exists in the first place? I normally don't agree with the hypothesis that it does not exist because the hypothesis of non-existence makes no sense to me so far, but you cannot rule everything out.

Edit: By the way, thread topic may cause mental instability.

[Monarchist]

To answer the original post, one must be absolutely unbiased as is possible. Practically every poster on E.M.M. is entirely opposed to the very notion of a creator-God. The evidence for this fact is shown in the responses to this thread! Not one person has offered the pre-cynical notion that "God Did It".

My answer to the actual question is that nothing existed before the Big Bang; that is, "no thing" existed. God existed. God is a spirit, a perfect being that exists so completely He cannot even be called a 'thing', as human beings can be called things/objects. God's non-chronological, non-physical reality existed before existence, if we define the Universe as "time and space". If we define the Universe as "not time and space, but something else", we're being silly because time and space manifestly encompass this Universe. If we define the Universe as "time and space, which are the totality of existence", we are denying extra-spatial, extra-temporal things which all human beings experience and which cannot be described here.

The Universe is not the sum of reality, but part of it!

The infinite multiverse theory sounds reasonable.

This certainly doesn't rule out Heaven or Hell.

This may come across as extremely pedantic, but can we be sure that the universe really exists in the first place?

Yes. We're in it, aren't we? If it doesn't exist, where are we? Are we just floating minds which don't exist? What an unfortunate development modern philosophy and the Enlightenment were. We went from a positive, innocent love of truth based on a real, existing world... to this depressing cynicism of wondering whether anything really exists or even matters. Thank God for Saint Thomas Aquinas, who believed (shockingly) that birds are birds, grass is grass, and stars are stars.

Probably another universe of some description I would say it's on some kind of cycle.

This merely pushes the borders of time and space back. You have not answered the question, but deferred it!

@Thread title:
Here's a few possibilities:
A) Another universe, that collapsed into the singularity that caused the big bang
B) Nothing, the big bang started time and space
C) Our universe is merely a part of an infinite multiverse

A. If the first universe which collapsed in order to create this one, how did the first universe exist? This is an invalid possibility because it just stretches the question further back.
B. God did it.
C. If that's so, perhaps Heaven is in one dimension and Hell in another! There's hope after all!

[Tuor]

Yes. We're in it, aren't we? If it doesn't exist, where are we? Are we just floating minds which don't exist? What an unfortunate development modern philosophy and the Enlightenment were. We went from a positive, innocent love of truth based on a real, existing world... to this depressing cynicism of wondering whether anything really exists or even matters. Thank God for Saint Thomas Aquinas, who believed (shockingly) that birds are birds, grass is grass, and stars are stars.

Like I said, it may sound pedantic, but someone has to ask. Who's to say that everything we see isn't a simulation like the Matrix? Saying that it's depressing to think about existence is rather subjective. I don't find the idea of non-existence depressing at all. The possibilities just boggle my mind.

[Meneth]

God did it.

Assuming a god did it in absence of knowledge is irrational. The most logical conclusion to come to is that we just don't know yet.
One by one, every single thing theists claim a god did, have been explained by science. The origins of the universe will almost certainly be no exception.
Assuming that a god did it is not unbiased, since it requires a god to exist, a notion which there is absolutely no evidence in favor of. Unless one can objectively verify the existence of a god, assuming god might have done X is biased, while assuming we simply don't know yet, but have a few theories that might explain it, is neutral.

[Helm]

This merely pushes the borders of time and space back. You have not answered the question, but deferred it!

If the universe is infinite then there won't be a question the only quetion would then be why is it there at all? I'm sure there's a good reason for it it won't just exist for the sake of it.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Lol, Monie.

St. Thomas Aquinas was a hyper-rationalist turd. If you want real Christianity, you should check Eastern Orthodox patristics. You heretic .

He he .

In quantum theory nothing is inherently unstable. Spontaneous creation from nothing would actually solve a lot of problems for physics. The issue is that that's not what the big bang seems to show us. The big bang seems to show us that what we think of our universe including it's entire timeline is only a small section of the multiverse and the infinite timelines therein. If you have 20 minutes this might help, it's also pretty interesting regardless.

Only the Kobenhavn interpretation of quantum physics argues that matter can pop out of nothing, and it is far from being universally accepted.

Anyway, Platonic Emanationism beats them all ! In my humble opinion.

[Theseus1234]

We don't know. I don't think it will be possible for us to ever know.

[Monarchist]

We don't know. I don't think it will be possible for us to ever know.

The willing darkness of the modern mind is very sad, indeed. We cannot know, but we can extrapolate!

I have 2 questions that puzzle me. What/Who created God? What was before God?

Do eternity and infinity require creation? You are looking at this from the angle of cause and effect, which exist in time and space. God is not in time and space, obviously, or else time and space would not have come about. A begets B, but B does not beget B; it's impossible. You might say that God was begotten by Himself before time, and thus A does not beget A because there's no flow of time involved. Speaking crudely, we might say that God is the first letter of the alphabet; after all, there is nothing before the letter "A", but it still exists because the alphabet must start somewhere. All things must start somewhere, and the starting point must not have started, but simply must 'be'. All things in time and in space must begin; therefore, there must be one thing that is not in time or in space to turn the wheels.

Non-existing time and space didn't suddenly become existing time and space. This denies the most basic experience and logic about causality. How many logs of non-existent firewood have randomly become fire? Perhaps you're thinking of God in terms of physicality, like an old man in the sky with a beard. If not, I do apologise, but it seems that way because you're asking such a limited question.

Above all, please don't think I presupposed God's existence, and then made up complex arguments about time and space to justify that presupposition. I was a staunch atheist, and I was convinced (by the nature of the Universe itself) that God must exist purely on the basis of arguments about time and space themselves.

The theists will tell you that god is eternal and has no creator, but they don't see they fallacy of claiming that the line of creation arbitrarily ends somewhere because they are blinded by their faith.

It seems that you, at least, are blinded by your lack of faith. Remember that the theists who come up with the greatest number of intricate excuses for God's existence are always the theists who used to be atheists. In particular, I used to hate the silly notion of believing that God exists. How could I be blinded by the 'fallacy' of my arguments when I was convinced by those arguments in logical debate? You give theists so little credit it's embarrassing!

Like I said, it may sound pedantic, but someone has to ask. Who's to say that everything we see isn't a simulation like the Matrix? Saying that it's depressing to think about existence is rather subjective. I don't find the idea of non-existence depressing at all. The possibilities just boggle my mind.

That is an invalid question, though. If our perception of reality is based on something which is generating that reality in our brains, the generator is real, and thus something does exist. To say that we might not exist at all contradicts the fact that you're asking the question! Non-existent things cannot question their own non-existence. Anyway, if we were just in a big Matrix of brainwash, we certainly wouldn't be allowed to think that we were in a big Matrix of brainwash. Our custodians would not allow such thoughts to enter our minds (if their control up until now has been any indication).

Assuming a god did it in absence of knowledge is irrational. The most logical conclusion to come to is that we just don't know yet.
One by one, every single thing theists claim a god did, have been explained by science. The origins of the universe will almost certainly be no exception.
Assuming that a god did it is not unbiased, since it requires a god to exist, a notion which there is absolutely no evidence in favor of. Unless one can objectively verify the existence of a god, assuming god might have done X is biased, while assuming we simply don't know yet, but have a few theories that might explain it, is neutral.

Of course we don't know yet. Why do you think we ask these questions and come up with these answers? Our questions beg an answer, and there can only be one answer. Is it so harmful to posit one answer to the mystery? You are setting up a false problem by saying that the claim to such knowledge is invalid. We must make claims and theories and ideas to go along with as we evolve as human beings. To be convinced of the legitimacy of certain things is not wrong.

Why do you say that everything theists claim was done by God is actually explained by mere 'science'? You may look at a tribe who worships the Pleiades as the One True God, but then a telescope will show you that they're just a mundane star cluster. What rules out the possibility that the One True God made the Pleiades? Please show me one thing which God was assumed to have done which science can explain away. You might bring up Terran evolution, right? God guided its process and ensured it wasn't interrupted by things which would destroy all life. I mean, what else is there? You haven't given one example.

Regarding bias, no one should ever be unbiased. Your love for neutrality and truth is itself a bias, isn't it? You might just as well want to obfuscate the truth and lie to people for fun. Bias is good, because it indicates that there's life in someone's brain! Unbiased electronics are not fun to talk to, or learn from. Life is a great flower which is constantly expanding and contracting, and we cannot just talk in terms of arrogant "evidence" and "objective knowledge". We can still use logic to look at things as they are, and come to conclusions about their nature. The metaphysical ontology of a thing cannot be probed into by looking at it through a microscopic lens, because there's something beyond the mere cells. I am not a materialist, and you are a materialist; here, our paths sadly diverge.

Just for your information, I never once assumed that God exists when forming my beliefs. The last year and a half has been pure torture for me as I looked at the arguments for God and against God. Don't think we're a lorry full of brainwashed zombies, we theists. Give your brothers and sisters on Earth some credit!

[Meneth]

Of course we don't know yet. Why do you think we ask these questions and come up with these answers? Our questions beg an answer, and there can only be one answer. Is it so harmful to posit one answer to the mystery? You are setting up a false problem by saying that the claim to such knowledge is invalid. We must make claims and theories and ideas to go along with as we evolve as human beings. To be convinced of the legitimacy of certain things is not wrong.

Just filling a gap in knowledge with "a god did it" does nothing to further human knowledge. It's just a fancy way of saying "we don't know", but without any incentive to find a proper answer.

Why do you say that everything theists claim was done by God is actually explained by mere 'science'?

Most things theists used to claim was done by a god, has been explained by science. There's no reason to believe that the same won't happen to the origins of the universe.

You may look at a tribe who worships the Pleiades as the One True God, but then a telescope will show you that they're just a mundane star cluster. What rules out the possibility that the One True God made the Pleiades?

Nothing can ever rule it out completely, but we now know how stars are formed, and the Pleiades were almost certainly formed in the same way.
Stars have been shown to be able to form in entirely naturalistic ways. No gods are needed to explain them.

Please show me one thing which God was assumed to have done which science can explain away.

• The diversity of life
• Fire
• Life (abiogenesis)
• The Sun rising
• Lightning
• Weather
• Wind
• Waves
• Currents

There's just a few things before assumed to need a god for them to happen, but which by now have been explained by science.

You might bring up Terran evolution, right? God guided its process and ensured it wasn't interrupted by things which would destroy all life.

No god is necessary for guiding evolution. Natural selection is completely able to do that on its own. One of the main reasons life hasn't been wiped out, is Jupiter, which prevents most asteroids from ever hitting the Earth.
Also, life can sustain quite a bit of damage, and still continue. An example would be the asteroid that hit the Earth roughly 65 million years ago. There's been many catastrophic events throughout the Earth's history, but life is quite resilient. Due to natural selection, any life not capable of surviving those events simply goes extinct, while life capable of surviving lives on. No gods necessary.

I mean, what else is there? You haven't given one example.

Now I've given several. Happy?

Regarding bias, no one should ever be unbiased.

Regarding science, one should be as unbiased as possible. Unbiased in this context means not letting your emotions control you.

Your love for neutrality and truth is itself a bias, isn't it?

Yes, it's a bias towards rationality and logic, instead of irrationality and emotion.

You might just as well want to obfuscate the truth and lie to people for fun.

Lying has never been a thing I've found particularly enjoyable. I prefer the truth and logical thinking.

Bias is good, because it indicates that there's life in someone's brain!

It depends on the bias, and how much it affects the person. A bias towards a particular type of art or something similar, is completely harmless, while a bias towards irrationality and theism can be quite damaging.

Unbiased electronics are not fun to talk to, or learn from.

Saying that to a modder like me, will only make the modder disagree with you. Learning by scripting is something I find highly enjoyable.

Life is a great flower which is constantly expanding and contracting, and we cannot just talk in terms of arrogant "evidence" and "objective knowledge". We can still use logic to look at things as they are, and come to conclusions about their nature. The metaphysical ontology of a thing cannot be probed into by looking at it through a microscopic lens, because there's something beyond the mere cells.
I am not a materialist, and you are a materialist; here, our paths sadly diverge.

Everything can, eventually, be explained by science. I see no reason not.
I am, as you say, a materialist. I see no reason why there would be anything other than the physical world.

Just for your information, I never once assumed that God exists when forming my beliefs. The last year and a half has been pure torture for me as I looked at the arguments for God and against God. Don't think we're a lorry full of brainwashed zombies, we theists. Give your brothers and sisters on Earth some credit!

Most theists are theists because they were indoctrinated as children. There's some exceptions, but as the word "exception" implies, there's not that many of them.

[Theseus1234]

The willing darkness of the modern mind is very sad, indeed. We cannot know, but we can extrapolate!

Extrapolating is dangerous.

Courtesy of XKCD.

It seems that you, at least, are blinded by your lack of faith. Remember that the theists who come up with the greatest number of intricate excuses for God's existence are always the theists who used to be atheists. In particular, I used to hate the silly notion of believing that God exists. How could I be blinded by the 'fallacy' of my arguments when I was convinced by those arguments in logical debate? You give theists so little credit it's embarrassing!

Anyone can be convinced to believe in something incorrect. It's happened many times throughout history.

But seriously, look at it objectively and tell me how it makes any sense of the line of creation to stop arbitrarily at some place? It doesn't. It really doesn't. You perceive god as eternal, all powerful, and infinite, but do you really know? What evidence is there besides your faith that he wasn't created by his god, and that god wasn't created HIS god, and so on.

Do eternity and infinity require creation? You are looking at this from the angle of cause and effect, which exist in time and space. God is not in time and space, obviously, or else time and space would not have come about. A begets B, but B does not beget B; it's impossible. You might say that God was begotten by Himself before time, and thus A does not beget A because there's no flow of time involved. Speaking crudely, we might say that God is the first letter of the alphabet; after all, there is nothing before the letter "A", but it still exists because the alphabet must start somewhere. All things must start somewhere, and the starting point must not have started, but simply must 'be'. All things in time and in space must begin; therefore, there must be one thing that is not in time or in space to turn the wheels.

This doesn't work because you're assuming that god is on the same plane as human beings, when obviously something eternal and infinite must exist outside this plane. A more accurate example would be man (god) made the first letter (beginnings of the universe) which continued until a demise of some sort (letter Z) (or, if you prefer, the first number which continues on until infinity). Now, who created the man who created the letter A? Who created that man? Who created humans, in the scenario? It had to have been some god, from your perspective. What amuses me is that you make such staunch claims on the existence and nature of god yet your own arguments backfire.

Non-existing time and space didn't suddenly become existing time and space. This denies the most basic experience and logic about causality. How many logs of non-existent firewood have randomly become fire? Perhaps you're thinking of God in terms of physicality, like an old man in the sky with a beard. If not, I do apologise, but it seems that way because you're asking such a limited question.

We don't know if that's happened. The fire could have been burning trillions of years before, died out, and the burned again like a trick candle. Lightning could have struck the log and caused it to burn. Perhaps the conditions in which the log resided in were just right for it to catch fire. We don't know, because we weren't there and there is practically no evidence about what was before. There's an article in the Athenaeum about the new discoveries about the universe that I'll fish out in a second.
EDIT: Ah, here it is: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...Cosmic_rebirth

[Vagn]

Non-existing time and space didn't suddenly become existing time and space. This denies the most basic experience and logic about causality. How many logs of non-existent firewood have randomly become fire? Perhaps you're thinking of God in terms of physicality, like an old man in the sky with a beard. If not, I do apologise, but it seems that way because you're asking such a limited question.

When dealing with quantum phenomena which the Big Bang almost certainly was basic human experience, and to a degree causality go out the window.

For example:
Quantum Time Travel